The so-called end of the progressivism cycle in South

America
Edgar Isch López 2 February 2016

Political polarization is currently tensioning Latin America. The result will not be a
general rightward shift by society, but the increase in economic, political, cultural and
ideological contradictions. Español.

A few months ago, a debate on the end of an era of progressive governments in our
region had surfaced. The topic has attracted analysts and activists from different
backgrounds, but it seems that the answers given to this question have had more short-
term urgency – even presented in similar patterns in the mass media - than a theoretical
analysis with historic attributes, which could help in building clearer perspectives.

Without claiming that this article will achieve the latter, it seems important to consider
various issues which have not been given enough emphasis. Here, we will touch base
with those useful aspects by making queries, considering the reality beyond the recent
elections in Argentina and Venezuela.

“End of a cycle” or processes that have reached their limits?

History isn’t defined by cycles. If that were the case, it would mean that a series of
repeated events is just a natural phenomenon. We can certainly talk about the cycle of
water or of other natural elements, but that is not applicable to society, where there is
the capacity for social organization and the construction of class dominance. This does
not deny that certain events – when seen as isolated instances – have cyclical traits, as
seen with the frequency of crises that stem from capitalism. But these belong to a
general evolution of society that prevents them from repeating, as they occur in different

1
forms and the crises are deeper and more widespread, illustrating a more spiral form
than an eternal cycle.

In addition, let’s consider the fact that “the people make history” by constantly
transforming society and themselves; with advances and setbacks that resemble a
zigzag. Conscious and voluntary action of the people, however, is determined by
historical and specific productive conditions. The absence of predetermined facts would
illustrate a famous phrase from Rosa Luxemburg:

“Engels once said: ‘Capitalist society is faced with a dilemma: advance to socialism or
return to barbarism.’ What does ‘return to barbarism’ mean in the actual stage of
European civilization? We have read, and quoted, these words lightly, unable to
conceive its terrible meaning. At this point, it is enough to simply observe our
surroundings in order to comprehend what the return to barbarism means in the
capitalist society. This world war is a return to barbarism. (…) Such is the dilemma of
world history, its iron alternative, its trembling balance at the point of equilibrium,
awaiting the decision of the proletariat. It depends on the future of culture and
humanity.” (Rosa Luxemburg. The Junius pamphlet. The crisis of German social
democracy.).

In the history of nations, you always come across such dilemmas. Socialism or
barbarism; war or revolution; colonialism or independence; they are part of the many
who remember the real processes.

Bringing the idea of close social life cycles, it is a variant of the old mechanism. A
mechanism that has been rejected in the social sciences but reappears in different forms,
an example being the one that absurdly aims to guide social analyses through the
process of subatomic quantum level analysis.

The cyclical theory of history was first formulated by Oswald Spengler and then by
historians like Arnold Toynbee, who promoted the idea of constant return to humanity
as its starting point. According to these theories, society has unavoidable phases to
which they refer to as childhood, youth, maturity and old age or spring, summer,
autumn winter. Phases in which are supposedly unavoidable, as if it made reference to a
mechanical progression that we were doomed to repeat.

What conditions have emerged nowadays, that have prompted us to speak about
an end of a cycle?

It occurs at a time when the enlightenment shows its failure in the continuity of reforms
that have been proposed and that, in cases like in Ecuador, was even betrayed. Speaking
of a cycle or pendulum, in an illegitimate version of the first view, is a way of refusing
to self-criticism. If there is a “cycle”, this is “inevitable” and therefore very little or
nothing could be done, there is not error to acknowledge. This starting point is a call to
indifference and resignation, to open the doors to the right now that the progressives
were defined as the “new” left of the 21st century. This means to tell us that the right
and the progressives would take turns to govern, but always within an unbeatable
capitalism, that would only have the possibility of a more social and more centered
market trend.

