Latin American democracy and development

Faustina's latest post reminded me of an issue that I've been thinking about for many years since my MA degree. Why is Latin America having so much trouble adopting democratic polities and some form of free market structures. After reading Faustina's post as well as the various links and comments, I have some answers. They'll be quite controversial because they're counterintuitive as well as politically incorrect.

Indeed, the reason that Latin America has so much difficulty adapting democratic polities and free market structures isn't because the region is stubborn, ignorant nor genetically defectivebut because those policy prescriptions are too 'Protestant.' One of the glaring oversights that's struck me over the years is how the prototypical developmental theorist or policy implementer has never, ever referred to, much less studied, the Salamanca school. It was a very loose group of professors and theologians centred at the University of Salamanca during Spain's Golden age. Some are well-known like Fr. Vitoria and Suarez but others aren't. They had some remarkably modern analyses on economics. Schumpeter has claimed that they came the closest in the early modern period to developing modern economic theory.

So why the neglect? Partly because the professors wrote their treaties in Latin and it's a subject that's no longer taught in schools; yet another reason is the residue of that totally obselete conflict between Spain and Englandover who would master the world. Since England won and the Anglosphere dominates, Spanish cultural, political and ideological references to the perennial human condition were regulated to the margins. Yet, if Latin America is to become a more democratic and market oriented region, a reevaluation of the Salamanca school's contributions to economics is in order. Bluntly stated, Latin America is a permenantly Catholic region and no matter how much inroads Evangelical Protestantism makes in the region or how many times we try to impelemt the standard IMF/World Bank requirements, any policy to transform the region has to go through the IberoCatholic filtres. In sum, there's a need to culturally relativize the economic and political prescriptions that come from the advanced countries.

Concretely what does this signify?

1. Anyone genuinely serious about reforming Latin American society will need to incorporate the Salamanca school's insights on econmy and society along with the advances made since they wrote their treatises.


2. Personalism: the reminder that individuals have an intrinisc dignity that no one can take away and one manner to encourage that dignity is ensure that they can contribute to society through their various talents and be given the opportunity to do so. Most are profoundly mistaken if they presume that personalism signifies the emancipation of the individual. The individual isn't the centre of the universe; rather it's the family that's the foundations of society. Whatever benefits the family is to be implemented whatever harms is to be jettisoned immediately. Case in point: the totally absurd population control obligations that the First World imposes on Latin America as a precondition for economic aid. Since when does growth occur with negative demographics?


3. Subsidarity: that's the Catholic concept of decentralization. That power and initivative should be diffused as far down to the areas which affect people's lives most directly. Latin America's civil society is found in the associacions d'escala (the apartment floor association) soccer clubs/fan associations, the plaza mayor etc. The state and its public administration would find it easier to accept the devolution of authourity and initiative than the esoteric debates between parlimentary and presidential systems.


4. Solidarity: This will irritate many but Latin America will always have a more social democratic welfare flavour than in the First world. Whether more or less welfare state is positive or negative is a perenially political issue with no satisfactory conclusion. As long as the debate is civilized and the alternatives can take turns without coups and irresponsible political rhetoric that promises the moon, that'll be a major step forward.

The biggest beef I have with the various pundits and experts on the region routinely patronize Latin Americans as dumb fucks rather than rational people whose cultural foundations are sometimes more anthropologically astute than in the advanced industralized countries as well as representing another variant of Western civilization. The Latin American elite too has fallen for that nonsense for far too long. Since the region's independence from Spain and Portugal, the elites have wanted to imitated everyone and try every faddish ideological current instead of accepting themselves as Iberian métis with a relatively fecund politico-cultural heritage. We can learn from each other. The advanced industrialized countries don't have a monopoly about how to best deal with the human condition.

Le rapport de l'OCED sur la santé publique: la réforme est possible au Canada

Il fait presqu'une semaine que j'avai lu un article sur un rapport de l'OCED sur la santé publique dans divers pays occidentaux. L'États-unis a été exclu puisqu'il n'a pas de réseau publique en tant que tel. Bref, ce qui m'a frappé ce n'était pas la litanie traditionnelle de longues files d'attente aux salles d'urgences dans les hôpitaux canadiens ou qu'on paie un fortune pour des services médiocres.

Non, la révélation la plus génante c'est que le Canada est le seul pays qui interdit complètement un réseau parallel- c'est à dire un réseau privé. Voilà pourquoi les Canadiens se retrouvent presque derniers dans la liste pour tous les critères de l'étude. Cependant, tout n'est pas perdu, cet étude revivera le débat qu'à Québec a commencé avec l'arrêt Chailloui, continués par les propos de Claude Castonguay et le rapport Ménard. Selon moi, la réforme la plus evidente c'est de permettre le rétablissment du secteur privé.

Oui, on peut déjà prédire tous les slogans qui l'opposeront mais on rapplera aux opposants que l'art 2 de la Charte québécoise s'applique toujours et que ni la Cour suprême, ni Castonguay ni le rapport Ménard ne l'ont pas exclud'application. Donc, un personne inconsciente et bléssée ne se verra pas pas privée que l'on prodigue de soins en raison de son état qui impossiblitise le consentement.

En entérinant ce principe d'une lecture large et libérale de l'art. 2 de la Charte québécoise soulagerait la réticences de beaucoup de Québécois. Le moyen le plus efficace de réintroduir le réseau privé de sante c'est de privatiser les CLSCs. On verra comment les salles d'urgences videront rapidement si les gens peuvent visiter les CLSCs pour les maux mineurs et les fièvres des bébés.