Ebbs and Flows- The Latin American Pink Tide’s Movement and Nature
1989 marked what Francis Fukuyama would baptize “the end of history,” where liberal democracy championed over every economic system as the pinnacle of ideological social development. For a great part of the world, this point in time marked a place where alternatives to US style capitalism became obsolete. As most states leaned in favor of this world order, with a hyperpower at the helm, Latin America would in a surprising fashion veer in the opposite direction nearing the end of the 1990s. The term “Pink Tide” (In Spanish marea rosa and in Portuguese onda rosa) is often used to describe the revolutionary wave of left-wing, noncommunist governments that took over Latin American politics following the more neoliberal trends of the 1980s and 90s. These trends were largely observed in state enterprises becoming largely privatized, austerity measures becoming commonplace, and the construction of a new economic realm where Bretton Woods financial institutions like the IMF gained significant (or contentiously- too much) traction and power.
As foreign companies gained significant political and social capital by controlling the way that products and services were priced internationally, unions were systematically weakened and labor rights eroded as a further result. Job permanence was no longer a guarantee for anyone, creating massive growth in the informal economies of many countries. It is also necessary to note that it is not coincidental that the United States played a significant role in both strengthening and maintaining the multinational corporation hegemony that settled over the region. By orchestrating a series of CIA-backed coups and placing authoritarian leaders in power to favor their interests, Latin America became a pawn in the United States’ game of unregulated capitalist expansion. In the midst of the Cold War, Latin America was quite literally “America’s Backyard”- with the economic reform during the Reagan-Clinton years thoroughly confirming this soft-power hegemony.
Considering the aforementioned, it is no surprise that the Pink Tide washed over Latin America as a backlash to exacerbated economic inequality resulting from the wealth boom granted to the Latin American elite and further damage to the welfare state. As governments increasingly lost their accountability to the people and more so to foreign investors, a reaction to neoliberalism arose. Leftist insurrection spread from Venezuela’s Caracazo in 1989, to the response of the Mexican zapatistas regarding the imposition of NAFTA, to Bolivia’s Cochabamba Water War in 1999. While one could today bemoan the Pink Tide’s incapacity to provide a definite alternative to the US influence that it sought to struggle against, its effects can hardly be
doubted.
An effort based on intersectional coalition beginning with the people saw the construction of a new type of political wave. Eduardo Silva, in his book Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America, speaks of protestors blocking the streets in an organized fashion, building up and organizing amongst each other to serve the interests of the groups that had been considered naught but collateral damage in the age of peak neoliberalism. He understands the movement of Latin American political economy as largely basing itself on backlash and response, with those who remain on the periphery dictating the way that society moves forward in the long run. As “indigenous peoples, the unemployed, pensioners, and neighborhood associations, among others” mobilized to combat the exclusionary nature of the economic system they had been exposed to, they constructed a “crescendo of contention” to achieve their political aims. This sense of solidarity managed to cross borders to build what appeared to look like the newer, brighter future of inclusion and democracy. It could be said that instead of being inherently revolutionary, these political coalitions largely aimed to reform neoliberal capitalism, hence the more moderate “pink” as opposed to red.
Efforts on behalf of the government coincided with economic growth at the beginning of the 2000s, providing quite great success throughout the region. Social inequality was increasingly (and noticeably) reduced by large percentages according to the World Bank, pushing the region toward building a prosperous middle class. Welfare initiatives combated poverty, and steady economic growth was pushed forward by government initiatives. Elected in 2005, Evo Morales, for example, pulled Bolivia’s GDP growth up, and took the number of people living in extreme poverty from 36% to 17%. Across Latin America, a region renowned for its lack of democratic process ensured that democracy and accountability were increased and prioritized.
Discussing the movement today, however, it is obvious that it was not successful in its entirety, especially as a conservative backlash dominates the regional political sphere of Latin America in 2019. US presence continues to be highly prominent and one of the more marked priorities of countries within the Americas. Though the Tide successfully halted George Bush’s ambition for a so called “Free Trade of the Americas,” neoliberalism continues to run rampant in the political ambitions of right wing governments across the continent. Where Brazil once saw the left-leaning Lula da Silva in power, there is now the evangelical populist Jair Bolsonaro with strongly opposing political aims. Similarly, in Bolivia, where just a few months ago the socialist Morales was in power, there has been what can controversially be described as a coup (some argue that it shares undeniable similarity to Chile’s Operation Condor in the 1970s) replaced Morales’ administration with a government that actively rejects indigenous rights and religions.
This radical switch in mentality can be ascribed to the fact that, though many of the leaders and figureheads of the time made strides, they eventually fell into the patterns of their corrupt antecedents. Countries like Venezuela that went in with the most ambitious anti neoliberal agendas essentially created a system of crony capitalism where “extensive corruption of state bureaucrats” is second nature to its government spearheaded by Nicolas Maduro. The top-down structure of these governmental groups that initially claimed to be thoroughly grassroots remains highly contradictory with their alleged aims. Though the Tide coincided with a great amount of economic growth, a crash in 2012 created widespread discontent and brought with it recessions and tanked economies. These changes have brought the post-truth era to Latin America, and the prospect is quite daunting for genuine leftists that continue to exist and make themselves known.
Though it is evident that the Pink Tide has declined from its initial glory days, a wave of insurgency brought by groups lately seen across Latin America has brought with it a grain of hope. As we observe protests in Chile that exude radical hopes for change in the post-Pinochet socio-economic system, one is reminded that though this particular movement as we recognize it might be over, the urgency for democracy in the minds of common Latin Americans continues to exist.
