Latin American Left in Search of Itself
!!!
Issue Apr 22-May 05 2026: In the weeks following the April 18, 2026 meeting of Latin American leftist and progressive leaders in Barcelona during the “IV Cumbre en Defensa de la Democracia,” columnists and pundits in Latin America asked some rather pointed, though conflicting, questions about what leftist leaders, governments, and opposition leaders really bring to the table.
Prelude to the Cumbre and Predictable Rhetoric on Cuba
MercoPress of Montevideo noted that in a quick bilateral summit that served as prologue to the Cumbre, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez offered thoughts on why democracy is losing ground to extremism. “Where did democracy go wrong?” Lula asked. “Democracy created the welfare state, but in many countries the working class is going backward and wealth concentration is increasing. Rights are being lost. That is where extremism gained strength,” he answered. Both leaders agreed on the need to reform the United Nations. “It is very weakened. The nations that created it do not respect it,” Lula lamented. They also addressed the impact of social media on disinformation and radicalization. The Brazilian president proposed dropping the word “social” because the platforms “have nothing social about them,” and called for regulation to prevent entire generations from being dragged toward “extremism, hatred, and disinformation.”
La Jornada of Mexico City wrote that the Grupo de Reflexión de América Latina y el Caribe (GRALyC) categorically rejected the threats made by U.S. President Donald Trump against Cuba, a country that serves as an “example of resistance, dignity, and ethical-moral integrity for the entire world.” After Trump intensified his sanctions against the island, and issued new threats by asserting that he would “take Cuba almost immediately” after concluding his campaign in Iran, the group (comprising intellectuals, former officials, and academics from various countries) emphasized that “this is not the time for tepid reactions; history calls upon us to live up to the luminous lessons of internationalism and solidarity that the Cuban Revolution has bestowed upon us.”
Diagnosing the Left’s Predicament
In El Espectador of Bogotá, Cristián Ascencio Ojeda wondered: “Could Trump’s wars provide progressivism with the perfect moment to get back on track?” In 2025, the Left lost every election in which it competed, in several cases, defeated by the most extreme version of the Right. In other words, the democratic Left experienced a true annus horribilis. Yet, barely into 2026, a new opportunity is presenting itself. Curiously, it is an unplanned opportunity, one that is, rather, the product of the errors committed by that very same radical Right. Foremost among these are the bluster and bravado of Donald Trump, which are having a global impact. Every missile strike in Iran inflates the cost of living in countries governed by his allies, nations in Latin America that seem to have no other way to cope with this situation than by resorting to the formula of cutting social programs. Could this mark a turning point for the wave of right-wing resurgence currently sweeping across the region?
Yet in El Universal of Mexico City, Martín Vivanco noted that the Cumbre in Barcelona, dominated by Sánchez, Lula, President Gustavo Petro of Colombia, President Yamandú Orsi of Uruguay, former President Gabriel Boric of Chile, and President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, promised to serve as a response to the global political climate. The result was an accurate diagnosis but a timid response. In this regard, the summit served as a faithful mirror of the moment the Left is currently traversing. He argued that the most uncomfortable question is not why the Right is winning, but rather why the Left seems unable to imagine real alternatives. He also noted that Pablo Stefanoni offered an answer that stings precisely because it is so difficult to refute: for decades, the moderate Left internalized the basic assumptions of neoliberalism. It accepted that markets constitute the most efficient mechanism for resource allocation. It accepted that the State must prioritize fiscal responsibility over social ambition. It accepted that globalization, with all its attendant costs, was an irreversible phenomenon that had to be managed, not challenged. What remained after that capitulation was what some call progressive neoliberalism: a project that combines market logic with a discourse of identity-based inclusion, diversity, and rights. One could be an environmentalist and an advocate of austerity. One could defend LGBTQ+ rights while privatizing public services. The horizon of the possible shrank, yet the language of justice remained intact. The problem is that this hybrid proved politically unsustainable. For those who experience economic precariousness as a daily reality, rather than as a conceptual category, a progressivism that champions diversity but leaves the structure of inequality untouched is not an alternative; it is a sophisticated mockery. The radical right grasped this resentment sooner than anyone else and harnessed it as electoral fuel. It spoke of the “forgotten,” of “normal people”—of those left behind by the system of meritocracy and political correctness. It matters little that their solutions are regressive or fraudulent; they filled a void that the Left abandoned when it decided that managing capitalism was more responsible than imagining an alternative to it. The result is an imaginative paralysis masquerading as pragmatism.
In La Jornada of Mexico City, Ana María Aragonés argued along similar lines. The Barcelona Cumbre “sparked great hope, given the terrible neofascist conditions currently gripping the world, and in light of two Zionist lunatics—Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu—who seem bent on dragging us toward a global catastrophe.” Certainly, “a diagnosis was articulated, undoubtedly clear, vibrant, and necessary.” Yet “it notably lacked the specific names of the two principal deranged individuals attempting to blow up the world. It is true that mention was made of the need to reform the United Nations, and, above all, its Security Council, which, given its current configuration, fails to serve the objectives of peace-seeking; the need to promote clean energy and to increase taxes on the super-rich was also addressed.” However, the expectation was not merely to hear specific criticisms regarding the current situation, but rather to put forward a concrete plan of action, a program, or a set of specific measures, perhaps modest ones, that would nonetheless constitute a clear break with the status quo, unequivocally demonstrating a repudiation of the actions unleashed by these disturbed individuals.” She argued that “there appears to be a profound disconnect between the grave and terrifying events the world is currently enduring, events that serve as the most compelling evidence of the magnitude of the crisis currently gripping global capitalism, and the rather tepid proposals put forward by the progressive camp, which failed to present concrete actions of sufficient scope to transform and confront the structures of global Zionist power.”
In Folha de S. Paulo, Maria Hermínia Tavares wrote of the PT in Brazil, and “its program without a future.” The document presented by the PT at its congress fails to do justice to the actual party. The Workers’ Party (PT) just held its 8th National Congress, during which it approved the document “Building the Future: PT Manifesto.” This is a programmatic piece with the ambition of presenting a roadmap for the changes that the largest left-wing political organization proposes for Brazil. In principle, it should also guide this year’s electoral campaigns. Yet in “Building the Future,” there is little to guide a democratic leftist party, one attuned to present-day challenges and capable of offering a progressive vision for the future.
Indeed, the image projected by the document fails to do justice to the actual party, to the thousands of cadres it has trained, and to the governments it has led, and continues to lead.
And finally, in The Clinic of Santiago Juan Francisco Galli wrote of the Chilean situation. He said, “It is legitimate to have doubts regarding the tools or instruments proposed by the Kast government, whether they are the most suitable, adequately targeted, or if their cost is proportional to the desired objective.” However, the reasonable course of action would be to propose alternatives, not to reject the plan outright,” wrote Galli. He added: “The question that arises is whether there is genuine conviction within the Left regarding just how imperative economic growth is for our country’s development and for generating opportunities for its inhabitants.” “The long-awaited bill for reconstruction, as well as for economic and social development, has finally been formally introduced. President Kast is fulfilling his pledge to make economic growth and job creation the top priority of his administration. His government has set ambitious targets; indeed, the bill’s accompanying message explicitly outlines goals to reduce the unemployment rate from its current 8% down to 6.5% and to achieve an annual economic growth rate of 4%. Achieving this is not expected to be easy.”
However, even before the bill was officially announced, left-wing parliamentarians and political leaders were already advocating for its rejection, citing various reasons: concerns over the fiscal deficit, claims that it constituted a “stealth” tax reform, arguments that it was overly broad in scope, and assertions that it was regressive. Although all those offering critiques claimed to share the stated objective of boosting growth and reducing unemployment, concrete proposals to that effect were entirely absent. It is legitimate to harbor doubts regarding the specific tools or instruments proposed by this government, questioning whether they are truly the most suitable, adequately targeted, or if their associated costs are proportional to the desired outcome. Nevertheless, the reasonable approach would be to put forward alternative solutions, rather than rejecting the entire proposal out of hand. The truth is that the question that arises is whether there is genuine conviction within the Left regarding the imperative nature of economic growth for the country’s development and for the creation of opportunities for its inhabitants.
“Ultimately, the question remains unanswered. Does the current left-wing opposition truly believe in growth as the engine of Chile’s development,” as earlier leftists did, “or will it revive that ‘foundational’ spirit, choosing instead to stall the country’s progress merely to gain a minor political advantage and inflict a defeat upon the current administration?”