The Current Situation in Latin America

Things fundamentally changed; look at an extreme case like the one of the UK. Not long ago I was visiting London and I happened to be invited to speak at the Royal Festival Hall. It was packed with people. During my first lecture someone from the audience asked me whom would I vote for in the upcoming elections? I said that I’m not going to sell ice to the Eskimos; that I am not going to tell English people for whom they should vote. But people kept insisting, kept pushing: “Whom would you vote for?” At the end they reduced their questions to: “So at least say what would be your message to the English public.” So I told them: “I don’t think it is a very dignified position to be a colony of your former colony.” They were laughing a lot after I said that; they thought it was a great joke. But it wasn’t a joke. It’s true. Europe is now very much under the control of dictatorship; of only one power, which is represented by one guy from Texas presiding over the degradation of the political process, reducing it to the level of low quality comics. 

Most Europeans are losing any desire to vote. As we saw during the previous elections in the UK, the majority of people are voting for politicians for whom they harbor no respect. 

There is a universal crisis of so called representative democracies or democracies, which rely on the system of competing political parties. This crisis is mostly reflected in the apathy of young generations. If you ask young people whether they believe in democracy, in the energy of changes in democracy, most young people just shrug their shoulders and tell you that they don’t believe in it, or believe just a little. This universal crisis—and Latin America is part of this world and this crisis—takes place mainly because politicians did very little in order to dignify democracy. Many young people see democracy as some enormous circus where professional politicians are performing incredible tricks. Once they reach the government, they do everything possible not to fulfill what they have promised during the election campaign. 

This is exactly against the essence of democracy and young people at the end feel that they are invited to choose between the same and the same. The goal now is to restore democracy to its deep essence: as the power of the people. In this world, which is losing faith in so called representative democracy, there are new developments in participatory democracy. These are very interesting developments, reflecting the revitalization of community power with a more and more active presence of minorities in political life, including the presence of women who are of course by no means a minority. There is also the growing influence of the pacifists. Sometimes one feels that pacifists are powerless since they were not able to stop the war in Iraq. But we can’t forget that before the war, for the first time in the history of humanity, there were enormous demonstrations and protests against the war—before the war began. 

This was important because at least it put on record how disconnected many governments are from their people who were screaming slogans against the war on the streets, but their voices are being ignored. So at least it was important as a testimony. On the other hand, it is also obvious how far we are from the time of political maturity when we could be capable of punishing politicians for their betrayals; to punish with the most powerful weapon—the ballot. There is a saying that a lie has short legs. Not long ago I wrote an article arguing that it is not true: a lie has very long legs. So long are the legs of a lie that it is capable of running at full speed carrying liars on its back. Because when Tony Blair and George Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, people in their countries still awarded them with the vote in the following elections. So we are still very far from the time when people will be realizing how powerful a weapon their vote can be. 

You mentioned pacifism. Do you believe that it is possible to fight against global dictatorship by pacifist means? 

I don’t believe in saying “The way to do it is armed struggle.” I’ve met many people who were seriously involved in armed struggle, but they were reacting to the will and desires of the people. They never acted as if they were enlightened by some divine power or by some chosen minority. Also, they say that if there were someone shouting, “Armed struggle, let’s die,” they would probably be working for someone and would be embarrassed to confess for whom. They would be some professional provocateurs like Bin Laden. Bin Laden is an official of fear, that’s clear. Bush was just about to lose the elections, and then Bin Laden appears, declares that he is going to eat all children in the raw, and Bush wins. So there is  blackmail by the dominant power when it uses the threat of terror. It happens very often: one’s enemies are the best allies.

 I think the ways of change are dictated by the circumstances of each country, each place, and each time. I don’t think that arrogant intellectuals should be dictating to people which way they should be heading. I think we should be listening to the people, see in which directions things are developing. People are walking where they can, not where they want to. But they are walking. One has to have enough modesty and humility to listen to the sound of their steps. 

Now one thing that I can say: experience shows that this formula of universal capitalism is not working. It does not solve any basic problems of humanity and, in addition, it is endangering the very existence of our planet. Therefore, we have to be alert and follow the contradictions created by this very system. Contradictions between what the system says and what it does. Between what the system wants and what it can do. From these contradictions grow the base of the new world, which is not yet born. One has to be a realist, but also to remember that reality is not only the world that we know, but also the world that we need. And the world that we need is inside the stomach of the present world. This new world often seems to be too silent, but it exists. We have to be patient and humble to hear how it is kicking inside. We have to see in which way each situation is developing, at each and every moment, everywhere. By doing this, we have to drop formulas. The 20th century was where formulas failed. Formulas failed once, twice, 1,000 times. We already experienced the pedantry with which the world was forced to adapt to the formulas. 

At least we know that we don’t want to repeat mistakes, which occurred in the past when one half of the world had to sacrifice freedom in the name of justice, while the other half had to sacrifice justice in the name of freedom. Now we know that this will not do: that justice and freedom are Siamese twins. They were born back to back—attached to each other and they want to live together. At least this we know, so we don’t have to repeat what has been done; what went wrong with some terrible consequences. Remember, when the so-called “real socialism” collapsed without one drop of blood, nobody gave a shit. I knew many leaders of the Communist Parties from the former Eastern Block; they converted themselves into businesspeople, overnight. These are the countries that were claiming they were governed by the proletariat. 

After all that, do you still maintain some belief in socialism or communism? 

Of course I do. I don’t think there has been anything yet that we could call real socialism. There were developments, some experiences that were correct. But the system was divorced from the people. It was operated in the name of the working people, but it was not the case in reality and the proof was in the incredible simplicity by which it decomposed.

What an arrogance of that bureaucracy that later recycled itself in just ten minutes into a bourgeois class. They became capitalists. They changed one type of oppression for another, but one way or the other continued to function as an oppressive force. So all this has obviously nothing to do with ideals of socialism. But it is also obvious that if capitalism doesn’t work for the majority of people, sooner or later we will have to lift up the old banners, which were made dirty and were abused. 

Back to Latin America: it is clear that most of the people here still desire social justice and a system that would be able to guarantee it. However, after they vote in progressive governments, these are not always able to deliver their promises. 

People here want very basic things. They still can’t find the answers or solutions to their very simple demands like dignity, peace, and work. People are searching, but they are not finding solutions. They are walking and searching on different roads. They are being betrayed—we have a long tradition of betrayal here. They are now, generally and to a certain point, thinking that these new governments, which have lately appeared in several parts of South America, will act more or less in accordance with the hope that they managed to evoke. That’s why I always say, careful, one doesn’t play with people’s hope. Hope is very fragile. If people deposited this hope in your hands, comrades—be very careful. Don’t betray this hope. Because hope can’t be recovered easily. When it is lost, it takes a long time to bring it back. New progressive governments in South America are facing tremendous historic responsibility. One of the writers and journalists who had a profound influence on me kept repeating: one sin that can’t be forgiven is a sin against hope. Everything can be forgiven, but not this. That’s why progressive governments have to be extremely careful not to destroy hope. 

A lot is being written lately about betrayal of hope. Some point fingers at Lula’s government in Brazil. But how much space do these governments have to maneuver? 

Space is very limited and they have to fight an uphill battle. But one has to have something clear: if you are going to repeat history, it is better if you leave in power those who are already there. If your point is that you will not be able to change things, then don’t promise that you will. If you do and don’t deliver, you are lying to the people. If you can’t change things, let capitalists preside over capitalism. But if you are going to get your hands on power in the name of change, in the name of national sovereignty or human dignity, then you have to be responsible for your promises. If you can’t do it, just go home, turn on the television and let politicians take care of politics. In the moment when Lula or others propose changes, they are responsible for their promises. One of Lula’s politicians recently responded to the accusations about corruption in the present government: “But these things have always occurred in Brazil.” But if this is always going to happen, why didn’t they leave those who were doing it to continue?