Reviewing a book of 18 chapters presents the reviewer with an obvious difficulty. A proper discussion of each chapter would extend the word count well beyond the limit, but a reference only to some might imply that the others were less worthy. Much depends on the way the editors set up the challenge and the way the individual authors respond. On this count the book is a resounding success. The initial framework proposed by the editors is innovative and thoughtful, and the following chapters build upon this to explore the many ways of analysing the contemporary Left in Latin America. Eight chapters deal with general and comparative issues, eight chapters offer case studies (including one explaining why Peru did not turn to the left) and there are two general chapters by the editors.
The editors set out their arguments in an admirably clear introduction. They want to discuss why there has been a revival of the Left; how far there are variations between the various leftist governments; and the implications for development and democracy in Latin America of the turn to the left. They relate the resurgence of the Left to the persistence of inequality, to the existence of democratic systems that allowed the Left to take power, to the economic crisis of 1998–2002 that discredited conservative incumbents, and to the post-2002 commodity boom that provided economic resources for leftist policies (pp. 10–11). It is interesting to see what is missing from this list: there is no reference, for example, to an ideological resurgence that could replace the former adherence to Marxism and socialism on the left, nor to a deeper social commitment on the part of the electorate to leftist ideas. The authors play with the idea of labelling the Left in Latin America as ‘social democracy’, at least for Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, but end up rejecting the label for good reasons (p. 23). However, several authors suggest the use of ‘social liberal’ to describe the three governments above, and Jorge Lanzaro in his chapter argues that the Frente Amplio government in Uruguay is indeed an example of social democracy.
One obvious conclusion on reading this book is how much more difficult it is to conceptualise the Left now that adherence to the general principles of Marxism and socialism, characteristic of the Left for much of the twentieth century, no longer applies. This raises the question of whether countries as diverse as those treated, from Chile to Venezuela, have something in common that allows us to regard them as sharing characteristics of the Left. Or do we have to abandon the notion of a common Left and analyse the Left within the confines of each country?
If the Left is usually characterised by a commitment to increasing social equality, it cannot be said that there has been great progress overall so far. Poverty has certainly fallen, but there is less impact on inequality, whether of wealth, income, power or access to social services. This is one of the consequences of the politics of democratic systems, with their institutional limitations on radical social reform, especially where there are powerful parties of the Right. Consider the difficulties of implementing progressive tax reform, for example – although Jennifer Pribble and Evelyne Huber show success in this area in Uruguay. Kurt Weyland points to a paradox in relation to neoliberalism. It seems very unlikely that the Left can abandon the market model and return to a statist economic policy: even Chávez and Morales are far more moderate in this regard than their rhetoric would suggest. So it could well end up that by improving the economic model, the Left secures the permanence of free market policies.
The title raises another question. What is meant by a resurgence of the Left? It is clear that a number of countries are now governed by politicians who see themselves as on the Left. But how deep does this resurgence go? Is it the result largely of a swing away from the Right, that is, an electoral change rather than a deeper social change? The chapter by Jason Arnold and David Samuels sees the leftward turn as the rejection of previous governments rather than any deeper conversion to the Left on the part of the electorate. There has been no mass swing to the left in terms of ideological commitment and hence a return to the right is always possible. The general chapters emphasise that the commodity boom is central to explaining the kinds of policies adopted by the various leftist governments. And this is a fragile basis of support, for booms can turn into bust.
What general conclusions might we draw from this book? The differences between those parties and presidencies classified as ‘Left’ are so great that it seems easier to show what divides them rather than what they have in common. (Nicaragua features in the discussion of some of the general chapters, but there is no separate case study of the country, and it seems difficult to see in what way the Ortega presidency can be classified as ‘Left’ apart from historical references to the Sandinista Revolution.) It seems clear that there is no general flagship policy for the Left, as nationalisation was in the past. Rather there are a number of policies in separate spheres – health and education reform, targeted social policies, pension reform, amongst others – that constitute a bundle of leftist policies. Deborah Yashar, in her excellent chapter, raises the issue that the major concern of the population in most countries is citizen security, yet there is no distinctive policy of the Left in this vital area. She also points out the problems that leftist regimes, apart from Bolivia, have in dealing with questions of ethnicity. One might add that, comprehensive as this book is, there is little on policies to reduce gender inequality.
Many chapters emphasise the possible fragility of the turn to the left given that so much depends on the fortunes of economies heavily influenced by global economic trends. There does not seem to be such a solid basis of committed loyalists of the Left that support would remain firm in the face of economic recession. Several chapters emphasise how the Left needs to be imaginative and innovative in its policies, not least in the area of popular participation in politics; readers impressed by the chapter on this topic by Benjamin Goldfrank are strongly recommended to read his recent book, Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America (Penn State University Press, 2011), on experiments in Porto Alegre, Montevideo and Caracas. It is also argued in this book that the close association between the Left and organised labour has eroded, and that far fewer citizens see themselves as being on the left than in the past. The editors point out that one of the weaknesses for pushing further and faster with a leftist project is the absence of solid and substantial support from labour; indeed, in the case of Venezuela and Ecuador, the government is opposed by the union movement, although in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil the governments do receive union support. Another problem facing leftist governments is the weakness (and often corruption) of the state apparatus, although this is less of a problem in Chile and Uruguay.
But, if there were a turn to the right, would this mean that there would be no lasting legacy of the resurgence of the Left? The editors argue convincingly that experience has shown that the Left can govern democratically (though questions are raised about the extent of authoritarianism in Venezuela), that progressive reforms in social policy have had positive social benefits, and that social mobilisation in some countries has given political voice to previously marginalised groups.
The case study chapters could stand as a separate book in their own right. All offer insights into the politics of the countries they study, and all repay careful reading. In short, this is an outstanding book which, even were the turn to the left to turn again, this time to the right, would still repay reading. It is a major contribution to the study of contemporary Latin American politics.
