We are entering the home stretch of the semester. And as you all begin work on your final papers, staying up to date on Latin American current events will provide you food for thought and examples (or counterexamples) for your case-based papers. This is also the 4th last blog post of the semester. Those of you have been holding off on participating are running out of time!
This week's first set of articles involve allegations made against two Latin American leaders. As we learned earlier this semester, Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva served as president of Brazil from 2002-2010. He oversaw a period of mainly strong growth where the economy was largely stable and inequality and poverty fell significantly. He left office with sky-high approval ratings and his chosen successor, Dilma Rousseff, was easily elected to the presidency. Lula's time as leader saw extensive allegations of corruption against those close to him as part of the Mensalão scandal. This scandal culminated in the conviction and sentencing of several high level members of Lula's political party, the PT. Many wondered how such extensive corruption could occur without the knolwedge of the president. But, until now, Lula has avoided being implicated in the scandal. It's important to stress that no convictions have occurred. But, this could have important consequences for Lula's legacy, the PT, and Brazilian democracy.
The second leader is the current president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina. Mr. Perez Molina has held office in Guatemala for only 15 months but has already overseen a large fall in crime an has been an outspoken advocate for a change in how the international community conducts its war on drugs. Prior to entering politics, Perez Molina was a military man and served in the military during Guatemala's long and bloody civil war, which was ongoing from 1960 to 1996. As former Guatemalan leader Efraín Ríos Montt faces charges that he oversaw crimes against humanity during his rule in the early 1980s, Perez Molina has now been mentioned during the trials as someone who ordered death and destruction of civilians during the same time period.
Brazil Opens Inquiry Into Claims of Wrongdoing by Ex-President
Guatemalan president accused of involvement in civil war atrocities
Discussion question: both of these leaders have been praised inside and outside their countries as visionary and effective leaders. What would convictions - or at least clearer evidence of their wrongdoing - mean for the quality of democracy in Brazil and Guatemala?
The remaining two models highlight competing visions on the extent to which commonly excepted 'Western' positions on human rights and the economy should guide Latin American leaders and the policies they pursue. The first article details efforts of Ecuador's Rafael Correa to restructure the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The IACHR previously led pressures against military governments. But, Correa argues that the Commission is married to a vision trumpeted (and not necessarily followed) by the US and other western powers. He sees it as unfairly targeting leftist governments in Latin America. Thus, he has proposed a series of reforms to weaken the IACHR and related organs with ties to the Organization of American States (OAS). His proposals have failed to gain much support outside of a few countries but they highlight differing views within the Western Hemisphere on democracy and human rights. The second article - written by Correa's National Secretary of Planning and Development - praises Ecuador as having successfully broken with failed western dogmas and reaped the benefits of a more indigenous and progressive development model.
Human rights in the Americas: War of attrition
Ecuador begins to roar
Discussion question: who should Latin American leaders look to for inspiration for their policies? Also, to what extent is it important for Latin American governments to be bound by regional norms on human rights and democracy?
Enjoy!
In the case of the Brazilian vote-buying scandal, while a conviction would be a good sign for accountability in government, I'd like to see further steps taken to prevent corruption, although when corruption is present in every aspect of government, it can be very hard to combat, given the concentration of power among people who benefit from corruption. At any rate, serious investigations and improved accountability among those in power is a good first step.
ReplyDeleteOf course the question remains whether former president Silva will be convicted or not, and even if he is sentenced, whether there would be time served.The final paragraph of the Brazil article points out that while several political figures were sentenced last November none have gone to prison due to their lawyers delaying the Supreme Court. This highlights the amount of influence these figures have over the courts, which is another poor sign for accountability.
The charges against the Guatemalan president are far more heinous, as they involve military violence rather than political corruption. The article points out that the president is protected from subpeona by amnesty laws which protect public officials. This is definitely a bad sign, and is reminiscent of the political protections Pinochet gave himself. It is a serious problem when public officials are explicitly not held to the same laws and standards as ordinary citizens.
Still, if these cases result in convictions and if justice is done, that should send a clear message to current politicians that corruption will not always be tolerated, and perhaps the quality of democracy will improve as a result, albeit slowly.
The Ecuador article was very optimistic, and it seems they are dealing with problems of inequality and debt quite effectively. I think their model could be a source of inspiration for Latin American nations with similar economies, as their focus on public investment and policy of avoiding free trade agreements seem quite beneficial to a country of that size and economic strength.
I agree with the last part about Ecuador. Taking inspiration from Ecuador and Correa's policies could be beneficial for Latin American countries. According to the "Ecuador begins to roar" article, the country has made great strides in reducing economic inequality and moving the economy forward all while rejecting the Washington Consensus and the mainstream idea of privatization and trade openness. However, the shift toward more leftist policies to grow the economy is more political than anything. If this were to ever happen, there would most likely be an uproar from those benefiting from the more conservative policies that most LA countries have adopted since that Latin American Debt Crisis. Where to look for inspiration warrants a debate that is more contentious than it may seem on the surface. I think Ecuador, while successful so far in its leftward-shift, is an exception among Latin America.
DeleteI think we all need to consider our sources, here. The oh-so-optimistic article is written by Correa's National Secretary of Planning and Development. Of course he thinks Correa is revolutionary, and their policies paramount. But a jaguar...seriously? You don't exactly hear that coming from foreign officials or journalists.
DeleteI think that if Lula and Molina are convicted for each of their charges against them it's going to hurt their democratization. If Lula really had been buying people's votes during his presidency, then it really is not a democracy at all, not a liberal/constitutional democracy anyway, which is what is more important. However, I don't think anyone should be surprised by news of this scandal, it happens in a lot of countries who consider themselves to be a "democracy" like Russia, for example. Also, I think that, especially with regards to Brazil and the Lula scandal, it could potential put a threat on their democracy as citizens might start to question how democratic their system really is. If Lula is convicted of vote-buying, Brazil's current government should make it a priority of ensuring the citizens that they are in fact a functioning, liberal democracy.
ReplyDeleteSo, I agree that vote-buying negates democratic values. However, this investigation could actually be a very good thing for the quality of democracy in both countries. Holding officials accountable for their actions, whether during or after their period of power, can ideally set a precedent for future government. What is disappointing, as Cassidy mentioned, is that these men likely will not be held as responsible as they should be: they are both playing on a completely different field than the average citizen. Lula has a great amount of social influence and will be able to use politicking to his advantage. Molina is protected by amnesty, which is absurd, and his secretary general even threatened to take action against the informer in the case!
DeleteI agree with Caitlin in that convicting Lula would decrease the perception of a functioning democracy in Brazil. However, I believe this is only true in the short term. Culpability for crimes, even for a presidential figure is necessary for a long term and healthy democracy. I agree entirely with your last statement that Brazil needs to take the necessary legal action on Lula (if found guilty). After the event is sensationalized, the existing government must ensure Brazilian citizens that the country remains a functioning democracy.
DeleteAdditionally, many of the higher-up government officials implicated and convicted within the Mensalão scandal claimed that bribery is simply part of Brazilian politics. The prosecution or at least investigation of Lula will go a long way in eradicating the existing system of buying/selling votes. In my opinion, this is a great way for Brazil's legal system to prove that rule of law is healthy and willing to prosecute government officials.
In regards to the articles on Brazil and Gautamala, if the two leaders were convicted or were have shown to have committed wrongdoings, I think this would strengthen democracy in these countries because it would uphold rule of law and show the citizens of these countries that no one is above the law. As we have seen in other Latin American countries, leaders often construct an image of themselves that contradicts their actions and shields the people from the wrongdoings they commit behind closed doors. If Lula and Molina were convicted, I think it would force the citizens to look beyond the public image of these figures and hold them accountable for the corruption that they allow and participate in.
ReplyDeletePART 1
ReplyDeleteThroughout the semester we have spoken about the features inherent to a legitimate or healthy quality of democracy. The focus on quality of democracy as opposed to just presence of democracy is important because it is the quality of the democracy that determines and defines the circumstances of a society. A few of the key characteristics that we have identified and that contribute to a healthy quality of democracy are 1) accountability among politicians is prioritized 2) politicians and institutions that are representative to the constituency 3) transparency and 4) adherence to the rule of law.
In the last past week accusations have been made against political leaders in both Brazil and Guatemala, associating them with illegal and non-democratic actions. If these individuals are convicted of having a role in these scandals then that would undoubtedly reflect negatively the quality of democracy in both countries. Before it is possible to speculate on the possible effects that convictions would have on each country it is imperative to examine the current quality that exists in order to see how it might be affected.
As a class we have covered Brazil and found out that although democracy seems to have a foothold in Brazil, the quality of democracy in Brazil is relatively weak. Factors contributing to the weak quality of democracy that exists are widespread and deep-rooted socio-economic issues, such as inequality as well as politicians who are not truly held accountable for their actions. We have seen politicians circumvent accountability and continue to remain either in office or in a position of power. The semi-recent legislation established in Brazil preventing convicted individuals from participating in the politics of the country is a theoretically a good way to try and increase the quality of democracy but the fact that the legislation did not exclude the individuals in the election at the time shows inability of Brazilian politicians to move beyond status-quo and proliferate a better quality of democracy. Due to the current poor quality of democracy, I personally believe that a conviction of Lula would only contribute to the perception that democracy is weak in Brazil. The fact that the allegations are directed toward Lula is another element that is particularly important, although he is not the current President, he does represent a time that seemed to show real progress in Brazil.
PART 2
DeleteJust as democracy is present in Brazil, Guatemala also has a democratic system. The quality of democracy in Guatemala shares many of the shortcomings of democracy in Brazil, as well has many of its own issues. The 36-year long civil war ending with the 1996 Peace Accords was defined by atrocious human rights violations. Since the Peace Accords with the rebels, Guatemala has made many tangible steps towards a healthy democracy ,including, but not limited to: 1) elections that have been seen by the international community as reasonable fair and free 2) attempting to financially compensate many of the families of those killed during the civil war 3) cuts to military budgets and purges of military elite officers in 1996 and 2004 and 4) collaboration with the UN on the CICIG designed to prosecute individuals responsible for human rights violations during civil wars (BBC). Despite these efforts Guatemala continues to be plagued by many dynamic that contribute to quality of democracy that is far from healthy. A few of these issues include 1) a military that continues embody an autonomous “nature” 2) plagued by widespread corruption 3) defined by minimal turnout in presidential voting turnout (45 % in 2007) 4) lack of accountability of elected officials (partly due to forbiddance of reelection) 5) a system of campaign financing that “enables graft and criminal influence” within politics (Freedom House 2012). Due to this combination of detrimental circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that, currently, there is a ‘low’ quality of democracy in Guatemala. With this said, it must be acknowledged that Otto Molina has been able to shine a light on Guatemalan Democracy in recent times. The mixture of elements that constrain democracy and the positive light that has shined on Molina in recent times creates an interesting environment and in this environment I believe that a conviction of Molina would only perpetuate the negative factors that have constrained Guatemala since the Peace Accords.
Although both leaders are currently under investigation for serious crimes, it is essential to differentiate between the types of crimes each leader is being charged with and acknowledge how this difference might create different implications for the quality of democracy in each country. Lula is being investigated for possible campaign finance fraud and possible ‘vote-buying’, while Molina is accused of order soldiers to do things during that civil war that are gross and outrageous violations of human rights. Both crimes are serious, but the fact that Molina is the current President while Lula is just a leader and Molina’s crimes are, in my opinion, much more serious leads me to believe that, although convictions would reflect negatively on quality of democracy in both countries, a conviction of Molina would have a more detrimental effect.
Works Cited
"Guatemala: Freedom in the World 2012." Freedom House, 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
"Timeline: Guatemala." BBC News. BBC, 3 July 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
I believe that the convictions of Lula and Molina, in Brazil and Guatemala respectively, would have positive impacts on their quality of democracy. One of the basic priciples of democracy is transparency. In the case of Lula, his party and possibly eventually him are being implicated in corruption allegations. A transparent government limits corruptions scandals such as the Mensalao instance.
ReplyDeleteThe Guatemala scandal with Molina further shows a government that continues to fight transparency. Fortunately for Molina, he was granted amnesty and can't be subpoenaed. However, it seems like Guatemala may be actively pursuing these allegations, which could result in an overturning of the amnesty granted to former government officials.
The shortcomings in transparency in both Brazil and Guatemala highlight that democracy in each place is lacking in this criteria. If more evidence surfaces or Lula and Molina get implicated in these potential crimes, democracy would be supported. I say this because I believe that both Brazil and Guatemala would take preventative steps to ensure that scandals like these would not becoming recurring themes. Corruption such as the Mensalao scandal discourages foreign investment, which is something that is primarily responsible for Brazil's growth in the past 5 years. Given that, Brazil's government needs to discourage corruption in order to further appeal to foreign investors. With the case of Guatemala, Molina's conviction would show the Guatemalan people that social reforms can come at the cost of certain groups of their population. It would incentivize more of their population to make their voices heard so that atrocities like what happened under Molina's control will never occur again. Although Molina provided Guatemala with certain beneficial outcomes, if more clear evidence surfaces about these war-crimes, his regime will be remembered as a failure to the people. Overall, I believe both the Mensalao corruption scandal in Brazil and the Molina allegations in Guatemala will encourage both populations to demand more transparency, thus strengthening democracy in both countries.
I believe that this, along with many of the other blog posts here, oversimplifies the issue at hand. It is important to remember that Lula was not only a popular figure in Brazil, but also worldwide. In fact, Lula has been a symbol for the blue collar workers and working class. He represents upward mobility and hope in a society where traditionally social inequality has prevailed in all facets of life. For this reason, convicting Lula may very well undermine the good things he has done in office. I don't mean to defend corruption here; however, we must pull the camera back and look at the bigger picture. The political capital a conviction could afford the opposition may just be enough to reverse the social tide and send the society back to where it was before Lula.
DeleteI agree with those who believe convicting Lula for Brazil's largest corruption scandal for conspiracy and bribery could possibly cause the government to revert to the way it was before he came into office. Aside from this potential scandal, Lula is a loved figure and symbol of hope for the lower socioeconomic class. If convicted, people may lose faith in their government and discourage the efforts that have caused positive results in Brazil today. Regardless, I believe transparency is an absolute determining factor of a healthy democracy but we shouldn't focus on past issues, instead: focus on achieving a corruption free present and future.
DeleteIf clearer evidence surfaces that implicates the two leaders and leads to convictions, it would improve the quality of democracy. If a country struggles with corruption, you probably don't want the politicians operating with impunity.
DeleteI agree with the overall consensus that convictions of the two leaders would improve their respective countries' quality of democracy. If the accusations prove to be true, the fact that accusations from people significantly lower in societal hierarchy could cause the downfall of two leaders is proof that the democratic system is strengthening. Holding these two men accountable for their actions, if proven to be true, would be a step in the right direction for Brazil and Guatemala.
DeleteI agree with the overall consensus that convictions of the two leaders would improve their respective countries' quality of democracy. If the accusations prove to be true, the fact that accusations from people significantly lower in societal hierarchy could cause the downfall of two leaders is proof that the democratic system is strengthening. Holding these two men accountable for their actions, if proven to be true, would be a step in the right direction for Brazil and Guatemala.
DeleteIf these accusations prove to be true it would be most unfortunate. However I do agree that transparency is a good indicator of a healthy democracy. It does have the potential to discourage others from participating in future scandals and keeps the people informed of the actions of their government. Now while I believe transparency is vital, it may not be as good as some people might think. As we have seen in Mexico, transparency has not necessarily reduced the amount of scandals. Instead it can have the effect of making the government seem like it is more corrupt. This can lead to people loosing faith in their government and participation rates can go down. In Brazil's case, Lula was such a loved figure that if the accusations hold true, the people of brazil might feel betrayed by their government. In this case ignorance is blitz. That being said, I do not think it is an option to keep these scandals from public view.
ReplyDeleteBlog post in response to discussion question #1:
ReplyDeleteWhen entering the discussion of measuring democracy, it is important to define more tangibly what this means. There are several scholarly theories involving measuring democracy, which our class discussed extensively at the beginning of this semester. Adam Przeworski, a political scientist and theorist, argues that is should be an absolute definition and “you either have it or you don’t.” Daniel Levine and Jose Moline on the other hand, also political theorists, argue that quality of democracy can vary in an inexact way. They argue that there are several key factors that contribute to this: electoral decision, participation, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and popular sovereignty. Considering the recent controversies in Brazil and Guatemala involving current or former heads of government, I would like to use this second interpretation of democratic theory to discuss possible implications on these two countries’ quality of democracy.
The Times article involving Brazil states that: “Brazil’s Public Ministry, a body of independent public prosecutors, has begun an investigation into a claim connecting former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to a vast vote-buying scheme” which occurred during this presidency from 2002 until 2010. Although Brazil’s democracy has historically been characterized as weak by international standards, I agree with several other students that this investigation illustrates a strengthening of democracy in Brazil. That is to say, the investigation represents an effort to increase transparency within the government, which is a key component of quality of democracy. Of course no convictions have occurred yet because of delays in the Supreme Court, but the fact that the courts are even willing to investigate further into this scandal shows that corrupt political officials will not be tolerated. I believe the very same concept applies to the accusations of war crimes made against the current Guatemalan president, Otto Perez Molina. Even if Molina is totally innocent, this transparency is vital and necessary for a true functioning democracy. Without it I believe the government lacks a sense of credibility and integrity that these Latin American citizens have been desiring in recent years.
While these are attempts to strengthen democracy through transparency in these two governments, it is important to consider the effect that these controversies may have on political participation. As we have discussed in class, many Latin American citizens have become disillusioned with their governments within the past several decades - the great instability, violence, and corruption that have plagued the region undoubtedly contribute to this cynicism. My fear is that more evidence and actual convictions of these leaders will only worsen sentiments against Latin American governments and democracy. One would assume that political participation would be weakened even further. However even considering this possibility, it is my belief that this disillusionment is comparable to rain before the end of the storm. An end to corruption and demand for transparency is necessary for sustainable, long-term political participation even if there may be short-term implications. I believe that if these political officials are guilty and go uncharged, the effects on political participation will only be worsened as the perpetuation of a culture of corruption will continue for decades to come.
Sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/world/americas/brazil-opens-inquiry-into-vote-buying-claims.html?ref=americas
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/world/americas/brazil-opens-inquiry-into-vote-buying-claims.html?ref=americas
The convictions of both leaders is without a doubt a positive boost to the quality of democracy in both countries. I don't think it will turn voters away from polls or discourage other forms of civic engagement in fact I believe the opposite effect will occur. The populace of all of Latin America time and again have voted for corrupt politicians, its a common occurrence that is unfortunate but the people seemed to have become accustomed to. What they are not accustomed to is these politicians being punished. Transparency in the region is becoming better in the region and finally top politicians are becoming to be held responsible for their actions.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt the immediate political structure of Guatemala will be initially shaken, and possibly hurt. But the next President is going to watch his step a little closer, as well the candidates who run for office are going to be of better quality. Although all lot people who voted for Molina and Lulu feelings are going to be hurt, it isn't the first time its happened. People in the United States are even accustomed to having their politicians making false claims, Latin America is just even more so. People for the first time in the region are finally being held accountable for the actions. Trust in the system should follow, for a first time it seems as if no one is below the law.
Blog Post, Question #1:
ReplyDeleteThe two articles, "Guatemalan President Accused of Involvement in Civil War Atrocities" and "Brazil Opens Inquiry Into Claims of Wrongdoing by Ex-President" clearly show signs of progress in Brazil and Guatemala. With histories of corruption, political instability, poverty, and crime, Guatemala and Brazil and all of Latin America for that matter, have experienced times of progress followed by times of struggle. However, through these times of progress and struggle, history has indeed repeated itself until now. I say this because one thing that I've learned so far in this class, it's that no matter the government type; corruption, political instability, poverty, and crime were present at some level in Latin American countries. The hope these articles bring, in my opinion, is that finally corruption and political instability may just be finding their way out the door. Any time that a country's elite can be challenged and held to the same standard as the rest of the people, Democracy is sure to be around the corner. It's not to say that this hopeful era of Democracy has come at a inopportune time in that both Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil saw and have seen both social and economic improvement in their respective countries but the fact that justice (if convicted) could be served and a new age in Guatemalan and Brazilan politics in which true democracy may be amongst the people, then the timing of these accusations are irrelevant.
In order for a true leap toward democracy to occur in Brazil and Guatemala, both Brazil's public ministry and Guatemala's judiciary system must make sure that if these leaders are convicted of their specific crimes, they be prosecuted like any other citizen of the country. To me, this shows that truly no one is above the law and that corruption on any scale, will not be tolerated and not only that but the key to a politically stable country is to first and foremost rid the system of corruption.
As to answer the question directly, convictions (or clearer evidence of wrongdoings) of these two powerful leaders would speak volumes for Democracy in Brazil and Guatemala because it would be a start in eliminating two key issues (corruption and political instability) that I believe have held back Guatemala, Brazil, and the rest of Latin America from truly experiencing Democratic societies.
I agree with Ryan that these convictions are a good thing. I think the fact that two prominent Latin American leaders are being questioned for breaking the law shows the growth of democracy we are seeing in the region. If this is an inopportune time for the convictions, then that proves that justice and democracy are growing because if a law is broken it does not matter if it is convenient for that person or the other people involved. While I think it is a powerful sign that leaders in Latin America are being held to a higher standard, some countries that are less developed or less economically as stable or even as large as Brazil may have issues develop if their president is convicted. While it may be wrong that the Guatemalan president is immune, perhaps this is for the better for the country overall. As it is less economically developed than Brazil, an upset of elected power could insight a coup or overthrow that could end up pushing Guatemala back economically and socially. Brazil is more stable economically than Guatemala and the president being tried is a former president, meaning that, while this trial may upset some citizens, it will not shift power too much or cause a power vacuum.
DeleteThe quality of democracy in both Brazil and Guatemala would improve if the ex-presidents of their respective countries were convicted or put to trial. The incidences of corrupt government officials throughout Latin America is high. The people voting for these government officials are doing so sincerely because they believe that these officials have their people’s best interest in mind.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, what many Latin Americans have found is that voting may give them some benefits, better transportation for example, but in the long run are faced with little progress socially, economically and politically, for example government officials can literally get away with murder. This is due to a lack of accountability in many Latin American governments.
Seriously looking into the incidences of corruption committed by da Silva and Molina will stir up a sense of trust between their governments and the nation the governments work for. This trust will be a symbol of accountability for the people because it will let them know that their government can not take advantage of them economically or politically. Latin American nations will be able to trust that if their politicians do commit a crime then justice will be served.
I also believe that if the Brazilian and Guatemalan governments are made more accountable for their actions, then it will show the benefits of abiding by the law to their people. The nations of accountable governments will be more likely to do the right thing if they know they will be punished by the law. I believe that the best way to rule is by example.
What I am not saying is that accountability will drastically lower the crime rates or create some sort of utopian political state because that is not the case, these countries have a lot more on their plate than putting their ex-presidents on trial. What I am saying is that accountability will facilitate the political process for the politicians and citizens who have a stake in that process, thus creating a stronger and more stable democracy.
I find it very disturbing to read of the horrible things that have taken place in Guatemala, and it is also sickening to read of how they treated people as if they were toys. I don’t understand how the US could allow something like this to take place. Furthermore, The fact that this man responsible for these actions is currently Guatemala’s President is beyond me. I hope that Molina pays for the things he did and it makes me ill that a country would allow this type of man to be their president and symbol for the county. I feel that other countries are not going to take countries as serious as they would as if they had a respectful honest man or women leading their country.
ReplyDeletesteven
I completely agree with the words written by Steven. The horrible things that took place in Guatemala are absolutely sickening. I am curious to know how the citizens of Guatemala think of their president and this civil war. Do you think most of them are aware of the presidents orders? I think novantuno makes a good point about the fact that countries, like Guatemala, have a lot more on their plate than trying their president for war crimes, although I do think that it should be high on their priority list.
DeleteI also agree with Steven that such acts are unacceptable for a current president. I don't think, though, that this situation is very rare. The real problem is the protective blanket given to National leaders during their presidencies. While it may seem necessary when given the vast amount of different perspectives on what is wrong and what is necessary, presidential immunity also seems to be broadening that definition of what is necessary. In the Economist article, "Political Immunity: Pulling Back the Blanket," the author sheds light on the international opinion of George Bush's administration during the Iraq war. Many of his key figures, including himself and Donald Rumsfeld, are criticized very harshly around the world. In trying to keep things in a fair perspective, there are many current and former national leaders facing similar pressure to be held accountable for their crimes in office and prior to office, including our most previous administration
DeleteIn regards to the article about the claims of wrongdoing by Lula and allegations of Molina’s involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War
ReplyDeleteThe mensalão scandal has already claimed a few high ranking officials and it is of significance, while not entirely surprising, that former President Lula has seemingly been involved in this as well. Plenty of Brazilian presidents have been involved in such situations before, with Collor coming to mind first, and I think the concept of corruption in Brazil is of less concern to the majority of the population, and is seen as more of a way of life. The situation in Guatemala is arguably more detrimental to the preservation of democracy in the region than that of Brazil. Fortunately for Brazil, Lula no longer holds the presidency; however his handpicked successor Dilma Rousseff might run into problems with this. Like Chile under Pinochet, Molina has impunity while in office, meaning that despite evidence suggesting that he participated in some capacity in the mass slaughter of indigenous population. This has already caused a large public outcry, but there seems to be little than can be done to assuage the protesters. Central America seems to be especially prone to coups, as we have seen (not so recently) in Panama as well as Honduras and Nicaragua. South America as a whole seems to have stabilized, with democratic governments in place in most of the countries, Venezuela being a notable exception. Brazil’s recent economic strides also suggest that democracy is still stable and very much so, and the surrounding countries are also enjoying periods of stability after periods of dictatorships and military coups. One thing that comes to mind is the clientelism that we’ve discussed in class it’s apparently rampant in South America, as this article suggests. While clientelism deals specifically with buying votes, forms of what I would consider corruption are present in other democracies, most notably our very own, i.e. pork-barrel politics or earmarking, and as such I think there is less to be worried about in Brazil’s case. If either Lula or Molina were to be convicted, the reactions would vary in each country. Lula is immensely popular in Brazil, and an arrest and possible prison sentence would reflect poorly on Dilma Rousseff’s presidency, but with clearer evidence of wrongdoing, it might be harder for the public to condone the current government. While I am less familiar with the situation in Guatemala, a Google search shows that as of January 2013 he had a 69% positive approval rating. While a conviction might cause considerable political unrest, it seems that it would not be enough to topple the current government or destabilize democracy in the region.
I think you make a good point that arresting Lula would poorly reflect Dilma Dousseff's presidency because of Lula's popularity. As corruption is common in the region, I think people will turn a blind eye to Lula's wrong doings. At the same time, I think the fact that they are investigating him strengthens democracy by attempting to tackle the issue of corruption.
DeleteIn response to question number two. Latin american countries should look internally for inspiration surrounding their policies. The citizens of Latin american countries know what they want, decreased inequality and increased opportunity. Latin american countries will benefit most from not relying on the IMF and United states for help. The model of democracy in the united states is not suitable for 21st century Americans how can it hope to help Latin Americans. Corruption is a regional norm of democracy found through out Latin America. This common theme allows one to question the effectiveness of democracy in Latin America. I would make the claim that this level of corruption could reduced by adopting more authoritarian forms of government which provide less incentive for corruption and lock up.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are correct in saying that Latin American nations would greatly benefit from looking for inspiration internally rather than externally; however, I don't necessarily condone the idea that corruption should be codified and accepted as a norm, with an overarching goal in increasing authoritarianism throughout the region. Instead, I think what we're seeing is a transitional period for Latin America. It is important to remember that democracies are not born over night, and they are generally not formed by democrats. Instead, they are formed out of gridlock and compromise. It is for this reason we need to be wary of nations like Ecuador and Venezuela who are undoubtedly making strides towards reducing inequality, something I think we can all agree is a good thing. However, this progress has come at the expense of democracy. Corruption and limited freedoms in these countries, and the region, threaten the voice of the populous and risk driving Latin America back into a state of totalitarianism, the last wave of which saw the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Do we really want to see that again?
DeleteWhat would convictions - or at least clearer evidence of their wrongdoing (of Lula in Brazil and Molina in Guatemala) - mean for the quality of democracy in Brazil and Guatemala? To answer this question, I believe that we need to look at both of these cases individually.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Lula, I think that any conviction would act both to Strengthen AND Weaken the quality of Democracy in Brazil. Within this outcome, however, I believe that the aggregate effect would ultimately be more detrimental than helpful. First, let us examine the positives of such a conviction. As others have said, holding a politician accountable (even one as popular as Lula) sends a clear message to the electorate that nobody, regardless of their status, is above the rule of law. With such a long history of political corruption in Brazil, such a development might at last signal to the population that they no longer must accept such dishonest leaders as an unavoidable aspect of their "democracy," and perhaps this might inspire them to vote more selectively, hold their politicians more accountable for their actions, and set a higher bar their governance. However, according to LatinoBarometro polls taken over the last ten years, public support for Democracy as the best form of governance in Brazil jumped from 30% in 2001 to 55% in 2011. Considering that Lula was in office from 2003 to 2011, it can reasonably be said that his popularity, and his many successful initiatives/reforms, are largely responsible for this massive increase in widespread support for Democracy. Now, as he is no longer in office, Lula has become a powerful icon symbolizing Brazil's rise to global prominence and effectively represents the first steps toward consolidating Brazil's democracy. Thus, any revelations about his corruption while in office will only act to damage and possibly destroy what he effectively instilled in his nation's population: Faith in the system. That, I believe, is of far more value than exposing his role in a bygone payoff scandal.
In regards to Molina, I think that any conviction would similarly act both to Strengthen AND Weaken the quality of Democracy in Guatemala. In this case, however, I believe that the aggregate effect would ultimately be more helpful than detrimental. First, let us examine the negatives of such a conviction. As others have implied, trying and convicting a sitting President that the people ELECTED can send a powerful message to the population that the Democratic process can end in a very negative outcome. With such a short history of Democracy in Guatemala, such a development early on - and the resulting effect on the outlook of the electorate - could seriously undermine confidence in the system and hinder the progress towards consolidation. On the other hand, however, the very fact that Molina is CURRENTLY President (as opposed to Lula who is no longer an elected official), creates a far greater opportunity to prove to all that the rule of law is intact. Further, holding Molina accountable for heinous acts against his own population - contrasted against Lula's comparatively harmless misuse of funds - would go much further to show the nation's citizens (as well as the international community) that Guatemala's system of checks-and-balances if both healthy and robust. In light of the fact that the same LatinoBarometro poll showed a similar increase in Guatemala's public support for Democracy from 2001 to 2011 (33% to 46%), coupled with the fact that Molina was only elected in 2012, publicly convicting Molina could effectively underscore that such confidence is well placed, and might help convince more of the population to support the continuation and expansion of Democracy in their country.
Therefore, in the end, though the situations seem similar on the surface, they are quite different in reality. In Brazil, while it is difficult to advocate allowing somebody to escape prosecution for crimes committed, I ultimately believe that pursuing charges against Lula would be damaging to their Democracy and thus counterproductive. Conversely, in Guatemala, I think that despite the drawbacks, charging Molina is not only the right thing to do ethically, it makes the most sense in terms of protecting and bolstering their fledgling democracy.
DeleteI think your analysis of Presidente Lula is extremely interesting. Eventhough he has been out of office for a couple years, he is still extremely well liked for his social programs like Bolsa Familia and Zero Fome. I completely agree that what Lula stood for is bigger for Brazil than a political scandal. In reality its hard to really portray a bad image of Lula as he did manage to bring Brazil into an international economic power and on the way lifted millions of people out of extreme poverty. When I had the fortune to be in a rural community in Brazil, Lula was seen almost as a God-like figure. He provided a lot of members of this community with housing and access to electricity. After these great achievements and wide spread popularity, faulting him of extreme wrong doing will not sit well with a large portion of the population
DeleteAs we have mentioned numerous times throughout this class, justice in Latin America or better said the judicial authority are in many countries the least powerful and active in government. Often criticized for only applying the law as opposed to interpreting the law, as our system in the USA does, Latin American courts have seen little in so far as a great moment of history. Today however, Latin America is positioned beautifully to demonstrate the power of democracy through justice for human rights violations, corruption and general crimes. As Mr. Montt's trial moves forward, Guatemalan judges overseeing the case must be determined to bring justice to the victims of human rights violations as to set precedences and avoid future atrocities. Recent events (referring to Otto Perez Molina) must not stand in the way of a conviction in former president Montt's trial. Proceeding accusations of Mr.Molina's involvement in similar atrocities should be investigated after the verdict is given in the current trial. I think that Guatemala has a bright future with respect to the rule of law if they are to legally convict the perpetrators of human rights violations, and if they are able to curve drug and cartel related violence.
ReplyDeleteBy clearly exposing the atrocities that both if these leaders have committed it could only strengthen the level of democracy in these countries. By keeping leaders that, yes may have helped the country in some ways, in power or hiding the violations to democracy they have committed is only keeping the level of corruption in Brazil and Guatemala up. The article about president Molina was disturbing to read and until leaders are brought to justice for their actions, it is difficult to see how a country could move forward. As is obvious, Lula and Molina committed very different crimes, Molina's clearly more vicious, by bringing their wrongdoings to light and in public to the people, I would hope that the citizens and government could both learn from it and change the leaders they are allowing to run their countries. If people don't know that something is wrong, how are they possibly able to change it? These trials and hopefully convictions are an important step in strengthening democracy. A main concepts around democracy are fairness, equality, and accountability, by convicting these two leaders for not upholding these important standards, they are showing that corruption and human rights violations will not be tolerated and will likely deter any other future leaders from trying to get away with the same crimes. I find it interesting the skewed and differing views of people about these leaders. How Molina is able to get away for years with brutally murdering innocent civilians and still be adored by many is baffling. Exposure is and punishment is necessary in order to keep crimes like this from occurring again. Though it is less rare to find corruption such as the crimes Lula is being tried for in Latin America, it is still important for these types of corruption of conspiracy and bribery are dealt with because future leaders need an example that these crimes will not be tolerated and if tried, they will be punished and persecuted in the pursuit of a stronger, healthier democracy.
ReplyDeleteI think Latin American leaders should look no further than Latin America for inspiration. Obviously Latin America is tired of American influence like the Washington Consensus and for good reason. The WC was written in the interest of the United States, not Latin American countries. This is no secret to those Latin American countries and they generally are against it. A leader of a Latin American country should study the policies adopted by other countries in the reason and find ones that he or she likes. Latin American countries are more like each other than the they are to the United States. They deal with more similar issues like inequality, drugs, gangs, lack of infrastructure and institutions, etc. The countries could be very successful by coming together and tackling the repeating issues together as a regional force or just as governments that practice similarly.
ReplyDeleteThe accusation against President Molina of Guatemala doesn’t necessarily hold any merit in my eyes. It seems to be fairly standard procedure for attacks like this to be made in situations such as Guatemala’s (That is, a history of dictatorship and ultraviolent civil war). That being said it is certainly possible that President Molina did indeed commit war crimes. One man’s accusation isn’t exactly convincing evidence though. And the fact that the article goes on to talk about a whole host of war crimes totally unrelated to what President Molina was supposedly involved in according to the accusations made by Hugo Reyes which, although tragic of course, have nothing to do with Otto Perez Molina. So really, it’s an article about the war crimes of the Guatemalan civil war, with an attention grabbing headline about an accusation against the President.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist piece on attacks against IACHR seems about par for the course as well, being a fairly standard case of a few L.A. leaders saying they want those whom they view as outside interlopers (the U.S. and European nations) removed from the process and the body to be more self-contained (from their perspective of course, seen through the lens of the U.S.’s interventionist history in the region). I would say that the U.S. should continue to oppose any weakening of the IACHR and I agree with the conclusion of Michael Shifter from the Inter-American Dialogue that the governments seeking to take the teeth out of IACHR will continue doing so; that’s kind of how the game is played, isn’t it?
The Guardian article on Ecuador reads like a propaganda piece and I honestly had to laugh at the gap in portrayal between the Economist article, the Guardian’s, and Freedom House’s annual report. The most obvious thing across the board is how dedicated everyone is to their respective positions and Fander Falconi certainly seems to be a True Believer. Given the rhetorical slant of Mr. Falconi’s writing I immediately question his statistics and there isn’t really much evidence given, although plenty of claims are made. The claim concerning widespread support for Correa and his policies may be real, or it could be a product of formed by the zeal of his supporters and the persecution and silencing of his opponents that Freedom House cites as justification for ranking Ecuador a 3 (Partly Free).
As for the story on corruption in Brazil, it doesn’t offer me any evidence to believe or disbelieve the charge against da Silva. If it is true then there would need to actually be a punishment for the incident to have any effect on the future behavior of politicians.
The discovery of corruption among such influential leaders would severely damage the quality of democracy in Brazil and Guatemala, and probably in Latin America as a whole. Brazil would be especially damaging, as it is seen as one of the most developed, successful countries in Latin America. To have such severe instances of corruption in a government that is supposed to be leading the way for its neighbors is not a good sign. One of the most important things about democracy is that the people should be able to trust their government, trust that they are being heard and that they aren't being taken advantage of or cheated. If that main principle is not met, then people have less incentive to participate in the political process, which is also damaging to the quality of democracy. People won't respect their governments and will be less inclined to cooperate and follow rules, and overall the country's order and civility will be compromised. I think as the leader for Latin American progress, Brazilian politicians need to get it together and be good role models for surrounding countries, otherwise we cannot possibly hope to see all of Latin America moving toward a more democratically sound state.
ReplyDeleteIt is astounding to me how many Latin American leaders or influential figures like Otto Perez Molina or Luiz Silva have been accused of corruption, atrocities, and various types of malpractice. It leads me to wonder what we, America, have done as a country so different from those in Latin American that has allowed us to be virtually scandal free compared to most of these leaders and figures. For a continent that has so many up and coming and successful countries, it seems as if these issues of corruption are not coming anywhere closer to being eliminated in Latin America. I am at a complete loss of ideas of how to stop such a large scale problem that has become almost ordinary in many of these countries. It seems to be so traditional and systematic now that people are hardly surprised or outraged when they find out their leaders are stealing money, lying, and using their power to their own benefit rather than that of their country. The potential for many of these countries is outstanding, and it seems to me that their potential would be limitless if they could at least get a handle of some of these issues of corruption and malpractice among their leaders. It is a shame that this is such a continuing problem, but I also understand it is not an easy issue to be solved, and that it will take a lot of time and effort to make strides toward change.
ReplyDeleteA common theme throughout the political history of Latin America involves unquestionable corruption of important figures within the governmental system. Oppression, embezzlement, and misuse of power are only a few prominent examples of the crimes committed by individuals of power in these countries. Issues such as these can create a faulty government and undermine the democratic rights of citizens of the nations.
ReplyDeleteThe Mensalão Scandal of Brazil was a sneaky exchange of money from Brazilian government officials to secure re-election through buying votes from citizens. Lula da Silva, former president, is now being investigated alongside his cronies who have already been accused of this crime. Though this scandal occurred years ago, due to faults of his own cabinet members, Lula claims to know nothing of these incidents. He has yet to be tried for any of these crimes himself and if he is found guilty of any form of payment in exchange for votes, he will lose much of the respect he gained as a successful president. His reputation and that of the Workers' Party in Brazil will be tarnished as a result of this serious misstep by the politicians. This does not make his successes as president illegitimate, which include major economic growth, notable decrease in poverty, and bringing Brazil out into the world stage as a serious political actor, but it does highlight weaknesses of the basic democratic ideology. Brazil must focus on ending corruption within government by discouraging the tradition of clientelism. If the politicians were elected as a result of being the best option for their position as opposed to being a well known elite member of society, the government would ideally have less corruption.
Human rights abuses affect the citizens of a country in a much more personal and directly threatening way, and continue to be a problem in some Latin American countries. The Guatemalan president was recently accused of heinous crimes by his police force and army, though he declares his own innocence on the matter. Horrors like the ones seen in Guatemala create a level of insecurity and discourage the opinion of the people in government actions. In order for a government to be called a democracy, the citizens must freely participate in the government. Guatemala has a long way to go before it becomes a functioning democratic government. Authoritarian power abuse and torture of the people definitely corrodes the legitimacy of the government and the democratic values it attempts to cultivate.
Both of these cases represent a disconnect between authority figures and the court systems. Government officials running a democratic nation should not have immunity from judicial allegations, especially when their crimes cost innocent lives. A traditional democracy must balance power in some way between the branches of government and involve the people in the actions of the government. These corrupt governments prevent the countries from moving forward and changing faulty aspects of their systems; they must step back and analyze the weaknesses among the elected officials before the entire government can make a change toward stronger democracy.
I think the question concerning the cases of corruption in Brazil and Guatemala is not what happens to the quality of democracy if convictions or at least clearer evidence of their wrongdoings occur, it's what happens to the quality of democracy if convictions do not occur. Ultimately, the Guatemalan president and Brazil's former president have both participated in acts of corruption, and while they still deserve a trial, the quality of democracy in these countries will decay if these leaders are found innocent. All information needs to be weighed in this equation but if the judges in these countries ignore the evidence and find the two not guilty, then citizens will have to wonder, what does it take to be properly convicted of a crime and how often does the justice system fail to apprehend perpetrators?
ReplyDeleteThe recent economic success of Ecuador is a glimpse into the economic potential of Latin America as a whole. The Ecuadorian economy is a reflection of the capabilities of a “third world” country when they are not being heavily influenced by western economic philosophies. I do believe the limited western influence has played a significant role in stabilizing Ecuador’s economy. I think the rest of Latin America would do well to follow Ecuador’s footsteps by limiting western influence and building economies that are most suitable to their individual countries. That being said, it would also be foolish to put too much into Ecuador’s success, only time will tell how successful it actually is in the long term.
ReplyDeleteThe way the article on Ecuador is written makes it almost sound like an advertisement for the country. Nonetheless, what they have achieved in the past six or so years is impressive. 4.3% annual growth is promising but I think the most important indicator is the decrease in the Gini coefficient. That being said Ecuador's level of inequality still remains very high, but that is a problem for latin america in general and it might be another generation before the region's levels of inequality are near those of the US Canada and Europe. It's also encouraging to see that the government is prioritizing the environment, but how effective it will be remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience in Brazil, I felt as though people are actually aware of the corruption in their government. Politicians are always using bribery in attempts to buy votes and often the winners are famous actors or athletes. I don't think Brazilians were surprised to hear that their former president was under scrutiny regarding the mensalao scandal.
ReplyDeleteThis does, most certainly, have an affect on their views of the government. I don't think Brazilians take their democratic system very seriously or think that it is even fair. This is also undoubtedly negative as far as the influence that Brazil has on the rest of Latin America as it attempts to lead them to economic growth. Although many Brazilians know that their government is corrupt, they don't have the power to change it. However, once the government can abandon corruption, Brazilians will have way more support for their government and, only then, can the country really grow and get better.
In response to the articles "Ecuador Begins to Roar" and "Human Rights in the Americas: War of the Attrition".
ReplyDeleteIt was nice to read about the apparent changes going on in Ecuador and it seems that the Ecuadorian government has found a system that allows for not only positive economic change but social and environmental change as well. However, I found it interesting that with Ecuador's focus on improving the standard of living of its people and environmental sustainability, that they have been so active in the destruction of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Organization of American States (OAS). Although both of these organizations may have overestepped their power at one point or another, both seem to simply want human rights to be protected and not fall into the pattern that has plagued Latin America in the past as well as begin an era in Latin America where the "rights of nature" are protected too. It could be that Correa and the Ecuadorian government are putting a lot of effort into diminishing the power of the IACHR and OAS because of the recent criticisms that Correa and the Venezuelan government are receiving by both organizations in regards to the limits they are putting on the freedom of media in their countries. If this is the case, I would be a little more weary of the changes that are occurring in Ecuador because they could merely be a strategy of gaining widespread support rather than a serious intent to change for the better.
Rafael Correa has been considered a copycat of Hugo Chavez as he had followed many of Chavez’ steps. However, Correa has shown more smart and savvy ways to leverage on his charisma. Both men were elected under the promise of change; once in power they changed the constitution; dissolved Congress; took over major TV media and radio stations; used weekly, lengthy TV and radio broadcast to attack enemies of the revolution; and so on. As stated by Tim Padgett and Mercedes Alvaro in Time World article, Is another Chavez On the Rise in Ecuador?, “Like Chavez, Correa is converting his [organizational] weaknesses into virtues and, under the guise of democracy, he'll fashion a Congress favorable to his political project." Nevertheless, the results highlighted in The Guardian show that perhaps Correa’s economic/political/social measures have indeed given positive outcomes for Ecuador and its citizens. After all, Correa is a man who has had extensive training, education and preparation for the job of President. I believe among the unorthodox president of the region, Correa could be considered a new kind of leader to check on, not as an inspiration but as a smart populist political character an attribute that seems to be very useful and appealing in this part of the world. If leaders need to look for inspiration I would think Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe for his hard hand and clear objectives; or Brazil’s Lula Da Silva for his conciliatory and diplomatic capabilities, are a better source.
ReplyDelete