Walking the Tightrope of Socialist Governance: A Strategic-Relational Analysis of Twenty-first-Century Socialism

• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X18798795
• Author: Marcel Nelson
• Subject Matter: Articles

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 224, Vol. 46 No. 1, January 2019, 46–65

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X18798795

© 2018 Latin American Perspectives

46

Walking the Tightrope of Socialist Governance

A Strategic-Relational Analysis of Twenty-first-Century

Socialism

by

Marcel Nelson

The process of socialist transformation in a democratic context presents many quanda-

ries including walking a tightrope between pursuing substantive transformation that

challenges existing social relations and remaining in power in view of political opposition

stemming from such a challenge. The experiences of twenty-first-century socialism in

Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela provide different examples of ways of balancing the two

imperatives. Nicos Poulantzas’s writings on the state shed light on the importance of

deepening democracy as part of any process of socialist transformation and on the limits

of such a strategy.

El proceso de transformación socialista en un contexto democrático presenta muchos

dilemas que incluyen caminar en la cuerda floja entre perseguir una transformación sus-

tantiva que desafía las relaciones sociales existentes y permanecer en el poder en vista de

la oposición política que surge de tal desafío. Las experiencias del socialismo del siglo XXI

en Ecuador, Bolivia y Venezuela proporcionan diferentes ejemplos de formas de equilibrar

los dos imperativos. Los escritos de Nicos Poulantzas sobre el estado arrojan luz sobre la

importancia de profundizar la democracia como parte de cualquier proceso de transfor-

mación socialista y los límites de dicha estrategia.

Keywords: Twenty-first-century socialism, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Poulantzas

The accumulation of crises and defeats afflicting the governments that were

swept to power as part of Latin America’s “pink tide” reveals the challenges

and perils of governing from the left. Nowhere are these challenges more

apparent than in the more radical iterations of the pink tide (Venezuela, Bolivia,

and Ecuador), which sought, at least rhetorically, to engage a democratic road

to socialism.1 All three governments subscribe to twenty-first-century social-

ism, which seeks to create a “post-neoliberal” economic order that expands the

role of the state in the economy to render it more equitable and sustainable

while maintaining a commitment to democracy and political pluralism (Silva,

2016: 4–5). Despite their laudable achievements in reducing poverty, these gov-

ernments have been plagued by difficulties that have called the viability of

their projects into question. Notably, the pragmatic policies that form the the-

matic basis of this collection have helped to stabilize these governments’ hold

on power in the short term by delivering the public goods awaited by their

Marcel Nelson is a professor of politics at Sheridan College in Ontario.

798795LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X18798795Latin American PerspectivesNelson / WALKING THE TIGHTROPE OF SOCIALIST GOVERNANCE

research-article2018

Nelson / WALKING THE TIGHTROPE OF SOCIALIST GOVERNANCE 47

electoral constituencies in the face of disloyal oppositions that have sought to

remove them, often through violent extraconstitutional means. Conversely,

these policies have wedded these regimes to an extractivist structure of capital-

ist accumulation that has limited the scope for transformation and maintained

political dynamics such as clientelism that render them politically vulnerable

in the long term.

This contradiction has been the subject of extensive criticism from both the

left and the right. On the left, the regimes in question are often criticized for

substituting comprehensive transformation with limited pragmatic redistribu-

tive programs funded by rent generated from extractive industries. For exam-

ple, Eduardo Gudynas (2012: 131–132) argues that the governments in question,

among others, are “compensatory states” that have maintained their countries’

extractivist vocation within the global capitalist order and avoided signifi-

cantly altering the class structures of their societies. While this has set these

governments on a path of confrontation with social movements that oppose

extractivism, they have sought to legitimate their projects socially and politi-

cally via modest redistributive programs that target the poor. Similarly, Claudio

Katz (2015: 38) argues that, rather than leading to “triumphant anticapitalist

revolution,” the persistent reliance on extractive industries in the different

political “uprisings” had an “intermediate result” that is “reflected in the vari-

ety of governments in the region.” By not significantly altering the social rela-

tions of production, the governments of the pink tide have made themselves

vulnerable to dissatisfaction from their bases and political onslaughts from

conservative forces (Katz, 2016). On the right, these pragmatic policies are

labeled “populist” and placed, problematically, in an antagonistic relationship

with democracy.2 According to Kurt Weyland (2013: 20), this antidemocratic

populism “revolves around personalistic leadership that feeds on quasi-direct

links to a loosely organized mass of heterogeneous followers” supported by

“generous social programs” that undermine intermediary liberal democratic

institutions such as political parties. In sum, the persistence and prominence of

the role of extractive industries in funding social programs has been identified

as a major constraint on the flourishing of twenty-first-century socialism.

Nicos Poulantzas’s strategic-relational theory of the capitalist state provides

a useful tool for understanding the strategic nature of the pragmatic policies in

question. It emphasizes the dynamic and contradictory nature of the state that

evolves in relation to shifting balances of forces. In so doing, it outlines some of

the challenges that left governments encounter when acceding to power after

electoral victory. Notably, it suggests that such governments may face opposi-

tion not only from outside the state but also from “power apparatuses” within

it that embody the interests of dominant classes.3 In view of this reality, govern-

ing from the left is likened to “walking the tightrope” between pursuing a

transformative program and addressing challenges from dominant classes

whose interests may be threatened by such a program (Poulantzas, 2014: 198).

Emphasizing the former with little regard for the latter can lead to very short-

lived political experiments in view of potentially effective mobilization from

dominant classes. Mutatis mutandis, ensuring the latter may have conservative

consequences that limit not only the transformative scope of a left government

but also its political viability by alienating its base of support. Poulantzas