Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What the Rise of Democratic Movements in Latin America Means for the Rest of the World

By Nadia Martinez, YES! Magazine. Posted August 20, 2007.


As the people of Latin America build democracies from the bottom up, the symbols of power are changing. What does the new shift in power mean for world politics?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As the people of Latin America build democracies from the bottom up, the symbols of power are changing. What used to be emblems of poverty and oppression -- indigenous clothing and speech, the labels "campesino" and "landless worker" -- are increasingly the symbols of new power. As people-powered movements drive the region toward social justice and equality, these symbols speak, not of elite authority limited to a few, but of power broadly shared.

The symbolism was especially rich last year in Cochabamba, Bolivia, when the new minister of justice made her entrance at an international activists' summit. Casimira Rodríguez, a former domestic worker, wore the thick, black braids and pollera, a long, multilayered skirt, of an Aymara indigenous woman. As she made her way through the throng, Rodríguez further distinguished herself from a typical law-enforcement chief by passing out handfuls of coca leaves.

Throughout the region, marginalized people are rising up, challenging the system that has kept them poor, and pursuing a new course. In country after country, people are selecting leaders who strongly reject the Washington-led "neoliberal" policies of restricted government spending on social programs, privatization of public services such as education and water, and opening up borders to foreign corporations.

Of course, there are exceptions, most notably Mexico, where conservative Felipe Calderón claimed power after a bruising battle over disputed election results. But the growing backlash has driven old-guard presidents out of power in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Bolivia. And, while there are sharp differences among the new leaders, there is no question that what put all of them in power was a growing outcry against economic injustice. Over 40 percent of the region still lives in poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is the widest in the world.

No longer willing to accept perpetual poverty, Latin America's poor are redefining their societies and, in the process, redefining democracy. They are organizing large segments of society into strong, dynamic social movements with enough power to drive national politics. The challenge, of course, is to hold their new leaders accountable, to maintain the strength of the grassroots democratic power, and to go beyond symbolism to make real change.

Bolivia's Indigenous President

In Bolivia, where indigenous people are the majority, there are already some concrete signs of progress. Evo Morales, the country's first indigenous president, took office in 2006 with the strongest mandate of any Bolivian leader. Catapulted onto the national political stage by his struggles as a union leader defending the rights of coca growers, Morales came to power on the heels of massive popular uprisings that ousted three presidents in as many years.

Despite sitting on the region's second largest natural gas reserves, Bolivia is South America's poorest country. In tandem with a wave of privatizations that swept Latin America in the 1990s, the oil and gas industry in Bolivia was opened for business to foreign oil companies, which garnered 82 percent of the profits, while leaving a scant 18 percent for Bolivia's coffers. Shortly after taking office, the Morales government set out to rewrite contracts with private companies. Negotiators increased the country's share of the profits to 50-80 percent by renegotiating contracts with 10 different companies, which will yield billions in additional revenue for the government to sustain its new social agenda.

Spurred by his experience as a coca grower, Morales has introduced new policies that challenge the U.S. approach to the "drug war." Coca, the base ingredient of cocaine, has special ancestral significance for Bolivia's indigenous people and in its raw form is widely used to treat maladies such as stomach upset, altitude sickness, and stress, in addition to being a part of many Bolivians' daily routine.

Under pressure from the U.S. government, previous Bolivian administrations tried coca eradication. Kathryn Ledebur of the Andean Information Network in Bolivia, says that "local farmers who planted coca as a means of subsistence would often face violent confrontations with the military and security forces who were mandated to destroy their crops, which in essence devastated their only means of livelihood."

The Morales government has developed a farmer-friendly program that allows small farmers to grow small amounts of coca for domestic consumption, while also implementing a zero-cocaine policy that includes interdiction and anti-money laundering efforts to prevent drug trafficking.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democracy, hugo chavez, latin american

Nadia Martinez was born and raised in Panama. She co-directs the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies (www.ips-dc.org) in Washington, D.C. Her focus is on Latin America, where she works with environmental, development, human rights, and indigenous organizations.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Venezuela and Bolivia
Posted by: mizipi on Aug 20, 2007 1:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I lived in Venezuela most of the year 1998 and Bolivia most of 2002. I worked and held 'resident visas' in both countries. I pretty much spent the majority of my time with local, poor people and enjoyed being in both places. I have since traveled to both countries on several occasions. One thing for sure, they do not understand American politics, pretty much laugh at what happens in the US politically, but most of them would love the opportunity to come and work and make a decent salary in the US. I am allowed to visit their countries whenever I desire, yet I have been unable to help any of my friends there get a visa to visit the US. In other words, both Venezuela and Bolivia allow me the freedom to visit their countries, while the land of freedom and democracy does not allow them to visit my country.

