Serene Assir analyses the true extent of Latin America's socialist renaissance In Latin American politics today, it seems, a given leader's choice of clothing can still serve to define his or her degree of conservatism on the one hand, and ethical standards on the other. The original sinner, Cuban President Fidel Castro can only be recalled dressed in his traditional military-revolutionary khaki suit, strongly symbolising his ever-readiness for struggle. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who was brought back into power by force of popular support in 2002 following a coup, is equally known for his wide, black suits, which he might as well have inherited from a larger relative. Indeed it was all too telling when Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who swept the 2002 elections with promises of employment, reform, education and liberation from the terror of the new economic world order, eventually exchanged his civilian clothes for suits. He had fallen into the trap laid out for him by the International Monetary Fund et alii, masters of the poor today, perhaps inevitably so given Brazil's massive global debt. But there's more. Evo Morales, newly elected president of gas-rich Bolivia, stands as a clear example of how looks do matter. An Aymara Indian, he is the first indigenous president. And part of the electoral campaign which brought him to power was the pledge that he would not forget his origins, and work for the benefit of the country's neediest. His striped, colourful jumpers and his refusal to wear a tie, even when on a diplomatic mission earlier this month which took him across the world, have become, in a sense, the guarantee that he will not go back on his word. On the surface, the most radical departure from normalcy has been that taken by Michelle Bachelet, president-elect of Chile. Cited as having attended a meeting with several groups of evangelical ministers during her campaign for the presidency wearing an electric pink jacket, she instantly broke the conservative Chilean mould and proved that risqué clothing can make the required impression. Captured on camera playing the guitar and wearing a variety of serious yet laid-back pastel-coloured suits, Bachelet has not only become Latin America's first female president to be elected on account of her own political talent -- she has also proven that she doesn't need to start looking like Maggie Thatcher along the way. However, her split from traditional Chilean politics is a pragmatic one -- hence, one might assume, her choice of pink. She told reporters on being elected that she embodied all the Chilean "sins in one" -- for she is a divorced, female agnostic. She is also keen to work towards creating a social atmosphere whereby equal opportunity is guaranteed, including promises to guarantee women's access to political power. Her slogan, "For Chile, for the people", is populist in itself. But Bachelet has history and geopolitics to handle too, and she has already announced that while she will continue to work towards strengthening regional ties, partly by raising Chile's participation in the Brazil-dominated economic conglomerate Mercosur, she has also pledged that she will maintain good relations with Washington. Not so Chavez, who regularly refers to the United States as a "terrorist" state, or, for that matter, Morales, who closely followed his victory at the polls with a statement that he would become Washington's "worst nightmare". In addition, to retort US President George W Bush's constant references to an "axis of evil" comprised by Iraq, Iran, North Korea -- and, welcome to the club, Syria -- Morales has named his alliance with Castro's Cuba and Chavez's Venezuela the "axis of good". Another twist in the populist tale comes, of course, when one notes Morales's diplomacy in Madrid earlier this month, when he reassured oil and gas company owners and politicians that he would not forcibly expel any foreign entities working on Bolivia's gas. So it turned out that Morales was not quite going down the Chavez road, one which would have potentially led to the closure of scores of corporations in Bolivia and to the eventual exile of hundreds of businessmen whose ties would have been severed by a mass nationalisation of the country's natural resources. And although US officials commenting on Morales have said they respect his victory, Washington remains worried about his plans to expand the production of coca in Bolivia, despite his pledges to crack down on the international drug cartel operating in the region. Bolivia is the world's third-largest producer of the plant which both yields ancient medicinal remedies and the drug cocaine, whose use is rapidly on the rise in the US. Little is known, however, about which way Washington will eventually choose to turn vis- à-vis Morales. But judging from the experience of Chavez and, indeed, so many other third- world leaders, it is only a matter of time and an act of legitimate sovereignty until the US decides to turn its back on Bolivia for good. Two Venezuelan examples spring to mind: first, Washington's decision not to inform Chavez that a coup was about to take place in 2002, and second, its threats to veto an arms sale from Spain despite the fact that it has continually armed both the Venezuelan armed forces and the opposition through recent years. Under the weight of history and precedent, one assumes, newcomers Morales and Bachelet both know that they are going to have to make some speedy policy decisions in determining just how far they are willing to go to honour their promises of justice and equality for their citizens. For now it seems that Chile is too close to the US to be able to afford anything but a compromise. Meanwhile Morales is feeding his hungry population on pride, while getting used to the fact that even as we delve further into the 21st century, Washington still perceives Latin America as its back garden. "America is for the Americans," spelt out the fateful James Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The doctrine, announced during an address to Congress, did strive for the US sovereignty. It also threatened European colonial powers with intervention if they continued to make their presence felt in the Americas. It did not, however, guarantee the sovereignty of other American states.
