The Economist has a good analysis of Fernando Lugo, Paraguay’s incoming president. As w/ a number of other recently elected “leftists” in the region, the questions revolve around whether he’ll be a social democrat (like Lula or Bachelet) or a populist (like Correa or Chávez). So far, it looks like he’s more likely to move towards the social democrat position.
Paraguay has long been a mess. Its former dictator, Alfredo Stroessner, once held the record for the longest-lasting regime of any in the hemisphere (1954-1989).1 Since the country’s transition to democracy, it’s remained governed by Stroessner’s Colorado Party. Worse, three of its presidents were implicated in corruption scandals—and one (Raúl Cubas) was implicated in the murder of his vice president!
Lugos’s election thus constitutes the first democratic “turnover,” which is a good sign. The challenge is whether Lugo can manage this second transition. Too often, such regimes overreach by moving too quickly to make sweeping reforms. Worse if they often do so w/ less than “democratic” means. Even if such reforms are necessary (and in Paraguay they certainly are), moving to fast can produce a strong political reaction. Slow in steady (à la Lula) is more likely to succeed. Sweeping changes that are overturned are useless, but steady reforms that become consolidated will benefit future generations. And if they’re done democratically, treating even opponents on the right w/ respect, it’s easier to win them over & establish a lasting compromise. Otherwise, when reforms are made unilaterally, they tend to give reactionaries the green light to behave unilaterally if/when they return to power.
----
1 That record is now held by Fidel Castro’s regime (1959-2006). Stroessner’s record was only 34½ years; Castro has that beat by well over a decade.
Very true, mcentellas. I would like to add that taking legal short cuts, violating minority party rights creates a siege mentality in those who hold power. Everyone which opposes your views is the enemy. Its a natural reaction to the situation you describe.
That's the key problem w/ zero-sum politics (or "politics as war"). Too often politics is reduced to "either you're w/ us or w/ the [fill in name of enemy here]" (and it's amazing how Bush's logic is used by "progressives" as well). The temptation to view those who disagree w/ us as "enemies" (and also either wrong headed or evil) is a powerful. But it's a temptation we should resist.
Hmmm...seems like you're applying an Andean lens to Paraguay in terms of "sweeping" or "overreaching" reforms. I wouldn't be shocked to see Paraguay proceed in a more Central American direction, where fractious coalitions and few islands of competent management mean that very little gets done, a la Guatemala so far under Colom and Nicaragua and Honduras under, well, everyone.
Perhaps, but I also think that several reformist regimes in other parts of the world (not just in the Andes or even the Americas) have fallen under circumstances where reformers "over-reached" or moved too quickly, and contrasting that to reformers who moved more slowly, but successfully, in places as diverse as Chile, South Africa, and Taiwan.
Thanks for the post on Lugo, I never seem to hear anything about him. Is it more or does Evo and Chavez just get more media coverage than anyone in S.A.?
-jon