Mexico Joins The Latin American Left

A paper by Daniel Ruiz de la Concha (LALS 328 College Student in Fall 2019)

 

Despite the vast diversity that exists within Latin America, we often find significant trends across the region, especially when it comes to politics and economics. At the turn of the 21st century, we saw one of these trends spreading throughout most of the region, the rise of the political left. Upon the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, many governments started leaning to the left, giving rise to the concept of the “pink tide”; a new, more moderate approach to socialism. Mexico was one of the few countries that had not elected a left-leaning politician to office. Yet today, at a time when it appears that the pink tide is coming to an end and most Latin American countries are once again looking to the right, Mexico, with the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) as president, has started to lean to the left.

It is hard to understand why is Mexico only now turning to the left, especially since most of its counterparts across the continent have not fared well under such regimes. However, different arguments can be developed to explain such a phenomenon. We must first start by looking into the impacts that the Cold War had in Latin America. For the United States, the Cold war was a global struggle against communism led by the Soviet Union. For the U.S., emerging economies in Latin America needed to adopt a democratic and capitalist system so they could be brought up to the international economy. However, for Latin America, this race was perceived as “[…] an example of aggression by imperialist states whose financial and military power allowed them to dominate less developed countries” (Sloan, 2009). Small left-leaning parties started gaining significant popularity across the region, and the Soviet Union backed most. It is essential to recognize that “pro-communist positions resonated throughout Latin America for reasons that had little to do with the Cold War and much to do with regional circumstances” (Sloan, 2009).

In reaction to the attainment of power by these parties, the United States sponsored coups across the region. This resulted in the implementation of right-wing military dictatorships in countries like Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. These authoritarian regimes were characterized by high levels of corruption and widespread human rights violations, including torture, disappearances, and illegal detentions. A combination of domestic discontent and international pressures forced the U.S. to withdraw its support from these regimes and took this wave of “democratization” to a rapid collapse. People all over the region now associated democracy and capitalism with U.S. involvement. The ideas of western-like democracies were stained for Latin Americans. They wanted a new type of regime, which is why towards the last decades of the 20th century, the left saw an opportunity to ascend to power in a new system of electoral competition. Furthermore, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. no longer perceived leftist governments as a security threat and expressed no intention of getting involved with Latin American politics at the time (Encarnación, 2018). 

The collapse of U.S.-backed regimes in Latin America cannot only be blamed on the United States. Misinterpretation of the Washington Consensus resulted in unsuccessful attempts of privatization, cuts in social spending, and high levels of social inequality (Williamson, 2002). The rising left promised new policies that would address severe inequality, attracting the support of millions, especially that of the lower social classes who make up most of the population of the region. Besides, they used the commodities boom at the beginning of the 21st century to maintain power and spread it across other countries. By 2010, two-thirds of all Latin Americans lived under some form of a leftist regime (Anria and Roberts, 2019). 

China’s economic growth made it an important trading partner, mainly due to the poor relations between Latin American governments and the United States (Lopes and Pimenta de Faria, 2016). People across the continent started to enjoy greater equality and economic growth. It resulted in high public expectations regarding continued economic growth, subsidies, and, most of all, social programs (Lansberg-Rodriguez, 2016). However, this was not meant to last forever. Towards the end of the decade, the prices of commodities lowered, therefore governments were forced to cut back on social aid due to overspending during the years of economic growth (Lansberg-Rodriguez, 2016). Moreover, the scandals of corruption across these countries came to light during this time of financial hardship. To make matters even worse, the Chinese stock market crash of 2015 reduced Chinese investment in the region, and more and more people emphasized their discontent and desire to turn away from the left (Reid, 2015).

The decline in the popularity of the left in Latin America was not only a result of declining economic performance far from reaching its expectations. Two phenomena were seen among presidents across the region; Conformist Temptation and Autocratic Temptation. Those who engaged in Conformist Temptation, such as Lula from Brazil, became detached from the social movements they have once championed (Anria and Roberts, 2019). On the other hand, those who engaged in Autocratic Temptation, such as Ortega in Nicaragua and Chávez in Venezuela, hold the idea that a charismatic leader could speak for an entire nation and that they could do so forever (Anria and Roberts, 2019). They lost touch with their constituents through repressive measures. Restriction in checks and balances and freedom of the press were likely enacted because they feared that if criticism started against them, more people would be made aware of their flaws, resulting in social movements against them. As a result, many times, leaders became unaware of the impacts their policies were having and failed to adjust them at the appropriate time. However, they have been able to maintain power due to close ties between the party and social movements. 

The circumstances that Mexico experienced towards the end of the 20th century were significantly different from those of most other countries in the region, slowing the growth of leftist movements in the country. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the ruling party for most of the 20th century, was willing to do anything to maintain power. Any opposition threatening its rule would quickly and harshly be put down (Sloan, 2009). Therefore the U.S. was never concerned about the possibility of Mexico turning to the left. The principles of western-like democracy had not been stained for Mexicans, and thus they were not looking for a leftist alternative. However, it was clear that a regime change was needed, especially since the national economy had gone into crisis, and civil liberties were very limited. The National Action Party (PAN) brought hopes for economic growth in the country, increased spending on education, and new democratic principles (Sheridan, 2000). 

Unfortunately for Mexico, just as with most politicians, Vicente Fox had only brought fake hopes for the people. Mexico’s economy did grow, and security concerns were addressed. However, most of his social promises never took place, and high levels of corruption and state-controlled media remained. The following presidencies of Calderon and Peña Nieto continued to be high in corruption and failed to address major concerns of most of the population, including security, education, and inequality. Little by little Mexican politicians were creating a path for the election of a left-leaning president. 

By the time the 2018 election came, people were well aware that continuing to jump back and forth between the two dominant ruling parties would fail to address their concerns and maintain high levels of corruption. Also, income inequality had reached its peak in Mexican history, and people were desperate for a change (Campos-Vázquez, 2018). AMLO was not the conventional Mexican politician, as he came from the rural class and was not educated in the U.S., and represented hope for most of the population. Not only did people from low social classes gave him their unconditional support but also many well-educated from the middle class. They believed that AMLO, who had for over 20 years criticized the poor governance of past presidents, would be a genuine leader and create a welfare state. 

Moreover, some of his proposals resembled those of other countries in the region, such as “Fome Zero” in Brazil, which had been praised internationally for addressing poverty, inequality, and increasing political inclusion and have been the reason behind the resilience of the Latin American left (NACLA, 2011). Thus, people believed that their implementation in Mexico would advance social welfare. Furthermore, people were convinced that Mexico’s economic failures during “The Lost Decade” would prevent the country from once again taking policies similar to the ones that hindered economic development in other leftist regimes, such as poor diversification of the economy. Just as was the case with Venezuela, Mexico’s reliance on petroleum as its major commodity during the 1970s was the primary reason behind its economic collapse. 

Despite people’s hopes for this new regime, in less than a year as president, AMLO’s popularity has massively dropped. Increased levels of violence, especially against women and journalists, widespread corruption, reduced economic growth, and funding to government agencies, such as the ministry of health, have characterized his regime. The Mexican left has not been close to that of any other Latin American country in that the people have not enjoyed significant social and economic benefits, and the problems that took years to develop have taken place in a matter of months. However, to a certain extent, these impacts were predictable. AMLO was never a serious leader, and the fact that he changed political party every election cycle proved that his only intentions were reaching power, and he had no firm ideology. He tried different alternatives until he got the expected result. 

Even though many scholars believed that the turn to the left and the pink tide had come to an end, the prevalence of some regimes and recent elections of others proves not to be the case. Many people still believe that it is the best alternative to address the problems of inequality and social justice faced in the region. However, poor leadership and a highly corrupt system have resulted in poor performance at the expense of the people. Despite the rise of the “new right,” uncertainty remains as to when and if the left will truly come to an end in Latin America.  

 

References

Anria, S. and Roberts, K.M. (October 10, 2019). “The Latin American Left Isn’t Dead Yet”. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-latin-american-left-isnt-dead-yet-124385

Campos-Vázquez, R.M. (December 2018). “Inequality in Mexico On the Rise Again”. Retrieved from https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/inequality-mexico-0

Encarnación, O.G. (May 9, 2018). “The Rise and Fall of the Latin American Left”. In The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ebb-and-flow-of-latin-americas-pin...

Lansberg-Rodriguez, D. (2016). “Life After Populism?: Reforms in the Wake of the Receding Pink Tide”. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/631711/pdf

Lopes, D.B. and Pimenta de Faria, C.A. (April 2016). “When Foreign Policy Meets Social Demands in Latin America”. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-85292016000...

NACLA (May 12, 2011). “Introduction: Lula’s Legacy in Brazil”. Retrieved from https://nacla.org/article/introduction-lula%E2%80%99s-legacy-brazil

Reid, M. (2015). “Obama and Latin America: A Promising Day in the Neighborhood”. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-3792991121/obama-and-latin-america-...

Sheridan, M.B. (July 3, 2000). “Mexico’s Ruling Party Loses Presidency in Historic Election”. In Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jul-03-mn-47440-story.html

Sloan, J. (2009). “Carnivalizing the Cold War: Mexico, the Mexican Revolution, and the Events of 1968”. Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/7527

Williamson, J. (November 6, 2002). “Did the Washington Consensus Fail?”. Retrieved from https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/did-washington-consensus...