EPOCHAL CHANGE?

Latin America is talking about "changing times". Such statements have been prompted by the fact that for the first time in many years the opposition won the parliamentary elections in Venezuela, while the presidential election in Argentina was won by the conservative right-wing candidate, Mauricio Macri. Observers are talking about the victory of the neo-liberals and a blow to the "Bolivarian Revolution" and the socialism of the 21st century. However, is this really a change of epochs, or just another "change of summands"? After all, the left-wing forces once began to raise their head precisely on the failures of the policy of neoliberalism. Now, it seems, there is a new round in the dispute between the two opposing systems, and residents of Latin America, as always, remain sidelined.

Democracy from Maduro

In the parliamentary elections in Venezuela, the opposition gained the upper hand - the Democratic Unity Roundtable gained 109 seats, leaving the Socialists (the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) of President Nicolas Maduro with 55 mandates. The new National Assembly will begin its work in January 2016. The Democratic Unity Roundtable has managed to unite a lot of forces - from the centre-left to the right-wing conservatives and from Christian Democrats to populists - to act as a united front despite mass arrests and the fact that the opposition rallies that took place before often ended in fatalities. Already in the run-up to the elections, one of the regional leaders of the opposition, the general secretary of the Democratic Action party, Luis Manuel Diaz, was shot dead during a demonstration.

Now, after victory, the "democrats" intend primarily to push a law on the release of political prisoners through parliament, as well as to challenge a number of controversial appointments to the Supreme Court. A referendum on amending the constitution and the early termination of the powers of the president are also possible. According to the law, it is possible after half of the 6-year mandate of the head of state expires. For the current president, Maduro, such a period will come in April next year, so the most interesting events in Vene-zuela seem to lie ahead. Furthermore, Maduro said he knows first-hand about the plans of the opposition "to break the agreement" on the Petrocaribe programme, under which Venezuela supplies oil to several countries on preferential terms. According to Maduro, this decision could trigger an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the region.

However, the opposition is now more concerned about the crisis in Venezuela itself. The Democratic Unity Roundtable accuses the Socialists of pursuing a catastrophic economic policy and embezzling oil resources. Venezuela, which is among the main suppliers of oil in the world, is choked by one of the world's highest inflation rates and is experiencing an acute shortage of staple foods - rice, milk, corn flour and oil. The country is experiencing an acute lack of investment, technologies and professionals. Appro-ximately 1.6m Venezuelans have left their homeland in search of a better life. Instead, there is an unprecedented surge in crime.

Nicolas Maduro, who became president (he served as vice-president and foreign minister before) after the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, conceded defeat, but blamed failures on the "economic war" that is being waged against him and is the main culprit of food shortages. Maduro has no intention of deviating from the "Bolivarian revolution" launched by Hugo Chavez and calls on the "revolutionary forces" to unite in the face of new circumstances. However, too many people and it seems that even his own supporters realize that Maduro is not a very good follower of the cause of Hugo Chavez, who strove for "socialism of the 21st century" with people's democracy, economic independence, equitable distribution of income, lack of corruption, nationalized reserves and industry. Fate intervened in the political career of Chavez, while Maduro came to power thanks to a set of circumstances. He seemed to have done a lot and was very active in foreign policy, but the result is still disastrous, and Maduro and Chavez are losing. After all, many observers assessed the elections in Venezuela as a referendum that evaluates the effectiveness of the authorities.

End of the Kirchner era

In Argentina, the conservative right-wing opposition beat the left-wing populist Peronists, ending the 12-year period of so-called "Kirchnerism" - governments formed by the presidents, Nestor Kirchner and then Cristina Kirchner. This possibility became clear in 2013, when Cristina Kirchner's allies were defeated in the parliamentary elections in 12 of the 24 provinces of the country, including in the most densely-populated ones. Now, the candidate from the opposition Republican Proposal party, Mauricio Macri, gained 51.44 per cent of the vote and his opponent - a representative of the ruling Front for Victory alliance, Daniel Scioli - 48.56 per cent.

Cristina Kirchner won the presidential election in 2007, succeeding her husband Nestor Kirchner, and this year she was no longer able to run after two terms, but she supported the candidacy of the governor of Buenos Aires Province, Daniel Scioli. As a result, Scioli lost because he was associated with the policy of Kirchner, who was fiercely criticized for the deteriorating economic situation in the country - for the many migrants who live at the expense of Argentine taxpayers, for destroyed roads, schools, etc. Problems in Argentina, although with a different scenario, are similar to those of Venezuela. A country that has all prerequisites for success, a good climate, resources and the third largest economy in Latin America is now in stagnation, inflation is about 30 per cent, there is a budget deficit, an outflow of capital and lack of investment, and corruption is rampant.

