I. The slogan for next year’s Summit of the Americas is “Securing Our Citizens’ Future by Promoting Human Prosperity, Energy Security and Environmental Sustainability”. The Summit process is a mechanism designed to promote dialogue, multilateralism and social inclusion, which offers parliamentarians the opportunity to make the voice of civil society heard.
A growing awareness of the global challenges facing our hemisphere leads us to share approaches and values, harmonising initiatives designed to secure progress, prosperity and peace for our nations. Dialogue at the Summits of the Americas contributes to regional governance, but that governance will not become evident if it excludes all government institutions and the participation of stakeholders from the private, non-governmental sphere.
In such a context, legislators play a decisive role, exercising democracy at a multilateral level, strengthening the division of powers and representing their citizens. They translate the demands and needs of society into actions and decisions which, due to the very nature of globalisation, have a growing impact in the field of foreign policy. It is an exercise in pluralism, and in building both consensus and confidence.
II.
It is true that the expectations that each of the players in the Latin American countries brings to the various dialogues and meetings cannot be unified. It is also true that certain criticism is levelled against these mechanisms since they fail to produce concrete proposals or to assist in the adoption of specific measures.
If we accept that political dialogue is based upon the values of justice as a factor of stability, that it is ultimately a global public asset, this exchange does not only prevent conflict, but it also promotes democratic behaviour. This relationship and these joint reflections reinforce republican practice. Communication processes engender greater understanding and reveal the mutual aspirations of each national player, while dialogue holds violence in check. It is a space in which to discuss matters of public interest from different viewpoints. Therefore, dialogue is the outcome of a process of cooperation and joint work in building a meaning that is common to interlocutors.
We have seen that dialogue transforms collective thinking and becomes a tool for change, translating contrasting realities into a common language. What makes dialogue more powerful is its ability to overcome distrust and strengthen agreements.
III.
Some may wonder if asymmetric dialogue can produce benefits for all the intervening parties. Political dialogue helps to incorporate a variety of national and regional points of view, and in these globalised times this allows more appropriate decisions to be made on an international agenda that is of necessity shared. A different density in parallel dialogues reinforces the will to form partnerships.
It should be noted that dialogue does not in itself mean an absence of tension. National experiences of political dialogue in Latin America are in fact conflict experiences. Negotiating tables arose out of the need to create a base of tolerance between sectors set well apart from each other. Dialogue was the first bridge in reconciling historical foes.
However, this is not the case of dialogue in the framework of the Summit of the Americas. These are amicable contacts. The desire to strengthen a strategic partnership is expressed in the rhetoric of dialogue. Despite any discrepancies, political dialogue is always positive. Understanding between players who have different styles, opinions and interests, in an agreed framework of discussion reveals that democracy is in essence a mechanism for thrashing out differences.
IV.
For some analysts, the hemispheric context has become more insecure. We cannot ignore that the political movements of recent years may be somewhat disconcerting: presidential mandates which come to an abrupt end; new leaders belonging to no particular political party; economic and energy crises; demonstrations by citizens and riots that paralyze trade and transport; social divisions; arms races. But we should make one positive observation: not one of Latin America’s political leaders, however idiosyncratic, denies democratic legitimacy. There are failings, instability and crises, but there are also moderately fraud-free elections. Jorge Castañeda claims that Latin American politicians are more interested in politics as an instrument for retaining power than in power as a tool for practicing politics.[1] But despite these peculiarities, none of these leaders has ventured out of the democratic arena.
As former president Osvaldo Hurtado once said[2] , the citizens of Latin America are anxious that the judicial legitimacy of democracy should attain the broad social legitimacy it lacks, in which the State responds to the needs and resolves the problems of its citizens, righting injustices, eliminating privileges and offering opportunities to those who suffer the effects of social exclusion. Income distribution must be the fundamental tool for growth. The question of human and civil rights is an enormous debt in most Latin American countries.
It is those debts that make the opportunity to participate in a mechanism such as the Summit of the Americas an incentive for parliamentarians. In many Latin American countries legislators in strong centralising presidential systems see that their scope for action is very restricted. In these years of democracy, the effectiveness of parliaments has improved[3] , but that has not meant that decisions are made in multilateral parliamentary bodies to impact the political mandates of their Executive branches.
Joint action at the Summit helps to strengthen the direct legitimacy of national and regional parliaments, but it is also an unavoidable bridge over which the interests of civil society are of necessity transmitted. Society’s growing acknowledgement of its rights and obligations means that the State is no longer the only player to define the social order. Social players have adopted new forms of social existence that do not depend entirely on state politics. The citizen has taken on not only the role of social observer but also that of a builder of a collective community which is capable of producing changes, and that of the subject of cross-border relations. Parliamentarians are the channels used by that new internationalised society to expresses itself.
Finally, the participation of legislators enhances the visibility of Parliaments by publicising their work and the debates that take place within them. It is a screen on which to reflect the effectiveness of Congresses, the importance of their multilateral action and democratic progress.
[1] Jorge Castañeda, “Latin America’s Left Turn,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85, Number 3, March-April 2006.
[2] Osvaldo Hurtado, “Democracia y gobernabilidad en los países andinos,” Foreign Affairs en Español, Vol. 5, Number 4, October-December 2005.
[3] Ricardo Gil Lavedra, “Un vistazo a las reformas constitucionales en Latinoamérica,” Seminario en Latinoamérica de Teoría Constitucional y Política (SELA), Law As Object and Instrument of Transformation, paper presented at Punta del Este, Uruguay, June 6-9 2002; Arturo Valenzuela, “Latin American Presidencies Interrupted,” Journal of Democracy, Year 15, No. 4, October 2004.
FIPA - BlogAmericas 