On April 20, 2008, Fernando Lugo, a former Catholic Bishop, won Paraguay’s presidential vote, putting an end to the seemingly eternal rule of the conservative Colorado Party, which had maintained hegemonic control of this South American nation for over six decades. On inauguration day, Lugo stood next to presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who ostensibly are working toward the construction of socialism in their countries. The scene of the three presidents together provides a vivid reminder of the dramatic political transformation that the region is undergoing. As President Correa put it then, “I am socialist. The Ecuadorian government is socialist. President Lugo defines himself as socialist …socialism is changing Latin America.”1 The arrival to power of the “Bishop of the Poor,” which is what Fernando Lugo is called by the disenfranchised Paraguayan majority, has generated both hopes and worries within and beyond Latin America, as Paraguay’s recent political change seems in tune with the leftward tide that is flowing throughout the region.

It would be senseless to try to understand the current political realignment in Latin America without reference to this region’s political development in the post-Cold War era. Beginning in the 1980s, and following what has been described as the third global wave of democratization,2 several Latin American nations put an end to military dictatorships that sought to deter the advancement of communism in the region. Since then, and in sharp contrast with Latin America’s political history, democracy has become widespread in the region and it has seen minimal reversals. As of today, with the exception of Cuba, all Latin American nations qualify as democracies. To be sure, there are significant differences in the quality of Latin American democracies, but free and fair elections are now the hallmark of political struggle there.

The transition to democracy in Latin America took place in tandem with a major economic transformation, the change from a state-led to a market-led model of development. Starting in the 1980s, nations moved to implement neo-liberal policies that promised that initial sacrifices ultimately would lead to future improvement in the living standards of the majority of the population. However, after two decades of the implementation of economic recipes advocating privatization and liberalization, generally disappointing results regarding economic and social progress put an end to many people’s expectations of a better life.

According to the World Bank, between 1990 and 2003, the average annual rate of growth for Latin America reached 2.7 percent; 3 this represented only slight improvement compared to the region’s rate growth of 1.2 percent during the 1980s, a period named the ‘lost decade’ because of the chronic economic crisis affecting the region. Further, Latin America remains a region deeply affected by widespread poverty and economic inequality. After more than two decades of economic reform, only three countries, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay, have poverty rates lower than 25 percent, while the average poverty rate in the region is 45.6 percent. Most Latin American countries exhibit high levels of inequality. The share of income of the top 20 percent of the population in the region is on average higher than 50 percent. Brazil is the country with the most acute level of inequality, with the top twenty percent of the Brazilian population accruing more than two thirds of the national income.  By comparative standards, Latin America remains as the world’s area with the highest level of income inequality. 4

Such context has been conducive to electoral outcomes that favor candidates upholding anti-neo liberal, anti free-market, nationalist positions that for the most part are advanced by leftist and so-called leftist political movements and parties. Subscribing to democratic rules as the framework for political struggle, leftist leaders and political parties are for the first time wining big in Latin America. The last decade witnessed the selection of a handful of leftist-leaning presidents.5 First, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chávez in 1998. The election of Chávez proved to be a turning point in the regional political landscape, as the succeeding victories of Luis Ignacio (Lula) Da Silva in Brazil, Ernesto and Kristina Kirchner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachellet in Chile, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and more recently Fernando Lugo in Paraguay have colored the political map red.6 This is an unprecedented political scenario. Never before had this brand of leftist politics been endorsed by the majority of citizens in so many countries. Never before had so many seemingly ideologically attuned governments ruled simultaneously over such a large number of nations.

At first, we could think of these leaders and their governments as sharing a common political identity; however, the sharp differences between the political styles and political projects existing in the region indicate that the Latin American leftist banner is all but uniform. Important dissimilarities can be seen for example between the moderate and pragmatic governments of Lula in Brazil and Bachellet in Chile, who have pursued an agenda prioritizing political and economic freedoms, and the highly ideological Venezuelan government which looks with admiration to the Cuban model, and where the thunderous rhetoric of Hugo Chávez constantly denounces capitalism and liberal democracy as culpable for all ills of Latin American societies.

The diversity of the Latin American left defies clear-cut interpretation about what the current political realignment means. Rather than attempting to classify the “various lefts” in simple categories such as the ‘communist’ versus the ‘social democrat,’ the ‘radical’ versus the ‘moderate,’ or the ‘ideological’ versus the ‘pragmatic;’ what the multiplicity of views and projects suggests is that we must acknowledge the complexity of leftist politics in the region. 

First, the multiplicity of projects reveals the loss of a common political referent. The failure of the socialist experience in the Soviet Union and Central Europe, and perhaps more significantly the deficits in economic development and human rights of the Cuban model, made marked impressions on many leftist movements and organizations. Today, only Venezuela, and perhaps Bolivia, Nicaragua, and to a lesser extent Ecuador, seek to emulate the Cuban experiment.

Second, the ‘various lefts’ of Latin America reveal that the region continues in the search for alternatives to deal with the historical legacy of economic dependence and profound inequality. Although broadly speaking there are two distinct strands of the Latin American left—one that it is committed to democracy and free economies and the other that is trying to emulate the experiences of the socialism of the 20th century—the consensus emerging in the majority of countries about how to achieve the goal of development and progress seems to prioritize a commitment to democracy, the understanding of the importance of the market, with its limits, as the driving force of economic growth, and the obligation to a social agenda aiming to address the burden of poverty and inequality in these nations.

How long will the surge of the left last in Latin America? This is an open question. What the current political realignment primarily demonstrates is the viability of democracy in the region. The people of Latin American are choosing leftist governments of several sorts, but they are choosing them through use of democratic procedures. Whatever the type of government in place, from Venezuela’s radical government to the more moderate Chilean government, their continuation in power requires that they deliver on the promises of better well-being for the disadvantaged. Latin American nations are not immune to some presidents’ authoritarian deviations and excesses, but no country has overturned democracy yet. This is a promising sign for democracy in the region, and also a reminder to politicians elsewhere that if people became frustrated with the performance of their governments a new political realignment is not out of reach in Latin America’s political equation.