Polarization in Latin America and the Caribbean

"Reducing polarization, building consensus, building governance, makes it possible to design and implement public policies that make it possible to break out of the vicious circle into which several countries in the region have fallen recently and which end in protests and conflicts."

"The consequences of polarization are eventually the greatest risk facing the region because they impact governance, predictability, social peace, integral development and democratic institutions."

Vulnerabilities, Lack of Resilience and Polarization: Latin America and the Caribbean at the Crossroads 

By Adrián Contursi and Luis Porto

Latin America and the Caribbean face recurrent external shocks and the uncertainties and challenges of today's world: geopolitical struggles, the techno-productive labor transition (4th industrial revolution and the work of the future), the challenges of climate change, increased migratory flows, security problems and organized crime, and inequality, among others. 

To face this scenario, resilience is needed, but the multiple vulnerabilities, sometimes fragilities of States, leave countries trapped in vicious circles that do not make it possible to develop capacities.  If international prices help, exports can cushion some shocks, but this is not enough to reduce vulnerabilities and develop capacities. 

This is due to the well known reflection that economic growth does not mean development.  Increasing poverty, informality and inequality are a constant threat to the countries of the region. 

Investments are needed to facilitate structural change and export diversification (infrastructure, technological preparation, institutional strengthening), investments in sustainable development and investments to reduce vulnerabilities (education, housing, health, social safety nets).  In short, investments are needed in public goods and services that increase social returns and increase the attraction of private investment. 

This requires governance and consensus.  However, in some of the countries of the region, polarization is high and/or increasing.  To observe the current polarization in the Americas, one can turn to the Digital Society Project, which focuses on studying the interactions between politics and social networks.

The Digital Society Survey asks 35 questions to experts.  One of them allows us to observe social polarization: - How would you characterize the different opinions on major political issues in society? 

The categorization of the response considers the value 0 (zero) as high polarization and the value 4 (four) as a society with no polarization at all.  The question helps to measure social polarization, as it is a perception of the position of the parties.

Figure 1 shows that only Canada (2.75) is the country in the region that is close to a limited polarization (reference value = 3), where differences of opinion are only on some political issues, resulting in few clashes of views. 

Meanwhile, values 1 (one) and 2 (two) refer to a moderate polarization, differing in opinions on most political issues, and a medium polarization, where differences are found around half of the existing issues. 

Finally, the countries with values equal to 0 (zero) or close to it, are highly polarized, due to the fact that in almost all political issues there are differences of opinion, with constant clashes in the points of view.  It is also observed that the countries that are close to these values have been showing it for several years and, therefore, social polarization has been recurrently established. 

The first observation, as old as Hermetic philosophy (principle of polarity), is that polarization is a matter of degree.  Being a matter of degree, it can be stated that the absence of polarization can be due to either unanimity (a single pole) or perfect pluralism (multiple poles coexisting), with perfect polarization (in theory) being that where there are two homogeneous poles of similar size and diametrically opposed positions. 

Being a matter of degree, it is necessary to define a reference for the purpose of being able to determine when it is high or low and in reference to what.  In this sense, it can be defined with respect to, for example, a consequence of polarization. 

For example: What degree of polarization can lead to conflict, or uncertainty about the rules of the game and reduced investment?  The second observation that emerges from the graph is that there were some changes in social polarization in the year 2021 taking 2020 as the pivot axis, which coincides with the development of the pandemic and the renewal of authorities in the countries that express changes in their reference values. 

We do not have enough information to know whether these changes are linked to perceptions of cooperation between political parties to address the pandemic or to other causes, but it begs the question of the importance of small changes.  Can small changes in polarization lead to large changes in its consequences? 

To continue with the examples above, what is the change in polarization that is needed to reduce the risk of conflict or increase investment?  Note that this is not an indicator of polarization of populations but the perception that the surveyed experts have of the polarization of political parties. 

The polarization of populations, however, need not be as high as the polarization of (political) elites.  In general, the population tends to be less polarized than the elites, but can be strongly influenced by them. 

And when the social and economic situation is perceived with dissatisfaction by the population, indignation, protests, and conflicts are triggered and polarization prevents the construction of consensus, of a collective identity.  

The inability of formal and informal institutions to maintain social cohesion due to the lack of collective identity and consensus feeds back into polarization and potential or real conflict.  Reducing polarization, building consensus, building governance, makes it possible to design and implement public policies that make it possible to break out of the vicious circle into which several countries in the region have fallen recently and which end in protests and conflicts. 

Not doing so reproduces polarization and its consequences on the population, particularly on the most vulnerable.  This is the crossroads. The consequences of polarization are eventually the greatest risk facing the region because they impact governance, predictability, social peace, integral development and democratic institutions. 

To reduce polarization, it is necessary to delve deeper into its dimensions (economic, beliefs, moral, political) and its causes, and how it spreads from the political, economic and social elites to the population. 

And, although the difference of opinions is healthy and necessary for a democracy, it is also necessary to build bridges between the different options in a society.  Polarization is reduced by strengthening these bridges. 

The inability of formal and informal institutions to maintain cohesion at the economic, social and political levels, as well as the morphology of the structure of social, economic and political relations, are the causes of polarization. It is important to fill the gaps, it is important to strengthen the networks in the three arenas: economic, social and political. 

It is important to build bridges between actors from different poles.  Bridges to reduce polarization, build consensus, collective identity, governability, predictability for private investments, quality in public goods and services for greater social return. Bridges for democracy and development.

Source

U.S. blockade principal obstacle to Cuban development

Geneva, May 13, Cuba condemned the economic, financial and commercial blockade imposed on the country by the United States for more than 50 years, citing it as the principal obstacle to the fulfilment of the country’s Right to Development. The aggression persists and intensifies, constituting a massive, flagrant and systematic human rights violation, stated Cuban representative Alejandro Castillo.

During the 15th session of the Working Group on the Right to Development, Castillo commented that to justify the blockade, the U.S. government employs various political strategies, including the absurd and unjustifiable designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Castillo also emphasized Cuba’s strong rejection of the manipulation of an issue as sensitive as international terrorism, in an attempt to convert it into a political tool used against Cuba and to justify the blockade.

Castillo demanded that Cuba be definitively removed from the spurious, unilateral and arbitrary list which constitutes an affront to the Cuban people and demanded that the U.S. lift the blockade, as the international community has called for. Since the imposition of the blockade in 1962, until April 2013, the economic damage inflicted on Cuba has exceeded one trillion dollars. During his speech Castillo stated that almost 30 years after the creation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the issues continues to be a priority for many countries, including Cuba.
 
The global economic crisis that is currently affecting all nations, the negative impact of neo-liberal globalization, the protective barriers implemented by rich countries and unequal exchange, are some of the obstacles that, at an international level, threaten the realization of this right, commented Castillo. He also stated that if there were political motivation from industrialized nations they could, quite easily, effect a big change for billions of people.

The activities of the Working Group on the Right to Development, a subsidiary body of the United Nations Human Rights Council, will continue until May 16, with the participation of representatives from all over the world. (PL)

May 14, 2014

Granma.cu

Making the WTO democratic

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


The World Trade Organization (WTO) held its fifth public forum in Geneva over three days beginning September 15. It has become a kind of international bazaar in which every conceivable idea on trade and development is discussed formally and informally by representatives of virtually every government in the world and more Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) than can be easily counted.

A great deal of talk takes place without too much follow-up action.

But, maybe that’s the point. People who talk to each other aren’t warring, so long may the talk continue.

That’s not to say that good ideas don’t emerge from this overcrowded market place. They do. But many perish shortly after they are unveiled, usually because representatives of a powerful government or group of governments regard them as a threat to their interest, and quickly kill them off.

I was in Geneva for a Writers’ Conference on a book on negotiations in the WTO for which I am contributing a chapter. All the writers are from what used to be called the “third world,” a description seldom used these days, not because we have miraculously graduated into some better world, but because other descriptions suit the agenda of those who dictate the form of discourse on the global economy. Far better, in their view, to describe poor countries as “emerging” or “developing” whether or not they are really emerging or developing.

The purpose of the book, which has been commissioned by a progressive organization called CUTS International, is to tell the story of the many aspects of WTO negotiations from the point of view of negotiators from developing countries.

When it is published, it should make fascinating reading. It will break new ground in presenting the personal knowledge and experiences of the writers who were either in the trenches of the negotiations or were marginalized from the “inner sanctum” in which only the rich and powerful nations enjoy belonger’s rights, and into which they invite only those they wish to suborn in order to stich-up deals.

Of the many features of the WTO which point to the need for reform, this insider trading - in what has come to be called ‘the green room’ - is among the worst. No democratically managed organization should continue a process which so blatantly excludes from decision-making the weak, poor, small, and vulnerable nations which – as it happens – make up the majority of world’s countries.

That it has continued so long is entirely the fault of the majority of governments who allow it to happen without tangible and meaningful protest, such as packing their bags and going home leaving the ‘green room’ insiders to deal only with themselves, and returning only when there is a table at which representatives of all parties sit as equals.

But, that would call for two things – courage and solidarity, two very scarce commodities among “third world” governments these days. National interests have changed, some argue, and in pursuing these interests following a “third world” strategy is not productive.

It is worth, noting, however, that a “developed countries” strategy has never altered. The world’s industrialized nations continue to cling to their councils and to exploit their advantages. For instance, the creation of the G20 (the industrialized nations and the larger and wealthier developed countries) has not overshadowed - let alone eliminated - the G7 (the industrialized nations alone) who continue to devise and coordinate their own global positions.

Against this background, I was surprised to hear Pascal Lamy, the Director-General of the WTO, say at the opening of this year’s Public Forum, almost boastfully, that while the G20 has signalled the requirement for institutional reform of some international organizations, “the WTO was not amongst them”.

Lamy went on to say: “That governance battle has already been fought in the trade sphere, and the outcome is a fairly democratic institution where the voice of the small cannot be ignored.”

I have no doubt that Lamy believes what he says, but his belief – however sincere and fervent – does not make his statement right. The governance of the WTO is still an open sore. Despite Lamy’s personal efforts, the organisation still reflects the preponderance of power by the industrialised nations and the marginalization of poor, small, and vulnerable countries.

“No board, no quotas. One member, one vote, is the background rule against which the WTO forges its consensus”, Lamy declared. Oh, were that to be entirely true, what a far better world would mankind inhabit than the one we endure today.

Sure, there is technically no board and no quotas, but every representative of a small or poor nation knows that decision making is still the preserve of a few nations whose economic power allows them to arrogate to themselves the right to dictate agendas and outcomes. The WTO is very far from the consensus decision-making body that it should be. It is still not yet even the “fairly democratic institution” that Lamy believes it to be.

Those who defend the ‘green room’ process do so on the basis that it is impossible to negotiate agreements with over 150 countries at the same table. There is truth in that. But it is equally true that representatives of like-minded groups of these countries can gather on sectorial issues that are important to them such as agriculture or services. This way their voices will be heard during the debate and account taken over their views.

Against this background, it is good for developing countries - and small and vulnerable countries in particular - that the Bahamas is now negotiating the terms of its accession to full membership of the WTO. No country can now afford to stay out of an organisation whose rules govern world trade, and every country should want a say in the rules of the game it has to play.

The Bahamas will strengthen the voice of small and vulnerable countries, who if they act with courage and in solidarity with themselves and other like-minded developing nations, can negotiate meaningful recognition and fair and flexible treatment for their people – in other words, try to make the WTO truly democratic.

September 17, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International