The New Politics of Inequality in Latin America

Abstract

Almost all agree that political systems in Latin America underwent a transformation in the 1980s. The usual quick description of this change was ‘democratization’. But whether one takes an optimistic or a pessimistic view of the level of democracy that was achieved, one thing was sure—the traditional forms of participation by, and representation of, the poor, the working population, and others structurally disadvantaged had changed. The chapters examine the labour organizations, political parties, indigenous and environmental groups that have emerged, sometimes amidst new forms of violence. Others recount efforts to rebuild social–democratic projects and to create new models of participatory politics in municipalities and around social programmes. There is no consensus on whether these new forms will produce more democracy. Rather, the chapters present a variety of conceptual tools to identify trends and assess their impact.

Rethinking Development in Latin America: The Search for Alternative Paths in the Twenty-first Century

“…In particular, workers’ movements were hit hard by the implementation of neoliberal labor regulations such as subcontracting and flexibilized labor conditions. Douglas Chalmers and co-authors referred to the emerging political system as “socially disembedded,” a condition “where remaining popular organizations are few and often politically isolated and ineffective” (Chalmers, et al, 1997, p. 553). However, by the mid-1990s, neoliberalism lost its legitimacy due to its incapacity to solve the major problems of both the economy and society.…”

Development, the state, and transnational political connections: state and subject formations in Latin America

“…Both these directions are also tied, as discussed below, by transnational connections that shape their work and outcomes. Civilian mobilizations attempt to persuade governments to mediate and/or minimize the impacts of structural adjustment by introducing participatory development and social inclusion programmes (Chambers 1997). However, questions remain about the nature of this political economy and the agency associated with it.…”

Democratization, psychology, and the construction of cultures of peace.

“…The spectrum of analytical units varies from larger political units such as nations to smaller social units such as political groups or individual citizens. Examples of political collectives are social movements, liberation fronts, issue-based networks, and other types of associative networks (Chalmers, Martin, & Piester, 1997; Clark, 1991; Gibbins & Reimer, 1999; Vilas, 1997). An increased distribution of decision-making capacities serves as the conceptual thread that binds together the spectrum of analytical units.…”

“…Vertical structures of hegemony set up by the former colonial rulers remain intact within the seemingly liberated country. These vertical power arrangements are then taken over by local elites who recreate political configurations conducive to scripts of political dominance within a so-called free state (Chalmers et al, 1997; Fanon, 1961/1963; Pinkney, 1994; Vilas, 1997). At the intrastate level, psychology can elucidate the mental and cultural processes that arise during nonviolent liberation movements.…”