Viva, Sud America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: fanny666
» Nationization WORKS Posted by: Ulrich
» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: drmeow
» Hey saml Posted by: mizipi
» saml, learn to read English Posted by: mizipi
» RE: Hey Saml Posted by: MindyB
» RE: Hey Saml Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Venezuela and Bolivia Posted by: MindyB
As far as the US is concerned, it means nothing to Washington "Democrats".
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 20, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All they do is cave in more and more to the Bush/Limbaughian GOP NAZIs which makes the Democrats just as guilty as the GOP.

-EXTREMELY PISSED OFF DEMOCRATIC VOTER READY TO GO INDIE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hands Off Venezuela
Posted by: fanny666 on Aug 20, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chavez and Authoritarianism
Posted by: Gitaiba on Aug 20, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm kind of surprised that you failed to mention that Chavez has weaseled out of term limits, bypassed the legislature, and is now proposing that term limits be abolished. That's not democracy. Even if, and that's a big if, he continues to exercise his power to the benefit of the majority of Venezuela, that's still a dictatorship. It would be a shame if Chavez turned into another Mugabe, Castro, or even say, Simon Bolivar, who eventually declared himself dictator over all the countries he freed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chavez and Authoritarianism Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Chavez and Authoritarianism Posted by: drmflorida
» Best post ever on Alternet Posted by: themotie
» Power of Decree = Dictator Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Chavez is no dictator Posted by: fanny666
» Yes he is. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: themotie
» RE: Yes he is. Posted by: brunowe
» "It favored a coup ..." Posted by: themotie
» RE: "It favored a coup ..." Posted by: brunowe
» The lease was not renewed. Posted by: justaguy
» You're saying what? Posted by: themotie
» RE: You're saying what? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You're saying what? Posted by: themotie
» RE: You're saying what? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You're saying what? Posted by: themotie
» I'll also say ... Posted by: themotie
» RE: Yes he is (also) Posted by: crooked7
» Like Bush, then? Posted by: themotie
» RE: Like Bush, then? Posted by: brunowe
» You're way out of date... Posted by: justaguy
» Which was always in the act Posted by: brunowe
» No. You are plain wrong. Posted by: justaguy
» Sadly, I must agree Posted by: hurricane hugo
Thank you for this story.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 20, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found it very informative and encouraging. At least things are improving SOMEWHERE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you for this story. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Thank you for this story. Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Thank you for this story. Posted by: crooked7
» TO crooked7 Posted by: WitchyNy
» To Spot-you are right. Posted by: WitchyNy
It isn't just Bush or the Republicans...
Posted by: Artur Yvan on Aug 20, 2007 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Latin Americans must remember that it doesn't matter who wins the next presidency, Hillary or Obama, they will continue the same self serving and ridiculously arrogant policies the United States has always had towards Latin America, therefore, hopefully, this energy doesn't die down.
For me, the best leader so far, has been Nestor Kirchner, unfortunately I see tension between Lula and Chavez? Any thoughts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peru?
Posted by: Ahimsa on Aug 20, 2007 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is Peru in all this?
Is it me or is it omitted in the article?
In the last presidential elections the second running candidate was a man called Ollanta Umala, who is Chavez compadre and Evo Morales's close friend. This man promised, publicly on TV, that if he were elected he would execute all homosexuals and take away all property from "the rich" to give it to the poor. I think he even mentioned incarcerating whites. Hm, sounds like really cheese demagogy or just lunacy. He scared a ton of people, that's for sure.
Peru is a country of tremendous polarization. This is exacerbated by a profound racism and classism. It is not hard to see where the cries for justice and the promises come from. Whatever it was, Umala polarized the country even more than it already was. Given, he was the non-white candidate with a message of hope for the enormous masses of poor and destituted people.
But I wonder... How good is Chavez, really? (I genuinely want to like him) Why this alliance with Umala?
As a general recommendation, it is important to remember that these leaders are complex. The cultural labyrinth of Latin America combines situations and characters that could be considered paradoxical or simply non-sensical from our hygienic and orderly point of view. They make total sense there, it is a different software. And there's plenty of crooks there too!
Not everything that shines is gold, nor is everything that stinks shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peru? Posted by: Pepito
Chavez, Castro, Dubya, and other 'dictators' Pt. 1
Posted by: kogwonton on Aug 21, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last six years have seen the United States taking sides with Communist China, Russia (he looked into Putin's soul), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other dictatorships. Here we are supporting the Saudi Royal family (and 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudi) while the US attempts numerous coups against Chavez, who is overwhelmingly popular and who has taken steps to provide for the common welfare (The first mandate of the US Constitution) of his own people with resources owned by those people (democratic nation, remember?). This makes him a dictator, because he has taken steps to protect his nation against sabotage from outside opposition? The US is one hell of an antagonist. Just ask Fidel Castro.

Chavez has not yet taken the kinds of draconian steps as those taken by Mr. Bush, much less Castro, in defense of his democracy. Bush tells us we need to give up our freedom to fight against those that hate our freedom. Every ship I've ever worked upon was run by a captain because being out at sea meant always being ready for emergency situations, and nobody questions the skipper's orders. Fidel casts out the CIA and the Mafia from his nation, nationalizes the meager resources his nation possesses, and creates a nation which has prevailed in spite of fifty years of nonstop sabotage, espionage, assassination attempts, invasions, economic warfare, and just plain old terrorism. He has created a nation with the lowest infant mortality rate in the western hemisphere, and he’s done it in spite of being subject to constant terrorism. Luis Posada (just one example of our own hypocrisy) should be hung right next to Dick and Georgie at Arlington cemetery so that the war dead can bear witness - AFTER a fair investigation and trial (and maybe a few months at Gitmo while we take that ridiculous ‘enemy combatant’ idea completely down, and bury it).

Here we call Chavez a dictator while we have seen the end of habeus corpus, posse comitatus, and the list of atrocities goes on and on. This administration passes laws retroactively to cover for crimes already committed. We have legalized torture, warrantless eavesdropping by the government and the disappearing of anyone this administration decides to call a ‘terrorist’ – and we haven’t even arrived at an international consensus regarding the definition of that term but instead, like ‘commie’ we make it up as we go. Bush demands the right to commit the equivalent of terror (just don’t call it that) so that he can fight terror. He demands that we give up our freedom to fight those that hate our freedom. We are told that our own security demands unlimited authority and power by our executive branch, and our congressional representatives be damned (except for those on the neo-nazi-conservative payroll). Someone please tell me how we have anything resembling a democracy anymore. By comparison to our pals the Chinese, the Saudis, and that bastard Musharef of Pakistan (he took power through a military coup – and he had NUKES thanks to the CIA, MI6, the Mossad, and the GID – see the ‘Enterprise’ of Iran/Contra fame), Chavez is a champion of liberty and should be our friend.

Our nation has used the ‘national security state’ to justify the toppling of MANY democratically elected governments, and has historically supported fascist dictators using our military as a private army of corporate thugs to keep them in power. I can name many democracies that have fallen through acts of terror committed by my own government, all in the name of capital. I cannot think of a single democracy to have been born of our covert activities over the last sixty years – and if anyone mentions Japan I’ll remind them that Japan has a single party system, just like Saddam, China, and the Soviet Union.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chavez, Castro, Dubya, and other 'dictators' Pt. 2
Posted by: kogwonton on Aug 21, 2007 1:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real reason the United States hates Hugo Chavez is not because he is a ruthless dictator, but because he is NOT one of those. He is borne by a grassroots movement, and he has chosen to help his own people by taking a larger portion of his national resources (the property of his people) and using it to promote the general welfare (one of the central mandates of our own constution). GASP! I worry that the massive opposition to his social welfare policies (that precedent cannot be allowed) will take the form of more acts of terror, such as the death squads we have seen in other Central American nations, and Chavez will be forced to enact restrictions on civil liberties just to defend against the USA. This is what Castro was forced to do after he gave the evil twins the boot from his country (CIA and Mafia). If it were left up to those two Cuba would still be a nation of servants, slaves, and prostitutes.

One of the main reasons the US supports dictators and communists while setting itself against popular democracies is because the Chinese and Saudi governments have padded the US debt, which has allowed our government to maintain the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and has delayed the inevitable bursting of the Wall St balloon, long overdue thanks to corporate crime. Our ‘war on terror’ has allowed those nations to continue to commit atrocities against their own internal dissent in the name of fighting the ‘war on terror’, and do so without international condemnation. Chavez, unlike Castro, did not just toss out the US (allegedly they’re loyal to the USA, but I doubt it – they’ll move to Dubai too, soon) but instead just demanded a larger cut of the profits to serve his people’s social needs, instead of the bread crumbs they once received. Chavez also refuses to pad the US debt, and has started trading oil for Euros (GASP!) just like Saddam had done after ten years of sanctions that caused the deaths of over 1 million children and elderly – NOT counting the US invasion of 2003 (add another 700,000). The instant Saddam started trading oil for Euros he was invaded. Heaven forbid that the dollar should cease being the world currency standard, which holds that position because of international treaties requiring the trading of oil in US dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chavez, Castro, Dubya, and other 'dictators' Pt. 3
Posted by: kogwonton on Aug 21, 2007 1:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another reason the US hates popular democracies is because democracies demand that their national property be respected as THEIR property. Through organized labor unions they demand a decent wage for a day’s work and fair compensation for resources taken from THEIR nation. Democracies demand that multinational corporations act responsibly in terms of environmental practices, work safety, and liability. It used to be the case that a corporation in the USA must first declare a mission statement or ‘Charter’ which would then be approved or denied by an elected representative based upon whether or not it provided a PUBLIC SERVICE. The first corporations in this nation were UNIVERSITIES for the PRESERVATION OF DEMOCRACY through a well informed and EDUCATED POPULACE. Corporations were once only PROPERTY – not PEOPLE under our laws. At this time we have the strange paradox of a corporation being both a PERSON and PROPERTY. I find this strange because Lincoln is said to have made it illegal to own a person, and I’m pretty sure property is not imbued with rights. No human being has ever been born of a decision by an elected representative.

We aren’t even counting the dead in Afghanistan, but one thing I do know is that the drug/war lords are at it again, and Afghanistan now has broken all records in the production of opium. They are now doing ‘value added’ marketing by turning it into heroin rather than exporting raw opium. That money also finds its way into Wall St. and pads a lot of corporate crime. The DEA never had a better friend than the Taliban. Sure, they chopped off the arms of opium farmers and smugglers, and that’s bad, but for years there was virtually no opium production in Afghanistan because of the Taliban.

Economic ideologies are not a lot different from religious ideologies, except in the number of war dead. We have been hoodwinked for the last century. It matters not whether the State controls industry (communism) or if Industry controls the State (fascism). It is six in one hand, half dozen in the other. How many have to die or live in squalor before people realize this? The cold war is still being waged, and it's child the 'war on terror' will never be publicly debated rationally and logically. It is again the case where our leaders take Authority as Truth rather than the Truth as Authority.

Chavez, for all his faults, is a champion of democracy. Not just for the western hemisphere, but for the world. His foes are not just the USA, but are to be found all over the globe. The last six years have even given me compassion for Castro, considering the fifty years of terror he has been forced to live under. It is true that he is a dictator, but in exactly the same way my own nation has become a dictatorship in the name of ‘national security’ – long before I was born. It has just become formally established through the passage of the Patriot Act, the Homeland Absurdity Act, and the Military Commissions Act, to name but a few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Apologists for Chavez Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Apologists for Chavez Posted by: crooked7
» RE: Apologists for Chavez Posted by: Pepito
» RE: Apologists for Chavez Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Apologists for Chavez Posted by: MindyB
» RE: Apologists for Chavez Posted by: Pepito
» How far democracy Posted by: themotie
» RE: Apologists for Chavez Posted by: MindyB