Author Archives: Martin Renauld

Orange wave in Quebec

Posted on by
2

Wow, the NDP swept Quebec and nobody saw it coming, at least not to that extent. In my opinion, these huge gains by the NDP say more about Quebec’s relationship with the other parties than with Layton’s. Since “les commandites”, or sponsorship scandal Liberals are a no factor in Quebec Politics. Until now, they have been surviving because of strong support by some ethnic minorities and Anglophones in Montreal. Within francophone media and regions, they were still associated with corruption and intents of crushing Quebec’s right to self determination (law on clarity, sponsorship scandals). Bringing Jean Chrétien in the campaign was not very constructive either, just reinforcing a more of the same image.

Harper’s conservatives have tried to “win” Quebec during last two elections, but let that strategy go this time around to focus on Ontario, which worked well for him. Since Lévesque’s “Beau Risque” with Mulroney in the 80s, Conservatives never had any real support in Quebec. Basically, Conservatives clash with most social democrat consensus established in the province: a soft approach on crime, critical view of military actions, commitment to social justice and limited inequalities, support for culture as in crucial element of identity, progressive taxation. Even though, these general political values have been challenged by a right wing minority, especially in the Quebec City region, they still form core values of Quebec society. Furthermore, Conservative undemocratic tendencies have been widely covered by Quebec media. At the end of the day, they only got 16% of the vote in the province.

The Bloc is clearly the biggest loser. Most NDP votes came from Duceppe’s party. I believe most people who switched to NDP did not see it coming either. Duceppe has been in Ottawa forever, his party is now perceived as an old party, just like the liberals. A kind of “malaise” was always associated with the Bloc, even in sovereignist circles, since if independence was to happen one day, it will happen in Quebec City, not in Ottawa. For many elections, people voted Bloc lacking option more than out of conviction.  Seeing that the NDP could actually win a few seats, many (a mean many) voters abandoned the Bloc. Duceppe and his MPs did not have a great campaign either, they were perceived as tired, “bitchy” and quite negative.

So why vote for the NDP then? In my humble opinion, most people just gave it a shot. In the last decade, cynicism has dominated politics. The provincial government (liberal) is mediocre, seen as incompetent, if not corrupted. At the federal level, Quebecois have been voting for the Bloc for 20 years without any concrete change in Quebec status within Confederation, nor did it stop right wing conservatives to take power. So the NDP seems like the only change available. They made a positive campaign, differentiating themselves for bickering and personal attacks widespread with Bloc and Conservative strategies.  Jack Layton is perceived as “un bon jack”, an expression meaning that some one is a good, pleasant person. The same can be said about Thomas Mulcair (NDP’s only MP until yesterday), who is highly respected, notably for renouncing a minister position to protest some of Premier Charest’s politics. Joined all this to the fact that NDP’s values tend to fit Quebec’s social democratic tendency and you get part of the explanation for the orange wave. In a few words, a vast number of Quebecois voted primarily for change and new faces. Even though the NDP is an old party, it is not perceived as such in Quebec.

What now? Traditionally, the NDP has had hard time in Quebec for its failure to accommodate Quebec’s demands for autonomy, clearly conflicting with NDP’s centralizing tendency. It still seems to be NDP’s biggest challenge, along the fact that many of MPs are inexperienced. Now with its majority of MPs from Quebec, Layton will have the obligation to precise his vision of Quebec-Ottawa relations. It will be very interesting to see how he will attempt to negotiate this tension between respecting Quebec desire for provincial autonomy and NDP internal culture. The latter will have to change and adapt, or this whole wave will disappeared as fast as it came. Remember that a significant portion of the vote came from electors that had previously voted for the Bloc, defending independence and Quebec’s autonomy at all cost.

What about the Bloc? For now, it seems it had disappeared from the map. Its survival will probably depend on the NDP’s performance. If they convince Quebecois they can defend their interests in Ottawa, the Bloc will not come back. The real issue however, is what does it mean for the separatist movement? As many times before, many already announced the death of separatism. I strongly disagree with this widespread position. Quite the contrary, I believe the next four years could see separatism return to Quebec politics. First of all, we have a majority conservative government, with extremely little representation in Quebec. If Harper decides to radically reform our country under right wing principles, this could create a huge backlash in Quebec. Harper could become the best thing that ever happened to separatism. Secondly, the PQ is likely to form the next provincial government, considering how unpopular Liberals are and it will benefit from militants and resources until now used by the Bloc. This could engender even more conflict with Harper. Thirdly voting massively for the NDP could be interpreted as giving another chance to the Canadian experience. For most Quebecois (even federalists), Canada as it is does not work. Quebec has not signed the 1982 constitution, money is in Ottawa while needs are in the provinces (education, health care), and Trudeau’s dream of a bilingual country was a total failure. So, if Layton and his party come to be perceived as inadequate, just are Liberals and Conservatives, then what hope Quebecois will have for their place in Canada? As we say “ça passe ou ça casse”.

 

Jean-Francois Mercier: a candidacy based on contestation

Posted on by
Reply

If you want to find a symbol of what is wrong about politics, André Arthur might be your man. He was elected as an independent MP in the Portneuf riding (near Quebec City).  The former “trash” radio host, who made a name for itself talking against welfare beneficiaries, left-wingers, immigrants and politicians in general, currently drives buses and make vacuum cleaner advertisements, which explains why he is so often absent from Parliament. Quebec might send to the Commons another public figure as independent MP. Comedian Jean-Francois Mercier announced last week that he will be candidate in the upcoming federal elections in the Chambly-Borduas riding (Montreal South Shore).

Mercier has made a name for himself first as a writer for different TV shows, most notably the very interesting “Les Bougons”. However, most québécois know him for his “gros cave” character; you could translate this to “big jerk”. His humor is outrageous and provocative, however it often includes social critics. English Canadians might remember a mini scandal his sketch had provoked during the “Bye Bye 2008” presented at Radio-Canada.

The comedian/candidate explains his decision by the fact that he never voted in federal elections, considering no party represents his views. Recognizing that some individual politicians are working hard and have truly honest and noble motivations, he argues that our political system does not allow any significant change to happen. Contrary to Arthur’s clearly hypocrite approach, Mercier’s initiative is presented as an act of contestation. To do so, he is helped by two other comedians Mike Ward (his political aide) and Guy Nantel (his bodyguard).

Mercier embraces his well-known provocative style to campaign. His slogan is “Là, s’t’assez tarbarnak!”, that could be translated to “That’s fucking enough”. He is the head of the “Futur Parti Pour La Gloire”, future so he does not really have to form a real party. Some of his promises include: installing floats on Champlain Bridge so that when it falls, it will be easier to pick up; building a second Mercier bridge (to his honor), 12 lines each way, one line reserved for Hummers; instead of buying 65 F-35, he proposes to build one huge jet to “scare the shit” out of other countries. If elected, he will give back his salary to the community since “one can surely lives off bribes” and promises to go to Ottawa only when his vote could make the government fall, hence limiting his impact on the environment. Obviously, Mercier is laughing at the whole campaign, however, he argues that his intent is to denounce politicians’ stonewalling and the political system inability to make change happen. Every vote he gets will demonstrate how people are disabused and fed-up with our political system.

In addition to make you laugh, Mercier does put forward some interesting questions and debates. What kind of impact theses contestations initiatives have? Is it fair or useful to use the electoral process to denounce its shortcomings? Is Mercier accentuating current cynicism or contributing to bring new voters into political debate, even if this mean by showing their total disagreement with the whole system? Watching this unattractive and boring campaign, completely out of touch with my preoccupations (environment, social inequality, electoral reform, Quebec’s place within the federation), I wonder if a radical denunciation is not indeed necessary. On the other hand, initiatives such as Mercier do not propose any concrete modifications. The only hope remains that thousands turn out and vote for him, so that other parties realize many voters are willing to get to the polls if they identify with candidates. Even though I share many of Mercier’s preoccupation and salute his efforts to contribute to political debates, I am not convinced his election would be positive for our democracy. It remains an opened question… You can see some videos on youtube (this one has subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tqyDivCIQc) or visit his web site http://www.jeanfrancoismercier.com.

 

 

“Facebook Revolution”

Posted on by
4

Popular protests in Northern Africa have attracted a lot of media attention in the last two months and I would like to bring your attention on one particular aspect of its coverage by western media. Repeatedly, journalists have referred to a “facebook revolution” or “twitter protesters” to describe what was happening in Tunisia and Egypt. In my opinion, this insistence on the predominance of Facebook and Twitter reflects western obsession, first with itself, and second with our scientific-technical complex, as if technology were always a source of progress.

Even though accurate and posed media coverage is always available, as it was the case with Egypt and Tunisia popular mobilization, a large part of media coverage has emphasized clichés and insisted on the importance of Facebook and Twitter. Basically, the argument goes that some young people, frustrated by Mubarak’s and Ben Ali’s corrupted regimes, started facebook pages about getting mobilized and spread the word on Twitter, then ten of thousands of people gathered in the streets. For example, transforming a Google employee (Wael Ghonim) into a star of the “facebook revolution” is part of this trend. Sometimes journalists do not directly say that Facebook or Twitter were causes of the revolution, but the argument is generally implicit, first a facebook page, second thousands of people in the street demonstrating, as if there were a direct, automatic correlation between the two.

Of course, I am not arguing that social medias do not have any impact and that they did not play a role in forcing those two dictators out. Internet in general, or specific elements such as Facebook or Twitter, can certainly help mobilize citizens, just as they can help doing business or organize political campaign. However, they remain tools; they are not causes of political or social phenomena. In a recent conference about social unrest in Northern Africa, a well respect Argentinean intellectual described Twitter as a very efficient phone, nothing more…. I would not go that far, but I strongly believe its role in Egypt and Tunisia has been overestimated.

The most important concern with this type of media coverage is to transform a specific technology into a cause, as if the technology in itself engendered a “revolution”. If you want to make the argument, then a better access to information and facilitated communication did help considerably to mobilize and organize protesters. However, television (such as Al Jazeera), radio, internet in general, cell phones must be considered as a “package”, which contributes to making people aware of other protesters and what was happening. But again, that does not explain why these mobilizations happen at these particular moments and times.

The other problem with a supposed “facebook revolution” comes from internet access. In Tunisia, the site internetworldstats.com estimates that in a population of 10.2 millions, 3.6 enjoy access to internet; so about 34% of the population. In Egypt, it only gets to 21%. We probably have to lower this number when political unrest started, since theses statistics regroup access at home, at work, or in internet cafés, the last two being far less available when repression begins. Furthermore, the Egyptian government was quick to block access to internet as soon as the 28th of January, a few days after mobilization started. It is probable that cell phones played a bigger role than Facebook or Twitter, especially once manifestations had started; nobody talks about the “nokia revolution”… If you wonder, only 5.5% of Libyans are internet users.

Making such historical events about Facebook or Twitter has two important implications. First, it displaces the debate away from real, more complex issues. If we try to understand the structural causes of these popular uprising, we inevitably start talking about corruption and authoritarian regimes. If we look even deeper we begin to see economic distress. Both Tunisia and Egypt face severe poverty and unemployment issues. As we all know, Ben Ali and Mubarak were geopolitical allies of Western Powers, but they also followed their economic precepts. Under Ben Ali, Tunisia followed the IMF’s recommendations and implemented neoliberal reforms, which ended up failing the Tunisian population. Moreover, food prices were only seldomly mention in mainstream media, even though they played a major role in fomenting a sense of injustice and push many poor people to join protesters. I doubt that someone worried about bread prices spend of lot time on facebook…

In my opinion, the emphasis on Facebook and Twitter in the media coverage shows our obsession to make every world event about us. Egyptians and Tunisians could not simply have used the tools at their dispositions to fight political and economic injustice, no, in reality they want to be exactly like us and they could do it because they finally got what we have: Facebook. It seems to me very sad that we have to simplify to this extent important events to interest people and make them feel good about themselves (or our society). Calling these events a “Facebook revolution” is as ridiculous as to call the French Revolution the “pamphlet revolution” or the Cuban revolution the “radio revolution”.

Should children get to vote?

Posted on by
Reply

Elections constitute an essential part of democracy, however it is not limited to voting once in a while. A democratic system is based on the idea of “polis”, i.e. a community in which every citizen must participate in debates and discussions to decide the faith of the group. It is common knowledge that voter turnout is on a downward slop, especially amongst young adults. For the 2008 federal elections, 58% of registered voters bothered to vote, less than 40% for people under 25. In my opinion, the fact that millions of Canadians chose not to vote is probably a consequence of the weakening of the second element of democracy: a culture of debate. Many radical solutions or simple adjustments have been proposed in the last few decades to face this democratic and participation crisis: incorporate a proportional representation element into the system, make voting mandatory (as many countries do) or making election days national holidays. We have not tried any of these so far to reverse this sad trend; even if I thought Jean Chrétien leaving politics would help… it did not.

Reiko Aokim, a Japanese professor, proposes to modify an important democratic tradition: voting age. Should we lower it to 16 o raise it to 21? Nope, we should simply abolish it, giving a vote to all citizens, starting day one – note to pro-life activists, fetus would not get that right-. So, 7 years old Tommy should be able to vote for the coolest politician or the brightest color party? In practice, parents would bear the responsibility to vote in name of their children. It seems logical to oblige adolescents (starting at 14 years old) to be present for a vote to count. To avoid disputes between divorced parents or conservative/NPD couples, father would vote for boys and mothers for girls.

This idea is based on two main arguments: education to democratic life and intergenerational equity. As mentioned earlier, the issue goes further than voter turnout, it touches our democratic culture as a whole. Giving a vote to every single Canadian could contribute to fomenting interest in electoral politics but also in political discussions in a larger sense. On one side, adolescents would have an incentive to ask, get informed knowing that someone (their father or mother) can cast an extra vote. On the other, parents would probably feel more responsible for their children’s votes than theirs, giving them an extra motivation to go vote and to engage discussions with their adolescents about political issues.Image from the "Kids Voting" american program

The other justification possesses a more philosophical twist. In a demographic context of aging population, youth interests or simple long term preoccupations are “doomed” to come second. Older citizens tend to be more preoccupied by security and heath care, while younger people by education and environmental issues. On the long run, children will have to face the implications of today’s political decisions. Furthermore, most of us would agree that both education and the environment are far from being federal or provincial priorities. We can probably assume that a majority of parents would take in consideration their children’s future when it comes to vote. Abolishing voting age could therefore contribute to increase the importance of long term political and social issues, by taking into account children’s interest.

18 is clearly an arbitrary number. By no means reaching 18 signifies that one knows anything about politics, just like at 16 someone can be well informed and ready to make an intelligent choice. As a personal experience, I remember with great details the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which I could not vote (I was 15 at the time). I was not happy about the whole “you’re too young to vote” thing. My grandmother, who was full of wisdom thought I had more to gain or lose than her. She offered to vote in my name, so she ended up being the only one at her retirement home to vote yes (please keep reading anyway… complaints about hosting a separatist on the blog can be addressed to the editors). Voting by in name of children does not mean that they would actual get to chose, however, in large part their interest will be taken into account and as they grown up, adolescent will be gradually introduced in democratic life.

Obviously, there is no guarantee that parents would consider their children’s opinion or interest, as my grandmother did or that parents would have a greater interest in politics because of this modification. Nonetheless, in theory this idea seems to offer positive inputs and should be debated. One thing is certain, something has to be done to foment our modern “polis”, since our democratic life is in bad shape.

Green Gold: Ecuador’s proposition to preserve the Amazon

Posted on by
Reply

The idea was launched in 2007 by newly elected President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. His government proposes to give up economical benefits that would engender the exploitation of vast oil fields situated in the Ecuadorian Amazon. To do so, he hopes northern countries, individuals, foundations or companies would accept to financially compensate Ecuador. Using present day market value, Ecuador’s government estimates that exploiting these fields, situated in the Yasuni National Park, would create 8 billions US in revenues. Correa is asking for about half of this amount, 3.6 billions, to be paid during the next 13 years (funds would be managed by the UNPD as a guaranty). Correa’s team emphasizes the idea of compensation, considering that by giving up this oil, Ecuador is making a huge sacrifice while the entire world will benefit. This region is essentially composed of a vast rainforest, being one of the world’s most bio-diverse places and absorbing great quantity of carbon dioxide. If implemented successfully, this proposition might considerably influence North-South relations, particularly in terms of ecological issues. However, a better understanding of the way ecological issues and natural resources are perceived in South America and Ecuador’s specific political context may help to understand this radical project.

Many southern intellectuals and activists tend to see some international initiatives to fight global warming as a new form of imperialism: “green imperialism”. Their argument is based on the fact that industrial countries have enjoyed low cost energy (coal, oil, nuclear in some cases) to industrialize and for that same reason are more responsible for global warning. The idea that southern countries should share the same burden to fight global warming and limit their economical growth for ecological motivations is simply unjust. Industrial nation should hence pay not only to stop polluting but also should compensate poorer countries for ecological damage they have done.

Furthermore, liberalization reforms of the 80s and 90s, combined to greater demands for natural resources have amplified natural resources exploitation in Latin America: mines, oil, gas, agricultural exports etc. Numerous social movements have emerged in response to negative social, ecological and economic effects provoked by extractive activities, in large part conducted by multinational corporations. Many refer to this situation as plunder, since often little royalties are paid, complacent governments have allowed ecological disasters to occur and more often than not, oppositions have been repressed violently. Ecuador has its share of experiences with Texaco and Chevron presence in the country, which impacted mostly peasants and indigenous communities. In general terms, Latin American governments are facing a growing resistance by social and ecological movements against the plundering of natural resources and a vastly accepted idea that northern countries are using green issues to keep them down instead of bringing just and working solutions.

A particular political context has contributed to amplify those phenomenons in Ecuador. Even though Correa is part of this South American progressive wave (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela and until last year Chile are all governed by left wing governments), his situation differs for his lack of a strong political organization. As Correa recognized himself, he was elected in 2006 without a strong party apparatus, such as Lula’s PT in Brazil, nor was he part of a wide social movement, as Morales in Bolivia. The vast majority of progressive organizations and movements did support his election (in 2006 and 2009) and many defend his “Citizen Revolution”, attempting to break with corruption and inequalities. In this context, even though Ecuador could use the kind of revenues associated with oil exploitation, Correa needs political support from indigenous, ecologist and left-wing movements. Some indigenous groups have been very critical of Correa’ government and exploiting these Amazon oil fields would certainly mean a radical rupture between the two. It has become extremely difficult for South American government to simply let multinationals exploit natural resources (mind you, they still do), hence Correa’s proposition. If he does get financial contributions from the North, he will of course avoid the destruction/repression/social distress usually associated with oil exploitation in the third world, while consolidating his political position and help Ecuadors finance.

Ecuador’s campaign to save Yasuni National Park: "Oil stays underground. BUY A BARRIL"In my humble opinion, two political conclusions can be drawn from this situation. First, it has become clear that Latin American governments attempt to rectify their power relations with the north. Correa is trying to use ecological issues to negotiate financial arrangements serving Ecuador, without following the usual neo-liberal recommendations, as they have done for 20 years. Other examples of such intents include Argentina refusal to follow IMF’s rules in relation to their debt or Brazil’s strategy to enhance its influence in the region. Secondly, Correa’s proposition shows that civil society possesses a growing influence in Latin American politics and plays a crucial role in setting limits to the so called neo-liberal globalization. Behind most of those left wing governments in South America, we can find communities that got organized and pressure national politicians and the international community to listen to them.

Haiti, international victim

Posted on by
Reply

For Haiti, 2010 will be a year to forget. The 9 million Haitians had to suffer a terrible earthquake in January and its horrible consequences that followed, such as a cholera epidemic. 2010 ended with an internationally denounced election characterized by fraud, irregularities and violence (its second round is planned to be held at the end of February). Apart from this difficult year, Haiti is considered a failed state, mostly depended of foreign aid (governmental or from its Diaspora),  where its population suffers from economic distress, lack of services (access to potable water, education, health) and insufficiency of food supply, as the 2008 food riots showed. How did Haiti get there? How come this small nation became the poorest of the Americas? Obviously, it is impossible to offer complete and satisfactory explanation for such a complex situation. However, it is clear that international implication has made an important “contribution”.

As surprisingly few people know, Haiti obtained its independence in 1804, second American colony to do so after the United-States. Even more interesting, it is the only successful slave revolution in History. The extremely rich sugar producing French colony of Saint-Domingue faced a slave uprising in 1791, which ended, after 12 years of combat, genocidal attempts and numerous massacres, with Haitian independence. The revolution let Haitians with blasted plantations, a divided population, a military elite, and an international punishment that will have long lasting consequences. At the time, slavery was still a very active part of the North-Atlantic economic system. Therefore, when France decided to make Haiti pay for its independence, it got a widespread international support. To compensate losses engendered to plantation owners (white slave owners), France compelled Haiti to pay an indemnification, which the Haitian government was forced to agree in 1825 to insure access to the international market and be finally recognized as an independent state. President Boyer was also “convinced” by French warships isolating the island threatening to maintain a blockade. The amount was set at 150 million gold francs, ten times the annual governmental revenues. Obviously, it did not possess the capacity to pay such amount and started borrowing to pay this indemnification, exclusively to french banks of course. Therefore, Haiti became the first country to enter the foreign debt spiral. It made payments until 1947.This means that for the first 150 years of existence, Haiti used the vast majority of its economic resources to pay for having dared to fight for the end of slavery and for its independence.

International implication has also hurt Haiti in the last decades, for a totally different reason. Since the 60s, International Aid has constantly augmented in Haiti, to the point that it now represents its main economic activity. Without entering in the vast, and in many ways frustrating, debate about international aid, it is worth mentioning one important aspect. Most Haitians privilege rice as their principal food item, since it is cheap and can be grown locally. By wanting to offer food to poor Haitians, and probably lend a hand to American producers, US aid programs have given free rice in large quantities, notably to feed Port-au-Prince.  Until the 80s, Haiti was self-sufficient regarding rice production. Coincidentally, under IMF pressure to liberalize commerce, the Haitian state lowered tariff on rice from 35% to 3% in 1995. So if you combined the entry of subsidized rice, mainly from the United-States (called Miami rice in Haiti), to constant sending of free rice, you get very cheap rice. Isn’t good news? Cheap food in a country facing poverty problems? No, this international attempt to “help” basically destroyed peasant agriculture. Small farmers cannot sell their rice, are forced to cultivate something else or leave for the city. Keep in mind that exporting food is almost impossible for small farmers, considering infrastructure problems and lack of volume. Furthermore, Port-au-Prince has very little jobs to offer. Numerous peasants ended up as urban poor, with very little economic perspective. I am not sure if we should laugh or cry, but American authorities have recently started to discuss the necessity to promote “self-sufficiency” for Haitian agriculture. It could be simple hypocrisy or a plain misunderstanding of the situation.

Haiti’s problems do not solely come from ill advice international or American interventions such as those mentioned or other (American occupation 1915-1934, President’s Aristide suspicious expulsion in 2004). Political instability, corrupted elite, destruction of natural resources or popular hope for a “savior” all contributed to Haiti’s dramatic situation. However, it must be recognized that Haitians, for all their perseverance and ingenuity, never had a real chance to build their nation and local communities.

La muerte de Nestor Kirchner

Posted on by
Reply

Last October 27th, Nestor Kirchner passed away at the age of 60. In the following days, hundred of thousands of Argentineans gathered to collectively grieve their former president. They cried, brought flowers, and sang political chants to pay tribute to head of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations), ex-president (2003-2007) and husband of the actual president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Economic and social reforms implemented during his government and continued under his wife’s made Argentineans either love or despise him. A story of political polarization and significant social change.

In the post-war period, Argentina built a relatively successful welfare-state, making it the most egalitarian country in South America. The 1976-1983 dictatorship, in addition to assassinating or “disappearing” 30 000 individuals, started destroying an economical model based on state intervention. After a difficult return to democracy in the 80s, the right wing Peronist Carlos Menem (president from 1989 to 1999) continued these changes by applying the IMF neoliberal recipe: privatization of public companies, deregulation of economic and financial activities. It resulted in a growing economy essentially based on wealth concentration, massive unemployment and an explosion of social distress (poverty, urban violence, drug abuse). The Argentinean upper class, and part of the middle class, lived the first world dream during the 90s, thanks to the liquidation of public assets and an inflating foreign debt. The whole model collapsed in 2001, with a gigantic financial and economic crisis. Many lost their life savings through the banking system decomposition; unemployment grew to 30%; food riots sprung up. From December 2001 to May 2003, Argentina lived through 5 presidents. In this disastrous context, appeared a relatively unknown governor from the Santa Cruz province. Kirchner obtained 22% of the vote in the 2003 first round election. His opponent, former president Menem, cowardly refused to run in the second round, consequently making Kirchner president.

Kirchner proposed to reactivate the “national-popular” matrix based on state intervention, industrialization (industries had been considerably weakened during the previous 3 decades), and assistance to lower classes. In a nutshell, his government reformed the highly ineffective Supreme Court, suspended payments on the foreign debt, rejected IMF recommendations, implemented economic measures to protect and stimulate industrial activities; increased taxes on exportats (mostly agricultural products); promoted actively human rights, notably by facilitating trials related abuses perpetuated during the dictatorship; increased the minimum salary, public pensions; amplified social programs in poor neighborhood. Politically, Kirchner revived the Peronist party (yes, the same as Menem, but another fraction), getting strong support from lower and working classes. He also built alliances with powerful unions, social movements and some economical actors.

Under his wife’s government, starting in 2007, he maintained a very active role. Initiatives such as the asignación universal (basically providing poor parents with an allocation per child – about 60 $ Canadian a month- while obligating them to attend school, take routine medical exams and have their vaccines in order), the nationalization of pensions funds, a media reform aiming at promoting major diversity, all reflect  a clear continuity between Cristina’s and Nestor’s governments.

On the left, critics have accused Kirchner of paternalism and being too close to some economic interests (mining companies, some industrial actors). On the right, accusations of corruption and clientelism dominate their discourse, often associating social programs with buying vote and manipulate the population’s lower classes. Generally speaking, mainstream private media have been very hostile to both Nestor and Cristina.

Even though he died only a few weeks ago, Nestor Kirchner has already been transformed in an Argentinean myth, alongside Juan Peron, Evita, Maradonna, Che Guevara and Carlos Gardel.

From my humble perspective, Kirchner deserves this public recognition. His government concretely improved lives of millions of people, especially those who had been left behind and marginalized by the neoliberal models initiated during the dictatorship and concretized by Menem in the 90s. He was able to do so because he courageously confronted international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. Obviously, el kirchernismo is far from being perfect. It reflects both Argentinean political tradition – dominated by polarization and strong leaders- and Peron’s inheritance.  Even though he successfully reformed the Supreme Court, he could not or did not want to reinforce and profoundly reform the state apparatus. Despite some success in implementing specific programs, for example the asignación universal, Argentinean bureaucracy enjoys very little independence and in many respects is inefficient. To give one simple example, the INDEC (the national organization equivalent to Statistics Canada) has started manipulating stats under Kirchner to systematically publish underestimate inflation figures – inflation is one of the main economic problem- and poverty rates, to the point that nobody takes these figures seriously. Furthermore, both Nestor and Cristina have based their discourse on a polarizing narrative, personalizing debates and limiting them to a with us/against us dichotomy.

After 7 years of kirchnerismo, Argentina is still a polarized society, both economically and politically. Nonetheless, Kirchner has contributed to put a stop to the neoliberal nonsense of the 90s. Imperfect, sometimes contradictory, reforms has made it possible for an important segment of the population to hope again in face of Argentina future. Urban poor, members of the lower middle class, many young people have seen that politics could make social change happening, for better or worse. At least, it is now clear that Argentina will not go back to a neoliberal model and can hope to being, once again, a society dominated by middle and working classes, even if there is still a very long way to go.

The Case of Esquel, Argentina

Posted on by
Reply

In an ideal world, citizens´ desire to participate would create and build communities. In our less than perfect world, communities often get strengthened when facing an external threat.  Because they tend to affect everybody, environmental hazards frequently play that role, reinforcing existing communities by forcing them to mobilize. That is to say, sometimes good things come out bad ones.

That brings me to discuss the case of Esquel, a small town situated in the argentine south, in the Chubut province. This community has organized a successful movement to oppose an open pit mining project and has contributed to the formation of a nation-wide network aiming at protecting the environment and natural resources.

Even though mining exploitation has been a relatively marginal activity in the past, since the neo-liberal reforms of the 90s, the country has become very attractive for mining investments, mostly because of very low royalties, 100% deductions of investments and little or no environmental control by provincial authorities (in charge of natural resources). Multinationals basically do what the want and pay very little to the country or affected communities.  In this “favorable” context, the Canadian based company Meridian Gold proposed a gold mining project near Esquel.

Alarmed by the prospect of polluted water caused by the extensive use of cyanide, some citizens started gathering information about other open pit mines and possible consequences associated with this type of exploitation. In 2002, they formed the Asamblea de Vecinos Autoconvocados de Esquel to increase awareness and organize a civic and political resistance. It is worth mentioning that the assembly is based on horizontal, democratic and participatory principles, which means a total absence of hierarchy within the organization. They organized numerous actions such as manifestations and educational activities. In collaboration with the Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia, they also made public scientific information to clarify the possible environmental consequences of open pit mining. They also initiated legal actions to stop mining projects.

Supported by this popular mobilization, the local government (municipality) organized a referendum on the issue in March 2003, in which 81% of the population rejected open pit mining. More importantly, that same year, the provincial government passed a law forbidding open pit mining and the use of cyanide on its territory. It is worth mentioning that people of Esquel stay mobilized, because different mining companies maintain interest.

In definitive, citizens of Esquel successfully organized a classic NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) campaign, reinforcing community ties and identity in the process. Following this victory, the assembly started helping other communities getting organized. Members of the assembly informed and supported other towns facing similar mining projects, basically “exporting” their knowledge, organizational model and strategies. Dozens of similar assemblies were formed in different provinces, to the point that they all formed the Red de Comunidades Afectadas por la Minería (Network of Communities Affected by Mining) in 2003, which will become the Unión de Asambleas Ciudadanas (Union of Citizen Assemblies) en 2006 in order to integrate organizations preoccupied by other environmental and social issues.  The UAC clearly emerged out of the Esquel experience, for that matter, it adopted the same horizontal, participatory and democratic principles. This wide network is basically a community of communities, including more than 70 local assemblies and popular groups (peasant, indigenous organizations). It facilitates the diffusion of information and mobilizes thousands of people. This social-environmental movement has accomplished many political gains in the last 8 years or so. It has pressure many provincial governments to pass laws restricting open pit mining. More recently, the Argentine Congress has voted a law protecting Andeans glaciers, which represent essential sources of fresh water in many dried regions of the country. This national law will most definitely offer new instruments to resist mining project, especially in provinces where local governments “are in bed with the industry”.

In many South American countries, high demand for natural resources has contributed to better economic times. However, natural resources exploitation often comes with extremely negative environmental consequences. In the case of mining in Argentina, small town citizens, such as those of Esquel, have confronted multinationals and more often than not, their elected officials to protect their communities against environmental hazards. Going beyond local issues, they have forced a debate about the nature of these resources, so as to start considering them as “social assets” and not only commodities to be exported for the benefits of a few.  In the process, they have strengthened their local communities and have built a strong community of communities.

