9/23/2013

After the advent of neoliberalism in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s (and in Chile in 1973), scholars generally accept that the function, or at least the goal of the state changed fundamentally and radically.  Before neoliberalism political incorporation of the popular classes (i.e. peasants and workers, broadly stated) was done through protective-yet-constraining connections between a party or government and popular organizations.  The most often used example of this type of incorporation was labor unions and governments, where union leaders earned the privilege of joining the government in exchange for votes for a party and moderating the demands of workers.  But the advent of the neoliberal model changed this relationship between the masses and the state.  Now the state took a hands-off approach to political incorporation; electoral contests replaced organizations as the connection between parties and the masses.  A possible driver of this change was the idea that politicians could connect directly to the masses (both literally, thanks to mass media, but also figuratively, in the sense that politicians felt they had shed the image of themselves as the "elite ruling class", and that having set aside such pretenses they could now connect directly to their constituents without the aid of a interpreter/wrangler, in the form of a union leader or some other such individual).  But the result was a shift in the state's goal of incorporation.  Previously political incorporation seemed to be defined outcomes; that is to say, the government proved that it has incorporated the masses by wanting/seeking/achieving improvements in the lives of workers, peasants, and generally anyone not considered elite.  In this model, the political process is not entirely fair, and the government attempts to achieve more equal (though hardly totally equal) economic outcomes.  Now political incorporation was a matter of process (Roberts, I think?), where holding representative and clean(ish) elections was the entire purpose, and the economic health of ones constituents is left to the market.

We are now in a new era of political incorporation, as the 1990s and 2000s exposed the issues with relying solely on voting as political incorporation.  Democratization has been uneven, and even where it seems to be complete economic troubles have tainted the progress of electoral opening.  Some party systems have collapsed, while others have come to rely (again) and clientelistic methods of incorporation.  Democracy has not adequately softened economic struggles, nor has it created societies in which the poor and rich have equal access to the state or rights under the law.

So what now? The idea of a new incorporation moment (which we are currently, in, or perhaps at the tail end of, in some cases) suggests that the political parties and leaders are seeking ways to connect or reconnect to the popular classes.  (aha!) In many ways the PRI has already done this, as it won an election after being totally crushed for two elections in a row.  In this new incorporation moment, how are people reconnecting with politicians, and vice versa?  Where do civil society organizations fit into this?  Unions are still around, but are they big enough, important enough to warrant a role in political reincorporation?  Unemployed groups in Argentina have become important partners with the government, or at least were under Néstor Kirchner.  They haven't replaced unions, but they have come from almost nowhere to become as important, if not more important that unions in the constellation of civil society organizations that supported Kirchner.  What, then, occurred in Mexico?  Some unions supported Pena Nieto, but they do not have organizations large enough to drive the whoel electoral process (except maybe for the SNTE, which is an important part of Pena Nieto's election story).  How did Pena Nieto attract voters?  Did he incorporate them, or simply market to them?