When we talk about the set of Latin American countries, they first appear to be the same states that share the same life styles or conditions while each Latin American country needs to be assessed within their own special political platform and taking into account the requirements and conditions of development, underdevelopment or socio-economic indicators.

Currently, in a political system like Argentina, we are seeing the return of the Peronists; the people voted for the Peronists again due to the economic, political and social conditions of the Kirchner family and their legacy. The Peronists have a very strong influence in Argentina, and this is seen as the foundation for a return to leftism.


In Venezuela, people also demanded the replacement of Nicolas Maduro, but he persisted in staying in power, leading to a demographic shift and widespread immigration.

In Chile, despite being recognized as one of the most successful countries in economic development, we are witnessing the severest political and economic tensions, which is a nationwide protest against economic issues.

The defeat of the Chicago Economic School as a legacy of the Pinochet era and founded on the advice of American economists is one of the wonders of our time. Meanwhile, Chile’s development has always been a source of pride of US presidents.

In Cuba, too, we are seeing the transformation of the Communist Party from old people to young ones, and the Socialist system is still in power in the country. It is unlikely there will be any special transformation in Cuba in the next few years.

In Bolivia the situation is very different. Morales came to power with a background and structure that emphasized on the indigenous social movement. The Bolivian structure was a bipolar structure in which the oligarchs dominated the gas-rich provinces for almost a year and somehow fueled the class divide; His victory as a farmer who had a great influence on Bolivian society, failed to fill the gap between rich and poor after 14 years, and inequality persists in Bolivian society.

When Morales came to power, one of his most important criticisms of Bolivia’s social movement and his own party, “Towards Socialism,” was that it was not a viable alternative to the capitalist system. He had said at the time that we are able to overthrow a president but cannot foresee a suitable alternative system for Capitalism, and that weakness would eventually lead people to turn to new demands.

In this connection, I would like to cite a theory by Bolivia’s social movement theorist Garcia Linera, who once said that this social movement sometimes arises around daily issues such as water, gas, energy, and regional or local units. In times of crisis, these units turn to group power and action and at the height of confrontation, they turn into an axis of mass movement; so as soon as the common goal is achieved, they break into thousand pieces again.

Today, even though 14 years have passed since Morales came to power in Bolivia, when we look at economic indicators, they show 53% of people are in poverty, and emphasize that inequality remains unchanged and political and social tensions persist.

Latin American countries each have their own developmental requirements and some of the criteria do not meet the criteria of development or underdevelopment!

Also on the Bolivian question, the United States immediately accepted the supervision of Senate President MS Khainina Anis who is an opponent of Morales, indicating that a major change in Bolivia’s foreign policy has already taken place.

The bottom line is that since in Bolivia it is about a coup, a bipolar analysis between regional and international analysts has emerged.

Some countries in the leftist camp consider the recent developments in Bolivia a coup, and some have welcomed it; the United States, in its first reaction to the events in Bolivia, viewed it as a move towards democracy and public welfare and a response to popular demands.

All in all, we are seeing movements that demand change around the world, with no leadership and no organization.

One of the arguments raised is the role of the United States in these developments, and it seems that in addition to the American tendency for the Socialists to withdraw from power, the key elements and components of their domestic developments are now changing; Inefficiencies in management, efforts to stay in power more, erosion in the process, and the emergence of generations seeking change are among the factors causing tensions and shifting powers in Latin America.

This indicates that the Latin American countries do not have a solid and stable structure and that people are now more concerned about the two issues of efficiency and the fight against corruption.  These two key hubs are important in people’s decision in their attitudes towards the ruling leaders.