Regionalism and presidential ideology in the current wave of Latin American integration

Abstract

Latin American regionalism is currently undergoing a profound crisis. Although the recent wave of regionalism of the early 21st century raised high expectations just a few years ago, it has suffered some important drawbacks since, as illustrated by the suspension of Venezuela from Mercosur in 2017 or the debacle of the Union of South American Nations in April 2018. Regional integration theories extrapolated from the European case struggle to account for the short cycles of integration dynamics in Latin America. Against this background, this article emphasizes two important aspects of Latin American regionalism that differentiate Latin America from other regions and explain some of the swift changes experienced over the last decades. First, because of the presidential nature of diplomacy in the region, integration relies more on the success of summits and joint declarations than on longer-term institutional diplomacy. Second, ideology is an essential factor of integration, as opposed to a vision of regionalism based primarily on material interests. Hence, the success and failure of regional integration are partly explained by the convergence of presidential ideologies among member states in a given organization. Based on an expert survey on the evolution of presidential ideology in 15 Latin American countries since the beginning of the 21st century and complemented by a structured discourse analysis, the article explores the importance of ideological coherence in the success – and lack thereof – of four regional organizations (the Pacific Alliance, Mercosur, the Andean Community and the Union of South American Nations). It also illustrates the salience of ideological arguments in presidential discourses on regional integration. These elements shed new light on the ideological factor in the current crisis of Latin American regionalism.

Regionalismo político-ideológico en el continente americano: los diferentes procesos y estructuras de regionalización política y sus características

“…Por su parte, [6] analizan es su estudio la relación entre las ideologías de los presidentes latinoamericanos y el regionalismo en América Latina, prestando especial atención a la diplomacia presidencial y el papel de las ideas que llevan a la conformación de diversas ideologías en el regionalismo desde inicios del siglo XXI, estudiando los casos de la Alianza del Pacífico, MERCOSUR, la Comunidad Andina (CAN) y UNASUR. El estudio se basó en una encuesta de 16 preguntas, aplicada a 94 expertos en 15 países, que midió el comportamiento de los presidentes de la región en materia de política exterior y otras categorías en un espectro ideológico.…”

El Covid-19 y la crisis del regionalismo latinoamericano: lecciones que pueden ser aprendidas y sus limitaciones

“…El regionalismo latinoamericano es a la vez intergubernamental e interpresidencial. Esta combinación ha impulsado la integración regional a través de una diplomacia de cumbres, especialmente en épocas de fuertes liderazgos presidenciales y afinidades políticas entre presidentes y presidentas (Álvarez, 2021;Baracaldo y Chenou, 2019;Deciancio y Quiliconi, 2022b;Quiliconi y Rivera, 2019). Sin embargo, estas características del regionalismo latinoamericano han provocado bloqueos y retrocesos en tiempos de polarización y falta de consenso político.…”

The convergence between the Pacific Alliance and Mercosur: Advances, stagnation, and contemporary challenges

“…There is a relationship between changes of governments in Latin America, especially if they also involve changes of presidential ideology, and regionalism. Baracaldo Orjuela and Chenou (2019) have shown that ideological affinity or distance between presidents directly affects the success or crisis of a regional integration organization. In this sense, the greater affinity between the presidents of Mercosur and Pacific Alliance countries regarding open regionalism, as signaled in the 2018 Presidential Declaration, and the goal of promoting extra‐regional agreements was a variable that affected the rapprochement between blocs from 2016 onward.…”

“…The ideological imbalance in Mercosur beginning in 2016 directly affected its stability, with the friction between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay on the one hand, and Venezuela on the other, with the most emblematic episode resulting in the suspension of the latter from Mercosur (Baracaldo Orjuela & Chenou, 2019). Paraguay was the country that advocated openly that Mercosur's PPT situation should not generate friction with the Pacific Alliance (Exame, 2016).…”