Where is the Latin Ameri
Sixty-five organizations, movements and political by the left in the many elections which spanned the parties from Latin America and the Caribbean which continent between 1993 and 1995; the need to put belong to the Sao Paulo Forum met for a fifth time, forward an initial democratic and popular proposal to from May 25 to 28, in Montevideo, Uruguay. As confront the economic crisis which is shaking the
Alfonso Moro explains, the context in which the region; and the need to redesign left politics after the meeting takes place includes the poor results obtained events of the last two years.
As a point of reference it is necessary to remember that on July, 1993 over 100 organizations from the region met in Havana, Cuba, for the fourth meeting of the Sao Paulo Forum Given the political and social conjuncture at that point the Assembly focused on the possibilities of the left coming into government in different countries (Brazil, Mexico, El Salvador, and Uruguay) as well as on the crisis of the Cuban Revolution. When the hypotheses of victory were not confirmed - despite the fact that in general left currents obtained the best results in at least 25 years — the fifth Assembly could have . been the place to draw a clear and profound balance of the events. Yet, with some exceptions, this subject was bypassed in the discussions which took place at the Assembly. How can this be explained? To answer that question, even only with an outline, we have to place ourselves in the debates which accompanied the electoral processes. Two major tendencies spanned in one way or another the Latin American organizations. One current, which was struggling to win office, was oriented towards a politics of "capacity to govern, openness, and no social confrontation" while the other current, to be sure in a minority, pursued social mobilization and a radical discourse of confrontation.2
With hindsight the results confirm that 4
International Viewpoint #268 July 1995 the second orientation was correct, and that it should be the basis for the political activity of the left from now on. But, as the discussions demonstrated, the majority of the organizations present in Montevideo chose to remain on the terrain of the institutional and parliamentarian advances, that is on discussions about the number of deputies, senators, mayors and governors which the left now has, without going to the root of the electoral defeats. As I myself argued, "the principal problem of the left has been its incapacity to transform the existing social polarization in the different countries into a process of radicalization and self-organization among the sectors of the population which saw in the left a possibility for change. When a misguided vision of the 'ability to govern' imposed itself, social mobilization was undervalued as the central motor towards victory, and from there in many cases the participation of the left ended up being absorbed by a fuzzy electoralist dynamic without a clear perspective."
This analysis does not minimize the utilization of the state apparatus by the dominant classes in all countries to prevent the triumph of the left; rather, it seeks to underscore that participation in these processes took place without taking into account one central factor. The left displayed a lack of understanding - not to say a certain naivety — about what was at stake. In the face of the crisis which now plagues several countries of the subcontinent, we can expect a worsening of the tendencies which are already in place towards authoritarianism and antidemocratic rule, as the cases of Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela and Argentina demonstrate.3 The left is acting in these situations as if it were paralysed. Mexico, so close and yet so far...
The crisis of the neo-liberal model which became evident as a result of the devaluation of the Mexican peso last December, which generated what is known as the "tequila effect", was one of the principal subjects of the Assembly. Everyone agreed that the crisis signals the exhaustion of the economic model imposed for at least 15 years (depending on the country. The need to put forward a proposal which meets the immediate challenges posed by the blows which the populations of the subcontinent are suffering is more urgent than ever, and will only emerge if the left currents are capable of closing the gap which separates them from the social movements. In that respect, even though the final declaration of the Assembly brings up the subject in general terms, it must be said that this is without doubt one of the elements which define the type of Forum that is being built. In other words, who are our interlocutors?
Let us explain. The Socialist International, the COPPAL, the Latin American Socialist Coordinadora, the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) and... the president of the Interamerican Development Bank were invited to this event. Even though only the COPPAL answered the call, without doubt behind the call there is a predominant vision of becoming a sort of institutional left opposition, capable of conducting a "dialogue" with the makers of our crisis (as is the case with the president of the IDB) perhaps to convince them that the economic policies followed are not the best. The subject is of great importance and must be interpreted in the context of other options chosen by the organizations belonging to the Working Group (a sort of leadership) of the Forum. In fact, in addition to the organizations already mentioned, the Working Group accepted unanimously the presence, as an "observer", of the Mexican Institutional
an left heading ?
