left in Latin America? Alain Touraine
[ 1 ]
The outcome of many elections in Latin America in recent months has led many observers to describe the evolution towards the far left U.S. positions, which will build on the social sectors that might be called "popular." But not very helpful to use expressions that have been invented for a completely different context. The language corresponding to a parliamentary system necessarily wrong or semi-presidential one. In the Latin American case fits so poorly that I have goodnas reason to defend a position far from the most frequently expressed. Alan García won the election in Peru and Felipe Calderón in Mexico has been imposed does not mean, of course, Latin America moving towards the right.
The hypothesis that I think should be made is that the continent is increasingly distancing itself from a model, if not parliamentary, at least based on mechanisms of opposition from interest groups and ideologies. Latin America today seems as far to find a political expression for their social problems thirty years ago. Therein lies the essential point: that is what is at stake and there is a failure.
In Latin America, there has been a link between the mothe continent is Venezuela. Is that, despite progress made since his election, Chavez is still a weak model of social transformation, considering the vast resources obtained by the brutal increase in oil prices. The key to the continent's political life and their ability to invent a political and social model capable of operating on an extremely difficult situation is, no doubt, Bolivia. There seems to be a general awareness of the need to accept the Bolivian model as being formed, in its radicalism, nationalism and heroism, in his insulting language and actions. I am among those who think that the continent's political future now depends primarily on opportunities BoliAt least moderately optimistic. In any case, in Latin America is perceived confidence in the future that does not exist anywhere else today except Spain. And in that sense, the conclusion which would commit, at least to the extent of my capacity for analysis, is that only a much more politically radical than the recent period will allow Latin American countries away from two apparent solutions that actually involve a great danger: first, a government of liberal elites supported by a globalized world economy, on the other, what could be called an "illusion neocastrista."
This rather disturbing finding is not consistent with the image he has of itself an important country in the continent: Chile,or view, the category of populism does not necessarily imply a pejorative assessment. The populist rupture tells us nothing about the ideological content. Occurs when there is a dichotomization of the social space where actors see themselves as participants in either of two opposing camps. Ideologies of the most diverse nature, from communism to fascism can take a populist bias. In all cases, be present, however, a dimension of rupture with the current state of affairs may be more or less deep, according to specific situations.
But the category of populism does not necessarily imply a pejorative assessment does not mean, of course, that all populism is, by definition, good. Ifgrowing civil society. This is the real challenge in regard to the democratic future of Latin American societies.
is known, the process by which, during the '90s, social repression and deinstitutionalization were able to implement adjustment policies. Think of the abuse of the "decrees of necessity and urgency" by Carlos Menem, in a state of siege followed by a violent repression of trade unions in Bolivia in 1985 on the use of terrorism legislation for the same purposes in Colombia, in the dissolution of Congress by Alberto Fujimori of Peru, or in the violent repression by Carlos Andres Perez of popular mobilization subsequent to the astronomical rise dthe price of gasoline in 1989. The failure of the neoliberal project in the late '90s and the need for more pragmatic policies that combine market mechanisms with greater degrees of state regulation and social participation led to more representative regimes and what has been called a spin general towards the center.
is here we find a number of regional variations which makes comparison more clearly to light the specificity of the Venezuelan experience. In the cases of Chile and Uruguay, the institutional dimension has prevailed over the breaking point in the transition from dictatorship to democracy, so few populist elements can be found in these experiences asas the neoliberal, open protectionism when it comes to defending their interests). Political and economic prospects of Latin America are brighter than in a long time, and Venezuela is playing in relation to them-along with other progressive regimes of the continent, a key role. Notes
[
1] French sociologist, director of Studies of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris). Among his vast and influential theoretical production is
Sociology of Action (Ariel, Madrid, 1969). His latest book translated into English is A new paradigm for understanding today's world
(Polity Press, Buenos Aires, 2006).[ 2] Professor of Political Theory at the University of Essex, UK. Author, among other books,
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, co-authored with Chantal Mouffe (Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1985) On Populist Reason (Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2005). 
