How the political map in South America can look like in mid-2023

[WMS]

I think you’re confused about the concept of independence. It means doing what it’s best for yourself regardless of the interest of others. If US offers better deals, than alignment should happen with US. If China or anyone else offers better deals, alignment should happen with China.

Yet everything you and the anarchist were talking about proceeded from the assumption that it is automatically bad to align with the U.S. You are not applying your own definition of independence to yourselves in that regard. As any and all fellating of those repugnant regimes in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua makes apparent: they act and vote in lockstep with the Russians and Chinese on everything, or close enough to 100% to count. Is that truly independence?

There’s no US discrimination like you make it sound. If anything, there’s more of US suspicion because well: 1. History 2. US is the only one resistant against an united and really cooperative integrated Latin America.

The idea that the evil Yankees are responsible for all of Latin America’s ills is ahistorical and myopic. There were both other foreign actors and domestic actors responsible - how many Paraguayans were killed by their fellow Latin Americans in the Paraguayan War, for example? Or Mexicans by the French invasion of Mexico? As for your second point, really? You don’t think casting “an united and really cooperative integrated Latin America” as an explicitly anti-US project champing at the bit to align with all the US’ enemies might result in the US being less than enthusiastic about it?

Meanwhile, China and also the European Union (very western and very Democratic according to your standards) are sympathetic to the idea of an integrated Latin American bloc. So, if you’re Latin American in favor of Union and you see one power being against it and everyone else being supportive, naturally you get more negative feelings and suspicious towards whoever is against it.

Of course they’re sympathetic because of its anti-US nature. Although the EU is a better bet in the long run than China as being good for Latin American independence. The EU is a rival of the US but not an enemy of it. As before, when you set out to make your proposed Union explicitly anti-US you shouldn’t get huffy if the US opposes it.

What should they do? Trash the people who are in favor of it and praise the ones who are against it just because they painted themselves as the pinnacle of democracy (while still kissing up to authoritarian powers like Saudi Arabia whenever it’s more convenient to them)?

False dichotomy. Eagerly embracing the Chinese and Russians has this amazing tendency to result in less independence abroad and authoritarianism at home. Or did you think there isn’t a price attached to all that support the Chinese and Russians are offering? Again, examine Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. If this is your preferred future for all of Latin America, then yipe. As for the US it isn’t the pinnacle of democracy but it’s a hell of a lot better than China and Russia. The Saudi alliance has been designed to keep the Soviets and Russians from rolling into the Middle East since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration negotiated it. They’re a horrible regime but it’s not like there was an alternative for a long time. With sufficient alternatives to oil for energy and other uses the US could possibly leave the region and become a more self-sufficient and even stronger superpower and hmm I bet that prospect doesn’t make you happy, does it?

That’s realpolitik, but in Latin American context! We should favor whoever is in favor of us, not who wants to divide us. If US was thinking on long term, it would support these attempts in order to be seen as a friendly power and more potential ally, since cultural aspects naturally push us closer than to China or Russia. But the truth is, US simply doesn’t want competition in a region they think they’re entitled to influence without giving much in return. They would rather have a segregated and weaker Latin America in order to have somewhere submissive to keep pushing their influence and products

With the caveat that pushing Latin American unity as a means to explicitly oppose the US will engender the US opposition you mention but on a greatly increased level, I actually agree that US policy towards Latin America is and has been astonishingly myopic and short-sighted. I am more inclined to credit incompetence rather than malice for this because I have not seen much in the way of anything organized in US policies towards Latin America. But why should that be any different from US policies in the rest of the world?

For example, if US wants to be preferable ally than China, I don’t get why they are not investing way more in development projects and infrastructure in places like Central America that really need it. One of China’s appeals is the huge amounts of money they put inside countries, while US nowadays thinks they are entitled to being the biggest world power without having to work their ass for it. They aren’t.

First point, see above in regards to US incompetence in foreign policy. Actually the US doesn’t invest enough in development and infrastructure internally either. The overall answer to your question is “neoliberal f***wads”. I would prefer investing in the way you describe, but if the US can’t do it for themselves I don’t see much changing abroad(thanks to a long campaign of demonizing foreign aid led by the same neoliberal f***wads). Now for China. Their aid comes with strings attached. Ask the Africans about that. Development will be in China’s interest first and foremost, and their actions abroad may even be worse than what the US has done at its worst.

US needs to stop using this “But democracy! Other places authoritarian and bad!” as if they were biggest example when they have no moral authority to use this, especially now after the maniac that was Trump. Real people don’t give a damn about what is the system of foreign countries you’re allied to (even in US with the Saudis), what they care about is material stuff that is real. Railway networks, Medical healthcare, More good schools, Better pavements, Increased high-technology and quality of life. That’s what really matters to people.

The US is, again, flawed. But still a damn sight better than the Russians and Chinese. Despite the Trump years. Look at some freaking human rights reports before playing the moral equivalence card. As for material improvement, better look at the strings attached to all that development. Do you honestly think Russia and China give a good goddamn about helping the common Latin American? They can - and will - achieve the same ends by sponsoring shifts to authoritarian regimes in their aid recipients that won’t be fussy about things like labor rights, domestic employment rates on those aid projects, journalistic exposes of contract corruption, the sudden appearance of large Swiss bank accounts among members of said authoritarian regimes, environmental devastation, destruction of indigenous tribes, the selling off of countries’ cultural heritages, or the plundering of natural resources on a scale reminiscent of the late 19th century. Again, ask the Africans.

One thing China has over US in this competition is that they were poorer country not that long ago, which makes them understand what people actually want. US has been too rich for too long and they apparently think the world has the same mentality of freaking Europe, a place that is even more developed than them in terms of infrastructure. What do you think it makes more of a difference into people’s actual lives, whether their politicians are friends with foreign bad people or whether there is new infrastructure bringing them more job opportunities and new railways creating access to forgotten places that suffered food and water shortages because of how hard it is to access them? If you think it’s the first, you’re probably too privileged to have absolutely zero idea of the level of misery some people are unjustly forced to live with. There’s people who are scared of dying from hunger.

My immediately above point applies here as well. FFS, you think China and Russia are actually going to pursue development that lifts the poor out of poverty? Their assistance is very reminiscent of European colonialism of the past. They offer loans, not grants. They care about their own interests first and foremost, and they are a great deal if you’re a privileged elite in whatever country they invest in. All the great taste of exploitation, without any of that nonsense about democracy and rights.

It sounds pretty pragmatic to me and not ideological at all. Give preference to whoever is investing more in order to bump development. If you see this as “anti-US” is admission that US isn’t interested in helping develop the region, be it because of fear of increased near competition or because it doesn’t want the extra spending. If so, why should any LatAm unified coalition be friendlier to US?? China sees it as a strategy and an investment instead, they don’t do it because they’re “good hearted”, it’s strategy for them like they are doing in many other places as well. Because they know this type of material stuff is more effective in pushing places to your side than cute little propaganda stories about being guardian of democracy or whatever. Your democracy is something that you and yourself is responsible to, not places from outside.

It’s anti-US because you’re choosing to make it so. You’re not balancing powers against each other for your benefit when you start from a position where one power is automatically bad and one power is automatically good. And Latin America will be trading one set of foreign interlopers for another with that attitude. One with even less concern for the well-being of the people. And one which may cost you your political and civil freedoms in return for development that makes your elites prosperous and not your poor.

Latin America should think on goals that benefit the region, not outside places, regardless of who they are. US already has their realpolitik versions from Republicans and Democrats of “Me first”, so there’s no reason for LatAm to not do the exact same. If China eventually gets too entitled of their “power” like US did (And China already sometimes shows signs of this, with their weird vaccine diplomacy), they should be kicked out as preferred strategic partner as well. The concept of being independent is being free to shift deals and alliances according to what is more beneficial to your internal interests.

And adopting a stance hostile to the US as an inherent part of Union instead of going for actual neutrality between various powers contradicts your statements. Oh, real neutrality, not “The Non-Aligned Movement as Led by Cuba” neutrality. Assuming the Chinese and Russians let you keep your independence once they’ve got their claws in you.

Isn’t capitalism about freedom of choice where different people compete to offer best product to the clients and they get to pick whoever produces better product? It’s the exact same thing, with LatAm as potential client. Why would someone go to a store where the owners see them as rapists and uneducated savages and try to bully them to buy their products otherwise you’re a danger to their business?

Trump does not = the US. I have already elucidated about the “products” being offered by China and Russia. Their store offers cheaper prices as long as you sign this long-term deal with a lot of fine print about how you will always buy from them in the future and if you renege they confiscate everything you own and appoint a family member who is on the take to run your life and make you work for nothing in what is now a new branch of their store. So pretty much exactly like colonialism.

It’s the seller who has to convince clients to buy their products, not client who has to convince the seller that they want to buy their products lmao. Capitalism and more competition are not just good when they only benefit you, everyone can take advantage of it.

Since when am I a fanboy of capitalism? And you keep saying you’re pushing for independence but if it’s only independence from one power and not all of them, is that really independence?

TL;dr Swapping US influence for Chinese/Russian influence as an inherent part of the creation of a new structure is not an act of independence, and comes with more downsides than those pushing for the Latin American Union seem to realize.

[Red Velvet]

I actually do think on cultural terms, US would be preferable partner over China and Russia because of more established liberal values overall (even if it’s becoming more conservative).

However, US has little to nothing to offer economically (only to take) and you already excuse this by basically saying “Well, our government is awful neoliberal hell and gives a damn about domestic development, of course they don’t care about foreign development and that will never change”.

Can’t you really see or understand where any developmentalist proposal gets more appealing under the prospect you yourself is presenting?

Also, you’re the one acting like places are forced into full allignment with a foreign power lol. It’s very viable to work more with one on matters concerning individual freedoms and culture while working more with other on economic matters driven by developmentalism. This type of flexibility is what I support, no one agrees on everything. Alliances should be by agenda to agenda and not necessarily mean you side with one place on everything. THIS is what independence means.

If Bernie had won and enacted all the development stuff like universal healthcare and others, it would be credible to side more often with US because it would be more believable they would care about economic development and reducing economic inequalities.

But like you say, US is way too neoliberal and will probably NEVER go back into being the party of FDR, those times when they wanted big foreign support on something they would be leadership and help invest on new industries in those places. Nowadays what we see is more of control maniac bullying Central American governments for being “too corrupt”. What kind of idiot would be “pro-US” in current scenario when they are not offering any good stuff?

Answer: It’s the Right-wing crazies like Uribe and Bolsonaro that even the US itself cannot stand.

[kaoras]

Is also absolutely ridiculous to argue to latinoamericans about US moral high ground. So, how many people have died as a consequence of Chinese-imposed dictatorships in Latin America? How many tortured, exiles? _{Oh but that was decades ago, yes, and the war of the triple alliance was centuries ago and you still bring it up}

The truth of the matter is that the economic interest of most Latin American countries aligns more with China. Why then we should keep acting as the U.S. backyard considering how well the u.s values have served us?

[Agonized-Statism]

Is also absolutely ridiculous to argue to latinoamericans about US moral high ground. So, how many people have died as a consequence of Chinese-imposed dictatorships in Latin America? How many tortured, exiles? _{Oh but that was decades ago, yes, and the war of the triple alliance was centuries ago and you still bring it up}

The truth of the matter is that the economic interest of most Latin American countries aligns more with China. Why then we should keep acting as the U.S. backyard considering how well the u.s values have served us?

Apparently China *checks notes* "defying the rules-based international order", the rules of which are set by the US and Europe and which they're apparently allowed to break (e.g. Iraq War), makes them "much worse" rather than equally immoral opportunists and justifies the US doing everything it can to maintain power. China is the best thing to happen to the US, actually- any criticism can be shut down with "Do YoU wAnT cHiNa To WiN?!?!". Both governments practice mass surveillance, break up groups that threaten their power, and regularly have leaders not elected by a majority of the people, but one is so high-tech it has the luxury to do it with a human face.

[WMS]

I actually do think on cultural terms, US would be preferable partner over China and Russia because of more established liberal values overall (even if it’s becoming more conservative).

Agree, although the US is if anything becoming less conservative: it’s why the conservatives are trying so desperately to undermine democracy in the US.

However, US has little to nothing to offer economically (only to take) and you already excuse this by basically saying “Well, our government is awful neoliberal hell and gives a damn about domestic development, of course they don’t care about foreign development and that will never change”.

Probably not for the rest of this decade because a lot of domestic issues have been neglected to the point of imminent crisis.

Can’t you really see or understand where any developmentalist proposal gets more appealing under the prospect you yourself is presenting?

Of course it’s appealing. Just don’t go into it under the mindset that you have to take an anti-US and/or pro-Chinese/Russian stance. Stay neutral.

Also, you’re the one acting like places are forced into full allignment with a foreign power lol. It’s very viable to work more with one on matters concerning individual freedoms and culture while working more with other on economic matters driven by developmentalism. This type of flexibility is what I support, no one agrees on everything. Alliances should be by agenda to agenda and not necessarily mean you side with one place on everything. THIS is what independence means.

I really wish it worked out like that. The track record is not encouraging on these matters. That’s why I think the EU is a better bet because they’re the least dangerous to work with.

If Bernie had won and enacted all the development stuff like universal healthcare and others, it would be credible to side more often with US because it would be more believable they would care about economic development and reducing economic inequalities.

Heck, if Biden could get even his set of policies through it would improve credibility on that front. We’re going to be undergoing some internal struggles over this, so umm yeah go with the EU.

But like you say, US is way too neoliberal and will probably NEVER go back into being the party of FDR, those times when they wanted big foreign support on something they would be leadership and help invest on new industries in those places. Nowadays what we see is more of control maniac bullying Central American governments for being “too corrupt”. What kind of idiot would be “pro-US” in current scenario when they are not offering any good stuff?

Speak to me in 2030 if we’re both alive and we’ll see how things are going. I am saying don’t burn your bridges by automatically adopting a hostile attitude.

Answer: It’s the Right-wing crazies like Uribe and Bolsonaro that even the US itself cannot stand.

Uribe is bad but it’s FARC and ELN that gave him the opportunity to rise and if you want two groups that Colombians absolutely loathe it’s them. They’ve gotten worse over time. Bolsonaro is Brazil’s Trump and ugh enough about him gah why did Brazil vote him in?

[WMS]

Is also absolutely ridiculous to argue to latinoamericans about US moral high ground. So, how many people have died as a consequence of Chinese-imposed dictatorships in Latin America? How many tortured, exiles? _{Oh but that was decades ago, yes, and the war of the triple alliance was centuries ago and you still bring it up}

The truth of the matter is that the economic interest of most Latin American countries aligns more with China. Why then we should keep acting as the U.S. backyard considering how well the u.s values have served us?

Ah that left-wing moral relativism at work! Any and all US actions were totally evil and any and all actions by anyone opposing the US were totally good! Plus it’s a nifty way to dodge the truth that most of that Latin Americans did to other Latin Americans. The US - and the Soviet Union usually through Cuba - both interfered to support their respective sides, given that there was a global cold war they were waging against each other. China was too busy razing itself to the ground under that good leftist Mao Zedong to DO anything in Latin America for most of the period you’re clearly referencing (although they fully supported the Khmer Rouge both in power and out if you’re wondering how Chinese foreign policy operates). But you’re deflecting from what I’ve been saying in that the US absolutely does have the moral high ground vis a vis China and Russia, and you have to be one seriously insane tankie to believe otherwise. I’ll turn that around on you: if Latin America chooses to align with (not just take money from) China and/or Russia, you lose your moral high ground to complain about the US.

Plus that false dichotomy again. ‘Latin America must be both anti-US and pro-Chinese or else it’s nothing but the US backyard/puppet/colony etc.’ Oh and yet again I tell you to ask the Africans (and maybe the Sri Lankans come to think of it) what comes of an uncritical embrace of the Chinese.

[WMS]

Apparently China *checks notes* "defying the rules-based international order", the rules of which are set by the US and Europe and which they're apparently allowed to break (e.g. Iraq War), makes them "much worse" rather than equally immoral opportunists and justifies the US doing everything it can to maintain power. China is the best thing to happen to the US, actually- any criticism can be shut down with "Do YoU wAnT cHiNa To WiN?!?!". Both governments practice mass surveillance, break up groups that threaten their power, and regularly have leaders not elected by a majority of the people, but one is so high-tech it has the luxury to do it with a human face.

Speaking of seriously insane tankies, if you believe that morally relativistic drivel you’re spouting why aren’t you a political prisoner right now? The US and China are on the same level according to you so why haven’t you been sent to a re-education camp yet? Why are you posting on the Internet at all? Oh yes, so where are those US genocides on the level of what’s going on to the Uighurs and Tibetans right this second? Or US aggressions towards neighbors on the scale of Crimea, Donbass, North Ossetia, Abkhazia, or Transnistra, complete with ethnic cleansing? I’m talking about right NOW not 150 years ago since you are saying there’s no difference now between the US and the likes of China and Russia?

[kaoras]

Is also absolutely ridiculous to argue to latinoamericans about US moral high ground. So, how many people have died as a consequence of Chinese-imposed dictatorships in Latin America? How many tortured, exiles? _{Oh but that was decades ago, yes, and the war of the triple alliance was centuries ago and you still bring it up}

The truth of the matter is that the economic interest of most Latin American countries aligns more with China. Why then we should keep acting as the U.S. backyard considering how well the u.s values have served us?

Ah that left-wing moral relativism at work! Any and all US actions were totally evil and any and all actions by anyone opposing the US were totally good! Plus it’s a nifty way to dodge the truth that most of that Latin Americans did to other Latin Americans. The US - and the Soviet Union usually through Cuba - both interfered to support their respective sides, given that there was a global cold war they were waging against each other. China was too busy razing itself to the ground under that good leftist Mao Zedong to DO anything in Latin America for most of the period you’re clearly referencing (although they fully supported the Khmer Rouge both in power and out if you’re wondering how Chinese foreign policy operates). But you’re deflecting from what I’ve been saying in that the US absolutely does have the moral high ground vis a vis China and Russia, and you have to be one seriously insane tankie to believe otherwise. I’ll turn that around on you: if Latin America chooses to align with (not just take money from) China and/or Russia, you lose your moral high ground to complain about the US.

Plus that false dichotomy again. ‘Latin America must be both anti-US and pro-Chinese or else it’s nothing but the US backyard/puppet/colony etc.’ Oh and yet again I tell you to ask the Africans (and maybe the Sri Lankans come to think of it) what comes of an uncritical embrace of the Chinese.

You are literally making up straw man from what I said. When did I say that the powers that oppose the U.S. are good? Russia is absolutely awful, and the one good thing about China is that they buy the things we sell and doesn't seem to meddle with the political system of the countries far away from them, though their rise sure must suck for Vietnam, Australia, and everyone in their neighborhood. And when did I say that we must align everything to China, we should simply not let U.S. nonsense interfere with deals that are clearly more beneficial to us.

And who gave the weapons and funding to the murderers of Schneider, who funded the terrorist group Patria y Libertad, who funded the trucker strike, who embargoed the copper export, who cut access to credit? Who trained the DINA and CNI? Without the U.S., there would not have been the conditions for the dictatorship or the level of terror and murders that existed during it, this is not even debatable. The U.S. absolutely does not have the moral high ground. Do you know what the Soviet Union did? Gave like a third of the money the CIA gave the right and DC to Allende campaign and then said to him he was too far away and he was on his own. Is honestly disgusting that you are reflecting all responsibility. Like, how you don't even realize that telling people who lost their family to CIA-trained agents that it was akshually your own fault and what about the Ughuirs, does exactly the opposite of arguing that the US has the moral high ground.

And those poor African countries, I bet they would be better if they went with the IMF instead, they sure do not impose anything. That's just how the global system work, everyone does that, including the US, that's literally what the disastrous Washington consensus was all about. We should be smart about it and don't let "oh but China and Russia are so mean" interfere with our development because the U.S. has gone 10 years without invading any country and are currently totally better than the other powers and someday they will totally have something worthwhile for us besides economic neoliberalism.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

On September 2021, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Colombia and Equator are ruled by the right. Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru are ruled by the left.
The left can win the elections in Chile in 2021, Colombia and Brazil in 2022 and Paraguay in early 2023.
The right can win in Argentina in 2023, but this election will take place only in the end of the year.

So, we could see a map in mid 2023 in which only Equator and Uruguay are blue, and the other countries are red (using blue for the right and red for the left).

This is amazing because Equator and Uruguay used to be the most progressive countries in the continent. The left stayed in the government for many years in these countries. Correa and Mujica were celebrities for the international left. But recently, Lacale Pou and Guillermo Lasso won very close elections.

Seems pretty straightforward: the internet, lockdowns, corruption and economic malaise have come together to create severe resentment towards the ruling parties, which have never been great but previously could limit exposure by keeping journalists either repressed or within the power structure. So in the traditionally right wing countries like Colombia, Chile and Peru the anti-establishment wave favours the left while in countries with leftist governments like Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina it favours the right.

The only South American countries avoiding the trend (at least so far) are Bolivia and Paraguay. And the Guyanas I guess but nobody counts them anyway

[CumbrianLefty]

Suriname in particular has a "fascinating" history in this regard, of course.

[buritobr]

Well well well

South America is becoming red

The remaining Conmebol blue countries in mid 2022 are Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Equator.
Brazil is on the way to become red in October

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Well well well

South America is becoming red

The remaining Conmebol blue countries in mid 2022 are Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Equator.
Brazil is on the way to become red in October

Lula is certainly favored to win in a few months, yes.
If I had to guess, there are only two blue countries in mid-2023: Uruguay and Ecuador. But who knows?

[jojoju1998]

Argentina might flip back to center right government next year, or worse....

a anarcho capitalist.

[Red Velvet]

Between the Brazil (who will join) and the Argentina (who will leave) elections, the continent will be at the reddest it has ever been. I hope 2023 is enough for all these people to articulate.

[Red Velvet]

Well well well

South America is becoming red

The remaining Conmebol blue countries in mid 2022 are Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Equator.
Brazil is on the way to become red in October

Lula is certainly favored to win in a few months, yes.
If I had to guess, there are only two blue countries in mid-2023: Uruguay and Ecuador. But who knows?

Paraguay too but the left doesn’t even exist there so it doesn’t count.

[Oryxslayer]

I really disapprove of those who view these things regionally or even globally. The underlying assumption behind their thinking is that there is something universal and common between these contests, which fallaciously denies agency to individuals and groups inside each country in particular. South American is huge, people in different areas are facing different issues and have different solutions, and what counts as "left" differs in many countries. In several countries these parties are personalistic, in others they are more authoritarian than anything else, in others they are a reaction to different political actors, and in other areas the situation is much more complex.

What made the first Pink Tide unique is that we can say that there was a common theme that crossed borders. Cold War dictatorships were coming down, the opposition took power, and in some places it took a while for the Pinks to lose power despite Liberal elections and a political system that encourages disapproval. Memories of the past meant that Conservatives did not have the numbers to win at the ballot box until times and the electorate changed. Of course this didn't go solely in one direction, Mexico shows that the feelings persisted despite the direction of travel.

What is happening right now is a bunch of individual pendulums coincidentally happen to be in the same position for a brief moment, before they continue on their own separate trajectories - unless of course some actor in a country attempts to freeze the pendulum in place. And the situation remains complicated because of the political systems. Argentina is swinging back right. Chile, Peru, and several others are seeing their governments rack up the abysmal approvals that are natural in presidential runoff environments. These approvals appear to sadly mean the new Chilean constitution is doomed.

The picture is always complicated, and attempted to simplify it to prove ones point is denying the voters of individual systems their uniqueness.

[jojoju1998]

I really disapprove of those who view these things regionally or even globally. The underlying assumption behind their thinking is that there is something universal and common between these contests, which fallaciously denies agency to individuals and groups inside each country in particular. South American is huge, people in different areas are facing different issues and have different solutions, and what counts as "left" differs in many countries. In several countries these parties are personalistic, in others they are more authoritarian than anything else, in others they are a reaction to different political actors, and in other areas the situation is much more complex.

What made the first Pink Tide unique is that we can say that there was a common theme that crossed borders. Cold War dictatorships were coming down, the opposition took power, and in some places it took a while for the Pinks to lose power despite Liberal elections and a political system that encourages disapproval. Memories of the past meant that Conservatives did not have the numbers to win at the ballot box until times and the electorate changed. Of course this didn't go solely in one direction, Mexico shows that the feelings persisted despite the direction of travel.

What is happening right now is a bunch of individual pendulums coincidentally happen to be in the same position for a brief moment, before they continue on their own separate trajectories - unless of course some actor in a country attempts to freeze the pendulum in place. And the situation remains complicated because of the political systems. Argentina is swinging back right. Chile, Peru, and several others are seeing their governments rack up the abysmal approvals that are natural in presidential runoff environments. These approvals appear to sadly mean the new Chilean constitution is doomed.

The picture is always complicated, and attempted to simplify it to prove ones point is denying the voters of individual systems their uniqueness.

Also, alot of these new left politicians, have very socially conservative views. Castillo from Peru for exam.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well well well

South America is becoming red

The remaining Conmebol blue countries in mid 2022 are Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Equator.
Brazil is on the way to become red in October

Lula is certainly favored to win in a few months, yes.
If I had to guess, there are only two blue countries in mid-2023: Uruguay and Ecuador. But who knows?

Paraguay too but the left doesn’t even exist there so it doesn’t count.

Firstly, is that true?

Secondly, wasn't basically the same said about Colombia not a million years ago?

[Red Velvet]

Well well well

South America is becoming red

The remaining Conmebol blue countries in mid 2022 are Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Equator.
Brazil is on the way to become red in October

Lula is certainly favored to win in a few months, yes.
If I had to guess, there are only two blue countries in mid-2023: Uruguay and Ecuador. But who knows?

Paraguay too but the left doesn’t even exist there so it doesn’t count.

Firstly, is that true?

Secondly, wasn't basically the same said about Colombia not a million years ago?

Yup, it is true. The same right-wing party (Colorado) has governed that country since 1948.

The only exception was the period between 2008-2013, when Fernando Lugo shocked by winning the 2008 election. But guess what? He didn’t even finish his term, as he was impeached in 2012 in a soft coup d’etat because even though he was elected, the Colorado Party still effectively controlled what happened. A liberal VP finished the term from 2012-2013 and then the Colorado Party won again in both 2013 and 2018.

At least Colombia has hope and a real vibrant political scenario. There’s a reason why people don’t even mention Paraguay when talking about South American politics (same treatment as the Guyanas) and why they only mentioned Ecuador and Uruguay as countries that will have non-left governments in 2023. You kinda just write them off as a possibility (unlike Ecuador and Uruguay, which already elected and could very well elect again left-wing people).

[buritobr]

In Paraguay, the left didn't return after the soft coup against Lugo. But the 2018 was close: conservative Mario Benítez had 48,96%, Efraín Alegre, who led a progressive coalition, had 45,08%.
In Uruguay, the Broad Front lost a narrow election in 2019 after 15 years in the government. Lacalle Pou had 50,79%, Daniel Martínez had 49,21%. Pou's victory was expected, but it was close.
In Ecuador 2021, leftist Arauz had a not expected defeat, after more than one decade of leftist dominance. He was the 1st in the 1st round, and the 3rd and 4th candidates considered themselves leftists. But the hate on Correa was big. Lasso had 52,36%, Arauz had 47,64%.

In Peru and Colombia, the left had narrow victories. In Chile, a not so close victory, but not a landslide.

In 2020/2021, I though it was obvious that a right-wing candidate would win in Argentina in 2023, but now the economy is recovering and Fernandez or an ally can win.

We can see that South America is very split. Both left and right have almost half of the vote in all elections.

Sometimes, when a big crisis takes place, all the governments change: countries ruled by the left elect right-wing governments and countries ruled by the right elect left-wing governments.

[HillGoose]

what if suriname decided they had enough of everybodys sh**t and conquered the whole continent tho