Imperialism, neo-liberalism and “democracy” in the: GLOBAL SOUTH
In the past few years, there has been a marked shift to the left in Latin American politics. Alongside the re-emergence of militant direct action among urban workers, the unemployed and the rural landless, we have seen the election of governments led by left wing politicians in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia. These Left-led governments pose many issues for socialists. In particular, the renewed ability of the Left to use the electoral process was unthinkable in most of Latin America and the global south only twenty-five years ago.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, most societies in the “third world” were ruled by military or civilian dictatorships. Not only were representative legislative institutions lacking, but any and all attempts to form unions, peasant associations and other organizations of working people were brutally repressed. Dictatorships throughout the global south routinely jailed, tortured and murdered their opponents.
The imperialist powers—first of all the US, but also the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians—armed and supported these regimes. Most revolutionaries and radicals in that period believed that imperialist domination and capitalist rule in the periphery of the capitalist world economy required brutal repression of workers’ and popular organizations. Democracy, even of the most limited, liberal variety with contested elections, free press and free assembly, appeared to be incompatible with the needs of both foreign and domestic capitalists in the global south.
IMPERIALIST TURN TO DEMOCRACY
Today, the situation is very different. Since the late 1980s, pro-capitalist, parliamentary democracies have replaced military and civilian dictatorships in many parts of the global south. Mass struggles in South Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brazil demanded free elections and democratic rights. While the US, Canadians and Europeans often maneuvered to bail out the military and civilian dictatorships until the last possible moment, the imperialist powers quickly embraced the new democratic regimes. In some cases, the imperialist powers have gone beyond accepting and encouraging pro-capitalist “democratic” forces. Through the auspices of the UN and NATO, the imperialist powers launched numerous “humanitarian interventions” (Haiti, the Balkans, East Timor) that have undermined dictatorial regimes and attempted to stabilize new capitalist democracies.
Clearly, the imperialist powers’ commitment to the most tepid forms of capitalist parliamentary democracy is far from universal. In much of the Middle East and south Asia, the US, Canadians and Europeans continue to finance and support brutal dictatorships. The Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian governments, despite their repression of even pro-capitalist opposition groups, continue to enjoy the support of the ruling classes of the global north. Nor are the imperialists willing to respect the results of democratic elections when they challenge their economic and political interests. The willingness of the US, Canadian and European regimes to support military coups in Venezuela and Haiti against democratically elected governments; and their removal of all aid to the elected Hammas government of Palestine illustrate the limits of imperialism’s commitment to democracy.
The imperialist powers’ abandonment of military and civilian dictatorships in Africa, Asia and Latin America has disoriented much of the Left radicalized in the 1960s and 1970s. On the one hand, a majority of former radicals and progressives have supported imperialist “humanitarian interventions” in the 1990s. Many former anti-war activists from the 1960s endorsed UN and NATO military adventures in Haiti, the Balkans and East Timor. On the other, a minority of antiimperialists have adopted the attitude that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend,”defending dictatorial regimes against domestic movements for democratic reform. Some on the Left have rallied to defend Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe, which has routinely repressed independent unions and peasant organizations against the Movement for Democratic Change.
Why have the imperialists generally embraced parliamentary democracy as the preferred mode of capitalist rule in much of the global south? The answer lies in the economic and political restructuring of capitalism and imperialism, and the changed political situation since the collapse of the bureaucratic regimes after 1989.
LEAN PRODUCTION
At the heart of the restructuring of capitalism in the past two decades is the spread of lean production, a combination of speed-up, deskilling, technological innovation, outsourcing, privatization, etc., throughout the economies of the global north. This reorganization of production in the imperialist centers brought profound changes in the structure of capitalist production in the global south. Under the aegis of the giant transnational corporations, different regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America have been integrated into tightly synchronized, global production chains as the low-wage suppliers of parts and assembly labor. The final product often is assembled and sold in the more prosperous newly industrialized countries (Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, etc.), or is re-exported to the imperialist countries. In other cases components alone are produced in various parts of the global south for assembly in the advanced countries. No matter what form the production chain takes, transnational capital requires freedom of movement and political stability to make this global system of lean production work.
Neoliberalism - the deregulation of capital, labor and commodity markets; and the imposition of fiscal austerity globally - is the political expression of the globalization of lean production since the 1980s. Whether instituted through free trade agreements or IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs (often implemented by military dictatorships in Chile and elsewhere in the 1970s and 1980s), the goals are the same - ending all restrictions on the free movement of transnational capital across borders, and creating the best possible environment for profitable capital accumulation. Together with “political stability” or the “rule of law” that ensures no disruptions in global capitalist production chains, free trade is the order of the day for imperialism today.
