If I say she received her degree in psychology in Paris, or she was an advance student of Louis Althusser — who 30 years ago wrote the foreword for her first book – I’ve said something, but at the same time hardly anything. If I then add that she returned from France to the effervescent, and tragic, Chile of Salvador Allende, and that she taught at the university and edited the magazine Chile Today — the only leftist weekly that existed during that very special moment — I would then be telling you more about her. But in my judgment, the core issue is, the woman seated before me perceives with her eyes the heartbeat of an immense continent: Latin America.

Marta Harnecker, as she is named, speaks deliberately and has a deceivingly peaceable glance. There are moments, fleeting but perceptible, when she can’t repress the fire of her ideas and her cause. She has worn out several pairs of shoes walking up and down and investigating the many turns of our region. She has interviewed first-class political leaders and also (with the sharpness of a humanistic intellectual) ordinary people and independents. A product of her travels and contacts are her numerous books and published articles. In them, she coldly analyzes the realities and perspectives of our people.

But Marta Harnecker does not burn-out herself writing and making contacts. In Havana, Cuba, she runs a center called Popular Latin American Memory (MEPLA), where she collects the creations, experiences and lives of our people in recent years. Painstakingly, she brings together the past, the present and the future. And she bets on the latter “because I’m an optimistic person.”

She has just returned from a tour of our region and a long stay in Venezuela. A product of her presence there is her latest book, already released in Spain. It is a long interview she had with President Chávez; probably the most complete interview anyone has had with a man who rules the destiny of a country that is key to our continent.

Progreso Weekly (PW): Can you give us a synthesis of Latin America today?

Marta Harnecker (MH): I think we’re living in a new stage, a stage when the struggle against neoliberalism is on the increase in the continent. Three years ago we couldn’t imagine what is happening today. At that time we began to see the triumph of an unknown military officer, Hugo Chávez, who won the presidential election in Venezuela. Recently, Lula triumphed in Brazil, and now I think that Lucio Gutiérrez is going to win the election in Ecuador. Next in line is the election in Uruguay, where it seems clear that Tabaré Vázquez will win. All this is creating a possibility, perhaps for the first time since Bolívar, of a Latin American articulation different from the one that has existed until now.

PW: What distinguishes this articulation you refer to?

MH: These governments – I refer to Venezuela and to Lula’s in Brazil – are looking to apply a model that differs from the current neoliberal globalization. Their fundamental hope is to develop the domestic market, without denying that there are sectors of the economy that will remain part of the current globalization. With so much potential and with such a large market, they hope to produce for their people, and to establish regional accords, that will permit them to deal effectively with the present world situation, which is so complicated for our countries.

PW: As regards Latin America, where does your “so complicated” world situation lie?

MH: Today, the socialist camp that used to put the brakes on the United States’ imperial cravings no longer exists. Today, only one imperial power will decide to wage war on Iraq because it clearly has military superiority. This is the world in which Latin America is moving today. Regardless, the neoliberal model has proved to be so incapable of satisfying the needs of our people that the people have rebelled and have elected candidates who represent the hope for a different world. People in Latin America reject a world that promotes wealth for a few and deepens the poverty of the majority.

PW: Do you think we are at a period of popular resistance?

MH: Yes. We’re at a stage where the governments we have mentioned above will first try to brake the advance of neoliberalism, but we must understand that these are governments with limited programs; governments that cannot formulate a deep transformation from one day to the other. The first step is to create the conditions. As President Chávez says, we must build an international force that will allow us to create these alternative programs.

PW: How do you define the Latin American Left at this time?

MH: Well, you know that defining the Left is complicated. I believe that we need to change the definition of Left that existed in times past, when we used to think that the Left was the same as revolutionary, was the same as Marxist, was the same as political party. I have a definition in a recent book titled The Left After Seattle, where I maintain that being a leftist means to fight or be committed to a societal project that opposes the capitalist logic of profit-making and that seeks to build a society with a humanistic logic.

It doesn’t matter if people are members of parties or social movements or if they are independent actors or not. Their core belief must be a point of view that differs from capitalism. I believe that that is the Left, which goes far beyond a party, of course. It’s very interesting to see how today the principal worldwide manifestation of a call to forces of this type comes from the World Social Forum, based in a Latin American country.

PW: Doesn’t the fact that the Forum is based in Latin America represent another sign of the times in which we live?

MH: Yes, and that’s interesting, because in the 1990s Latin America ceased to exist, from the European viewpoint. Today, all eyes of the Left or the world’s progressive sectors are fixed on events in Latin America. We are once again protagonists of history and that is why the Social Forum is based in Porto Alegre, the capital of the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre is the oasis of the Latin American Left.

PW: Why is this oasis precisely in Latin America?

MH: Because the Left here has been capable of demonstrating a different political practice. Today there is great skepticism toward politics and politicians. People no longer trust them, first, because the speeches from the Right and from the Left are so similar. The Right has appropriated the language of the Left, but at the same time, and unfortunately, some spokesmen for the Left who have achieved positions in government have a political practice not very different from the traditional parties. If our people hear identical political speeches and see identical political practices, a skepticism is created that will be reflected most strongly among the young.

PW: Do you have a fresh example of the skepticism/youth relationship?

MH: In Chile, for example, a country with 12 or 13 million inhabitants, three years ago there were 800,000 young people who did not register to vote. Now can we say that those young people have no concerns and that the young people of my generation, in the 1970s and ’80s, were more committed, more revolutionary or more full of fight, and that this generation is indifferent?

I believe this skepticism toward the politics of politicians reflects a revolt; a rejection of these speeches that never achieve reality. That’s the reason why, paradoxically, Che [Guevara] continues to attract people so many years after his death and after he failed in his guerrilla attempt. And why does Che attract people? I think it’s because he represents coherence between thought and action, and young people are attracted by that type of image.

PW: Does that also explain why popular social movements have risen in Latin America, not the political parties of the Left? Does it explain why the traditional parties of the Left have collapsed along with the total crisis of the political system?

MH: The crisis of neoliberalism has made our people react and sometimes that reaction has lacked coordination with the parties. Many of these parties, although they’ve been successful in the institutional plane and have gained seats in Parliament and in local governments, have distanced themselves from social movements. The struggle of resistance to neoliberalism often has been waged without any coordination with the parties. In fact, the very initiative of the World Social Forum came from the social movements and the nongovernmental organizations.

PW: Do social movements replace political parties as such?

MH: I will take advantage of this question to clarify that I am not against political instruments, because sometimes when one criticizes parties, people think one is betting on the emergence of movements that will lead the struggle. Social movements are sectoral movements and require an instrument for articulation, call it party, sociopolitical movement, front, or whatever. But what’s needed are political instruments that articulate and raise a national proposal, that make an ideological proposal in today’s world, where the wars are fought in the plane of ideas, where the means of communication in the hands of the powerful are almost overpowering We can see what is happening with the media in Venezuela. I don’t want to say they are totally overpowering, because if I said that there wouldn’t be any chance to struggle.

I think that a different political practice -as is taking place in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a transparent, non corrupted practice that is specially concerned with the poorest people and delegates power to the people-, produces a critical gap in the messages from television, because if you’re looking at an event and the media broadcast something else, you develop a critical consciousness. If that weren’t so, we would be defeated, and I am a person who – despite the correlation of forces at this time – is optimistic.

PW: In a few days, we’ll see the final elections for President of Ecuador. Will Lucio Gutiérrez win?

MH: In my opinion, yes. I think so, because I understand that Roldós and Borges are not going to vote for Noboa. That is totally contradictory to their historic positions.

PW: When you talk about democracy, how do you see it? Which democracy do you talk about? Where does it come from?

MH: To me, democracy is not decreed from above. Democracy requires a cultural transformation; can only be built with the participation of people and for that you need democratic practices. You need a democratic growth among people, which is what’s happening in various aspects, on the part of this Left, which is broader than the Left of the past. That development has been happening in different places. And our center, MEPLA (Latin-American Popular Memory) has been spreading these interesting alternative experiences.

That’s why we did a documentary about Porto Alegre, about the experience of the participative budget, and that’s why we’re now showing the documentary about the Movement of the Landless in Brazil, one of the most significant social movements of the continent, if not of the world. This movement, while not the most powerful at present, has an enormous discipline, democratic practice and educational effort. And that is why we have studied Cuban community experiences where the grassroots are protagonistic participants.

PW: Venezuela is going through an important period. How do you evaluate the situation and what outlook do you see for the process led by Hugo Chávez?

MH: I just got back from there. You can’t believe what the media say. The general balance of the situation is very different from the image given abroad. For example, a radio station reported about events in Altamira Square, where the putschist military officers have gathered. People abroad say: What? New putschists? The media don’t say that they are the same ones as before, those who the courts (the courts of justice today are a political, anti-Chávez group) declared not putschists, even though everyone saw them on television assuming the power on April 11.

PW: Do you foresee a likely coup d’état?

MH: No, first because the surprise factor does not exist today. On April 11, they surprised Chávez and the army. Second, after seeing what Carmona and a handful of the putschists did, the opposition has split, because not all the opposition is fascist. There is a fascist sector and a sector that would like Chávez to leave by the democratic route. They are divided. Besides, they have no national leader or plan. Well, they didn’t have it before, either.

April 11 unmasked the actors and the people began to see who’s who. This allows a politicization of the people in the sense they can understand the national situation. Chávez and the other leaders have insisted on the need to increasingly organize themselves, because April 11 represented the triumph of a people who came out in defense of their president, along with the armed forces, most of which, with the exception of the putschist generals, sided with Chávez. But that organization was still in its infancy.

Six months have elapsed since the coup and that organization has grown daily. Not only that, the people’s spirit of unity has grown. People are realizing that there is an enemy and that they have to articulate, join forces and put aside all petty differences. At that time, the parties of the Left were very critical of some things but not of others, but – well, Chávez is not perfect, the process is not perfect. It has many weaknesses. But at the time, criticism was rampant.

PW: So, has criticism from the Left stopped?

MH: No, but the important thing is to fight to consolidate the process under Chávez’s leadership. From the point of view of the leftist political parties, that has helped a lot to unify people around the figure of Chávez. Also , sectors of the middle-class layers -that were won over for the anti-Chávez project, among other things by a speech the president gave that was directed at the people in the poor neighborhoods and was very hurtful for those sectors, an attitude the president himself acknowledged was a mistake- after the events of April, are rejoining the process.

PW: Including the middle class?

MH: Well, I’m talking about the middle class; I’m talking about professionals.There was a meeting between professionals and Chávez about a month or so ago. The doctors are organizing, because there was a terrible boycott by the health-care people. Since April 11, the president has changed his language. After he returned, he said self-criticism was in order. Everyone was to blame somehow for what had happened and he could acknowledge his mistakes. Chávez returned to the presidency with conciliatory language, which the radical Left finds difficult to understand. He’s making a big effort to bring people together, and I think that the strategy is to not alienate, to call for dialogue, something that has been recognized by the Organization of American States.

PW: Some people opine that the presence of the OAS is negative for Chávez.

MH: When Carter and his commission came over, I remember hearing people say: “How can they invite Carter? The OAS is going to come over and as soon as the OAS arrives everything will be over.” As it turns out, the process is so democratic that even the OAS has had to acknowledge it. The fact it was a process recognized worldwide as being democratic is very important to prevent interventions from abroad to eradicate [Chávez], because there are no arguments to intervene.

Now I say that if Chávez wanted to lead an insurrection today, he would have the strength to do it. That is, the people and the army at this moment would permit a victorious insurrection. The problem is what will happen tomorrow. I think he’s sufficiently mature to understand the correlation of forces in which he finds himself and to understand that insurrection would not be the solution.

PW: If as a result of this dialogue with the opposition, the government agreed to call early elections, do you think Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement would win?

MH: First of all, he’s not going to agree to that. He cannot allow one sector of society to call for elections when the whole of society has expressed itself in a democratic manner, both now and earlier. That would mean that at any time a minority could destroy the entire strategy of construction that exists in a country. There is a time schedule. A revocatory referendum is due in a few months, in August. What Chávez is saying is: “Let’s go to the revocatory referendum, but don’t ask for a consultative referendum because it doesn’t exist in our Constitution.” I think Chávez has the support of the people to win the election, of course. The problem is that one can’t submit to the strategy of the right.