2
It would be different in thinking about the actual process that governments that call
themselves progressives have lived through. You clearly cannot place them in the same
spot, and the differences between Argentina and Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador or any
among any other, are great indeed. However, there are some characteristics that must be
taken into account, from their common origin in the wave of protests and uprisings that
fought neoliberalism and its blows to social life, reaching the capacity to overthrow
corrupt governments and representatives of certain sectors of the ruling classes. Battles
that also intended to fight imperialism and proposals such as the FTAA, which put at
the forefront US imperialism and its multilateral domain of its “backyard”.

However, after their initial programs that were based on platforms of popular struggle in
those battles and presented a stage of progress in implementing the program, which
brought order to the functioning of the state, they showed clear evidence of
renouncement of its own discourse. This led them to consider that their main enemies
were those who demanded compliance with government programs and constitutional
mandates. Therefore, not only the removal of historical organizations, but also the
criminalization of popular protest became widespread in recent years.

In other words, the “cycle” was closing from within governments, as a result of the
policy that was implemented by them and not only due to the interests of the most
backward sectors of society. It is the actual process used by these governments, their
decisions and policies, which have weakened it. Today, once removed from the people,
they accuse them of electoral defeats and setbacks.

Is the progressivism always the preferred movement of the people?

Progressivism is a somewhat vague term. Usually, it is referred as the opposite of

deterrence. Hence, even capitalist revolutions were progressive in their time, as their
intent was to overcome feudal darkness. But that same example goes to show that
progressivism can have consequences that didn’t always benefit most people, as the first
workers, taken away from the countryside due to the dispossession of their lands, met
with harmful situations such as violence and hunger in the new factories.

Even though the progressive nature of capitalism was linked to its revolutionary period
in overcoming the feudal system, it seems that today the movement proposes reforms
within the existing system and doesn’t intend on overcoming it. This already poses
serious limits and these are due to the belief around the idea of progress as if it were a
permanent route for the better. To achieve it, extractivism and its accompanying
violence are merely just pragmatic decisions. Rafael Correa makes this clear on his
December 1, 2007 national channel speech against the strike of Dayuma, province of
Orellana that clashed with oil companies, stating: “Do not believe the romantic
environmentalists, anyone who opposes the development of the country is a terrorist.”

Correa’s defensive stance towards extractivism also notes his faith in the market and in
transnational corporations, as stated on the June 7, 2008 edition of his weekly ration
station, saying: “I hope that the leftist radicals that do not believe in the oil companies,
the mining companies, the market or the transnational corporations just leave…”

Here, the “progress” begins to appear as a pretext of an unprincipled pragmatism and,

naturally, of violence against the defenders of ancestral lands – no matter the

3
contradictions of earlier speeches or the constitution of a country. What matters is to
count on resources to maintain a system of bonuses and some gains won by the social
struggle. In addition, everything that justifies violence carried out by the state is
justified by their intention for providing state handouts. It is difficult to understand
Maduro, who said that he will not deliver housing because they did not vote for him [2]
or Correa putting human rights as the basis of patronage blackmail, in remarks that
suggest that populations do not want mining so they would be seen without several
public services.

Consequently, the progressive discourse can be used for a favorable tendency towards
the working-class sectors or to the dominating classes. In the case of the latter, when
progressivism becomes synonymous with modernization of capitalism, when referring
to its “progress” it is equated with said modernization. Of course, it is a distorted
progressivism, pointing in two directions at the same time and that, using economist
Alberto Acosta’s metaphor about Ecuador’s government, announces its intent of turning
left, but actually turning right instead.

The leftists, those that arise in various ways beyond capitalism, walk with progressivism
while this notion is true, but they must reveal when it returns to a discourse that masks a
rightist that is presented as having social concerns.

From what has been said and observed the strong weight that the repetition of measures
have stem from the 70s, more correctly than referring to them as progressists is define
them as capitalist developers, regardless of what forces and social sectors at any given
time support these governments.

What is causing the weakening of progressivism?

In Argentina and Venezuela there was talk of the existence of a strong “punishment
vote” that brought voters close to governism to decide to support the neoliberal right
opposition. This increasingly adds analyses that show that the progressive governments
are weakened by their own actions. This once again highlights the fact that there are
differences in each country, we can mention the most mentioned similarities: an
authoritarianism that expressed itself against the working sector, whose struggle is
criminalized; a level of corruption in the high spheres becoming unbearable; an inability
to solve the problems that determine outrageous living conditions of the rich and the
poor; the fragmentation and cooptation of certain popular movements; rapidly growing
foreign debt conditioned by lenders; a decrease of labor and social rights in many areas
- although it could be said that in some cases, certain progress was made - but in cases
such as bonds there were no guarantees for the future.

It is evident that the neoliberal right dispute the space of power with the developmental
right, following the historical divide between conservatives and liberals; it is also
logical that American imperialism search to broaden its margins of domination and
pester governments that open the doors to Chinese imperialism. Hence, looking at the
facts, it is undeniable that there is an existence of interventionism against the Chavez
government in Venezuela o that support the right-wing opponents in Bolivia or
Argentina. But this is not critical in the election results. And it wouldn’t have had much
weight if it complied with the people, as it did with the measures of these governments
during their early years.

4
Say, for example, that the business press won the elections, recognizing that the
government now did not have full capacity to exercise political power. The loss of
social support comes at a cost to all the developers and we insist that this resulted of
their own actions. But if the blame for the defeats is viewed in other cases, the
developmentalist governments are incapable of self-criticism and approach their end.

One aspect that stands out is how they built a bureaucratic power, more and more
distant from the social bases. Therefore, the acquired power was left without strong
social controls. This has given rise to corruption not as isolated incidents, but as the
present feature of these regimes. It is unfortunate that leftist intellectuals still seek to
hide this in Venezuela or even worse when describing “coup” members in
demonstrations against corruption in Brazil and we go back to the thesis of the coup,
when nothing was said about the demonstrations and the actual overthrow of the
government of Guatemala in 2015. This defense of the corrupt “progressives” recalls
the expression of President Roosevelt of the US when he couldn’t justify the crimes of
dictator Somoza in Nicaragua: “He is a bastard, but our bastard.” A curious logic, that
ends up protecting the corrupt in the name of the “process”.

Who opens the door to the conservative restoration?

During these governments’ reigns, a new legal and institutional body were established,
even after constituent assemblies, but leaving on paper its most advanced parts.
Examples include Venezuela, where a communal power has not been built; Bolivia has
not been able to achieve industrialization; or Ecuador which hasn’t taken the necessary
steps towards the Multinational State.

Decisive structural changes to combat the capitalist system weren’t suggested, nor an
intention of beginning a transition to socialism, which is mentioned less and less, with
the exception of the Venezuelan government. Instead, they sought the modernization of
capitalism by means of state capitalism (Venezuela); an “Andean-Amazonian
capitalism” (Bolivia); a form of developmentalism of the substitution of imports as in
the 70s, but without managing to boost the industrial production system (Ecuador).

The “conservative restoration”, as it is called, has a history in the very heart of the so-
called progressive governments. There is a rightward movement through discourses and
policies. There are broad agreements with the radical right (Brazil is the biggest
example); a guarantee of economic benefits to the powerful; an opening of multinational
corporations; repression and criminalization of protests from workers and low-class
citizens, often raising dictatorial laws (which the bourgeoisie appreciates); a backward
moralistic discourse; a justification of extractivism from economic growth; among
others. The conservative discourse is driven by governments whose concrete measures
to confront the crisis appeal to the neoliberal recipe.

They situation was different when they enjoyed a decade of high prices for commodities
sold in the international market (oil, mining, gas, soybeans, bananas, etc.), which them
great resources to expand infrastructure and implement social assistance programs
through bonds and subsidies. Therefore, in the economic sense they strengthened the
extractivism and expansion of the external debt, that is to say an international
dependence that, although not equal to that in the commencement of their regimes,
doesn’t remain conflicted to the mentioned sovereignty. There is perhaps the material

5
basis of the cooling of important regional projects such as UNASUR, CELAC, Banco
del Sur and the like.

Before prices of raw materials (or commodities) fall comes the crisis, which is the
biggest test to see if they didn’t make any real changes in the productive structure of the
country. It also shows that extractivism is not the way out of extractivism. And evidence
they referred to as an “economic miracle” was nothing more than happily spending
money in higher quantities to other governments. Once the pattern of high prices ends,
the mortgage future of each country and the resurgence of neoliberalism in each
government is the norm.

Is there a rightward movement in our societies?

The punishment vote against the failure of developmentalist governments to definitely

resolve the great problems of the people, it didn’t start with the presidential elections of
Argentina. It had already presented itself earlier in the recovery of mobilization
capacities of the workers, peasants and indigenous movements in different countries. It
was also shown in local elections in which they lost cities and territories (as in Ecuador
in February 2014).

This suggests that there is a sector of the population that continues to hold positions in
favor of a significant change and popular character. They are those who did not fall into
the networks of governmental mechanisms that encouraged a pause the popular
mobilization and reestablish the necessary order for the modernization of capitalism.
Progressive governments, in general terms, stood out for being an obstacle to the actions
of social and revolutionary left movements.

However, it is clear that many fell into disillusionment not only against the real actions
of the developmentalist governments, but also towards the discourse in which these
maintained the demagogic use of words like revolution and socialism. The conservative
right has managed to use this discourse to its favor, specifically to work with ideological
aspects of defending capitalism and attacking a socialism that hasn’t reached the region
even in the slightest.

The self-appointed progressives built a series of theses that generate widespread

confusion in social thought in the wave of struggles against neoliberalism, which had
achieved significant levels of understanding of a number of social phenomena and the
significance of capitalism. Among these theses, some had importance such as: the
alleged “nineteenth century socialism” that does not propose distributing wealth and
socialize it (bonds, which are also delivered under right-wing governments such as
Colombia or Peru, only partially redistributing income and not the wealth that is found
in the means of production, land, water, banks, etc.); the socialization that steered clear
from the economic to remain under the slogan of propaganda; the falsehood that the left
characterizes the strengthening of the state, but forgetting that for the revolutionaries,
the key is in which social class manages the state (otherwise, talking about a strong state
would make us believe that Pinochet was leftist); that the US is merely an imperialist
country (allowing to enter before a Chinese or European imperialism); or that the social
concern make a revolution (then Mother Teresa of Calcutta is a revolutionary).

6
The sectors that have moved to the right are not in the labor, ethnic or political sectors
that have opposed the resignation of the initial programs of the governments of the
developmentalist regimes. On the contrary, they have had another experience that
should allow them further reflection about the historic processes in our America. The
rightward cove, on the contrary, in the areas of poverty and lower organization that was
the social base of developmentalist governments, who were recipients of the message
but were disappointed at the lack of certainty over its future. That’s where the
demagogy of the conservative right leaves its mark.

The result will not be a general rightward shift by society, but the increase in economic,
political, cultural and ideological contradictions whose fate can be expected today. They
highlight the importance of breaking the polarity between a conservative right and a
developmental right in order to open alternatives passes to multinational and pluralistic
leftists.

[1] The reference to the spiral movement is also in the conception of time of the Andean
peoples: “This also answers the call – circular time – that is to say time and space,
Pacha, to move forward, turning and turning around, they are taking steps back,
although it never returns to the same point, but to a new, different point.” (CONAIE,
1992 “Pachacutic” in Nacionalidades indias No. 2).

[2] “I wanted to build 500,000 houses next year, but now I am reconsidering it. Not
because I can’t build them, I can but I asked for your support and you didn’t give it to
me”, he said in Contacto con Maduro TV show, in December 2015.

Translation by Martin Pastorino, member of the Volunteer Program of

DemocraciaAbierta

This article was previously published by La línea de fuego

About the author

Edgar Isch López es académico y ex ministro de Medioambiente de Ecuador.

Edgar Isch López is an academic and former Minister of Environment in Ecuador.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

International licence. If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.