Latin America's civic awakening

Protesters in Chile and Bolivia have thrown off their reputation for low political participation with mass protests that are bringing basic democratic reform.

Reuters
A protester in Santiago, Chile, waves the national flag during demonstrations against the government Nov. 12.

Until October, both Chile and Bolivia ranked among the lowest in Latin America for political participation of its citizens, according to an Economist survey. In a survey of the world’s wealthier democracies, Chile ranked last in civic engagement, notably in low voter turnout. In recent weeks, however, this lowly status has all changed.

In Bolivia, hundreds of thousands of protesters have ousted President Evo Morales after a rigged election on Oct. 20. In a “civil strike,” they were able to close down dozens of state institutions, putting up signs on doors that read “closed by democracy.”

In Chile, more than a million protesters took to the streets, triggered by a subway fare hike under President Sebastián Piñera but with a new focus on broadening the voices of citizens. Hundreds of local discussion groups, called cabildos, have been organized to collect ideas about ways to improve participatory democracy.

This civic awakening in both countries may reflect a wider trend in Latin America toward citizen activism. It is driven by the region’s high proportion of young people and by the fast growth in internet users. Young voters are more aware of their countries conditions and better able to connect with each other to form activist groups. In Chile, according to one poll, only 19% of the population identifies with a traditional political party, down from 80% a quarter century ago.

Yet better civic engagement also represents a stronger desire for government that is honest, transparent, and more egalitarian. In Chile, political leaders now promise a national dialogue to address the protesters’ concerns. In Bolivia, lawmakers are scrambling to arrange another vote and prevent another rigged election. In both countries, citizens are more awake to the right of self-governance. Their leaders are being forced to follow them.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.