Why has Latin American shifted to the right?
But in the last quarter of the 20th century, the same postwar organizations imposed a new, market-centered model. Value was replaced by price, trade liberalization was prioritized and social issues were subordinated to the laws of the market. The concentration of capital and the delegitimization of democracy broke the previous consensus. Although progressive governments emerged, they were unable to contain the rise of the new autocratic right, supported by de facto powers such as the media, the church, the military and the technocracy. The crisis of representation led political parties to abandon their bases, leaving room for 'anti-politicians' who found a platform in mainstream media.
Meanwhile, the social outlook deteriorated. Inequality, already structural, worsened after 2016 and exploded during the pandemic, reaching a peak of 209 million Latin Americans experiencing poverty by the end of 2020. This inequality delegitimizes democracy. In tandem, progressive governments focused their efforts on reducing discrimination on the basis of gender, race or occupation, rather than combating exclusion on the basis of class.
This struggle has been attacked by the right, which labels progressives' defense of minorities as 'wokeism' and accuses it of fragmenting society. But in reality, it is a commitment to collective solidarity. Inequality and discrimination are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other.
Nevertheless, these broad ideological shifts have led to the return of the right in the US, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay, which can be understood through the radicalization of political projects, polarization on social networks, lawfare, persistent inequality and discourses of electoral fraud.
Media messaging and the emergence of digital silos have taken polarization to the extreme. With the use of artificial intelligence, political messages are segmented according to voters' fears. Social media bombards us with emotions, replacing debates about genuine alternatives with ideological confrontation. These digital bubbles have fabricated virtual leaders at the service of the new right's media conglomerates.
Added to this digital invasion is the judicialization of politics. Prosecutors and judges lead conflicts that should be resolved democratically, without respecting due process or the presumption of innocence. The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was judicially excluded in the 2018 elections won by Bolsonaro, who today is being investigated for seeking to prevent Lula's 2023 inauguration. President Gustavo Petro, in Colombia, similarly faces 'soft coup' attempts affecting his ability to govern.
With the election of Trump 2.0, the global far right has found an echo chamber in Florida and across the region, with the support of political leaders in the US, El Salvador and Argentina.
Trump, who said 'we don't need' Latin America just days into his second term, has ratcheted up anti-Latin American aggression through decisions such as the persecution of migrants, the suspension of aid programs via USAID, the strengthening of sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela, and the absurd territorial claims over Canada, the Gulf of Mexico and the Panama canal. All this marks the return of the Uncle Sam of the 1950s and Operation Condor of the 1970s and 80s.
In the face of this threat, it is necessary to build a new solidarity-based development model that combines growth, inclusion, and democracy, with broad fronts such as Mexico's ruling Morena party or the leadership of Yamandú Orsi in Uruguay. Latin America must reintegrate regionally as an active part of the global south: réspice similia (look to your neighbors).
Sign up to First Thing
Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
The Trumpist right wing is promoting deglobalization, abandoning the World Health Organization, denying the climate crisis, and attacking international justice. The model of coexistence resulting from the end of the second world war, although in crisis, must not be replaced by another hegemonic one, but rather through the construction of a new global order consolidated around the principles of social harmony, coexistence and collective economic progress, such as the one defended by China.
In this new scenario, Latin America must present itself as integrated, a single voice before the world. The region does not need concentration camps for migrants to understand that we are heading straight to a fascist abyss and that the only antidote to avoid falling into it is, and will always be, progressivism.
