Job Discussion Forums

[matttheboy]

Here's a link to an interesting article from the economist

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5093522

What's the feeling you get from the man in the street where you are?

In Argentina, all the people i know recognise the destructiveness of military rule, be it right or left wing. People here know that democracy is the best form of governance but do not trust the politicians (and rightly so-Argentines are corrupt and dishonest as it is so when you mix in Politics, it creates the worst kind of low-life, corrupt, power hungry, lying monster...).

Most latin american countries are new democracies, a generation and a half at most; i guess there are teething problems in any new venture...

[Justin Trullinger]

Interesting article, although I find the pro-privatisation bias a little weird. (Privatisation of public services generally hasn't been a good thing as far as I've seen in Latin America. By a long shot.)

Winston Churchill said that democracy was the worst for of government there is, except for all the others. I sort of agree with that.

Some ideas as to why democracy in Latin America hasn't been the Ideal Experiment in Democracy:

Education levels stink. I'm not blaming the people who, after all, suffer most from their own low level of education. But people who don't read well, don't read newspapers well. And don't read politicians past biographies, to know where these people really stand. People who don't understand politics or economics are easily mislead, and their voting reflects this. Hence, some really stupid decisions have been taken by the voting public.

And, when people don't know what's what and are easy to manipulate, the media can control them. The media is often controlled by the elite, whose interests are NOT the same as the man on the street. Which is one reason why LA has been plagued by presidents and governments of the privileged class, by the privileged class, and for the privileged class. Not good.

And then the foreign interests. Nothing buys good publicity like money does. And an awful lot of the money in LA is controlled by foreign powers. (US, big multinationals, etc) In many countries, it's hard for a candidate to get in without the support of the US embassy. And I hate to be crass, but we don't select people to look after their own interests. The candidate the US supports is the one they think will best protect US interests. Maybe sometimes local interests and US interests coincide. Fine. But many times they don't, and when people see their (US backed, $$$ supported) elected government take steps against their own interests, it turns them off on the value of electing a government.

And of course, the foreign (and local) media, which may not fully respect the democratic process. Chavez is a good example of this. I'm not going to go into "Bolivarianism." (Not sure how to spell it in English, and not relevant to my point.) But Chavez was ELECTED. By a margin that Bush or Blair would cream in their jeans if they got. And yet, media outlets in Venezuela and abroad characterize him as a dictator, a tyrant, and, my favourite, a thug. And call for his assasination. It's as if the media feels that the people's decision isn't valid if they, the media, disagree. And it doesn't give people the warm fuzzies about their right to vote, either.

Just some ideas...

Hope to hear more,
Justin

[matttheboy]

The problem here in Argentina is that the whole political system is absolutely rotten to the core. Corruption is endemic. If this country was run by the Chileans, it'd be one of the most powerful countries in the world. Unfortunately, it's run by a few caudillos, local strongmen who wield way too much control over their fiefdoms. They control the media and the people of their province and do not tolerate criticism. This includes President Kirshner who, despite presiding over a spectacular economic recovery, runs the country like his own private plaything.

The corruption was seen in the recent elections and exposed by a local TV news channel. In Tucuman, the guy running for senator basically bought and bribed votes by offering everything from new electrical goods to food packages in return for votes (his henchmen took voters' ID cards and returned them only after the elections had taken place. People who refused were threatened.). The presenter of the programme rhetorically asked at the end of the show:

"And what has been done about this outrage? Otra vez, absolutamente nada."

I think the reason that many people have a problem with Chavez is that, yes, he is spending huge amounts of money on (very effective) social programmes but it's rather like buying support. He's basically spending every single dollar of the the country's money to ensure that he is supported by the population. What happens if the price of oil drops or the money starts to run out is anyone's guess. Mine is major social disorder. There'll be no money around to back up his programmes because he'll have spent it all. Let's hope it doesn't happen. Another reason Chavez is unpopular is his stupidly inflammatory remarks. They really don't help his cause with the first world countries that might otherwise support his social programmes but are scared off by his rhetoric.