FORO de
SAN PABLO
5th São Paulo Forum organization identified with the positions of the paramilitary organisation ETA
Beyond the fact that we do not share th nethods of ETA, it is clear that there is n round for comparison between a rganization like HB and the Mexica PRI.
The "Mexican case" made clear that the struggle of the Zapatistas is considered a "regional" matter by the political left of Latin America, which explains, contrary to
POR LA INTEGRACION de los PUEBLOS what one may expect, why the examples of solidarity with the Zapatistas are more frequent in Europe and the United States that in Latin America. This lack of understanding does not allow the left of Latin America to see that the heart of the project of the Mexican PRI, which is the
25 AL 28 DE MAYO MONTEVIDEO URUGUAY Revolutionary Party (PRI), a state party which has ruled that country for over 60 years and which is today in the midst of a terminal crisis of unpredictable consequences. At the same time, the Working Group "forgot" to invite the National Democratic Convention of Mexico and the Zapatista Army of National liberation (EZLN). Those of us who denounced the presence of the PRI in the Forum were branded as "intransigent", "bureaucratic" and "undemocratic" Surprising accusations, especially when they came in several instances from exleaders of the region's remaining Communist parties. But beyond this point, the central problem was that the absolute majority which attended the Forum decided to keep an eloquent silence, which makes clear that many of these organizations prioritize their relations with the PRI above the support to the Mexican popular movement headed today by the EZLN.
One of the Representatives of the Uruguayan Frente Amplio (Broad Front) (See International Viewpoint, #263, March 1995), a member of the Artiguista Vanguard, attempted to justify the acceptance of the PRI as an observer through pointing to the observer status granted to Herri Batasuna, the Basque project for all of Latin America, lies north of the Mexican border, and that the lack of initiatives can only strengthen the Mexican government and its imperialist inspirers. This can be fatal, because a defeat of the democratic and Zapatista movements in Mexico will carry a heavy price for all of the Latin American left.
The Forum discussed the economic, social and political situation of Latin America and the Caribbean since the Fourth Assembly, and evaluated the process of regional integration. Discussions concerning the current situation were also characterized by clashes between very different visions.
Let us take one simple example. A few weeks ago, Bolivia (another prime example of neo- liberalism) was shaken by a strike headed by teachers, which was joined by miners, women, students, and coca producers from the Chapare region, who refused to accept the policies which the Sánchez de Lozada government is attempting to impose (see brief report in International Viewpoint # 267, June 1995). This wave of protests was stopped by a state of emergency, the detention and imprisonment of more than 300 leaders of social movements and the suspension of constitutional guarantees. The declaration of the state of emergency was carried out with the support of the official majority in the parliament, and explicitly defended by chancellor Aranibar, a member of the Movimiento Bolivia Libre (Free Bolivia movement), an organization which up to the Fifth Assembly was a member of the
5 International Viewpoint #268 July 1995
5th São Paulo
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION Lean Production: A Capitalist Utopia? by Tony Smith • Innovative ways of organising production and marketing are eliminating antagonisms between capital and labour, between producers and consumers, and between different companies. "Lean production" is uniting companies, workers and consumers in the harmonious persuit of common interests. • Too good to be true? Of course it is! In this pamphlet, Tony Smith analyses the current transformation of relationships between employers and employees, between producers and consumers, and between different firms, and shows that, fundamentally they have not altered the nature of capitalism. • The author goes on to show how a socialist economy based on grassroots participation and democratic coordination could match the dynamism of lean production, and keep lean production's broken promises of cooperation and harmony. Tony Smith is professor of philosophy at lowa State University in the U.S.A. and an advisory editor of the magazine Against the Current IIRE, Postbus 53290, 1007 RAmsterdam, Netherlands
International Viewpoint #268 July 1995
Working Group of the São Paulo. Forum. Evidently, the extreme nature of the
Bolivian situation forced the Forum to take a position concerning the question of whether organizations which responsible for repression against fighters for social justice in their countries can be part of the Forum.
Unfortunately the answer was in the same direction as the answer to the "Mexican case." In the name of the "broadest possible unity" and in the need of showing that "we are democratic" the Movimiento Bolivia Libre was allowed to continue as a full member of the Forum, suffering no consequence other than a
One may think, in the light of this decision, that an environment of broad pluralism, which seeks to privilege discussion over exclusion, prevails. But this is not the case. The Working Group refused to accept the Movimiento de Renovación Sandinista (Sandinista Renovation Movement, the split from the FSLN headed by Sergio Ramírez, Ernesto Cardenal, and Dora Mara Tellez) as a member in full standing. The MRS was vetoed by the FLN (the current headed by Daniel Ortega). There is a double standard against which it is necessary to
There have also been important events about which the Forum has remained silent — the war between Ecuador and Peru, the US invasion of Haiti, the state of emergency in Bolivia. The absence of clear positions is a matter of concern, because the events are of great importance, and their consequences are not confined to the present period. These key questions reflect the complex labyrinth which the democratic political forces, the anti-imperialists and the socialists of the region
In the same Assembly, the rules of admission, the composition of the Working Group, and the mechanisms of coordination to be followed henceforth were modified. A sub-regional functioning structure was approved and a "Permanent Secretariat" established (in São Paulo). The utility of those measures will be seen in the coming months. Above all, they will put to the test our abilities to meet the enormous challenges facing us.
For objective reasons, the majority of the Forum focused on electoral activities in the recent past. But the closing of that period requires that we concentrate our efforts in closing the gaps which separate us from the social movements.
The participation of the PRI as an observer and the discussion which this generated leaves a central problem unresolved. How wide should this organization of reflection and exchange open itself? Some say there should be no limits, and even proposed the idea that the (Right of center) Popular Party of the Spanish State (See International Viewpoint #264, March 1995) should join if it requests admission.
Our conception is very different. We do not have a sectarian vision, but we are still able to discern class interests. There are only two options for the São Paulo Forum.
One is to retain a conservative attitude, without any commitment other than getting together at every Assembly and issuing declarations of good will, with a vision that international solidarity stops where the interests of each national organization begin. The other option is to dare to make a turn, recognizing the contributions made so far and the terrible difficulties that we face, but with the perspective of returning to the reality of the declaration of the first Forum celebrated in 1990. It is necessary to shake out the dangerous inertia which is moving us to behave as witnesses to history rather than as agents of history. This is the greatest challenge and, for our own modest part, we are determined to work starting now so that in 1996, when the Sixth Assembly takes place in El Salvador, we may help to find some answers.
Notes
1 See Inprecor para América Latina (Spanish-language sister publication to International Viewpoint) # 35, September 1993.
2 See "1994: avant et aprs" in Inprecor (French-language sister publication to International Viewpoint) # 384, October, 1994
3 We are referring to the way in which the Cardoso government has confronted the strike of the oil workers in Brazil; the security law approved by the Uruguayan parliament; the policies of economic shock and open repression pursued by the dying Mexican government; the recent amnesty approved by Fujimori for the military responsible for murder and torture in Peru; the way in which the Caldera government is attempting to stop social mobilizations in Venezuela; and the decision by Menem to destroy what little remains of social security in Argentina.
4 Before the Fifth Assembly the members of this group were: the Brazilian PT, the FMLN of El Salvador, the FSLN of Nicaragua, the PCC of Cuba, the URNG of Guatemala, the PRD of Mexico, the Lavalas Movement of Haiti, the PRD of Panama, the United Left of Peru, the political parties forming the Frente Amplio in Uruguay (the FA decided to join the Forum as such before the Fifth Assembly), the Movimiento Bolivia Libre of Bolivia, and the Communist Party of Guadeloupe.
5 It must be said that unanimity in the Working Group was reached following the declaration of one of the members of the PRD of Mexico, who said he had no objection to the participation of the PRI.
----- photo credits and running heads -----
6