Andean Group
The concern that some Andean countries run a serious risk of falling apart has been given greater currency by a study just published in the US journal Foreign Affairs. Written by Michael Shifter, vice-president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue, it says that the political survival of Peru's Alejandro Toledo, Ecuador's Lucio Gutiérrez and Bolivia's Carlos Mesa is today in doubt.
Shifter, who is also adjunct professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, notes that each of these countries 'is experiencing a measure of disintegration. Instead of coalescing into coherent, functioning states, they are at risk of breaking apart.' He also underlines that though the social and economic problems afflicting these countries are acute, 'the current crisis is at root a political one, and progress will not come without serious reform.'
His catalogue of the ills afflicting the 'southern crescent':
- The countries' institutions are ill-equipped to deal with such developments as increased pressure from marginalised groups.
- Social movements are unable to channel demands in an orderly, coherent fashion.
- Political parties have lost credibility or are simply absent.
- Government agencies are largely unresponsive and rarely coordinate among themselves.
- Trust in political institutions is historically low.
Moreover, says Shifter, 'The relentless denigration of “politics"— though fashionable and perhaps justified — only worsens the problem, doing nothing to help attract reform-minded leaders to government or to reinvigorate calcified institutions. And the election of political neophytes, these countries are learning, does not provide any easy solutions.' In these conditions, he says, 'even positive steps towards stronger democracy have had a destabilising effect.'
A case in point is the efforts made in all three countries to decentralise authority. The problem is that they have done this in the absence of effective institutions and leadership. The result: they 'have tended to accentuate fragmentation rather than improve governance.'
A major factor in all this is the presence of increasingly assertive indigenous majorities or near-majorities. 'Especially in Bolivia and Ecuador,' says Shifter, 'indigenous populations are increasingly visible and politically mobilised. Their heightened expectations and demands — entirely legitimate and long overdue — carry profound democratizing potential. But this promise will be frustrated unless political leaders in these nations are prepared to reform fossilised institutions, including political parties and justice systems — and unless Washington supports such efforts, helping committed reformers and working in concert with other outside actors. Otherwise, potentially positive trends will put unmanageable strains on brittle governance structures. Should they erupt, the social volcanoes in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia will spread dislocation, lawlessness, and insecurity in a continent already on edge.'
Labouring this point further, he adds an ominous coda, 'Indigenous political movements present their own problems for weak institutions and national leaders: however legitimate their demands, they usually cannot be met.'