Pragmatism tempers a revolutionary past

Rafael Moreno Izquierdo analyzes Daniel Ortega‘s second opportunity as President of Nicaragua. Despite his friendship with Raúl Castro, Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, Ortega is not the same revolutionary that we remember from the seventies and eighties. He has managed to temper his revolutionary past with a strong dose of pragmatism to make him effective in the twenty first century. In Moreno Izquierdo‘s opinion, Ortega‘s election will not transform Nicaragua into a capitalist paradise, nor will the Nicaraguan economy model itself off of the highly regulated examples of Cuba or China. The future, therefore, will depend on Daniel Ortega‘s ability to prove that he truly has changed, and on the politicians and businessmen of the United States and Europe to believe him.

Crisis or opportunity?

Aldo Civico compares the collusion between politicians and paramilitaries in Colombia, to the Mafia-controlled government of Palermo in the 1970s. In Civico‘s opinion, a lot can be learned from Sicily‘s two decade long struggle against Mafia-induced corruption. The revelation of the well known, yet never publicized paramilitary involvement in Colombian politics should be used as an opportunity to rally behind the judges who brought the truth to light, and to take civic action in support of a deeper and more mature democracy.

20 years after dictatorship, democracy still fragile

Pedro G. Cavallero writes on how corruption is the greatest menace to the establishment of a stable democracy in Paraguay. Pervasive, massive corruption has characterized Paraguayan democracy since its inception in 1989, draining scarce societal resources, alienating the citizenry, discrediting the democratic system, and weakening democratic institutions. In Cavallero‘s opinion, if Paraguay does not meet its corruption head-on, the degradation of its already vulnerable democratic system, and the tradition of complete impunity for politicians, will continue.

Latin American politics, from Chile to Venezuela

Pablo Mieres considers that the phrase a shift to the left, used to describe the political transformation of a good number of Latin American countries, is of little to no use. The complexity and variety of political situations in Latin America go beyond simple catch phrases; with Chile‘s exemplary experience at one extreme, and Chavez‘ Venezuelan regime on the other, while in between Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia can be situated. In Mieres‘ opinion, at least two criteria must be used in order to evaluate the manner in which Latin American governments exercise power: first, the role of the state and of the market in the economy; and second, the degree to which the state respects democratic institutions, and the rule of law. Following these criteria, the differences between Latin American nations are more than evident.

Five myths about crime in Latin America

Bernardo Kliksberg explains that in order to resolve the serious threat of crime in Latin America it will be necessary to hold a serious debate on the issue, and not just a demagogic one. In Kliksberg‘s opinion, the discussion has centered on five myths: everything can be resolved with a “strong hand”; in the countries with the least crime the police is the most tough; nobody understand the causes of crime; attacking the causes takes place over the long term; and the police can resolve the problem. In the following analysis, Kliksberg deconstructs each of these myths, and makes it again possible to understand the structural causes of crime and insecurity in Latin America.

Mexico and the failure of Vicente Fox

Zidane Zeraoui examines the government of ex-President of Mexico, Vicente Fox Quesada, explaining that Fox‘s policy-making was erroneous from the very beginning. Fox‘s faith in the possibility to change the country, without negotiating with the other political forces in Mexico, brought his government to an impasse and paralyzed all reform. In the name of a poorly understood democracy, Fox carried out an erratic economic policy (without growth), and a disastrous foreign policy (without results). He was also incapable of resolving the growing Zapatista turmoil in Oaxaca. In Zeraoui‘s opinion, the new President, Felipe Calderon, has already begun to differentiate himself from his predecessor in defining his national and international priorities, proving, yet again, that Vicente Fox‘s Presidency was a failure for Mexico.