In Peru's national elections on April 9, Ollanta Humala of the nationalist Union for Peru (UP) party is currently leading in national polls (with 31 percent) against the center-right candidate Lourdes Flores Nano of the National Unity (UN) party (26 percent) and former president Alan Garcia of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) party (23 percent).1 Regardless of whether Humala wins a majority, or the election goes to a second round in May, the former Army officer's rapid rise in the polls is another example of the political shift toward populist, nationalist, and regionalist politics and economic policy in Latin America.
Humala has expressed these ideas repeatedly in his campaign: “[N]ationalism is the defense of our sovereignty and our resources. It is our answer to the neoliberal economic model that is destroying Peruvian society.”2 In the last several years, six presidents who ran explicitly against the “neoliberal” economic reforms of the last 25 years have won elections in South America.3 The most likely reason for this continuing political trend is the long-term economic growth failure in Latin America. From 1980-2000, per capita GDP grew by only 9 percent; for 2000-2005, it was 1 percent. By contrast, GDP per person grew by 82 percent in the two decades from 1960-1980.4 The last quarter century has seen the worst growth performance for any 25-year period in more than a century in Latin America, and this economic failure has had enormous consequences that will continue to spill over into the political sphere.
Full story: http://www.cepr.net/publications/peru_background_2006_04.pdf
Posted by proutist-universal on May 5, 2006 7:49 AM | TrackBack
|
"In economic life there is extreme inequality and exploitation. Although colonialism no longer exists openly in the political and economic sphere, still it persists indirectly, and this should not be tolerated... In this respect you should remember that in economic life, we will have to guarantee the minimum requirements of life to one and all... There cannot be any sort of adjustment as far as this point is concerned. The minimum purchasing requirement must be guaranteed to all. Today these fundamental essentialities are not being guaranteed. Rather, people are being guided by deceptive economic ideas like outdated Marxism, which has proven ineffective in practical life and has not been successfully implemented in any corner of the world. Why do people still believe in such a theory, which has never been proved successful? The time has come for people to make a proper assessment of whether they are being misguided or not." |
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |