An Overstayed Welcome: The Decline of the Left in South America

South America has long been known for electing populist left-wing governments. With oil prices towering, Venezuelans embraced Chavismo. Bolivians rallied behind Evo Morales who spoke out against the racial prejudices and economic disparity plaguing the country. Brazilians elected their still-beloved Lula to power in landslides in 2002 and 2006, then elected his chief of staff Dilma Rousseff twice after he left office in 2010. Argentina's power couple, Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, dominated the political scene from 2003 on.

That has changed considerably since November. On December 6, Venezuelans, seeing their country in deep crisis and rocked by protests, rampant violence, a stubborn government and a worthless currency, sent a Democratic Unity Roundtable to try its chances against the ruling United Socialist Party. It did not disappoint-routing the PSUV 56.2% to 40.9% and shifting the previously divided parliament decisively against Chavismo.

In Brazil, Dilma Rousseff eked out a victory in the October 2014 elections 51.6% to 48.32%, making the fourth consecutive election won by the left-wing Workers' Party. Since then, however, her popularity has fallen off a cliff. A mammoth corruption scandal involving the oil giant Petrobras and her party combined with a tanking economy put her approval rating in the single digits and impeachment proceedings in the hands of the Chamber of Deputies.

In Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's party was beaten narrowly in November by a centre-right coalition under the banner of "Cambiemos" ("Let's Change").

And it's continuing in 2016. Bolivians made their voices heard in a referendum directed at President Morales' ambitions to run for a fourth term, and their answer was no. Peru heads to the polls in April with the two most popular candidates being centre-right and centre. Ecuador's President Rafael Correa is facing mounting criticism and seems to be dragging the country towards an authoritarian government.

Yet a continent-wide ideological shift may not be the reason for this substantial changing of the guard. The answer to why this has occurred may be a simple overstaying of welcome by the popular left-wing. Many of the popular leaders that made the left a powerful force in contemporary South America are either out of office or have stayed too long, losing the original fire that they once had.

Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, famous for his social welfare programs Bolsa Familia (Family Allowance) which helps poor Brazilian families and Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) which fought against hunger, remains enormously popular in his home country, even though a similar program was enacted in Brazil before he was elected president. 

The Brazilian economy was also streaking. From 2000 to 2012, Brazil's economy grew at an average of 5% a year and in 2012 it became larger than that of the United Kingdom. The country was also starting to take a greater role in foreign policy.

It's been a different story since then. Lula hasn't been president since 2011, as Brazil, like the United States, limits its presidential candidates to run for two terms. In 2010, Lula's chief of staff, Dilma Rousseff, won the presidency, and things started to go south. Today, Rousseff's approval rating is in the single digits and it is possible she could be impeached. Millions of Brazilians have protested and asked her to leave office in the midst of a reeling economy and corruption scandals hanging heavy over Rousseff's Workers Party. 

Things are even worse in Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez was able to mass colossal support by steering the country towards a socialist path, bringing many Venezuelans out of poverty with a strong dose of anti-American sentiment and close relations with Cuba. But the momentum he was able to amass was largely available to him because of sky-high oil prices, and his accomplishments were unable to modernize or diversify the economy. His administration also did substantial damage to Venezuela's democratic system of government. Chavez died in 2013 and not long after he was replaced by Nicolas Maduro, the price of oil fell out of the sky. Venezuela's resource curse almost immediately put the country in dire straits. Protests plagued the country, Maduro cracked down, and lines for basic supplies persisted. Lacking the charisma and high oil prices of his predecessor, Maduro's United Socialist Party was trounced in the December parliamentary elections by a large coalition of opposition parties. 

In Bolivia, Evo Morales is into his third term as president, but the results of a recent referendum bar him from running for a fourth. This is, as The Economist puts it, his "first major defeat" in Bolivia, as before this he was considered quite popular-winning in a landslide in 2014's election. Morales, like Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, was very vocally critical of the United States' influence in his country. His campaigns against racial injustice towards the indigenous population and a long period of economic growth won him considerable popular support. But as corruption scandals pile up and the economy slows down, Morales' popularity is vulnerable. Though with more than three years left in his term, he may be able to right the ship and leave office with Bolivia in a much more stable state than Venezuela or Brazil. 

Argentina's transition is arguably less headline-grabbing than its neighbors, but it reflects much the same general trend. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, wife of former President Nestor Kirchner, recently left office after the end of her second term. Some politicians in her party attempted to pass a constitutional amendment to change this but they were unsuccessful and met strong opposition from rival parties. Though Kirchner's party won the first round of the presidential election, they did so unconvincingly and lost the second round. 

The political left in South America has been largely rejected at the polls, but whether they stay down depends largely on whether the forces on the right can capitalize on their new victories. As these victories are still young, that's hard to tell right now. 

The Kremlin and Fascism: It's Complicated

According to a report by The Moscow Times last week, France's far-right Front National party has asked Russia for a loan of 27 million euros ($29.7 million).

It's not hard to understand why the Kremlin supports euro-skeptic populist parties in the European Union. Their rise in popularity across the continent hurts unity among the European countries in the union and allows the Kremlin to promote an alternative, one rooted in nationalism, populism, and distrust of "the West".

It's not the first time the Kremlin has become friendly with or at least oversaw Europe's far-right. In March of 2015, numerous far-right European political parties, including Germany's neo-Nazi National Democratic Party, were invited to a forum in St. Petersburg. According to The Moscow Times, representatives from other parties such as Golden Dawn in Greece where have also met with Kremlin officials, and that British National Party leader Nick Griffin, often maligned as a white supremacist, helped monitor Russia's 2011 Duma elections, claiming they were "much fairer than Britain's".

The Kremlin itself did not comment on the forum positively or negatively, but the implications of allowing the forum to go on hurt its image.

Opposing the EU is not wrong or incorrect by itself. The EU is far from a perfect entity in many areas of policy.

But the implicit endorsement of Europe's far right is a policy rife with hypocrisy. European far-right parties are often ethnic nationalist and some even border on neo-Nazi. The Sweden Democrats campaign with the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish" and have in the past used blatantly racist slogans. One of the members of Greece's Golden Dawn party is on record as saying "We may do the Nazi salute, but at least our hands are clean," not to mention the party's flag contains an insignia similar to the Nazi swastika.

Russia fought Nazi German fascism between 1941 and 1945 when Hitler's forces invaded the Soviet Union. Fighting the poisonous ideology has become a part of Russian patriotism. One of Russia's most famous military marches, Священная война (The Sacred War) begins as such:

"Arise, great country!

Arise, for a fight to the death!

Against the dark fascist forces, 

Against the cursed hordes!"

Let our noble wrath

boil over like a wave!

This is the people's war, 

A sacred war!

This rousing march is played every May 9th at the Victory Day military parade as the national flag and the banner of victory are marched into Red Square in Moscow. 

Over twenty million Soviets gave their blood defending the fatherland against the Nazis. Russia continues to honor their memory through military pomp and celebration. 

Fighting fascism since the end of communism, however, has become a distorted tool of propaganda. It is true Ukraine does have a population of ultra-nationalists who dislike Russia and her people, but the claims made by the Kremlin that Ukraine's Euromaidan Revolution was taken over by a "fascist Kiev junta" are grossly exaggerated. 

Above all, this is insulting to our grandfathers who fought the Nazis. Fighting fascism in the 1940s was for the survival of the Soviet Union, for the defense of the fatherland. Today, it's a perverted pipe dream that is subject to whether United Russia can gain more influence. No, it wasn't a perfect war or a war without its own atrocities on the Allies' side. But it has been said that World War II was won with American steel, British intelligence, and Soviet blood, and that is something Russians will always take pride in. The sacrifice and struggle of our people will live for centuries. 

Unfortunately, while the military pomp continues in the square, the money within the Kremlin may go to those who are too close to old enemies for comfort. 

Russia's Wild South: Experts discuss the situation in Chechnya

On February 17th, 2016, three policy experts discussed the situation in Chechnya and the implications of the situation for Russian domestic politics. 

After the two wars in Chechnya, the Putin Administration made it a priority to rebuild the region, pouring billions of roubles into the tiny mountainous province and turning Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, from a hellscape to a glittering city reminiscent of Las Vegas or Dubai (though likely with considerably less alcohol).

In doing so, the son of a Chechen warlord killed by Russian forces named Ramzan Kadyrov was installed as the head of Chechnya, a region he currently rules as an absolute monarch in all but name. Kadyrov is famous for being bellicose, charismatic, extremely fond of the spotlight, and iron-fisted.

“Putin is a soft version of Kadyrov, and Kadyrov is a hard version of Putin”, Aleksandra Garmazhapova, a journalist from Novaya Gazeta quipped. “When asked who would they rather meet in a dark alley, people responded with President Putin-Kadyrov is a “monkey with a grenade”, but Putin plays by certain rules.”

There’s a striking similarity between the imagery the two leaders prefer to promote of themselves. Both Putin and Kadyrov try to paint themselves as manly men but with just enough “human” features. To do this, Kadyrov prefers to use his instagram account, which hosts various images of him ranging from holding baby birds to showing him deep in prayer. Putin does much the same, though his pictures are more widely shared and broadcasted due to his higher position. Some of his most famous pictures include him cuddling with a puppy, working out, practicing his beloved judo, and enjoying tea with Prime Minister Medvedev.

The charisma and manliness is much the same, and so are the problems with both men and their administrations. Freedom of the press, already considerably hampered in Russia, is even more restricted in Chechnya. Both Russian and international journalists are afraid to report on what exactly goes on in Chechnya under Kadyrov. A journalist from Kommersant magazine was personally called out by Kadyrov who challenged him to write about his region. Crimes that do occur are often left unsolved in both Moscow and Grozny out of fear.

Another problem, Ms. Garmazhapova said, is that opposition figures in Russia are embarrassed to admit it, but they are fearful of Kadyrov. The negative response that comes from law enforcement when opposition figures are harassed and intimidated implies that the Kremlin endorses Kadyrov’s bellicose attitude.

Anton Ryzhov, who worked in Chechnya defending human rights and condemning the practice of torture, elaborated.

Torture was used many times to extract confessions regarding terrorism in Chechnya, though now that the region is a bit more stable the practice has waned in frequency.

Federal agencies in Russia are hampered by Kadyrov, Mr. Ryzhov said. “If a person loyal to Kadyrov is called in for investigation, they never show up.”

Kadyrov thrives off of tribute and while Chechnya suffers from a poor economy and a lack of jobs, the administration gets rich. This structure also has another implication that the grisly murder of Boris Nemtsov may not be solved as it nears its first anniversary.

Though not the problem it used to be, Islamic fundamentalism is still a problem that must be addressed in the North Caucasus, as Denis Sokolov stressed.

Islamic teaching in Chechnya, particularly the more fundamentalist variety, often comes from “internet sheikhs” promoting the “Caucasus Emirate” rather than the traditional ustaaz (teacher) in Dagestan as well as Chechnya. Islamic fundamentalism is still a method in which Chechens and Dagestanis can command power at a more local level, and because of where the teaching comes from, a surprisingly small amount of Sharia law is actually practiced and known by those who do.

The paranoid anti-Americanism of recent years has only further exacerbated the situation in Chechnya and the Caucasus. Relationships that were strong between the judiciary and Chechen courts now are tense because of widespread propaganda of “fifth column” actors from the United States. Corruption has worsened as well and institutions are hurting because of it.

Chechnya is much better off than it was in years directly following the brutal wars fought between Russian and Chechen forces. The current situation, however, is not at all maintainable, nor is it beneficial to the Chechen people. If the Kremlin does not start to seriously re-think what it did to stabilize Chechnya in the first place by installing a warlord’s son, the simmering region may boil over again in the future.