Esquel http://www.noalamina.org/english

UAC http://asambleasciudadanas.org.ar

Plan Ceibal

Posted on by
Reply

Most “majority world” countries (a more appropriate term than Third World) face numerous levels of inequalities in comparison to “minority world” countries: foreign debts, unequal commercial rules (agricultural subsidies for example), access to education etc. In the last 2 decades, a new form of inequality appeared: the digital breach.  It is considerably more difficult for poorer countries to access up to date technology and offer computer knowledge to its citizen. Furthermore, the digital breach also exists within these societies, for the lower classes have no or little access to computers and the Internet.

Realizing that the digital breach was hurting Uruguay’s economy and was expanding social inequalities, since a considerable percentage of Uruguayans did no have access to Internet or computer resources, the government of Tabaré Vazquez (Frente Amplio – left wing) launched the Plan Ceibal in 2007. The idea is quite simple but complicated to put in practice. The Uruguayan government gave a simple laptop to every single elementary school student and every teacher of the country. Between 2007 and 2009, they procured laptops to all 350 000 students and installed Wi-fi connections in every elementary school.

The objectives behind the Plan Ceibal are obviously educational: limit the digital breach, facilitate access to Internet and computer tools. This way, Uruguay hopes the new generation will not fall behind in terms of computer knowledge, now an essential part of education and a crucial prerogative to access quality jobs. The Plan Ceibal is even more ambitious. It proposes a partial solution to social exclusion, to the depreciation of public school and community isolation.

Since children can bring their laptops home, the intent is to facilitate access for parents as well. So far it is working; it is now very common to see adults using laptops on the porch of their houses (to get better signals) to get recipes, read the newspaper or whatever one wants to do with a computer.

Traditionally, Uruguay has enjoyed the best public education system in Latin America, until recently it was very common for middle class and even high income families to send their kids to public school.  Thanks to economic problems and some neo-liberal reforms in the 90s, the public system has lost some of its appeal and we have seen a growing gap between private and public schools. In this context, the Plan Ceibal contributes to making public schools more attractive and better adapted to the 21st century.

Even though this initiative has clearly a top-down approach, the idea is to capacitate the teachers and offer new tools for impoverished communities. The biggest impacts of the Plan Ceibal are seen in rural communities and low incomes neighborhood. Obviously, a better access to Internet and computer tools does not solve complex social problems, however, it does facilitate daily lives (looking for a job, stay informed). More importantly, it contributes to reintegrate many communities that were excluded from a crucial part of society. Like it or not, Internet has become a dominant force in our lives, and those individuals and communities who do not have access, become second-class citizens and irrelevant communities to the rest of the world.

In general, IUruguayan children using their laptops at home am very skeptical of the overemphasis our education system (in Canada) puts on ICT (Information and Communication Technology), since the vast majority of Canadian children/teenagers manage very well computer tools while many have clear weaknesses in terms of reading and writing (I would also say thinking…). However, in the Uruguayan case, the Plan Ceibal seems to be a very positive initiative and will contribute to a better integration of many communities that have been left behind. It has engendered numerous reactions in other South American countries. For example, Argentina has decided to develop a similar plan of its own. Hopefully, this initiative from this small country will contribute in battling the digital breach in the whole region.

The Douchebag in Latin America: “We all have a little Tarado inside!”

Posted on by
3

Douchebag does not have a literal translation in Argentinian Spanish. However, the term “tarado” , in the right context, can refer to a douchbag. Literally, a “tarado” is someone mentally ill, but nobody would actually use it in that sense (the closest word in English might be “retarded”). In Buenos Aires or Montevideo, someone who cuts in line would get called “tarado”.  In Argentina, everyone has a little “tarado” inside (I call mine Pedro), since general behavior in the public space is far from being valued. Argentinians show little respect for others and public life in general. It is more than common to see people throw garbage out of their car windows, they use the car horn a lot (I mean a lot) to express their frustration and as a rule are quite rude to each other. However, the same person who just yelled at you for no apparent reason or threw is cigarette’s butt in the hallway might be the most helpful person you have ever met if he or she knows you. Interaction between strangers and general perception of public life make it almost impossible to distinguish “tarados” from “none tarados”.

Google Images says that this picture is representative of a "Tarado" - what do you think?

In my opinion, a few factors make Argentina a low social capital country:  a history of dictatorships, bad governments (check out Carlos Menem in Google for a hint), some degree of corruption (though not as pronounced as other Latin American countries), strong social inequalities,  a better past (Argentina used to be a model of social equality, dominated by a strong middle class). This context makes most Argentinians think that nothing works as it should and everybody will try to take something from them. In recent years, the sensationalistic media has amplified this trend with an overemphasis on crime, fear and corruption. If nobody acts for the common good, why do it? This very cynical, often nostalgic, view of society justifies letting our little “tarado” express himself freely.

Do you think that everybody has a little douchebag inside them? I know that Pedro would want me to say something like, “would you like some?” Oh, Pedro…