Curbing ‘Anti-Systemic’ Tendencies in Peru: democracy promotion and the US contribution to producing neoliberal hegemony
2011; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 32; Issue: 9 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/01436597.2011.618651
ISSN1360-2241
Autores Tópico(s)Latin American socio-political dynamics
ResumoAbstract Critical scholars and investigative journalists have developed a significant body of evidence demonstrating how US democracy assistance programmes undermine left and centre-left governments in Latin America. This article draws upon original research to examine how democracy promotion has sought to stabilise neoliberal polyarchy in Peru, a longtime regional ally of the US. It contributes to a neo-Gramsican theorisation of democracy programmes by examining how ‘soft’ tactics have contributed to the state's efforts at creating an inclusive neoliberal social order, a project which has ultimately failed. Particular attention is paid to the way in which US programmes were configured and carried out to respond to the rise of the ‘anti-systemic’ Peruvian nationalist party of Ollanta Humala, who won the recent presidential elections in June 2011. Notes 1 On social conflicts, see the website of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman for detailed statistics which indicate how social conflicts have increased over the past decade, particularly in mining areas, at www.defensoria.gob.pe. The García government claimed to have reduced poverty from 48.7 per cent to 34.8 per cent between 2005 and 2009. Although this claim was based on a report produced by Peru's National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (inei), the former head of the institute rejected the statistics as artificial. Pointing to figures on food poverty which he argued were more reliable, he noted that poverty increased from 28.6 per cent to 32.9 per cent overall, and from 40.7 per cent to 45.8 per cent in rural areas. See L Skeen, ‘US praise for Peru's economy misses the mark’, nacla , 13 September 2010. 2 Humala is a former Lieutenant Colonel who fought in the internal conflict against the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in 1992. In October 2000 he led an unsuccessful military uprising against Fujimori for which he was subsequently pardoned by Congress. Both his father and brother, who led a small uprising against the Toledo government in 2005, are prominent figures in the small indigenous–nationalist movement, the Movimiento Nacionalista Peruano. In the second round of elections in June 2011 Humala defeated Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the former autocrat; her father is now serving a 25-year sentence for human rights abuses. 3 I borrow the term from Craig and Porter, who argue that inclusive neoliberalism adds positive liberal approaches emphasising empowerment to enable participation in core conservative neoliberal macroeconomic and pro-market policy settings. D Craig & D Porter, Development beyond Neoliberalism? Governance, Poverty Reduction and Political Economy, London: Routledge, 2006. 4 W Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p 108. 5 D Yashar, Contesting Citizenship in Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 6 R Barr, ‘The persistence of neopopulism in Peru? From Fujimori to Toledo’, Third World Quarterly, 24(6), 2004, pp 1161–1178. 7 M Arce, ‘The repoliticization of collective action after neoliberalism in Peru’, Latin American Politics and Society, 50(3), 2008, pp 37–62. 8 Defensoría del Pueblo, Executive Summary of the Tenth Annual Report of the Ombudsman's Office, January–December 2006, Lima: Defensoría del Pueblo, 2007. 9 US Department of State, Investment Climate Statement—Peru, 2008, at http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/ifd/2008/100999.htm. 10 Department of Commerce, The United States contributes to Economic Prosperity in Peru, 2009, at http://www.trade.gov/promotingtrade/westhemprosperity/peru.pdf. 11 L Laplante, ‘Transitional justice and peace building: diagnosing and addressing the socioeconomic roots of violence through a human rights framework’, International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2(3), 2008, pp 331–355. 