Malcolm Deas, a professor at Oxford University and one of Colombia’s most respected supporters, responds bluntly. He visits EL PAÍS from Great Britain and talks about the state of the democracies in the region with his perspective as a historian and his experience from more than 60 years of studying Latin America and especially Colombia. “You don’t read Latin America well, either from Europe or from the Anglo-Saxon world. It is the region of the world that suffers the most from stereotypes and lazy generalizations,” he warns right at the beginning of the presentation.
Question. You say that Latin America has nation states that are older than some European countries, why don’t our forms of democracy seem very developed? Or are you?
Answer. It must be recognized that the countries of the region have very different traditions and political systems, very different. Not surprisingly, most have lived independent, individual political lives for two centuries. As nation states predate certain European nations: Germany, Italy, Greece, Belgium… it is not surprising that they have a multitude of successes and failures in consolidating their democracies.
Q Does the old pink tide that President Gustavo Petro is now calling “one Latin America” in Creole European Union style still have support? Do you play with invisible dice? If it’s not about integration, where should we go in Latin America to see ourselves as a bloc?
R The integration rhetoric is not convincing, nor are the contenders for regional leadership. The obstacles are numerous, the common interests weak. Better for each country to focus on its own problems and how to solve them. Why and how “think en bloc”?
There is and was no leading country. Brazil is a self-centered country, it doesn’t care, it has a different language than the others, it’s geographically isolated; Argentina only excels in football, politically it’s a disaster; We in Venezuela remember Chávez’s attempts and failures: What happened to UNASUR? Who is bidding a peso for their bronze statue of Néstor Kirchner? Integration also does not seem to be as successful and popular in other parts of the world as in Europe, where it is not seen as democratic.
Newsletter
Current affairs analysis and the best stories from Colombia, delivered to your inbox every week
GET THE
Q How do you read López Obrador’s Mexico, Boric’s Chile, Lula’s Brazil or Fernández’s Argentina? How can the Bukele phenomenon in El Salvador be explained?
In the regional left there is neither a mishmash nor a success story worth emulating. Chile with boric very low; Argentina is not a model for anyone; Brazil with a Lula who is now a center figure; Mexico with AMLO is only comprehensible to Mexicans and not to all; Peru is in a serious state of chaos. Not to mention the former left of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Q Regarding Cuba, why is a 64-year bloc not hitting its target sustainable, why hasn’t Biden made a fundamental difference to Trump?
R It is true that the blockade did not work, but the only attractive offer your government now has is your service to help improve the internal control systems of authoritarian governments, as can be seen in Venezuela.
Q Well, how is Colombia today reading President Petro’s reformist proposals?
R So far it has been difficult to see the concrete content of President Gustavo Petro’s proposals. Vague political rhetoric is not his or Colombia’s monopoly, but given the recent high dose, I would like to express my skepticism about repeated notions of participation, inclusion, equality, dialogue, especially dialogue on the streets, of protest. .. the latter, depending on the context, generally accepted. The problem with all of them is their difficult implementation in viable projects. At the same time, it must be recognized that not everyone wants to spend their time getting involved and that the street is not a good place to have a serious dialogue. My protest is not just about pedantry.
Malcolm Deas is an English historian specializing in the study of Latin America in general and Colombia in particular Gladys Serrano
Q Was it inevitable that Colombia would go through a left government?
R Petro is the first Colombian president to declare himself leftist, yes, but he is far from a progressive president.
Q Colombia is living through the tragedy of drug trafficking. The President is betting on total peace going through the review of the fight against drugs, his bet on legalization. Is that the only way?
R The peace that President Juan Manuel Santos was able to strike with the FARC guerrillas was partly the result of the military successes of his predecessor, President Álvaro Uribe, and partly the great patience and expertise of his negotiating team. Although not complete, it was historic in that it produced the general recognition among Colombians that the future would not be the product of armed revolutionary struggle. The “total peace” that President Petro wants to achieve through negotiations with the remaining violent and criminal groups will require an equally coordinated, patient and intelligent effort. The drug trade continues to complicate everything. Colombia has neither the capacity to solve this problem, nor is there any prospect of a radical change in its international treatment. However, Colombia must manage it within its means, and certain strategies are better than others.
Q In the United States, rights such as abortion are on the decline, and racism and homophobia are on the rise. What analysis to make?
R During her visit to the London School of Economics in 2009, Queen Elizabeth II asked the assembled economists why no one had foreseen the great crisis of 2008? Trump’s triumph had been foreseen. The other democracies in the hemisphere continue with their different limitations and problems, which are very acute today in Peru and Haiti. But perhaps the country that should worry pro-democracy supporters the most is the United States.
Q In the UK where you live there is another political crisis, how can this be explained, is it a consequence of Brexit?
R Brexit has a lot to do with the crisis we’ve had since this referendum. Economically it was a mistake, now most people recognize it. Politically, it deeply divided the ruling Conservative Party. Many of its best elements emerged and we had three consecutive governments, that of Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Elizabeth Truss, which in their different ways were the worst in many decades. Rishi Sunak’s current one is weak, his party is still divided and with many elements that are not very clear. Luckily we didn’t win the football cup.