Macri, who belongs to one of the wealthiest Catholic families with Italian roots in Argentina, was engaged in business and was mayor of Buenos Aires before his political career, pledged, unlike Kirchner and her supporters, to build a country with "zero poverty", fight drug trafficking, unite the nation and cooperate with other countries. It is expected that the new president will liberalize the foreign exchange market, engage in large-scale infrastructure projects in the north of the country and expand the market. He said that Argentina needs a change of strategy for internal governance, which, incidentally, does not rule out the social achievements of the post-neoliberal policy, which is supported by many citizens of the country. Kirchner was also criticized for her continued opposition to some "external threats" and calls to remain "on alert".

The new head of Argentina believes that it is necessary to do away with such a foreign policy and begin a rapprochement with the United States and Europe. Macri is a staunch opponent of Nicolas Maduro and the legacy of Chavez, and we think he will get along with the new parliamentary majority in Venezuela.

It is noteworthy that Macri has already talked about the need for the National Congress to reconsider all the agreements previously signed with Russia and China. Thus, cooperation between Russia and Argentina is questioned, though Kirchner had signed contracts worth millions of dollars on nuclear energy and on the construction of a hydroelectric power station in the province of Neuquen. By the way, Maduro also announced that his political opponents are going to terminate agreements previously signed with China and Russia. For example, agreements worth 20bn dollars have been reached with Venezuela and China on projects in energy, industry and social sectors. Moscow and Caracas are cooperating in many areas, including in the energy sector, supplies of military equipment and weapons. On the other hand, it is possible that Macri will take a pragmatic approach, because, for example, Moscow should provide 85 per cent of financing for the Neuquen power plant. However, it is certainly not only about the economy, as Russia presents its cooperation with Latin American countries as part of its drive to create a multi-polar world.

US influence

It is therefore not surprising that someone is seeing the hand of the USA in the change of the political agenda in Argentina and Venezuela. On 24 November, WikiLeaks published a document according to which Washington has been carefully monitoring relations between Venezuela and Russia. But even without relations with Russia, it is a fact that Macri's campaign received tremendous support from the largest publications of Argentina - such as the Clarin group and La Nacion newspaper, which supported the neoliberal policies of Carlos Menem in the past, and Western TV channels such as CNN, Fox News, leading Spanish media and the Inter American Press Association. Experts believe that the US is developing a new strategy for Latin America, and it primarily manifested itself in attempts to improve relations with Cuba and now in supporting regime change in Argentina and Venezuela. In addition, the dependence of Latin America on commodity exports, the main buyer of which is China, helps Washington. Now that the economy of the Celestial Empire has slowed down, South America will have to strengthen its ties with the United States again.

US influence in Latin America has always been strong, and they have been looking at Latin America through various modifications of the Monroe Doctrine and Pan-Americanism for two centuries and have been trying to cement their hold on it through various ways - for example, through the Organization of American States (OAS) and by promoting free trade agreements. This was done by all the last US presidents - Ronald Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama. However, the Americans have always viewed Latin America as part of their North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA, while Latin American countries are talking about creating their own free trade zone. Latin Americans have created a variety of intergovernmental organizations for integration such as ALBA, SELAC and UNASUR, which threatened to turn the United States not into the leading force in the region but into a partner. In 2009, Barack Obama pledged that Washington would not interfere in the affairs of Latin America, but is this really what they want in the White House?

Residents of Latin America also stand out for their complex attitude to the United States - many dream of moving there for permanent residence and admire the influence, standard of living and education of Americans, but hardly anyone notices that with regard to Latin America Washington is primarily guided by its own interests. This is especially true on the example of the economic component of Washington's policy, which started to be based to a greater extent in the 1980s on ideas of neoliberalism implemented on the basis of intensive cooperation with international financial institutions - the IMF and the World Bank. The ultimate goal was to resolve problems of economic and social development and political rapprochement with the centres of advanced capitalism. Latin American countries really saw many positive changes - the stabilization of currencies, decrease in government intervention, curbing of inflation, improvements in the situation in the banking sector, simplification of the tax system, the flow of investment and increased growth rate of GDP. But at the same time, imports grew faster than exports, the external debt of most countries did not decrease, there were no technological breakthroughs, per capita GDP did not increase, social differentiation increased, living standards declined and social programmes were cut. As a result, financial crises occurred in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina at the beginning of the century. The same Argentina enforced the procedure of default on IMF loans. This moment saw a new surge in the influence of radical left forces who criticized American investment funds and talked about the predatory control of transnational corporations. A symbol of the process was Hugo Chavez and his "socialism of the 21st century", nationalization, social programmes and "Bolivarian initiative for Latin American countries", and he was followed by others - Evo Morales came to power in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega returned to Nicaragua, the left radical Rafael Correa was elected in Ecuador, and, finally, Dilma Rousseff became president of Brazil.

No value

Thus, it appears that history is repeating itself. Regardless of who dominates the political field of Latin America, the continent is consistently attacked by crises, the external debt is not falling, social inequality and poverty are still there, while corruption is still fuelled by large-scale drug trafficking, which can sometimes compete with the government in power and influence.

Therefore, in the long-run, even if the activity of the left forces in Latin America is really declining, does it matter so much? Maybe this is a "change of the era" of political regimes, but certainly not a change in the quality of life for the majority.