Ernesto Samper Pizano was president of Colombia from 1994 to 1998
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
CEO pay climbs ahead of Trump tax windfall for wealthy
Starbucks' CEO Brian Niccol made 6,666 times more than his average worker last year, according to a report on the growing gap between top executives and their workers. The inequality gap between CEOs' pay and that of their median workers rose in 2024 to 285 to 1 from 268 to 1 in 2023, according to a report released this week by the largest federation of labor unions in the US, the AFL-CIO. CEO pay rose 7% in 2024 among S&P 500 companies, an increase of $1.24m from 2023. Niccol, who joined the company in September 2024, received more than $97.8m in total compensation in 2024. The typical Starbucks worker's pay was less than $15,000. 'The median Starbucks worker would have had to start working for Starbucks in 4643 BC (during the Stone Age!) just to earn what Starbucks' CEO earned in 2024 alone,' the report stated. The report notes Trump's 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill passed this year will hand the average CEO of an S&P 500 company a $489,118 tax cut, 639 times more than the median US worker. 'Corporate CEOs are raking in millions, and now they'll get another kickback from President Trump's tax cut gift and anti-worker agenda,' said Fred Redmond, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. 'Trump is paying for this handout to CEOs by cutting health care, food assistance and hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on government investments.' An analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found the top 1% of US families, by income, will receive a tax cut of $1.02tn over the next decade as a result of the reconciliation bill. Donald Trump first ran for president criticizing exorbitant CEO pay, claiming he was going to raise taxes on them. 'You see these guys making these enormous amounts of money, and it's a total and complete joke,' Trump said in 2015 during an interview on his first presidential campaign. 'They pay very little tax, and that's going to end when I come out with my plan in about three weeks, could be sooner than that … We're going to be reducing taxes for the middle class. But for the hedge fund guys, they're going to be paying up.' In the wake of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, corporations saw their tax rates fall from an average of 22% to 12.8% after the law went into effect. Under his first presidential term, average CEO pay rose from $13.1m in December 2016 to $15.5m in December 2020. Corporate income tax collections dropped in the wake of Trump's 2017 tax cuts by $93bn in 2018.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
How does Britain's pension predicament compare with other countries?
Liz Kendall announced this week that she is reviving the pension commission as the government tries to tackle what she described as a looming 'tsunami of pensioner poverty'. The work and pensions secretary said the government is setting out to 'tackle the barriers that stop too many saving in the first place' after her department found that people retiring in 2050 are on track to be poorer than those retiring today, expecting to get £800 less in private pension income. Currently, just 55 per cent of working age adults in the UK are contributing to a pension pot, and MPs have said that a UK-wide strategy is needed to address pensioner poverty. But the UK's pension dilemma is not unique. Countries across the world are grappling with similar looming crises, driven by a combination of factors including demographic shifts, low interest rates and economic instability. Here, the Independent takes a look at what action other governments are taking to stave off the impending crisis. United States In the United States, half of all private-sector workers are unable to get a retirement plan through their jobs, according to a survey published in June by Pew Charitable Trusts. The US's most common workplace retirement plan is a 401(k), which allows employees to voluntarily put money aside for retirement which is typically matched by their employers. The total employee and employer contributions to a 401(k) cannot exceed $70,000 per year. Around 27 per cent of Americans over the age of 59 have no savings to rely on in their retirement, according to a survey by financial services firm Credit Karma in 2023. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration was expected to sign an order that would open up 401(k)s to the private markets. It would order the US Labor Department and Securities and Exchange Commission to create guidance for employers on including private assets in 401(k) plans, which could, in turn, create more investment opportunities for them. Canada Currently, the key challenge for many countries remains the low rate of pension saving. More than half (59 per cent) of working Canadians do not believe they will have enough money to retire, according to a survey conducted this year by Canadian pension fund HOOPP, Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan. However, Canada is tackling this through rate increases within their savings system. The government has expanded the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), a monthly benefit that replaces a percentage of a person's income after they retire. Between 2019 to 2025, it has increased the percentage of how much of a worker's earnings are replaced from 25 per cent to 33.33 per cent. It has also increased the maximum level of earnings protected by the CPP by 14 per cent over 2024 and 2025. Australia Australia is recognised as having one of the world's top pension schemes where employers are required to pay a percentage of their employees earnings into an account which that employee can then access once they have retired. As of this month, employers are now required to contribute 12 per cent to employees' retirement savings accounts, up from 11.5 per cent. They are also taking steps to close the gender pension pay gap with the Labor Government introducing a superannuation top up for parents taking time off to care for a newborn. The CityUK CEO Miles Celic said: 'total contributions will have to rise if we are to emulate the successes of, for example, Australia and Canada. 'This will involve difficult political choices alongside technical changes to policy and regulation.' France In 2023, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the age of retirement from 62 to 64, which sparked massive public backlash and protests. Macron's administration argued that the reform was essential to prevent long-term deficits in the pension system. At the time, Macron said he did not enjoy passing the reform but called it a necessity, saying 'the longer we wait, the more (the deficit) will deteriorate.' As well as increasing the age of retirement, France has also hiked the minimum contributory requirements by 2 per cent this year across all bands. The minimum contribution applies to retirement pensions under its Pension Insurance scheme. Germany In Germany, the retirement age is gradually being raised from 65 to 67. Like many governments across Europe, it is trying to reduce pressure on the pension system created by aging populations. Last year, it approved pension reform and its new government has set out a series of policies that include maintaining the amount paid to retirees each month - which is 48 per cent of the average monthly salary.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Why are Ukrainians angry with Zelenskyy? Because even during wartime, some red lines must not be crossed
For quite some time, foreign colleagues have been asking me about Ukraine's democracy during wartime. Often these questions assume that political freedoms vanish by default in a country at war. They ask whether protests or critiques of the government are even possible. Ukraine is a democracy at war – and democracy itself is an existential matter. It is precisely what the country is fighting for. My usual answer has been: 'The people will know when it's time to protest.' They will sense when too much power is being concentrated in security services, when parliament's role is being bypassed, when the prime minister or members of parliament are no longer acting independently. Ukrainians, I would say, will know when red lines are crossed. This week, many decided that such a red line had been crossed. On Tuesday thousands of people gathered in Kyiv to protest and call on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto legislation they believe undermines the independence of two key anti-corruption institutions: the national anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine (Nabu) and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office (Sapo). The protest was largely youthful – many would have been kids during the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Their chants included 'Veto the law!' and 'No to pressure on independent institutions'. Despite martial law, only two policemen were stationed nearby. The atmosphere was even cheerful. It was by far the largest protest since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Similar demonstrations took place in approximately 10 Ukrainian towns. And yet late that very night, Zelenskyy signed the bill into law. What shocked many was not just the content of the legislation but also the speed and manner in which it was pushed through: passed within a day, as an amendment hidden inside unrelated law enforcement reforms, and then signed and published almost immediately. Since the beginning of Russia's invasion, Ukrainians have demonstrated an extraordinary level of unity and civic responsibility. Citizens also showed renewed faith in the institutions of the state – even those long viewed with suspicion. People were willing to look past imperfections, to suspend criticism, and to focus on survival and victory. That is why there has been no serious internal push for wartime elections, despite foreign commentary. Elections – expensive, risky and constitutionally prohibited during war – are widely understood by Ukrainians to be unfeasible under current conditions. But this is different. This law has become a litmus test of whether public trust in the government can be sustained. And more than that, whether the unwritten social contract – between citizens and the state – still holds. The law adopted by Ukraine's parliament – formally known as draft law 12414 – includes sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the authority of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies. The prosecutor general now holds expanded powers over Nabu and Sapo – including control over investigations, case access and team composition, and the authority to shut down cases or transfer them to other law enforcement bodies. The vote took place just one day after the security service of Ukraine (SBU) conducted searches at Nabu's offices, and Ukraine's state bureau of investigation (SBI) filed criminal charges against three Nabu employees over car accidents that occurred in 2021 and 2023. These incidents raised eyebrows for their timing. According to Nabu, the new provisions 'effectively destroy the independence of Sapo and place both Nabu and Sapo under the control of the prosecutor general'. The bureau reminded lawmakers that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure, built in partnership with international allies since 2015, was a key precondition for western financial and political support. As institutions, Nabu and Sapo are not without flaws. Government representatives – both formally and off the record – have raised concerns about politicised investigations, poor coordination with other law enforcement agencies and even alleged infiltration by individuals sympathetic to Russian interests. The quality of investigations has also been criticised. Some probes have dragged on for years without result. Others, including cases against prominent business figures or former officials, have been accused of selective prosecution. There are also persistent rumours that Nabu investigations have touched individuals close to Zelenskyy himself. What makes this even more complex is that these institutions are tied to Ukraine's commitments for EU membership. And yet European integration – while deeply valued by Ukrainians – is no longer something the EU itself appears eager to actively advance. That makes it even easier for outside partners to use moments like this to distance themselves, to quietly say: 'Maybe Ukraine isn't ready after all.' But the deeper issue is this: none of Ukraine's law enforcement institutions are ideal – not during wartime, and arguably not before it. But Nabu and Sapo remain the most trusted parts of a law enforcement system long plagued by corruption and impunity. They were created not to be dismantled when they become inconvenient. The protesters are not defending a fantasy of flawless institutions but the principle that reform must not be replaced by control. Protests are likely to continue. The government will have to respond. Yes, there is war. But in a democracy there is a constitutional way forward: the law can be rescinded, amended, debated transparently. This cannot be fixed by one late-night briefing from the head of the security service or the newly appointed prosecutor general – nor by a photo opportunity where Zelenskyy stands alongside the heads of all law enforcement bodies. It requires real, public consultation. The demonstrators in Kyiv this week are sending a message. If there were questions about what the limits of government power during war should be, they were answered on Tuesday. Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab
