10th AWID International Forum - Bangkok, October 2005
Basis put forward by Soc. Norma Sanchís for discussion in workshop ”Latin America: An ongoing debate"
Neoliberalism and democracy
What is the relationship existing between the economic dimension and the social, political, institutional and cultural levels?
The feelings of frustration and unease upon the negative overcome of economic policies implemented in the 1990s are becoming increasingly evident in Latin America.
Simultaneously, there is a growing deligitimization and apathy towards democracies – the form of government in almost all countries in the region – since they appear as weak and unstable. There is also increased intolerance of corruption at the different levels of public institutions, which appears not to be the exclusive property of some sector or political parties in particular but instead it seemed as if it was already adopting inner structural characteristics needed for the self-sustainability of the system.
However, criticism to the economic model and political/institutional system tends to be running in parallel, without neither links nor articulations being made visible.
And to a certain extent this is due to the fact that in recent decades macroeconomic decisions have been imbued with a technical-based character, which hides their ideological basis, commitments undertaken, power social relationships making them feasible and the values they stand for. Such lack of recognition and visibility with regards to the political processes and social conflicts brought about by economic decisions, seriously undermines democracies.
However, and with different features and characteristics across the region, the economic model interacts with the social, political and ideological institutions that make it feasible. During the 1990s, as the sovereignty of market rules was becoming consolidated, the autonomy of governments was undermined in terms defining actions and policies. And this weakness of governments allowed for the implementation of a model without safeguards or preventive policies with regards to its damaging effects on broad sectors of the population.
The commercialization of the economy and society also invaded the political arena, diluted ideologies that were replaced by media influence, fixed a price on votes, and the decisions made by government leaders and legislators were negotiated. The delegitimization of representative democracy is based on its extreme vulnerability in the face of large economic powers.
In general, political parties lose their integrating role and that aimed at channelling citizen interests and are turned into elite spaces, distributing resources and privileges, thus violating their electoral promises in terms of external requirements. Citizen participation is regarded as a threat and democracy becomes restricted and placed under tutelage. Thus, a double institutional crisis is created: a crisis of representation, where those being represented feel very distant from their representatives; and the crisis of participation, by means of vote abstention.
The weakness of democratic institutionality, unable to process the social conflict between opposite interests, gives rise to the concept of governance as the mere control of disorder and repression of any threat posed to the safety of the system. Social conflict is then ignored and regarded merely as an attempt to challenge the established order.
The issue of governance as necessarily implying the search for social inclusion and reduction of inequalities is not set forth.
The paradox of governance in Latin America lies on the coexistence of a legal and political order based on the equality of citizens and an economic order that preserves and stresses increased inequity and wealth concentration in the world.
The redefinition of the State’s role and the undermining of the social dimension of citizenship, took place within the framework of democratic regimes with broad popular consensus. Taking into account the different characteristics at national level, it is worth going deep into this paradoxal relationship between the neoliberal hegemony and the establishment of minimal States with weak democracies and participatory processes.
In this way, the globalization in the 1990s launched a stage of Democracy without Development in Latin America, with countries that faced difficulties to become inserted into the international economy and marked processes of export capital for external debt payment purposes.
Political systems based on political party representation started to show their limitations to channel the discontent and unease brought about by the adjustment policies that aggravated social exclusion.
In order to hold back protests, the hegemonic discourse insists on the risks that social conflicts may pose by driving away investments or promoting the relocation of plants in less conflictive areas, thus increasing unemployment and destabilizing the economy. The threat regarding the fluctuation in capital flows paralizes and imprisons societies and governments. Besides, the extent of unemployment, acts as a disciplinary factor in terms of social protest.
The UNDP report on Latin American democracies (2004), analyzes that processes in the last two decades did not bring about neither economic development nor social inclusion and consolidated the triangle that characterizes Latin America: democracy, poverty and inequality as a peculiar feature of the region, which again implies the coexistence of the egalitarian principle with social exclusion, resulting in tensions and social conflicts.
This brings about a set of paradoxes in Latin America such as the paradox of democracies without policy, since instead of diversity and freedom of choice the economic model is proposed as the only choice. Other paradoxes are that of democracies without inclusion, given the fact that they coexist with significant levels of inequality and exclusion; democracies without regulatory capacity in terms of financial flows, fiscal policies, redistribution; democracies with lack of decision-making capacity and legitimacy, given the fact that they are unable to achieve balance of powers between national and international sectors; democracies without equality, as social protection systems become dismantled and privatized and targeted social policies, often stigmatizing, are designed. Social policies no longer have an integrating role and have mainly adopted an assistential character in the fight against poverty. In many cases, these policies are turned into tools for the alleviation of situations of social and political strain, threatening to unstabilize the model. Therefore, the link between needs and rights is broken: social policies are neither aimed at broadening citizenship nor at social inclusion.
What do we talk about when we talk about democracy?
The same as in many other regions, in Latin American representative democracies, citizens do not participate in policy decisions, but choose policy decision-makers. The vote displays this ambiguous characteristic: it is an act of political participation which implies giving up political participation.
However, the crises of democracies also open up opportunities for new forms of government. Experiences of participatory democracies, of a counter-hegemonic nature, start to become insinuated, particularly at the local levels (participatory budgets, local initiatives, participatory policy planning). This participatory experiences do not replace representative forms. On the contrary, to make up for their scale problems, a combination of the representative and participatory character of the political system is deemed necessary; and even participation, no matter how direct, always implies some level of representation. On the other hand, representation becomes oxygenated and legitimated through institutional mechanisms that allow for direct participation: referenda, plebiscites, popular consultations and others that may creatively supplement the representative forms and allow to have control over government leaders.
But, it should be taken into account that democratic institutionality involves the relationship between citizenship and State, as well as among citizens themselves.
In this respect, new social actors sprang up as multistakeholder groups that become united around a diversity of issues: rejection of privatization of public services, demands for housing or lands, denounces of environmental damage, etc. The expressions of these new actors are neither univocal nor necessarily convergent. On the contrary, they often express fragmentary and even contradictory interests.
Just like the banners of economic redistribution characterized most part of social conflicts in the 20th century, Nancy Fraser poses that the struggle for recognition is becoming the paradigmatic form of political conflict in the post-socialist era: the banners of nationality, ethnicity or gender have gained pre-eminence in political struggles. In this way, as of the 1990s a transition has taken place from the demand of redistribution and economic justice included in socialist proposals to the demand for recognition of cultural identity and differences, characterizing the current post-socialist globalized economy.
Fraser finds no opposition between these positions since neither of them becomes exhausted in itself: it is necessary to combine the cultural theory of identity with the social theory of redistribution.
This implies taking into account two types of injustice: the socioeconomic injustice which basically differentiates social sectors in terms of access to resources and opportunities, and the cultural or political injustice, based on social representation and own modalities which are not necessariliy related to the dominant group.
Both injustices are linked and articulated and as a whole they bring about economic, social, political and cultural subordination. They both put contradictory pressure and collide when it is about designing policies in terms of equality and difference, as proposed by feminism. The issue of gender is a paradigmatic case of economic and cultural/political subordination. From their gender identity, women demand both an equitable recognition of their contributions as well as an identitary recognition of their differences, according to gender specifications.
The inclusion of these different contradictions opens up new perspectives to compensate for the growing social fragmentation and multiplication of antagonisms. By taking into account alternative and non-antagonistic concepts of redistribution and recognition, it may be possible to meet the requirements of justice and equity that are needed to strengthen democracy.
Beyond the institutionalized rules of the game for political competition, a legitimate democracy places citizens as the basis of political power, promotes collective actions seeking public well-being to overcome individualism and fragmentation imposed by the market and fosters citizen control over the action of government leaders. It also implies the discussion of public policies, in order to achieve consensus among the different social actors whose interests are involved.
Collective consensus radicalize democracy, thus allowing to overcome the marginalization of those who remain excluded from decision-making, the evil relationships of cooptation and clientelism by authoritarian government leaders, and the impunity of representatives who are not accountable for those responsibilities delegated to them.
The radicalization of democracy also implies incorporating the gender approach into institutional relationships and as a goal in terms of policy design. The women movement demands the recognition of women as social actors with a right to participate in public spaces – where social needs are identified and built – and to act as speakers before the State.
Conclusions
Provided that the states recovers its regulatory capacity to condition investment flows, to control large companies and more influential groups, it will also achieve balance in the distribution of resources and power among social sectors, thus strengthening and expanding the voice of the weakest groups. This is an unavoidable requirement to ensure human rights.
And this can only be promoted by the democratic struggle of free men and women, regarded as equal and with the same rights. To this effect, the main priority is to strengthen the participation of social actors to open up a broad debate aimed at questioning the present concentration of resources and power.
Questions for debate
What changes to political institutions could be contributing to change the paradigm of development and income distribution?
What economic conditions could improve the quality of democracies?
How is it posible to strengthen citizenship in order to improve the quality of democracies?
How is it possible for civil society to have a voice besides vote?
What tools and mechanisms could best strengthen the political actions of social actors?
10th AWID Forum - Bangkok, October 2005On October 27-30 will be held -supported by AWID- the 10th. International Forum on Women’s Rights and Development, that is both a conference and a call to action. |
Versión
en español
