You can count on U.S. corporate media to express alarm about the threat posed by left-wing governments in Latin America. Sometimes it’s military hype (think Soviet MiGs in Nicaragua), but more typically it takes the form of a generalized concern about certain governments’ commitment to democratic ideals.
But how do you sound the alarm about left-wing threats to democracy when actual elected left-wing leaders are being removed in anti-democratic coups? That’s no easy feat, but some reporters are up to the challenge.
In the Washington Post on July 22 (under the headline “Latin America’s New Authoritarians”), reporter Juan Forero explains that today’s quasi-dictators are clever enough to rule in what are nominally democracies:
More than two decades after Latin America’s last right-wing dictatorships dissolved, a new kind of authoritarian leader is rising in several countries: democratically elected presidents who are ruling in increasingly undemocratic ways.
Unlike the iron-fisted juntas of a generation ago, these leaders do not assassinate opposition figures or declare martial law.
But in a handful of countries, charismatic populists are posing the most serious challenge to democratic institutions in Latin America since the 1980s, when rebel wars and dictators were the norm.
Of course, another way of looking at this history might lead one to conclude that the United States posed the greatest threat to democracy in Latin America in the 1980s, either by fueling proxy wars or backing repressive dictatorships that were our political allies.
But that’s not something we like to bring up. So Forero just ignores U.S. policy, then? Not quite. Part of the argument here is that the United States is faulted for doing next to nothing. As Forero puts it, “What rights groups and some political leaders call a growing threat to hard-won democratic gains has drawn a tepid response” from the U.S.
Forero notes in passing that U.S.-allied leaders have been criticized, but the real problem are the leftists, as Forero notes with some alarm:
Today, the most prominent and powerful of a handful of democratically elected leaders who enjoy near-total control of the political life of their countries is Chavez. Even as he recovers from cancer, the former lieutenant colonel is running for reelection in October’s presidential vote as he seeks to extend a presidency that began in 1999.
Other presidents who have consolidated their hold on power—controlling, among other institutions, the courts, which then give them leverage over opponents—include Ecuador’s Correa, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega.
All vocally oppose the Obama administration, favor state intervention in the economy and have moved to strengthen alliances with Washington’s adversaries, among them Cuba, Iran and Russia.
Forero adds that in Venezuela, Chavez has “built a vast state media apparatus that heaps scorn on his critics while venerating his policies.” That’s one way to see it; another view is that the 2002 coup that briefly removed him from power was facilitated by private media owners who used their media holding to help orchestrate the removal of a democratically elected president. But the point of this article—which seems to borrow its premise from a recent book by William Dobson, who is quoted in the piece—is that the real threat comes from these authoritarians who rule just like dictators.
As Keane Bhatt wrote for NACLA (7/30/12), a notable omission in a piece about threats to democracy are the very recent removals of democratically elected presidents in Paraguay and Honduras:
in Forero’s account of “creeping authoritarianism” in the region, it’s as if two prominent examples of this phenomenon—the Honduran coup and last month’s illegitimate ouster of Lugo—never happened.
And far from staying out of the region’s affairs, Bhatt notes that the United States sends $50 million to the notoriously brutal Honduran police and military.
It’s not just Juan Forero who’s writing this story. In Newsweek, Mac Margolis—no stranger to the anti-left beat—writes that “Latin American democracy is in trouble.” He explains:
While civil society and the rule of law have matured in Latin America, so has a new generation of autocrats. Forget about corpulent generals in aviator sunglasses: today’s authoritarians are urbane, technologically savvy, and skilled at repurposing due process and popular elections in order to concentrate their power.
The prime example is Hugo Chavez, who has—among other things—”used government largesse to buy popular support in lopsided national referendums and elections.” That’s a fancy way of saying that the country’s oil wealth is spread more evenly across society than it had been prior to Chavez’s presidency.
Margolis’ take is a lot like Forero’s, but there are some notable differences. He doesn’t ignore the Paraguay coup; instead, he argues that governments in the region that spoke out against the coup really did so in order to bolster Chavez’s standing in a regional trade body—essentially backing a dictator’s power grab.
So there’s a threat to Latin American democracy, but it’s not the removal of elected leaders that is the problem. The real problem is when countries speak out against undemocratic coups. Is that confusing? A little. But there’s an easier way to understand how the corporate media keep score: If something’s good for Chavez or other left-wing leaders in Latin America—it’s bad for democracy.
Doug Latimer
Peter, while this post is righteously wrathful toward the hypocrisy and jingoism of corpress coverage of Latin America, I’d have appreciated an acknowledgement of the very real democratic deficiences in many of these countries.
While there have been significant improvements in both the political and economic conditions for many, it is true that leaders like Chavez have abused their powers, and have made alliances with countries with far from laudable human rights records (a primary characteristic of US foreign policy, to state the literally bleeding obvious), as well as talking the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to populist rhetoric in many cases, such as those involving resource extraction, and the rights of indigenous folks.
Of course, Ferero and Margolis don’t give a flying fig about true democracy, and this is a not uncomplicated subject, but that doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to be critical of the abuse of power wherever we find it, and I think it bolsters our criticism of imperialism and its cheerleaders to do so.
Would you agree?
Glenn
Thanks Peter,
This brings to mind the crisis of democracy that occurred under the administration of FDR.
The US government of that era acted not only as the lender of last resort to the banks, but also as the people’s employer of last resort, rescuing the dreams and lives of those so desperate and devastated by that era’s collapse of capitalism.
Determined that democracy should never again hold such sway over the self-proclaimed owners the country, the money powered elite of both parties enacted the 22nd Amendment to make sure that if by some fluke, a representative of the common man’s interest should ever hold the presidency, the country’s real owners would not have to endure that indignity for more than two terms.
Garrus
What was even more laughable was an episode of GPS I saw not too long ago where Fareed Zakaria claims Hugo Chavez rigged his last election
michael e
The basic idea behind this article is that the USA has caused most of the problems south of our borders.We seem to be the evil masterminds who sow discord ,and death , invariably picking anti Democratic regimes one after another for the sole reason of making us money,and allowing us to keep our boot on the throat of poor people who look to us for better.I suppose the idea would be that “they” have no responsibility for the madness in their little world. By extension we must be doing the same north of our boarders………Ok not so much.Same old same old- blame America gang.Chavez…yeah he is a great guy.
HReading
Well, michael e, my boy, why not provide us a little substantiation for your blather? And, please, not from the corporate propaganda mongers. By the way, still totin’ that toy gun of yours down south?
TimN
Actually, m.e. actually hit the nail right on the head in his explanation of what he thinks is a fantasy–that the US was (and is) responsible for a tremendous amount of murder and mayhem in Central America. I think somewere in his mind he really does understand the truth about our role there. He just needs a good lie down on a doctor’s couch.
jnulv
This article is just like a lot of right wing hyperbole; it doesn’t make sense. The wrier could just stopped with the Us has run all the left wing democratically elected leaders otu of town to try and install undemocratic, fraudulently, elected right wing leaders. But it won’t work because the people of those countries will revolt. And then the arms shipments will begin to flow and more countries will be destroyed and destabilized. That is the true story.
Mary
For background information you should read, “Open Veins of Latin America:Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by Eduardo Galeano. Chavez gave this book to Obama.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/19/obama-chavez-book-gift-latin-america
Eli C-R
Hugo Chavez is really not the best example of someone who isn’t acting like a dictator. The removal of term limits, prosecuting your opposition, repeated human rights violations, the ongoing crisis in the Venezuelan prisons and most importantly the fact that he left Venezuela in a virtual standstill when he disappeared into Cuba (to hide from the press) for his cancer treatments because he has focused so much power on himself. The article is bad, but you should have picked a better example for a Leftist leader that isn’t being a quasi-dictator.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18867310
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/venezuelan-government-deliberately-targeting-opponents-2010-04-01
Jovanni
I like Chavez. I think he really brought dignity and inspiration not only to his people in Venezuela, but to the whole region. Now countries are acting more autonomous, have shredded some of the emotional attachment/dependency on the U.S. and empowered themselves. No longer does U.S. influence enjoy total domination on the region and for the first time since memorial times these country are perusing their own interest while at the same time integrating with each other and moving forward. This is liberating. I think this is an achievement and Chavez helped start this spark. U.S. policy makers don’t like it because it takes power away from Washington and gives the nerving sense of “losing America’s Backyard”.
Howard Fernandez
While you`re right to point out the imperial mindset that has characterized US policies towards Latin America for the last century, As somebody who was raised in Venezuela and still has family and friends there, I can tell you that, at least as far as that country is concerned, Mr. Forero hit the nail right in the head. Mr. Chavez`s regime IS authoritarian and I would not be surprised if his people rigged the results of the upcoming elections (a polite way of saying steal it). Furthermore, the fact that he was the victim of an attempted coup does not absolve him of responsibility for the actions his government has taken to undermine the will of the people and perpetuate himself in power.
Yoram Gat
Howard,
Could you be more specific about Chavez’s anti-democratic steps?
I hear such allegations but do not see any convincing specifics. The typical critical assessment that I have seen is complaints about radio stations that do not get their licenses renewed (which I do not consider anti-democratic unless it is shown that certain points of view are systematically suppressed) or pieces along the lines of http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/chavez-plan-for-high-speed-train-network-is-being-forced-onto-venezuelans/ (which is so clearly biased and light on facts that it is essentially useless).
A. Neves
Latin America used to be U.S. backyard, fortunetly L.A. countries are slowly growing up, and at the same time the U.S. world influence is going down, as well as their economy. What you may call left-shaded Governments are indeed a new reality of mentality, far from the traditional politics, which have been trying to improve the living conditions of the people and enforcing the erradication of poverty.
Sofianitz
There may be some people out there that believe that the US is a democracy, but they certainly don’t include any professors of Political Science in US universities, and very few US university historians. Lets face the facts and stop talking about US “democracy”. Doesn’t exist.
Chulo
I think you all need to see the documentary called “South of the Border” by Oliver Stone. Last time I seen it was on netflex. Also need to see on latin american section of therealnews.com “Closing the school of the America’s Pt2”. They will be waker uppers.
michael e
Well it seems to most people here that the US…her people,her government, and all her leaders for decades, have conspired with Satan himself to bring hell and misery upon our Southern neighbors.Well except for me.I never got the memo so i can’t really be blamed.If anybody knows what this conspiracy is called please catch me up.Where is the club house and how do i join?Now i know why my Dad went to work so early when I was a kid.So lets walk this through……We destabilize Mexico for the last hundred years for what reason?Money?I would think South of our boarder is a huge drain on us.Yet we let Canada prosper(and that of course helps us).
HReading…..Toy gun down South??
dora
Having spent the last few days reading back through all these posts, I found this quote particularly interseting:
“For regimes that are dabbling in modern authoritarian means, having a limited free press, a limited opposition, is not just permitted, it’s actually necessary, because it allows them to maintain the facade of being a democratic system,” said William J. Dobson, author of “The Dictator’s Learning Curve,” a recently published book about modern authoritarian governments.
Brux
Look at how democratic ideals suffer in my own country (USA) when we fight wars, essentially battling external terrorism.
Is it any surprise that democratic ideals or other ideals suffer when a leader is elected from the left and the US declares what is a terrorist war against them?
The US can hardly complain about the economic system or take credit when a country has problems because the US attacks it with terrorism … ie. Cuba.