[Guy Courchesne]

In Mexico, real democracy is still in its infancy, at 5 years old now. Previously, this country had what they like to call 'the perfect dictatorship', where one political party had the presidency, congress, the states, and even most mayorships. The hold started to loosen in the late 80's.

I think that one of the problems here with democracy is that coming as a whiplash after an all-powerful presidency, congress and the parties haven't yet learned the subtleties of negotiation in a fractured house. No party wants to be seen as giving in to another parties demands, so no one comes to the negotiating table. Poor Vicente Fox, lame duck president from day 2, can't get anything through congress.

Moonraven would tear a strip off me for that.

In the 70's and 80's, parts of Latin America were an ideological battleground between communism and captialism, with both sides engaging in heavy-handed tactics, at the expense of the people. With the Soviets no longer an influence, I wonder where the left-wing ideology gets its strength from, and how long it can last unsupported by a major power.

[mahajosh]

Good article, the pro market bias (and the price) are the only things that keep me from subscribing to The Economist, because it�s definitely a good source of information.

Here in Peru, as they said in the article, there�s a scarily huge part of the population that wants Fujimori to come back. The fact that he�s wanted by Interpol, the BILLIONS of dollars that he stole, the coup he orquestrated against the rest of the government in 93, etc. don�t seem to matter. The country�s economy is even better off under Toledo, but the price of gas keeps going up (as everywhere, except Venezuela, obviously) and a lot of people seem to blame him.

The other part that�s really interesting politically here is the hatred of Eliane Karp, the first lady. SHe�s even more hated than Hillary was in the heartland (don�t know if many of you guys were around for that). The "scandals" she�s been involved in are pathetic (she was earning $50,000 a year working for Citibank while first lady, she heads up the comission on Afro-Peruvians, Amazonians, and Serranos while not even being Peruvian).

A lot of the absoulete hatred of the President and his wife seems to be racial (he�s a serrano Indian, she�s Jewish). I�m not saying he�s some enlightened leader, but he should be judged on his own merits and at least was elected (unlike Fujimori the second time around).

I�ve never seen opinion polls like his, though, most of the time his approval is in the single digits!! Wouldn�t it be nice to see Bush that way....even 10,000 dead in Iraq wouldn�t do it, I don�t think.

That said, I can�t seriously imagine a coup here....though they only passed back to democracy in 2000, it would be hard in today�s international climate....right?

[Guy Courchesne]

[YanquiQuilme�o]

The most anti-American country remains Argentina, which has long had difficult relations with the United States (except for an interlude in the 1990s).

Why have the US and Argentina had difficult relations for a long time? I understand what's happened since 2001, but what happened between the US and Argentina in the 1980's and before? I confess my ignorance.

Almost everyone I've met here who is 30 or younger thinks: Bush BAD, America BAD, capitalism BAD, etc. I don't like Bush either, but when I try to engage anyone under 30 (including my boyfriend) in a politcal conversation, no one seems to know much about anything. No one really seems to know any concrete details about international politics. I'll talk about North Korea, the earthquake in Pakistan, the oil-for-food scandal at the UN, the Summit of the Americas, etc., and all I get are blank stares. People here only seem to be interested in conspiracy theories and rumors.

It's the same with tennis. Every time an Argentine gets caught doping (at this point it's been 5 or 6 in the last 4 years), most Argentines act like it's some American conspiracy against the Argentine tennis players. "Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick dope, but the US controls everything and makes sure they don't get caught. or ... ESPN makes more money when Americans play in Grand Slam finals so they are using their money to get all the good Argentine players banned, etc. etc."

Yes, I suppose it's Bush's fault that Ca�as can't give any reasonable explanation why he had a banned substance in both his urine samples and that absolutely no one can corroborate his flimsy story that a doctor prescribed him the medicine at a tournament in Mexico. Not to mention the prescription and the doctor cannot