THIRD WORLD DICTATORSHIPS
These new goals altered the US and other imperialist powers’ relationship to various dictatorial and repressive regimes in the global south. Most of these regimes not only brutally suppressed working class and popular organizations, but used capitalist state institutions to promote capitalist economic development in the mid and late 20th century. Among the “statist” policies these dictatorships pursued were a variety of restrictions on foreign investment and imports, and the use of public funds to subsidize investment in national capitalist industries. In most cases, these national capitalists have been the direct products of the capitalist state - with the most important being state owned. Supporters of the ruling cliques in these dictatorships received preferential access to government loans and subsidies, promoting a system of crony capitalism across the global south.
The US and other imperialist powers tolerated the statist policies of these dictatorships in the global south because these regimes were crucial allies in the global struggle against anti-capitalist social movements during the Cold War. Although most of the anti-capitalist movements since the second world war were based in the peasantry and led by bureaucratic political currents (China, Vietnam, some of the Latin American guerilla groupings), they did pose a significant threat to capitalist stability in large sections of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The statist policies of these regimes were combined with a willingness both to use the most brutal and bloodthirsty repression against workers and peasants movements in their own countries, and to support imperialist intervention in their regions. As a result, the US and the rest of the imperialist powers gladly armed these regimes for most of the late twentieth century.
IMPERIALISM POST ‘89
The global political situation has changed radically since 1989. Not only have we seen the collapse of the bureaucratic regimes in the east, but almost all of the mass anti-capitalist movements in the global south went into sharp decline through most of the 1990s. Whether based in the peasantry (the various national liberation movements and guerilla armies) or the rural and urban working class (COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) in South Africa and the PT (Workers’ Party) and CUT (Central Workers’ Union) in Brazil), third world anti-capitalist movements have either disappeared or have made their peace with capitalism and neo-liberalism around the world.
The absence of any serious mass anticapitalist social movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America gave the US and other imperialist powers more room to maneuver in relationship to their client regimes in the 1990s. The US and other imperialist powers no longer had to tolerate these regimes’ statist economic policies. The imperialists increasingly threw their financial and political support to pro-capitalist opposition movements in the global south. Often based among those capitalists who provide component parts and sub-assembly services to the transnational corporations, these opposition currents wanted to end the use of state resources to subsidize state enterprises and businesses owned by supporters of the regime. Although unwilling to dismantle completely statist economic institutions, these opposition movements’ programs are much more in tune with that of global capital than the old dictatorships. While such movements in the Philippines, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere were democratic, wanting to establish the rudiments of capitalist representative government and basic political liberties, they were not in any way antiimperialist or anti-capitalist.
The growing tension between the US and the other imperialist powers and their former client regimes became acute when the dictatorships launched repressive operations against their own populations or went to war with neighboring regimes. The “humanitarian interventions” of the 1990s were the logical result of the changed economic and political situation. Mass repression and warfare created instability that imperialism was no longer compelled to tolerate in most of the global south.
In the past few years, we are seeing the limits of pro-neo-liberal capitalist democratization in the global south. As Marx argued in the Communist Manifesto, “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Put simply, the development of democratic openings under capitalism creates the space for the growth of independent working class and popular organizations. The imperialists’ hoped to replicate the liberal, parliamentary democracy of the global north in the global south - a political system where the population gets to choose between different pro-capitalist alternatives every two to four years. However, the expansion of freedom of the press, assembly and association, combined with the social crisis induced by neo-liberal policies, has provided a fertile environment for the rebirth of mass anti-capitalist struggles.
Nowhere is this more evident than Latin America. Over the past four years, mass struggles of workers and other popular forces against neo-liberalism have swept across Latin America, overthrowing pro-imperialist regimes in Bolivia and Argentina. Even in occupied Iraq, the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship has created the space for mass mobilization and organization - of both unions and religious-led military and political opposition to the US/UK occupation.
Whether or not the imperialist powers will maintain their commitment to parliamentary democracy in the global South will depend on the independence and radicalism of these mass movements. If the newly elected left governments in Bolivia and Argentina follow the path of the PT (Workers’ Party) in Brazil and the ANC (African National Congress) in South Africa and demobilize the mass movements and follow the neoliberal dictates of the IMF and World Bank, liberal capitalist democracy will survive. However, if these left governments challenge neoliberalism through nationalizations and other forms of statist economic policies or cannot contain the mass movement, the imperialists may well revert to their traditional allies in the military and civilian bureaucracies. At that point, the ability of the mass movements to continue to mobilize independently of — and possibly in opposition to - the Left governments, will determine whether or not a new, more radical workers’ and popular democracy will emerge or the older capitalist dictatorships will again become the norm in the global South.
Charlie Post is active in the faculty union at the City University of New York and is a member of the National Committee of Solidarity, a US revolutionary socialist organization.