12 R Zibechi, ‘Massacre in the Amazon: The US–Peru Free Trade Agreement sparks a battle over land and resources’, Americas Program Special Report, Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 16 June 2009. 13 On Venezuela, see JG Allard & E Golinger, La Agresión Permanente, Caracas: Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Comunicación y la Información, 2009. On Haiti, see W Bogdanich & J Nordberg, ‘Mixed US signals helped tilt Haiti toward chaos’, New York Times, 29 January 2006. On Honduras, see E Golinger, ‘Washington and the coup in Honduras: here is the evidence’, mediaLeft, 15 July 2009, at http://medialeft.net/main/index.php/voices-medialeftsections-142/80-eva-golinger/1212-washington-a-the-coup-in-honduras-here-is-the-evidence. On Bolivia, my own forthcoming analysis summarises both the hard and soft tactics that were used by the US. N Burron, ‘Unpacking US democracy promotion in Bolivia’, Latin American Perspectives, 39(1), 2012 forthcoming. 14 AD Morton, ‘Change within continuity: the political economy of democratic transition in Mexico’, New Political Economy, 10(2), 2005, pp 181–202. 15 AD Morton, Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy, London: Pluto Press, 2007. 16 G Hill, K McBride & JD Albertini, Final Evaluation of oti's Program in Peru, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, Office of Transition Initiatives, usaid, August 2003, p 26. 17 Arce, ‘The repoliticization of collective action after neoliberalism in Peru’. 18 Interview, Lima, 20 January 2009. 19 Poder Legislativo, Ley No 28321, Lima: El Peruano, 2004. 20 MI Remy, Descentralización en tiempos de neoliberalismo, Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 2008. 21 ard, The Peruvian Pro-Decentralization (prodes) Program, Final Report, Burlington, VA: ard, March 2008. 22 Interview, Lima, 8 January 2009. 23 J Legoas, ‘“Watchdogs”: ciudadanía y discursos del desarrollo’, Tabula Rasa, 7, July–December 2007, pp 17–46. 24 Hill et al, Final Evaluation of oti's Program in Peru. 25 consode, ‘Ojo ciudadano en el Congreso’, Boletín informativo del consode , 1(1), Lima: consode, 2003. 26 consode, Apoyo a la Sociedad Civil para Reformas Politicas Democraticas en el Peru: Congreso, PD-ACA-827, April–June 2004. 27 Center for International Development, State University of New York, Quarterly Report: Developing Skills of the Peruvian Congress, AEP-I-807-00-00003-0, Task Order 807, 30 April 2003. 28 iri, Peru: Promoting Political Stability by Improving Government Communications, usaid Grant DGC-A-00-01-00004-00, June 2005, p 1. 29 House of Representatives, United States Support of Human Rights and Democracy, 108th Congress, Second Session, 2004. 30 J Drzewieniecki, ‘La coordinadora nacional de derechos humanos de Perú: un estudio de caso’, in A Panfichi (ed), Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y Democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, Lima: Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp 516–547. 31 Sum looks at hegemony from the perspective of a cultural political economy, which integrates discourse analysis of micro-power with a neo-Gramscian analysis of macro-power. See NL Sum, ‘From “integral state” to “integral world economic order”: towards a neo-Gramscian cultural international political economy’, Cultural Political Economy, Working Paper No 7, Lancaster: Institute for Advanced Studies in Social and Management Sciences, University of Lancaster, 2005. 32 Hill et al, Final Evaluation of oti's Program in Peru; and Management Systems International, Evaluation of usaid/Peru's Democracy Education Activities: Final Report, Contract No AEP-I-00-99-00040-00, April 2000. 33 Interview, Lima, 13 January 2009. 34 This claim is based on a review of the websites of the more prominent ngos to receive US funding, including cnddhh, Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos, Movimento Manuela Ramos, Consejo Nacional para la Etica Pública (proetica) and its affiliated members such as the Asociación Civil Transparencia, as well as ipedehp. 35 The trend towards the professionalisation of the feminist movement in Peru has been documented by Barrig, who argues that feminist concerns were increasingly framed within a technical discourse on gender issues by ngos throughout the 1990s. M Barrig, ‘La persistencia de la memoria: feminismo y estado en el Perú de la década de 1990’, in Panfichi, Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y Democratización en América Latina, pp 578–609. 36 Interview, Lima, 16 January 2009. 37 The organisation has also been willing to modify its own commitment to reproductive rights, as demonstrated by its decision to drop its public advocacy of abortion rights as a result of the US government's ‘global gag rule’. See M Mollman, ‘Gagging democracy’, Human Rights Dialogue, 19 June 2003. 38 E Morón & C Sanborn, The Pitfalls of Policymaking in Peru: Actors, Institutions, and Rules of the Game, Research Network Working Paper R-511, Lima: Inter-American Development Bank/Universidad del Pacífico, 2006. 39 Management Systems International. ‘Evaluation of USAID/ Peru's democracy education activities', final report, Washington DC: MSI, April 2000. 40 AC Minella, ‘Construyendo hegemonía en América Latina’, in E Arceo & E Basualdo (eds) , Los Condicionantes de la Crisis en América Latina: Inserción internacional y Modalidades de Acumulación, Buenos Aires: clasco, 2009, pp 139–184. 41 D Poole, ‘El buen vivir: Peruvian indigenous leader Mario Palacios’, nacla Report on the Americas: After Recognition, Setember–October 2010. 42 N Hughes, ‘Indigenous protest in Peru: the “orchard dog” bites back’, Social Movements Studies, 9(1), 2010, pp 85–90. 43 A Bebbington, M Scurrah & C Bielich, Mapping Current Peruvian Social Movements, Manchester: Peruvian Centre for Social Studies, September 2008. 44 Wikileak cables: 05LIMA4983, Subject, ‘Countering Chavez in Peru’, Embassy Lima, Monserrate-Margulies email, 17 September 2005; 06LIMA658, Subject, ‘Humala down but still ahead in Puno’, Embassy Lima, RR Ruehweb, 16 February 2006; 05LIMA1418, Subject, ‘Third national cocalero congress a bust’, 23 March 2005. 45 J Bigwood, ‘US meddling in Peruvian presidential race?’, Znet, 20 March 2006, at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9951. 46 Interview, Lima, 20 January 2009. 47 A Ramos, ‘Investigarían a ongs incómodas’, La República, 30 April 2008. 48 M Seligson & J Carrión, The Political Culture of Democracy in Peru: 2006, Lima: Latin American Public Opinion Project, usaid, 2007. 49 P Bonicelli, usaid's Strategy for Promoting Democracy and Building Markets in Latin America, Lima: cipe Conference, 2007. 50 Sum, ‘From “integral state” to “integral world economic order”’. 51 proetica's board members, as well as its projects and international donors, are listed on its website, at http://www.proetica.org. 52 Interview, Lima, 15 January 2009. 53 05LIMA4983, Subject, ‘Countering Chavez in Peru’. 54 Interview, Lima, 8 January 2009. 55 ndi and Department for International Development, Peru's Political Party System and the Promotion of Pro-Poor Reform: Synthesis Report, Lima, March 2005. 56 K Wollack, ‘Challenges to democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean’, Statement by Kenneth Wollack, President, National Democratic Institute, Before the House International Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, 9 March 2005. 57 Interview, Lima, 17 January 2009. 58 T Carothers, ‘The backlash against democracy promotion’, Foreign Policy, March–April 2006, pp 58–68. 59 Burron, ‘Unpacking US democracy promotion in Bolivia’. 60 aidesep currently brings together 65 federations and six regional organisations representing over 350 000 indigenous people living in the Peruvian Amazon. Hughes, ‘Indigenous protest in Peru’. conacami boasts 2000 Andean community affiliates in 16 of the country's 24 departments. Poole, ‘El buen vivir’. 61 R Zibechi, ‘The “fascist threat” on Peru's doorstep’, Americas Program, 25 May 2011, at http://www.cipamericas.org/. 62 E Achtenberg, ‘Peru's mining conflicts: Ollanta Humala's ticking time bomb’, nacla Report on the Americas, 29 July 2011.
Referência(s)