Editorial bem otimista do FT.
He is ubiquitous and disregards liberal ideals such as the sanctity of private property by dropping unannounced into private homes. He gives away goodies in a festive binge and is adored by many, who believe he has near-mythic powers. His most distinctive features, though, are that he dresses in red and sports a distinctive hat. His name, of course, is not Santa Claus (although it could be) but Hugo Chávez – the recently deceased Latin American populist whose hallmark was a red beret.
Venezuela’s socialist president was one of the greatest populists of all time. Like most populists, his ideology was eclectic, vague, nationalistic – and not to be taken too seriously. Nonetheless, Chávez was a figure worth taking very seriously indeed. That is why his death in March was the region’s main political event of the year. It marked the demise of a tub-thumping populist and, perhaps, even of Latin American populism itself.
To get a sense of this turning point, look back to the last millennium. Back in 1999, Chávez’s rise to power seemed to mark the beginning of a permanent political shift in the region. Latin America was emerging from the belt-tightening austerity of the 1990s, the so-called lost decade. Soon populist or leftist governments were popping up everywhere. By the mid-2000s, and financed by a swelling commodity price boom, the populist “pink tide” seemed unstoppable. Even Mexico almost succumbed. Now, Latin America is shifting back to the right. The lasting significance of Chávez’s death is that it accelerated the trend.
Venezuela’s obvious chaos, social division, high murder rates and near-bankruptcy mean the country is no longer a model for anywhere else, if it ever was. The waning commodity price boom is revealing the economic limits of other populist spendthrifts too. Lacking hard currency, even Argentina is mending fences with international investors and companies. Necessity, it seems, is also the mother of self-reinvention. And while growth in social democratic Brazil has stalled, Mexico is enacting the most important pro-business reforms of a generation. Meanwhile, the other liberal Pacific economies of Colombia, Chile and Peru are steaming ahead. Their investment-led performance is now exerting the region’s most powerful demonstration effect.
Technology has changed the populist game for good. Populism was a top-down affair practised by a near-authoritarian figure who claimed to embody the “will of the people”. Today it is social media that mobilises the populace – as seen in Brazil’s protests for better public services, or Chile’s street marches for cheaper education.
An end of populism does not mean the continent is about to embrace Chicago-style economics and political liberalism instead. Populism, after all, is not a disease, only a symptom of deeper problems, particularly inequality and poverty. Growth can help the latter, but often exacerbates the former. Chile, the region’s most successful economy, has just elected a centre-left president. It is also why the modest redistributive policies undertaken by governments over the past decade are important. Unlike Chávez’s populism, these helped to create a new “middle class”.
This, then, is the shape of the new Latin American politics. Its constituencies are diffuse, demanding and increasingly middle class. Meeting their aspirations will require traits rarely associated with Latin America, such as good governance and civic inclusion. Are the region’s reformist governments up to it? An open question: the challenge is to beat back inequality without ceding power to demagogues. At least the appeal of populists such as Chávez is over. That is progress – if not for Venezuela, now suffering his legacy – and cause for cheer.
Fonte: FT
