Democracy is winning in Latin America 

‘When the United States sneezes, Latin America catches a cold.”

This old maxim proved true in 2008 and 2009, when the U.S. financial crisis deeply affected countries throughout the Western Hemisphere. Yet while the U.S. economy has been struggling through a painfully weak recovery, Latin America’s rebound has been remarkably strong. After posting robust growth rates prior to the global recession, the regional economy handled the downturn fairly well, and it is now projected to expand by around 5 percent this year.

“Economic growth is going hand in hand with social progress,” notes the Economist magazine. “Tens of millions of Latin Americans have climbed out of poverty and joined a swelling lower-middle class.” A region that was once notorious for its chronic economic mismanagement is now drawing the attention of multinational corporations across the globe. As Bloomberg reports, 30 percent of the 300 U.S. companies that participated in a recent survey believe that “Latin America offers the best opportunity for growth over the next six months,” compared with only 25 percent who think China does. To borrow from Ronald Reagan’s famous line, it is morning in Latin America.

But not everywhere. The one economy that has yet to emerge from recession is Venezuela’s. Indeed, the South American country continues to suffer from sky-high inflation, a longstanding problem that got even worse after President Hugo Chávez devalued the national currency last January. Ángel García Banchs, an economist at the Central University of Venezuela, recently predicted that the inflation rate would hit 32 to 33 percent by year’s end.

But the Sept. 26 parliamentary election offered a hopeful sign that Venezuelan democracy isn’t dead yet. The anti-Chávez opposition, which boycotted the previous National Assembly election in 2005, was more united than ever before, having formed an alliance known as the Democratic Unified Panel (MUD). According to official figures calculated by the Chávez-controlled National Electoral Council, the MUD won 48 percent of the vote and captured 65 (out of 165) parliamentary seats, enough to deprive the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) of the critical two-thirds supermajority that has allowed it to push through legislation at will. According to MUD spokesman Ramón Guillermo Aveledo, the alliance really won 52 percent of the vote.

Regardless of which figure (48 percent or 52 percent) is correct, the MUD’s vote share was much higher than its share of parliamentary seats (40 percent). Americans may find this baffling: If the MUD and PSUV garnered roughly the same portion of the national vote, how come the PSUV won so many more seats? As Venezuelan journalist Francisco Toro explains, the National Electoral Council has “managed to create a system that retains the appearance of proportional voting, while yielding entirely disproportional results.”

Chávez isn’t the only Latin American autocrat who had a rough month in September. In Cuba, government officials announced that they would be laying off nearly 500,000 state workers to cope with the deep economic crisis. The Communist regime is increasingly desperate, and is thus taking small steps to expand private enterprise. It has also agreed to release political prisoners in hopes of convincing the European Union to normalize relations.

Just look at Honduras, a true Latin American success story, whose remarkable democratic achievement is sadly underappreciated by many journalists and politicians here in the United States. Not so long ago, it appeared that Honduras would become another Venezuelan satellite. Manuel Zelaya, elected president in 2006, had brought his country into the Chávez-led Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, and he was gradually steering it toward authoritarianism. In June 2009, Zelaya attempted to hold a referendum that the Honduran supreme court had rejected as illegal.

Foreign governments cried foul, labeling his ouster a military coup. But a subsequent U.S. Law Library of Congress study concluded that: “The judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.”

Jaime Daremblum is director of the Center for Latin American Studies at the Hudson Institute. This article appeared in The Weekly Standard.

About The Author

Staff Report

Staff Report

Bio:
A daily newspaper covering San Francisco, San Mateo County and serving Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara counties.
Pin It
Favorite

© 2015 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation