You cannot promote the fraternity of man by inciting class hatred.
Abraham Lincoln
In the first part of this series, I commented on various leaders of the “progressive left” who respected the democratic path and who sought effective tools to improve the well-being of their population in general, without clinging to the ideology of their party, acting with a long term vision. I mentioned the cases of Willy Brandt in West Germany, Olaf Palme in Sweden, Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Felipe González in Spain and Shimon Peres in Israel.
I will now describe several rulers who came to power using the ideological arguments of the left, who made promises that were impossible to keep and who, in the absence of results, dedicated themselves to polarizing the population with populist discourses and weakening democratic institutions. Their main objective, despite their multiple promises, was to retain and concentrate power even at the cost of seriously harming the underprivileged classes, whom they apparently defended.
Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, a war hero in the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, led the 34-year-old with General Naguib in the Free Officers’ coup against King Farouk and his corrupt monarchy in 1952 Upon taking power, this group of soldiers established a Republic with a socialist bias, whose principles were summarized in the book “Philosophy of the Revolution”, written by Colonel Nasser. These principles fought for the liquidation of feudalism, the termination of the rule of capitalist power, the formation of a powerful people’s army and the need to achieve social equality. After 6 months in power, these officers established the bases for a military dictatorship, eliminating any kind of opposition. In 1954, Nasser pushed General Naguib aside, seizing complete control of the government, falling under a new constitution that gave him unlimited powers.
Nasser, once a timid and even tedious speaker, realized that he could manipulate the masses using the language of the street, which made him a master of propaganda and the most successful Arab communicator in modern times. . In his radio and television speeches, he used the language of the people to mock Western politicians and denounce imperialism and the reactionaries who defended it. Even as he despised the bourgeoisie, he allowed the regime’s pet businessmen to play an increasing role in the industry he had nationalized. In a short time he concentrated all the power in his hands. According to his biographer Panayiotis Vatikiotis: “Nasser managed to abolish the difference between state and government, since, instead of separating the powers of government, he merged them.” For the Egyptian leader, the main requirement of his officials was loyalty. Martin Meredith in his book “The State of Africa” points out: “The Council of Ministers under his mandate became his audience…. The ministers listened attentively, took notes and received instructions.
The Nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 gave him great prestige and power, which Nasser took advantage of to impose his leadership on the Arab world, seeking to unify it, in a movement known as Pan-Arabism. However, his triumphs in the first 5 years of his government were followed by a series of disappointments and disasters. His Pan-Arab ambitions and his hope for an “Arab Socialist Revolution” failed. His greatest failure was the defeat against the Israeli army in the Six-Day War in 1967, which culminated in the Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, the loss of the oil wells in that area, and the closure of the Suez Canal. . Little by little the idolized Nasser was losing power. Meanwhile, the economic situation in Egypt was deteriorating. The ambitious economic program financed with a budget deficit and the increase in public debt, resulted in high inflation and a shortage of basic goods. His rhetoric of defending the poor was ineffective in practice, severely deteriorating the income level of the underprivileged classes.
Another representative example of dogmatic populism is that of the African leader Kwame Nkrumah, who obtained the independence of Ghana (previously called the Gold Coast) from the British in 1957, Ghana being the first African country to achieve its independence. This country seemed to be the best example of a colony ready to become independent, since it had a good education system and a trained elite of local professionals (lawyers, doctors, teachers and merchants), as well as being the largest cocoa producer in the world. world and a major producer of gold, timber and bauxite.
Nkrumah was an extreme anti-colonialist who claimed: “Ghana inherited a colonial economy… We cannot rest until we demolish this wretched structure.” From the beginning of his government, he was inclined to adopt socialism and economic planning, stating: “We must advance in the preparation of planned economic growth to replace the poverty, ignorance, disease and illiteracy left us by the discredited colonialism and The imperialism”. He furthermore declared: “The cycle of poverty can only be broken with a massive and planned industrial intervention… Socialism is the only pattern that can bring good life to the people in the shortest time.”
The first generation of African nationalist leaders, among which Kwame Nkrumah stands out, had great prestige that was used to consolidate their power. In 1961, the Ghanaian leader promulgated a new constitution that allowed him to rule by decree, overruling the decisions of Parliament. He achieved absolute control over radio, television and the press. He also created a control apparatus through his party, subordinating all union groups to it. The country was weakened by the growing corruption that covered all strata of society and although Nkrumah promised to eradicate it, he never did anything to combat it.
In order to comply with the modernization of the country, Nkrumah embarked on various infrastructure projects, many of them lacking in viability. These projects were financed with external debt. Faced with the collapse in the prices of cocoa, his main export product, Nkrumah implemented import controls, which affected the supply chain, slowing down his industrialization program. His agricultural policy was disastrous, devoting resources to inefficient government-run mechanized farms that subsidized the price of cacao. In the period 1965-1980 cocoa production was reduced by half. From being one of the most prosperous African countries at the time of independence in 1957, Ghana became a near-bankrupt country, with high debt, high taxes and food shortages. In February 1966 the Ghanaian leader was deposed. On the streets of Accra, the capital of Ghana, many of the young people who had been trained to support his leader, changed his message; their new banners read “Nkrumah is not our Messiah”.
Unlike the governments of Nasser or Nkrumah mentioned previously, Mexico has shown discipline in Public Finance, maintaining the “investment grade”, however, as Alejandro Werner and Alexis Milo point out in a recent article, “even when finances do not indicate a high liquidity or solvency risk, this does not mean that the implementation of fiscal policy has been adequate.
In the period 2018 to 2022, investment in infrastructure, communications and transport has fallen 12% per year, spending on public education has fallen 3% and public health figures are far from the “Nordic model”, showing a deterioration in childhood vaccination, a shortage of medicines and an increase in the maternal mortality rate. If deaths from covid during the pandemic are also considered, it is clear that we are very far from the objectives set in terms of health and well-being of the population.
Regarding economic growth and investment, it should be noted that having a Free Trade Agreement and having a border of almost 3,200 kilometers with the United States, has allowed us to take advantage of the difficulties that our neighboring country has with China and benefit from “nearshoring”. ”. Mexico has been able to attract short-term flows from foreign investors and even long-term investment, but this has been mainly foreign and predominantly in the northern part of the country. It seems, however, that we settle for little; The lack of legal certainty and the uncertainty in the rules for power generation mean that investment is far from its potential, which has an impact on GDP growth.
In Mexico, as in several Latin American countries, the left came to power due to the discontent of society towards previous governments, which are identified with a worsening of income distribution, growing insecurity and rampant corruption. For the first time in history, the left in Mexico has the opportunity to demonstrate that it is capable of applying measures that benefit the population. However, the results are quite poor; The obsession with going back to the past, rewarding loyalty over efficiency, rejecting divergent opinions and discarding policies that have worked in other countries, have and will have a significant cost.
As Ricardo Lagos, Jorge Castañeda and Héctor Aguilar Camín point out in their book The New Solitude of Latin America: “Few leftist governments in Latin America are in a position to see the world without an anachronistic and ideological vision, which has been isolating them.” . If we add to this the reform to dismantle the INE and the polarization between the different sectors of society, which is fed to a large extent from the National Palace, we observe a government that is increasingly leaning towards dogmatic populism, even though it likes to show off as a progressive leftist government.
The president has great challenges; If he really wants to resemble leaders like Palme, Brandt, González, Bachelet, Peres or Lagos, he will have to respect democratic institutions, stop induced polarization and open up to policies that are truly effective in improving the living standards of the population. Otherwise, he will sadly go down in history at the hands of leaders like Nasser, Nkrumah and many others, who only used ideology and demagoguery to gain a foothold in power.
I end this two-part series with a reflection by Gary Becker, Nobel Prize winner in Economics in 1992: “Countries escape poverty only when they have appropriate economic institutions. These are more likely to develop in a plural political system, with a large electorate and with open political leaders.
The author
Moses Tiktin
His opinions are personal and reflect his interest in learning from history.
