WHEN DEMOCRACY IS IN PERIL
June 13, 2005

How ironic. Just when the Organization of American States (OAS) was discussing how to prevent democratic governments in Latin America from falling, Bolivia’s democratic government was crumbling.  President Carlos Mesa resigned amid a terrible crisis and, once again, a Latin American leader was unable to complete his allotted term in office.

What is going on?  Two things: one, that Latin Americans, with unusual and disturbing frequency, are setting aside the rules of democracy to remove and replace presidents as the whim strikes them; and two, that those presidents who are legitimately elected take advantage of their position and consolidate power until they are no longer truly democratic.

Democracy in Latin America, we must admit, has not been effective at solving the problem of poverty and lessening the enormous inequality that exists. And that is why, after most of the countries in the region have had democratic governments for a few decades, the over 400 million Latin Americans are frustrated, disillusioned and ready for a change.

This explains the resurgence of leftist alternatives on the continent, from President Lula da Silva in Brazil to Mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico. Democracy has allowed Latin Americans to elect their leaders, but it has not fed them or improved their standard of living. Over half of those who live south of the Rio Grande are poor.

But those Bolivians who believe that removing President Carlos Mesa is going to give them a better life are wrong.  That is what they thought when they ousted Gonzalo Sanchez de Losada in 2003, and you can see how things are in Bolivia.  Argentina had 5 presidents in a space of 12 days at the end of 2001, and the Argentinians’standard of living failed to improve.  And Ecuadorians are no better off after the departure of President Abdala Bucaram, nor in the wake of the overthrow this past April 20^th of Lucio Gutierrez.  Presidents may come and go, but things stay the same, if not worse.

Removing legitimately elected presidents from power does not immediately resolve economic crises.  The problem, therefore, is not democracy, but rather the accumulation of power on the part of the ruling class and the failure to institute reforms that would allow everyone to benefit from the economy.

“In Latin America, every five years we elect a king,” Peruvian analyst Alvaro Vargas Llosa told me in an interview. His latest book, “Liberty for Latin America” discusses the reasons why Latin American countries—with the exception of Chile—have failed to implement effective democracies. “An absolute monarch who imposes and disposes, who has control over the judicial system, controls political power, manipulates the bureaucracy…Everything we do in Latin America ends up revealing that inability to overcome these principles of oppression that have existed since precolumbian times.”

            Carlos Menem in Argentina, Alberto Fujimori in Peru, Mexican PRIistas, the Sandinista regimes and that of Arnoldo Aleman in Nicaragua, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela are some clear examples of how power is consolidated and not shared in Latin America.  The list is endless.

            A few days ago, the OAS posed the question of what can be done when democracy is in peril in a given country, or when a leader, in spite of having been democratically elected, abuses his power. And, for a change, the organization closed its Fort Lauderdale meeting without lifting a finger.  No, the OAS is not going to take any action. What a surprise.

            The government of Venezuela, which has many skeletons of its own, managed to block a US proposal that, in the words of the new Secretary General of the OAS, Chilean Jose Miguel Insulza, would permit “democratic supervision (in order to) anticipate crises, and in some way avoid them.” The concept of “democratic supervision” was a euphemism in many countries’ eyes; already envisioning the US Marines parachuting into Caracas, or international delegations asking embarrassing questions about internal affairs. The first thing that came to their minds was “intervention,” and since history is full of interventions on the part of the “global police,” and that is where the matter ended.

            The reality, however, is that the concept of sovereignty in this globalized world is much more flexible and no longer ends at the borders.  If democracy is extinguished in one Latin American country, the rest of the continent shares the consequences. It is not a matter of military intervention but rather preventing democratic advances, which cost us so much blood, sweat and tears, from vanishing with the snap of a “gorilla’s” fingers.

            But what can we do when this happens? Facilitate dialog between the opposing parties in the case of uprisings and prior to any potential overthrow—such as we have recently witnessed in South America—and support dissident groups when their leaders—in Cuba or in Venezuela, to name two examples—abuse their power.

            The saddest and most frustrating thing, without a doubt, was seeing the ambassadors and chancellors from the 34 OAS member states (once again) remaining silent, blind and immobile while yet another democracy was disintegrating before their eyes. And for that reason, though it pains us, we must ask ourselves: What good is the OAS?