Civil society, democratization and globalization in Latin America.

Chapter 14 Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America Ilán Bizberg In the last three decades, Latin America has undergone crucial transformations due to two fundamental causes: the general democratization of most of the countries of the continent (excluding Cuba) and the exposure to globalization. These two phenomena have had contradictory effects upon the societies of the countries of the region. The 1980s saw the displacement of the military from practically all Latin governments and their return to the barracks in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, and Ecuador, among others. In Mexico, democratization began with the electoral reform of 1977 that legalized leftist parties, among the most signiicant, the communist party, as a response to the important mobilizations of workers and peasants that occurred during the 1970s and the guerilla warfare led by Maoist, communist, and other non-ideological currents. Coincidentally, these countries were suffering one of their most serious economic crises, that lasted long enough to become known as the “lost decade” and that resulted from the fact that most of the countries, to a greater or lesser extent, abandoned the economic models they had been pursuing until then based on the intervention of the state in the economy, an emphasis on the internal market, the protection of local industry, a social policy intended to protect the workers of the modern economic sectors and the central administration. The mode of development pursued more successfully in the bigger countries can be characterized as a segmented or incomplete Fordism, where whilst the workers and middle classes were granted the necessary means to acquire the products that the protected industry was manufacturing, the majority of the population was still excluded from the modern sector of the economy. The economic model known as Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) was implemented through a national-popular alliance, incorrectly called “populist,” which gave social organizations a central role (fundamentally labor) where in exchange for their social and political backing of the state and its economic policies, the government would give concessions to the workers in terms of salaries, beneits, and social policies. In some countries, the military terminated this socio-political pact from the mid-1970s, basically for political reasons—Chile (1973), Uruguay (1973), and Argentina (1976)—and modiied the economic coniguration. In others, the new economic pattern was implemented as a response to the economic crisis of 218 Reimagining Social Movements the 1980s. In both cases, the new model consisted of the opening of the economy to both productive and inancial capitals, a reorientation toward exports instead of the internal market, the retreat of the state from the economy, the reduction of government employees, and the decrease of the scope and extension of social policies. This transformation of the economic pattern and its reorientation toward the external market led most of the Latin-American economies to depend on their abilities to compete in the global market and attract foreign capital. This led, in turn, to an “under-grading” of the contractual and working conditions in most countries, through deregulation and lexibilization of the labor markets. In the countries where the trade unions were still strong, this demanded that they be sapped and that governments that were susceptible to their pressures be isolated from them. This usually meant the centralization of social policies in the hands of the state, in general through a transition from a corporatist social policy controlled or negotiated with the unions and other social organizations to a centralized, focalized assistance-oriented social policy. Paradoxically, this also demanded a process of decentralization, from collective bargaining at the branch level to a locally set negotiation. This, in turn, led to the decentralization of education and health programs to the local (state or municipal) level, that in most cases resulted in the aggravation of territorial and social sector disparities, which are, for example, now at the center of the agenda of the Chilean youth. All this has had three crucial consequences on social life in Latin America: 1. The central social actor of the ISI period, fundamentally the labor movement (as well as other socio-political actors such as the peasants and poor urban inhabitants), lost its centrality, together with its main supporter and “partner,” the state. We will discuss the important exceptions to this “rule”: the case of the Peronistas in Argentina and that of the CUT in Brazil. It must be mentioned that while this actor was central in the industrial societies of the developed countries because, as Touraine has afirmed, they expressed the main conlict of the industrial societies and at some moments, managed to articulate their particular interests with a social and cultural orientation of society, in the Latin-American context the labor movement was basically a political actor, that was central because of its alliance with the developmentalist state. In this relation, the labor movement was generally subordinated to the state and, in many cases, the alliance was fomented from above and responded more to state interests than to labor; although in a state corporatist relation, labor received beneits from it in exchange for its idelity. 2. The decline of the main actor(s) of the Latin-American twentieth century has led to the appearance of new social movements that share some characteristics that are totally innovative for Latin America. a. In the irst place, they are originated from below, from the grassroots rather than from the political sphere. They are thus more social and cultural than political. Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 219 b. They also share a character that both Touraine and Arato found in many of the social movements that led to the end of communism in Eastern and Central Europe that were deined as self-limited, which means that they do not pretend to represent political power. They do not want to be linked to political parties or to the state, in fact some of them are antipolitical. One of the most recurrent slogans of the most recent (2011) university student movement in Chile was: “el pueblo unido marcha sin partido” (the people advances without parties). c. Some authors consider that the new movements that have emerged in the new democratic and globalized Latin-American context are basically oriented toward the excesses of neoliberalism. Although it is true that some of them have advanced particular economic and social grievances, many of them are not just defensive actions, but also purpose seeking. They propose manners and deine actions in order to ill the gaps that this economic model creates: in terms of social policies, aid to the poor and the marginal. d. In fact, the most remarkable of these movements have “instrumentalized” these actions against neoliberalism in order to denounce the limits of liberal democracy and of citizenship in a purely formal, liberal democracy, and demand its deepening through different means of participation. e. Another fundamental characteristic of these actions is that they tend to afirm a new type of citizenship, which rejects clientelism, and that does not try to exert pressure on the state in order to gain concessions, attitudes typical of the social struggles present during the nationalpopular period. The new social movements demand rights: human rights (security, state of law), social rights (work, education, health), cultural rights (ethnic, religious, or gender identity afirmations), and subjective rights (abortion, gay marriage, divorce). These new social movements are deined in three distinct dimensions: the irst of which it delimits in terms of needs, that is regarding what the existing institutions of society cannot deliver; this is especially true in the case of the NGOs that provide services and goods for the poor, the sick, and the marginal. The second dimension comprises the demands which are situated within the margins of the existing institutions of society, with some of them attempting to extend them to their limits. Within these actions, we can consider all those actions that demand that state concessions become social and political rights, as well as those that pretend to deepen democracy and citizenry. Finally, another set of social actions go beyond the limits of the institutions of society: the cultural movement of the Indian population questions the established ethnical limits of the nation-state, deined in terms of a homogeneous cultural identity, and the subjective rights movements (women’s rights, sexual minorities) that question the ethical limits of society based on the traditional deinitions of family, women’s rights, sexual “normality,” and so on. 220 Reimagining Social Movements Power, Decline, and Recovery of the Latin-American Labor Movement As already afirmed, the labor movement has been central in the Latin-American context. Until the 1980s, it has been the paradigmatic actor that deined the capacity of action of the society in general and the workers’ interests in particular. In some countries, such as Argentina and Brazil, the base of the resistance was under the military regimes. The workers’ capacity for action was due to the fact that they were able to clearly deine their identity: workers who meet each other daily in the factory and have the same basic interests. On the other hand, if one compares labor to other actors, workers can actually endanger the economy of their enterprise and some of them are situated in the most strategic sectors of the economy (for example, petroleum, electricity, transportation, and central public administration), or the economy of their country. Nonetheless, the 1980s and 1990s were marked by tendencies that played against the unions. For one thing, this actor suffered from the opening of most of the economies of Latin America, from the retreat of the state, and the deregulation of the economy. The combination of these three elements had, as its result, the deregulation of the labor market and the lexibilization of the labor conditions in the enterprises that entailed the weakening of the labor unions. In addition, the crisis and the new economic model signiied the increase of the informal economy, the tertiary sector of the economy, and the reduction of state employees, all of which signiicantly reduced the weight of the unionized workers in the economy. The formal industrial branches and the state functionaries had been the heart of traditional unionism. This evolution contradicted the fact that in most of the countries on the continent, the process of democratization permitted the unions to act freely for the irst time in decades (Bronstein 1997). This situation was aggravated by the incapacity of the labor movement to compensate the inluence lost amid the formal workers with a greater presence among the sectors that expanded in these last few decades: informal workers, commerce, and services (Bronstein 1995). Thus, the rate of unionization, of strikes and strikers, greatly diminished in most of the LatinAmerican continent, with the exceptions of Brazil and Argentina. The labor movement in the developed countries was the central actor of the industrial society, as it agreed upon the main cultural orientations of this society, together with the entrepreneurs, but contested the distribution of the wealth created and the concentration of industrial knowledge in the hands of the employers, through the division of work and organization of the labor process (Touraine 1973). In contrast, in Latin America, the labor movement was less cultural and more political and socio-political. Labor was one of the main supports of the industrializing ISI coalition, together with the national entrepreneurs, the middle classes, and the state. The pact promoted industrialization and the improvement of the working conditions and social protections for formal workers, while it assisted the population still excluded from the process of modernization (Lindenboim 2004: 23). The agreement could be called segmented Fordism, in the sense that workers saw their conditions improved not only as a manner of getting Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 221 “paid” for their inclusion in the pact, but as a way of enhancing the internal market for the manufactures being produced by the industry. It was segmented because only part of the population of Latin America was involved: the formal workers in the modern sector of the economy. The peasants and marginal workers of the cities were excluded. The military coups of the 1960s and 1970s ended this pact. The only exception is Brazil, as the military managed to exclude labor from the industrializing coalition in order to stop wealth distribution of the previous governments, while it expanded the import substitution process to include intermediary and capital goods. Both the Chilean and the Argentinean militaries shifted to promoting a liberal economic model without wealth distribution, where exports of commodities would be prime and where industry would have a secondary role. The crisis of 1982 was the end of import substitution in the countries that had continued its implementation, such as Mexico. In the latter, the discovery of huge oil resources had allowed for the continuation of the import substitution model without deepening and without excluding popular sectors in order to stop distribution, as oil exports and the debts based on the expectations of these exports made it possible for the Mexican government to continue redistribution (Marques-Pereira and Théret 2001, Bizberg 2011). In this manner, by the mid-1980s, most of the countries of the continent were promoting an economic model based on exports and foreign investment, where labor was excluded from a coalition formed by entrepreneurs, foreign capital, and the state. This coalition proceeded to invoke ample privatizations, retreat of the state from the economy, a shift from a contributory and pay-as-you-go social security system to an individual, capitalization system; from a universal and generalized health system to a private and segmented one; in general, from an expanding, albeit segmented, “Providence State,” to a more universal, minimal, and mainly assistance oriented system. There have clearly been exceptions to this general tendency of a decline of labor and other traditional social movements. In Argentina and Brazil, the trade union movement has succeeded in maintaining or recovering its force. In Brazil, this has happened especially during the presidency of Lula between 2002 and 2010, and in Argentina, with the Kirchner-Fernandez presidencies in the year 2000. The fact that democratization in both of these countries was the result of an ample mobilization of civic society (basically trade unions) against the military in the 1970s, has made these two countries fertile grounds for other forms of social action that developed in the last 20 years. Moreover, in both Argentina and Brazil, there was no demobilization of society following democratization and the social mobilization under the dictatorship, like in Chile, when the parties decided to contest the electoral plebiscite of Pinochet in 1987 (Oxhorn 1994), and in Mexico after the union and peasant organization movements of the irst half of the 1970s that were successfully channeled through elections by the PRI regime with the political reform of 1977 (Bizberg 2010). The fact that in both of these countries the movements that resisted the dictatorship, retained their importance, Reimagining Social Movements 222 partly explains why civic society continued to be very active in these two countries, and why in these two countries, although labor was also weakened due to the neoliberal measures, they preserved their capacities of action. In fact, in Argentina, labor was the principal opposition to the irst democratic government, that of radical Alfonsin, and to the government of De la Rua that led to the 2001 economic and political crisis. The Peronistas negotiated with and resisted the justicialista and very liberal Menem government and became crucial partners in the Kirchner and Fernandez governments (Palomino and Trajtemberg 2006). The fact that after the 2001 crisis, unionism was one of the best organized actors, made it indispensable for the Kirchner government to ally itself with. This government appointed a pro-labor lawyer at the Ministry of Labor, who promoted collective negotiations at the branch level, encouraged the formalization of the labor market, raised real salaries (both minimal and median), and eventually re-nationalized the pension funds (in 2008) in order to attract union support, but also as a way to strengthen the internal market. This reinforced the peronist CGT, which reunited after dividing during the Menem presidencies due to disagreements over the position to be taken with respect to its liberal measures; while part of the CGT considered that it should negotiate with the government, another considered that it should oppose the measures (Palomino 2000). In Brazil, during the government of Cardoso, the labor movement was able to resist the more radical neoliberal measures, like the pension reform, and was a partner of the employers and the state in the tripartite organizations: the “cámaras sectoriais.” These organizations were implemented in some of the most important branches of the economy, and served to negotiate salaries, prices, and taxes in order to stimulate growth of these sectors (De Souza Keller 1994). During the Lula presidencies (2002–2010), there appeared a number of (temporary or permanent) tripartite councils, such as the Socio-Economic Council and the forums installed to discuss the pension and the labor law reform, designed to discuss certain measures or laws that were to affect the interests of workers (Riethof 2004). There are other traditional movements and organizations that have persisted. One example is the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra, which demands an agrarian reform in a country that has never had one, and the unionization of the rural workers. This movement was founded in 1985 and increased its force in the renewed agrarian conlicts of the new democracy. The pressures upon the democratic governments resulted in the fact that the Brazilian society grasped the unjust distribution of land that existed in their country and the living conditions of many rural workers, which in some regions included slavery. This organization managed to set the agrarian reform in the political agenda and push the presidency of Cardoso to distribute land to 570,000 families and in the Lula government to around 100,000 families per year. On the other hand, rural workers have been actively organizing in unions, most of them in the CUT (Uniied Workers’ Central), ideologically close to the governing PT (Workers’ Party).1 1 Accessed at http://www.mst.org.br/mst/home.php.on May 3, 2010. Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 223 Nonetheless, there has been a clear shift from the demands of labor and other socio-political actors regarding the distribution of wealth and political power of the 1950s and 1960s, the end of the military regimes of the 1970s and 1980s, which were led by the labor union and other popular organizations, to claims against neoliberalism of a great number of new social actors in the 1990s and 2000s. Although one can interpret these movements as reactions to the situation created by the retreat of the state, and the increased inequality and social insecurity produced by the neoliberal economic model, they share some important characteristics that go well beyond. They surely proited from the occasion to react against the social effects of neoliberalism, as did the Zapatista uprising in Mexico, the Indian movement in Ecuador and Bolivia, the piqueteros, and other spontaneous movements in Argentina, the CUT, and the Sem Terra in Brazil, their most interesting characteristic and most crucial signiicance of their action is their claims to the respect of human rights, of rights to deine their collective identity in ethnic, religious, linguistic terms, the rights of citizens to work, health, education, security, as well as to decide upon the way individuals make use of their body, their sexuality, their subjective dignity. New Types of Movements and Social Actions After facing the decline of the most signiicant historical social actor in Latin America, we have witnessed the emergence of new social actors. Some of these are the organizations of civic society or NGOs, which appeared quite widely in most Latin-American countries as a result of the retreat of the state and the decrease in social spending. The increased fragility of the population due to human rights abuses of the South Cone military dictatorships and to the neoliberal economic model, in the 1970s and 1980s, saw the appearance of NGOs as a way to alleviate the needs of the population. These organizations emerged as a grassroots response to social needs, as a “defensive” reaction of society, in contrast to more positive actions such as the interests, identities, and projects we will discuss later. This was basically the case of what was also called the “third sector” or the NGO movement that tried to protect society from state terrorism or replace state social policies. With the return to democracy and the renewed social policies, many governments instrumentalized these organizations as a way of making their policies more eficient. Democratically elected governments promoted leaders of these organizations to be the heads of social policies or institutions or channeled their activities through them. In many cases, this led to the weakening and loss of autonomy of these organizations that had emerged from below, but were now responding to state initiatives. This happened more frequently in countries governed by rightist or center-left parties that were applying orthodox liberal policies, such as in Chile and Mexico. In both, the instrumentalization of the NGOs was a manner of gaining both eficiency and legitimacy. 224 Reimagining Social Movements In other political contexts like the writing of the Brazilian 1988 Constitution, some NGOs managed to make the transition from a purely defensive action to a more positive one. Within these movements, we can count, in the irst place, the human rights associations and movements that emerged during the South Cone dictatorships and that were crucial to exerting pressure for the return of democracy. Some of them managed to transcend the transition by transforming their action. Other associations and social actors emerged from the start, oriented toward demanding rights, rather than to the granting of concessions, such as the right to work, social security, health, a safe environment, among others. An important array of associations and organizations dedicated to claims for various rights (related to work, health, social security, and so forth) developed in Argentina. These movements, such as Perruzotti and Smulovitz, suppose a fundamental change in the character of socialization that characterized the continent during the national-popular period when politicization was the rule. The human rights movement that arose during the military government was crucial to explain this transformation. According to some authors (Smulovitz 2007), the human rights movement that led to the irst victory of the radical party against the Peronistas, with Alfonsin at its head, had a durable effect on the social organizations in Argentina. From this moment on, many of the movements in this country emerged due to the effects of neoliberalism during the Menem administration and the economic, social, and political crisis of 2001–2002, and did not orient their demands to assistance from the government, but instead demanded rights. The movement for human rights managed to survive by transforming itself into movements demanding the right to know the destinies of the thousands who disappeared during the dictatorship and the children that were abducted by the military. Other movements comprised of the children of those who disappeared organized themselves to know the destinies of their parents, and organized the “escraches,” or manifestations where slogans were drawn in front of the residences of military oficials not taken to trial. During the 2001–2002 crisis, there emerged a considerable repertory of other types of social actions, for example, the “cacerolazos,” as well as the spontaneous assemblies at street corners, called “asambleas de barrio.” Although these actions were less numerous than the ONGs, collectively, they have had a considerable social and political impact (Smulovitz 2007). The piquetero movements and the factory occupations that occurred in Argentina are additional examples of movements demanding rights, in these cases, the right to work. The irst one began with the protest against the closure of state industrial plants in the south of the country (Neuquen, Salta, and Jujuy) by the Menem governments that were in many cases the only sources of employment. Their repertory consisted of generalized revolts of small towns (puebladas) and road blockings. These movements grew as unemployment increased between 1994 and the crisis of 2001: from 15 percent in 1992 to 40 percent in the wake of the crisis. During the next few years and especially during the De la Rua government that led to the 2001 crisis, these movements extended to the rest of the country Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 225 and especially to the Buenos Aires region, where the results of the neoliberal economic model had been more dramatic and had concerned mainly private enterprises (Svampa and Pereyra 2004). This situation did not only lead to this broad unemployment movement, but also to the occupation of hundreds of plants that had been closed by their owners that were run cooperatively by the workers themselves. Although all these movements were reacting to the consequences of neoliberalism, their meanings go well beyond this reaction as their main demand was the right to work. The signiicance these movements gave to their actions appears more clearly when we analyze the character of the social programs implemented in response. The original plan known as “Trabajar”2 differed from the assistance programs applied in the rest of Latin America. It consisted of temporary employment in communal tasks, such as the building or renovation of roads, clinics, schools, and so on, rather than in a monetary allowance given with no inancial or labor contribution (Weitz-Schapiro 2006). The two waves of student mobilization in Chile, namely that of the secondary students in 2006, and the one of university students of 2011, are also representative of these kinds of action. Both of these mobilizations mark a fundamental rupture with respect to social action in Chile, which was always intertwined with political parties that were the main channels of socio-political participation in the country. For the irst time in Chile’s history, a social movement acted with total autonomy from the political parties and in fact rejected them (Garrretón 2009). Both movements were set against one of the main “social” enclaves of the Pinochet dictatorship—the educational system, where little had been reformed by the democratic Concertación governments that had instead concentrated on pensions and health. The young were rebelling against a model of education in which both public and private schools and universities charged signiicant fees and obliged the students and their parents to contract loans that implied heavy burdens for years to come. They were demanding that education be considered as a social right and not as merchandise. The ineficacy of the judicial system and the corruption of the police forces in most Latin-American countries that have led to almost total impunity, aggravated by the increases in violence staged by drug-related and other illegal activities, and the repressive policy of some Latin-American governments, has given birth to more or less massive and spontaneous actions demanding security. On many occasions, these actions have been sparked by hideous crimes, such as the murder of Axel Blumberg in Argentina in 2004, the son of a well-known Mexican entrepreneur, Alejandro Martí, in 2009, and the more recent one involving the son of Javier Sicilia, a well-known Mexican poet. In the case of Mexico, these movements have suffered a transformation, from actions against insecurity, where the demand was oriented to the state asking it to impose its force, to another that is critical of the repressive and militarist policies of the government, that is demanding a 2 That was during the Kirchner government, converted into a more orthodox and more easily “clientelized” purely assistance and means tested program: Jefes y Jefas de Hogar. 226 Reimagining Social Movements deliberation on alternative solutions to the problem of violence and, more recently, with the large increase of deaths (more than 50,000) in the ight against drugs of the Mexican government of Calderon, the right to know the details of each one of these deaths and an end to the mere statistics that the government gives that only enhances impunity and the loss of the value of life. In the last two decades, we have seen a signiicant increase in the ecological movements in many regions of the continent. These have surged against the construction of water dams in the Chilean Patagonia and in many regions of Mexico, against cellulose plants in Uruguay and Argentina, toxic waste reservoirs in San Luis Potosi in Mexico, and polluting plants in Torreon and the northern frontier. Some of these actions have been raised by populations that have suffered grave health disorders and are demanding retributions, others are located in the context of the preservation of Indian territories, and still others have been set up in the name of the right for individuals to have control over the risks that are imposed upon them by private or public industrial or other types of projects (Pleyers 2010). They are thus set within the context of a struggle to deine social rights, but also in the ones deining collective and subjective identities which we will discuss below. Democratization in Brazil set the context for NGOs to transform their actions from attending to social needs to demanding rights. The fact that civic society was crucial to assure democratization and that, contrary to what happened in Chile and Mexico, society was not demobilized after the transition, and that the country was characterized by a very open process of constitutional review, resulted in a very active social participation in the 1988 Constitution. This Constitution was not written by a congressional commission or exclusively by Congress, but it included a procedure whereas any group that could collect 100,000 signatures could submit articles that would be then discussed in Congress. For the irst time in the history of Brazil, and (probably) in Latin America, the population and not only the political elite, was able to participate in an active manner in the elaboration of the Constitution (Chaves Texeira et al. 2002). This process enhanced the existing organizations and associations of civic society and helped form durable nets between them. This resulted in very intense discussions among organizations, associations, and academics for almost three years (1986–1988), in almost all the localities of the country in order to elaborate articles to be submitted to Congress (Chaves Teixeira et al. 2002). This process gave birth to a very progressive Constitution that serves as a reference for the political actors. Adding to the fact that this process led to the emergence of movements demanding rights, it developed a criticism of the limits of liberal democracy, that contrary to the criticism of revolutionary groups in the 1950s and 1960s that posed the substitution of formal democracy by real democracy, in this case it led to a process of deepening democracy in the direction of deliberative and participative democracy (Held 2006). The fact that the PT, a party created by “new unionism,” the Christian “comunidades de base” and different leftist (communist, Trotskyist, Maoist) groups, consolidated during the transition and stayed in opposition for more than 20 years prevented it from being “neutralized,” as was Solidarity in Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 227 Poland when it arrived in power just after the transition and the Peronistas in Argentina during the Menem government. The fact that the PT remained out of power allowed it to maintain its active connection to unions and other social actors and to innovate its public policies in the municipalities it conquered in order to distinguish itself from the governing party. This led to the implementation of the celebrated participatory budget that became a window of opportunity for civic action at the municipal level and that signiied the decline of clientelism (a widespread characteristic of Brazilian politics) in those localities in which it was implemented. According to Arvitzer, before the implementation of the participatory budget in Belo Horizonte, 60 percent of the people interviewed declared that they beneited from the personal relations they maintained with political igures, while after its implementation, this percentage was reduced to nothing. In Porto Alegre, the percentage went from 41 percent to zero (Arvitzer 2002). Although it is true that, in some cases, the same clientelistic leaders adapted to the new system and managed to lead the assemblies where the distribution of resources was decided (Abers 2000), they succeeded in doing so by transforming their action in important ways. All of the movements described so far, regarding needs, rights, and the deepening of democracy, situate themselves within the limits of the existing institutions of society, and accept these limits. Whereas the action of the NGOs can be considered to ill the gaps of these institutions, they pose as their task what is not accomplished by the existing institutions. These actions seek the deepening of democracy and are situated at the limits of democratic institutions, and ight to extend and deepen them. The movements go beyond the existing limits of the institutions of society. This is clearly the case of the demand of cultural rights of minorities in societies that are designed as being homogenous in ethnical or ethical terms. The Indian movement is situated in the irst of these dimensions, while the subjective rights movements (gender, divorce, abortion, and gay rights) in the second. Most of the Indian movements in Latin America demanded a recognition of their identities, the right to be different of all the different members of their respective national societies, without any exclusions. They were afirmative identities without exclusionary characters, in contrast to the identity movements in other parts of the world that deined themselves in exclusion to the “other.” Although the indigenous movement received international recognition with the Zapatista rebellion of 1994 in Mexico, the social actions rejecting the assimilationist policies that the LatinAmerican governments had been implementing during most parts of the twentieth century began in Ecuador and Bolivia in the 1970s. In most cases, this movement was sustained by leftist church representatives, participating in the liberation theology movement. In the Amazon region of Ecuador, what began as a movement against the intervention of the oil companies in Indian regions transformed into a cultural movement, that merged at the national level through the Confederación de las Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (Confeniae), which according to Albo, was the irst Indian organization to adopt the term nation. 228 Reimagining Social Movements In Bolivia, the Katarista movement that developed during the 1960s and 1970s began as a peasant organization demanding land. This movement fused with other social movements in 1979 to found the Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia (Csutcb), which was crucial to assure the election of Evo Morales as the irst Indian president of a majoritarian Indian country as Bolivia more than 20 years later (Albo 2004). Although these indigenous movements actively intervened against neoliberal measures such as the signing of NAFTA between Mexico, the United States, and Canada, against selling gas to foreign companies, and the price of water charged by private companies in Bolivia, and the dollarization of the economy of Ecuador, the sense of these movements went beyond these socio-economic actions in order to orient itself toward the recognition of the right to be different without rejecting the larger national structure. The actions against neoliberal measures were, in a sense, windows of opportunity to intervene in the social stage. This had different results: in the case of Mexico, the EZLN was a crucial catalyst of the democratic transition, although it did not directly intervene in the political scene and in fact marginalized itself from it; in the case of Ecuador it led to the defeat of the Indian movement, when it allied with the military that staged a coup against the corrupt and ineficient elected government of Bucaram. In the case of Bolivia, the participation in the so-called gas and water “wars” and the organization of a union of coca producers in the region of the Chaparé, that contested the settlements between the Bolivian and the US governments to eradicate the coca plantations, set the stage for the election of its leader Evo Morales to the presidency of Bolivia in 2006. In all these cases, the protest against the economic model went far beyond economics and instrumentalized them in order to afirm their indigenous identity and demand rights for these populations: socio-economic, cultural, political, and in some cases territorial (Le Bot 2009). These movements question the ethnical limits of society where its institutions were established under the idea of a homogenous society or one that was on the path of becoming one. Against these collective actions that have given rise to massive and well organized movements in some countries of Latin America with signiicant Indian populations, in all the countries of the continent arose smaller, more atomized but very visible movements demanding equal rights for women—the right of divorce, the right to have control of their bodies, most notably with regard to abortion. These actions have been accompanied by others led by sexual minorities, demanding the right not to be discriminated against, to be treated as equal, the right to marry, to adopt, and so on. Finally, some ecological and alter-globalization movements, that deine alternative ways of modernization, the consumption of goods and services, of using the existing means of communication, technological advances and in general the power of knowledge, than the one that has been promoted up to now by governments and enterprises (Pleyers 2010). All of these actions go beyond the limits of the existing institutions of society; they afirm the subject vis-à-vis the political, social, and economic order, they pose an alternative conception of life that goes beyond the dominant ethics. Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 229 Concluding Remarks The new social movements emerging after democratization and in the context of globalization diverge in important ways from those that existed before. In the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, the dominant movement was labor and other socio-political actors that oriented their action toward concessions from the state and that were, in turn, in many cases, coopted by the state or promoted by it. These interests were, in general, well organized and centralized, and acted at both the social and political levels. Since the 1980s, Latin America has seen the emergence of a great number of organizations (or associations) of civic society dedicated to tackling many of the problems and needs of different sectors of society caused by the retreat of the state. Many of these organizations were instrumentalized by the governments in order to apply their public policies more eficiently. Those that preserved their autonomy have led the quest for the recognition of rights. In effect, many civic society organizations dealing with privations and speciic demands of different sectors of society, managed to transform their action into one claiming for rights. We have also seen a decline of these movements and the emergence of more grassroots, atomized social actors that demand rights and pose a different ethnical and ethical conception of society, rather than concessions from the dominant forces of society. Their demands are mostly social or cultural as they do not seek political power or the overthrow of the state, and they are “selflimited” according to Touraine and Arato (Arato 2000). This is clearly the case of the indigenous movements, human rights, women’s rights, sexual minority rights, alter-globalization movements, and so on, which are demanding the right to be and act differently, the recognition of their subjective, cultural, ethnic, religious identities. From this basis will derive other economic, social, and even political rights. References Abers, R.N. 2000. Inventing Local Democracy; Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Arato, A. 2000. Civil Society, Constitution, and Legitimacy. Maryland: Rowman & Littleield. Avritzer, L. 2002. Sociedad civil, espacio público y poder local: un análisis del presupuesto participativo en Belo Horizonte y Porto Alegre, in Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Brasil, edited by Evelina Dagnino. México: Unicamp/Fondo de Cultura Económica, 65–96. Aziz Nassif, A. and Sánchez, J.A. 2003. Votos, reglas, y partidos, in México al inicio del Siglo XXI: Democracia, ciudadanía y desarrollo, edited by Alberto Aziz Nassif et al. México: CIESAS-Porrúa, 65–96. 230 Reimagining Social Movements Bensusan, G. 2008. Regulaciones laborales, calidad de los empleos, modelos de inspección: México en el contexto latinoamericano. Cuaderno de la CEPAL, L-861, México: CEPAL-UN. Bizberg, I. 2010. Una democracia vacía, in Los Grandes Problemas de México. no. 6. Los Movimientos Sociales, edited by I. Bizberg and F. Zapata. México: El Colegio de México. 21–60. Bizberg, I. 2011. The global economic crisis as disclosure of different types of capitalism. Swiss Journal of Sociology/World Society Studies, 37(2), 321–329. Bizberg, I., with Bruno Théret, La diversité des capitalismes latino-américains: les cas de l’Argentine, du Brésil et du Mexique. La Revue de la Régulation, Paris, 11, 2012. Bizberg, I. and Zapata, F. 2010. Los Grandes Problemas de México. no. 6. Los Movimientos Sociales. México: El Colegio de México. Bloj, C. 2004. Presunciones acerca de una ciudadanía indisciplinada: asambleas barriales en Argentina, in Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de globalización, edited by D. Mato. Caracas: FACES, Universidad Central de Venezuela [Online], 133–150. Available at: http://www.globalcult.org.ve/pub/ Rocky/Libro2/Bloj.pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2014. Bronstein, A. 1995. L’évolution sociale et les relations professionnelles en Amérique latine: Bilan et perspectives. Revue internationale du Travail, 134(2), 179–203. Bronstein, A. 1997. La réforme de la législation du travail en Amérique Latine: Régime de garanties et exigence de lexibilité. Revue internationale du Travail, 136(1), 5–27. De la Maza, G. 2002. Sociedad Civil y Democracia en Chile, in Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, edited by Aldo Panichi. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 211–240. De Souza Keller, W. 1994. Neocorporativismo y relações de trabalho: elementos para um debate sobre a experiêcia brasileira recente. Boletim de Conjuntura: política social, 14, (São Paulo, FUNDAP), 31–40. Delamata, G. 2008. Luchas sociales, gobierno y Estado durante la presidencia de Néstor Kirchner, in Desempenho de Governos Progressistas no Cone Sul: Agendas alternativas ao Neoliberalismo, edited by Maria Regina Soares de Lima. Rio de Janeiro: Edicoes IUPERJ, 75–90. Franceschelli, I. and Ronconi, L. 2005. Clientelism, Workfare and the Emergence of the Piqueteros in Argentina [Online: LACEA]. Available at: https:// www.gdnet.org/~research_papers/null/null/Clientelism,%20workfare,%20 and%20the%20emergence%20of%20the%20piqueteros%20in%20Argentina. Accessed: January 28, 2014. Garretón, M.A., 2009. Movimiento social, nuevas formas de hacer política y enclaves autoritarios. Los debates del Consejo Asesor para la Educacion en el gobierno de Michelle Bachelet en Chile. Polis, 30. Goirand, C. 2002. La démocratie participative au Brésil: les expériences de budgets municipaux participatifs. Cahiers du Gela-IS. 2nd Edition. Paris: L’Harmattan, 125–150. Civic Society, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America 231 Held, D. 2006. Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Le Bot, Y. 2009. La Grande révolte indienne. Paris: Robert Laffont. Lindenboim, J. 2004. The precariousness of Argentine labor relations in the 1990s. Latin American Perspectives, 31(4), 21–31. Marques Pereira, J. and Théret, B. 2004. Mediaciones institucionales de regulación social y dinámicas macroeconómicas: los casos de Brasil y México, in Democracia y Globalización en México y Brasil, edited by Carlos Alba and Ilán Bizberg. México: El Colegio de México, 41–102. Murillo, M.V. 2000. From populism to neoliberalism: labor unions and market reforms in Latin America. World Politics, 52(2), 135–174. Novick, M. 2001. Nuevas reglas de juego en Argentina, competitividad y actores sindicales, in Los sindicatos frente a los procesos de transición política, edited by Enrique de la Garza. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 25–46. Novick, M., Lengyel, M., and Sarabia, M. 2009. De la protección laboral a la vulnerabilidad social. Reformas neoliberales en la Argentina. Revista Internacional del Trabajo, 128(3), 257–275. Oxhorn, P. 1994. Where did all the protesters go? Popular mobilization and the transition to democracy in Chile. Latin American Perspectives, 21(3), 49–68. Palomino, H. 2000. Los sindicatos en la Argentina contemporánea. Nueva Sociedad, 169, Caracas, 121–134. Palomino, H. and Trajtemberg, D. 2006. Una nueva dinámica de las relaciones laborales y la negociación colectiva en la Argentina. Revista de Trabajo, 2(3), 47–68. Peruzzotti, E. 2002. Emergencia, desarrollo, crisis y reconstrucción de la sociedad civil argentina, in Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, edited by Aldo Panichi. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 103–104. Pleyers, G. 2010. El alterrmundismo en Mexico. Actores, culturas políticas y practicas contra el neoliberalismo, in Los Grandes Problemas de México. no. 6. Los Movimientos Sociales, edited by I. Bizberg and F. Zapata. México: El Colegio de México, 361–395. Radermacher, R. and Melleiro, W. 2007. El sindicalismo bajo el gobierno de Lula. Nueva Sociedad, 211. Raes, F. 2001. Consolidation démocratique et médiation politique au Brésil, en Cahiers du GELA-IS. 1st Edition. Paris: L’Harmattan, 128–162. Riethof, M. 2004. Changing strategies of Brazilian labor movement: from opposition to participation. Latin American Perspectives, 31(6), 31–47. Risley, A.E. 2005. Creating Political Opportunities: Civil Society Organizations, Advocacy, and Public Inluence in Argentina and Chile. Ph.D. Thesis. Austin: University of Texas. Saba, R. 2002. El movimiento de derechos humanos, las organizaciones de participación ciudadana y el proceso de construcción de la sociedad civil y el estado de derecho en Argentina, in Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, edited by Aldo 232 Reimagining Social Movements Panichi. México-Lima: Fondo de Cultura Económica-Pontiicia Universidad Católica del Perú, 147–176. Silva, E. 2009. Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smulovitz, C. 2007. Organizaciones que invocan derechos, sociedad civil y representación en la Argentina, in Sociedad civil y democracia en América Latina: crisis y reinvención de la política, edited by Bernardo Sorj and Darcy de Oliveira. Rio de Janeiro: Ediciones Centro Edelstein, 13–62. Svampa, M. and Pereyra, S. 2004. La política de los movimientos piqueteros. Revista da Sociedada Brasileira de Economia Política, 15. Teixeira, A.C., Dagnino, E. and Almeida, C.C. 2002. La constitución de la sociedad civil en Brasil, in Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Brasil, edited by Evelina Dagnino. México: Unicamp-Fondo de Cultura Económica, 21–74. Touraine, A. 1973. La Production de la Société. Paris: Seuil. Velázquez, G. and Alberto, M. 2010. Los movimientos ambientales en México, in Los Grandes Problemas de México. no. 6. Los Movimientos Sociales, edited by I. Bizberg and F. Zapata. México: El Colegio de México, 275–336. Weitz-Shapiro, R. 2006. Partisanship and protest: the politics of workfare distribution in argentina. Latin American Research Review (LASA), 41(3), 122–147. Zapata, F. 2008. La cuestión democrática en la izquierda latinoamericana: del dilema izquierda-derecha al dilema democracia-autoritarismo, manuscrito. El Colegio de México. Zermeño, S. 2004. La participación ciudadana bajo los gobiernos perredistas del Distrito federal (1997–2003), in Participación ciudadana y políticas sociales en el ámbito local, edited by Alicia Ziccardi. México: IIS-UNAM, 145–166. 

Civil society, democratization and globalization in Latin America. Ilán Bizberg, El Colegio de México – associate member of the CADIS-EHESS. In the last three decades, Latin America has undergone crucial transformations due to two fundamental causes: the general democratization of most of the countries of the continent (excluding Cuba) and the exposure to globalization. These two phenomena have had contradictory effects upon the societies of the countries of the region. The eighties saw the displacement of the military from practically all Latin governments and their return to the barracks in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, among others. In Mexico, democratization began with the electoral reform of 1977 that legalized leftist parties, among the most significant the communist party, as a response to the important mobilizations of workers and peasants that occurred during the seventies and the guerilla warfare led by maoist, communist and other non-ideological currents. Coincidentally, these countries where suffering one of their most serious economic crisis, that lasted long enough to become known as the “lost decade” and that resulted in the fact that that most of the countries, to a greater or lesser extent, abandoned the economic model they had been pursuing until then based on the intervention of the State in the economy, an emphasis on the internal market, the protection of local industry, a social policy intended to protect the workers of the modern economic sectors and the central administration, The mode of development pursued more successfully in the bigger countries, can be characterized as a segmented or incomplete fordism, where whilst the workers and middle classes were granted the necessary means to acquire the products that the protected industry was manufacturing, the majority of the population was still excluded form the modern sector of the economy. The economic model known as Import substitution industrialization (ISI) was implemented through a national-popular alliance, incorrectly called “populist”, which gave social organizations a central role (fundamentally labor) where in exchange for their social and political backing of the State and its economic policies, the government would give concessions to the workers in terms of salaries, benefits and social policies. In some countries the military terminated this socio-political pact from the mid- 70´s, basically for political reasons (Chile-1973, Uruguay-1973 y Argentina-1976) and modified the economic configuration. In others, the new economic pattern was implemented as a response to the economic crisis of the 80´s. In both cases, the new model consisted in the opening of the economy to both productive and financial capitals, a re-orientation towards exports instead of the internal market, the retreat of the State from the economy, the reduction of government employees and the decrease of the scope and extension of social policies. This transformation of the economic pattern and its reorientation toward the external market led most of the Latin American economies to depend on their ability to compete in the global market and attract foreign capital. This led, in its turn to an “under-grading” of the contractual and working conditions in most countries, through deregulation and flexibilization of the labor markets. In the countries where the trade unions were still strong, this demanded that they be sapped and that governments that were susceptible to to their pressure, be isolated from them. This usually meant the centralization of social policies in the hands of the State, in general though a transition from a corporatist social policy controlled or negotiated with the unions and other social organizations to a centralized, focalized assistance oriented social policy. Paradoxically, this also demanded a process of decentralization, from a collective bargaining at the branch level to a locally set negotiation. This, in turn, led to the decentralization of education and health programs to the local (State or municipal level), that in most cases resulted in the aggravation of territorial and social sector disparities; which are for example now at the center of the agenda of the Chilean youth. All this has had three crucial consequences on social life in Latin America: The central social actor of the ISI period, fundamentally the labor movement (as well as other socio-political actors such as the peasants and poor urban inhabitants) lost its centrality, together with its main support and “partner”, the State. We will discuss the important exceptions to this “rule”: the case of the peronistas in Argentina and that of the CUT in Brazil. It must be mentioned that while this actor was central in the industrial society of the developed countries because, as Touraine has affirmed, they expressed the main conflict of the industrial society and at some moments managed to articulate their particular interests with a social and cultural orientation of society, in the Latin American context the labor movement was basically a political actor, that was central because of its alliance with the developmentist State. In this relation, the labor movement was generally subordinated to the State and in many cases the alliance was fomented from above and responded more to State interesta than to labor; although in a State corporatist relation labor received benefits from it in exchange for its fidelity. The decline of the main actor(s) of the Latin American XXth century has led to the appearance of new social movements that share some characteristics that are totally innovative for Latin America. 1. In the first place they are originated from below, from the grass roots rather than from the political sphere, they are thus are more social and cultural than political. 2. They also share a character that both Touraine and Arato found in many of the social movements that led to the end of communism in eastern and central Europe that were defined as self-limited, which means that they do not pretend political power, they do not want to be linked to political parties or to the State, in fact some of them are antipolitical. One of the most recurrent slogans of the most recent (2011) university student movement in Chile was: “El pueblo unido marcha sin partido” (the people advances without parties) 3. Some authors consider that the new movements that have emerged in the new democratic and globalized Latin American context are basically oriented towards the excesses of neo-liberalism. Although it is true that some of them have done so and have advanced particular economic and social grievances, many of them are not just defensive actions but purpose seeking, they propose manners and define actions in order to fill the gaps that this economic model creates: in terms of social policies, aid to the poor and the marginal. 4. In fact, the most remarkable of these movements have “instrumentalized” these actions against neo-liberalism in order to denounce the limits of liberal democracy and of citizenship in a purely formal, liberal democracy, and demand its deepening through different means of participation. 5. Another fundamental characteristic of these actions is that they tend to affirm a new type of citizenship, that rejects clientelism, that does not try to exert pressure on the State in order to gain concessions, an attitude typical of the social struggles during the national-popular period. The new social movements demand rights: human rights (security, state of law), social rights (work, education, health), cultural rights (ethnic, religious or gender identity affirmations) and subjective rights (abortion, gay marriage, divorce). These new social movements are defined in three distinct dimensions: the first of which is delimited in terms of needs, that is regarding what the existing institutions of society cannot deliver; this is especially true in the case of the NGO’s that provide services and goods for the poor, the sick, the marginal. The second dimension comprises the demands that are situated within the margins of the existing institutions of society, some of them attempt to extend them to their limits. Within these actions we can consider all those actions that demand that State concessions become social and political rights as well as those that pretend to deepen democracy and citizenry. Finally, another set of social actions go beyond the limits of the institutions of society: the cultural movement of the Indian population questions the established ethnical limits of the nation-State, defined in terms of a homogeneous cultural identity, and the subjective rights movements (women rights, sexual minorities) that questions the ethical limits of society based on the traditional definitions of family, women rights, sexual “normality”, etc. 1. Power, decline and recovery of the Latin American labor movement As affirmed, the labor movement has been central in the Latin American context. Until the 80’s, it has been the paradigmatic actor than defined the capacity of action of the society in general and the worker’s interests in particular. In some countries such as Argentina and Brazil the base of the resistance under the military regimes. Its capacity of action was due to the fact that it was able to clearly define its identity: workers meet each other daily in the factory and have the same basic interests. On the other hand, if one compares labor to other actors, workers can actually endanger the economy of their enterprise and some of them, situated in the most strategic sectors of the economy (petroleum, electricity, transportation, central public administration), the economy of their country. Nonetheless, the 80´s and 90´s were marked by tendencies that played against the unions. For one part, this actor suffered from the opening of most of the economies of Latin-America, from the retreat of the State and the deregulation of the economy; the combination of these three elements had as its result the deregulation of the labor market and the flexibilization of the labor conditions in the enterprises; that entailed the weakening of the labor unions. In addition, the crisis and the new economic model signified the increase of the informal economy, the tertiary sector of the economy and the reduction of the State employees, all of which significantly reduced the weight of the unionized workers in the economy. The formal industrial branches and the State functionaries had been the heart of the traditional unionism. This evolution contradicted the fact that in most of the countries in the Continent, the process of democratization permitted that the unions act freely for the first time in decades. (Bronstein, 1997). This situation was aggravated by the incapacity of the labor movement to compensate the influence lost amid the formal workers with a greater presence among the sectors that increased in these last decades: informal workers, commerce, services (Bronstein, 1995). Thus, the rate of unionization, of strikes and strikers diminished greatly in most of the Latin American continent, to the exception of Brazil and Argentina. In contrast to the labor movement in the developed countries, where it was the central actor of the industrial society, as it agreed upon the main cultural orientations of this society, together with the entrepreneurs, but contested the distribution of the wealth created and the concentration of industrial knowledge in the hands of the employers, though the division of work and organization of the labor process (Touraine, 1973). In Latin America, the labor movement was less a cultural than a political and socio-political one. Labor was one of the main supports of the industrializing ISI coalition), together with the national entrepreneurs, the middle classes and the State. The pact promoted industrialization and the improvement of the working, employment and social protection for formal workers, while it assisted the population still not included in the process of modernization (Lindenboim, 2004:23). The agreement could be called segmented Fordism, in the sense that workers saw their conditions improved not only as a manner of getting “paid” for their inclusion in the pact, but as a way of enhancing the internal market for the manufactures being produced by the industry. It was segmented because only part of the population of Latin America was concerned: the formal workers in the modern sector of the economy. The peasants and marginal workers of the cities were excluded. The military coups of the sixties and seventies ended this pact. The only exception is Brazil, as the military managed to exclude labor from the industrializing coalition in order to stop wealth distribution of the previous governments, while it deepened the import substitution process to include intermediary and capital goods. Both the Chilean and the Argentinean military shifted to promoting a liberal economic model without wealth distribution, where exports of commodities would prime and where industry would have a secondary role. The crisis of 1982 was the end of import substitution in the countries that had continued implementing it, such as Mexico. In the latter, the discovery of huge oil resources had allowed for the continuation of the import substitution model without deepening and without the exclusion of the popular sectors in order to stop distribution, as oil exports and the debt based on the expectations of these exports made it possible for the Mexican government to continue redistribution. (Marques-Pereira and Théret, 2001; Bizberg, 2011; Bizberg and Theret, 2011) In this manner, by the mid-eighties most of the countries of the continent were promoting an economic model based on exports and foreign investment, where labor was excluded from a coalition formed by entrepreneurs, foreign capital and the State. This coalition proceeded to ample privatizations, retreat of the State from the economy, a shift from a contributory and pay as you go social security system to an individual, capitalization system; from a universal and generalized health system to a private and segmented one; in general, from an expanding, albeit segmented, Providence State, to a more universal, minimal and mainly assistance oriented system. There have clearly been exceptions to this general tendency of a decline of labor and other traditional social movements. In Argentina and Brazil, the trade union movement has succeeded in maintaining or recovering its force. In Brazil, this has happened especially during the presidency of Lula between 2002 and 2010, while in Argentina it is with the Kirchner-Fernandez presidencies in the years 2000. The fact that democratization in both of these countries was the result of an ample mobilization of civil society (basically trade unions) against the military in the 70’s, these two countries were fertile ground for other forms of social action that developed in the last twenty years. Moreover in both Argentina and Brazil, here was no de-mobilization of society following democratization and the social mobilization under the dictatorship, like in Chile, when the parties decided to contest electoral the plebiscite of Pinochet in 1987 (Oxhorn, 1994), and Mexico after the union and peasant organization movements of the first half of the seventies, that were successfully channeled through elections by the PRI regime with the political reform of 1977 (Bizberg, 2010, Aziz, 2003). The fact that in both of these countries the movements that resisted the dictatorship, retained its importance, partly explains why civil society continued being very active in these two countries, and why in these two countries, although labor was also weakened due to the neo-liberal measures, preserved its capacity of action. In fact, in Argentina, labor was the principal opposition to the first democratic government, that of radical Alfonsin and to the government of De la Rua that led to the 2001 economic and political crisis. The peronistas negotiated with and resisted the justicialista and very liberal Menem government and have become a crucial partner in the Kirchner and Fernandez governments (Palomino y Trajtenberg, 2006). The fact that after the 2001 crisis, unionism was one of the best organized actors, made it indispensable for the Kirchner government to ally with it. This government appointed a pro labor lawyer at the Ministry of Labor, who promoted collective negotiations at the branch level, encouraged the formalization of the labor market, raised real salaries (both minimal and median) and eventually re-nationalized the pension funds (in 2008) in order to attract union support, but also as a way to strengthen the internal market. This reinforced the peronist CGT, which reunited after having during the Menem presidencies due to disagreements over the position to be taken with respect to its liberal measures; while part of the CGT considered that it should negotiate with the government, another considered that it should oppose the measures (Palomino, 2000). In Brazil, during the government of Cardoso, the labor movement was able to resist the more radical neo-liberal measure’s, like the pension reform, and was a partner of the employers and the State in the tripartite organizations: the “cámaras sectoriais”. These organizations were implemented in some of the most important branches of the economy, and served to negotiate salaries, prices and taxes in order to stimulate growth of these sectors (De Souza Keller, 1994). During the Lula presidencies (2002-2010), there appeared a number of (temporary or permanent) tripartite counsels, such as the Socio-Economic Counsel and the forums installed to discuss the pension and the labor law reform, designed to discuss certain measures or laws that were to affect the interests of workers (Riethof, 2004) There are other traditional movements and organizations that have persisted. One example is the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra, that demands an agrarian reform in a country, that has never had one, and the unionization of the rural workers. This movement was founded in 1985 and increased its force in the renewed agrarian conflicts of the new democracy. The pressures upon the democratic governments resulted in the fact that the Brazilian society grasped the unjust distribution of land that existed in their country and the living conditions of many rural workers, which in some regions included slavery. This organization managed to set the agrarian reform in the political agenda and push the presidency of Cardoso to distribute land to 570,000 families and in the Lula government to around 100,000 families per year. On the other hand, rural workers have been actively organizing in unions, most of them in the CUT, ideologically close to the governing PT. http://www.mst.org.br/mst/home.php Nonetheless, there has been a clear shift from the demands of labor and other socio-political actors regarding the distribution of wealth and political power of the fifties and sixties, the end of the military regimes of the seventies and eighties; which were led by the labor union and other popular organizations, to claims against neoliberalism of a great number of new social actors in the 90’s and 2000, shifted from. Although one can interpret these movements as reactions to the situation created by the retreat of the State, the increased inequality and social insecurity produced by the neo-liberal economic model (Silva, 2010), they share some important characteristics that go well beyond. They surely profited from the occasion to react against the social effects of neo-liberalism, as did the Zapatista uprising in Mexico, the Indian movement in Ecuador and Bolivia, the piqueteros and other spontaneous movements in Argentina, the CUT and the Sem Terra in Brazil, their most interesting characteristic and most crucial significance of their action is their claims to the respect of human rights, of rights to define their collective identity in ethnic, religious, linguistic terms, the rights of citizens to work, health, education, security, as well as to decide upon the way individuals make use of their body, their sexuality, their subjective dignity. 2. New types of movements and social actions. Facing the decline of the most significant historical actor social actor in Latin America, we have witnessed the emergence of new social actors. One of these are the organizations of civil society or ONGs, that appeared quite massively in most Latin American countries as a result of the retreat of the State and the decrease in social spending. The increased fragility of the population due to human rights abuses of the South cone military dictatorships and to the neo-liberal economic model, in the seventies and eighties, saw the appearance of ONG’s as a way to aleviate the needs of the population. These organizations emerged as a grass roots response to social needs, as a “defensive” reaction of society, in contrast to more positive actions such as interests, identities and projects we will discuss later. This was basically the case of what was also called the “third sector” or the ONG movement that tried to protect society from State terrorism or replace State social policies. With the return to democracy and the renewed social policies, many governments instrumentalized these organizations as a way of making their policies more efficient. Democratically elected governments promoted leaders of these organizations to head of social policies institutions or channeled their activities through them. In many cases this led to the weakening and loss of autonomy of these organizations that had emerged from below but were now responding to State initiatives. This happened more frequently in countries governed by rightist or center-left parties that were applying orthodox liberal policies, such as in Chile and Mexico. In both, the instrumentalization of the ONG’s was a manner of both gaining efficiency and legitimacy. In other political context like the writing of the Brazilian 1988 Constitution, some ONG’s managed to make the transition from a purely defensive action to a more positive one. Within these movements we can count in the first place with the human rights associations and movements that emerged during the South cone dictatorships that were crucial to exert pressure for the return of democracy. Some of them managed to transcend the transition by transforming their action. Other associations and social actors emerged from the start oriented towards demanding rights rather than to the granting of concessions, such as the right to work, to social security, health, a safe environment, among others. An important array of associations and organizations dedicated to claim for rights have developed in Argentina: work, health, social security, etc. These movements as Perruzotti y Smulovitz suppose a fundamental change in the character of socialization that characterized the continent during the national-popular period when politization was the rule. The human rights movement that arose during the military government was crucial to explain this transformation. According to some authors (Smulovitz, 2007), the human rights movement that led to the first victory of the radical party against the peronistas, with Alfonsin at its head, had a durable effect on the social organizations in Argentina. From this moment on, mzany of the movements in this country emerged due to the effects of neo-liberalism during the Menem administration and the economic, social and political crisis of 2001-2002, did not orient their demands to assistance from the government, but demanded rights. The movement for human rights managed to survive by transforming itself into movements demanding the right to know the destiny of the thousands of disappeared during the dictatorship and the children that were abducted by the military. Other movements of the children of those disappeared organized themselves to know the destiny of their parents, organized the “escraches”, manifestations where slogans were drawn in front of the residences of military that were not taken to trial. During the 2001-2002 crisis, there emerged a considerable repertory of other types of social actions: the “cacerolazos”, as well as the spontaneous assemblies at street corners, called “asambleas de barrio”. Although these actions were less numerous than the ONG’s, the sense of their action has given them a considerable social and political impact (Smulovitz; 2007). The piquetero movements and the factory occupations that occurred in Argentina are another example of a movement demanding rights, in this case the right to work. The first one began with the protest against the closure of State industrial plants in the south of the country (Neuquen, Salta and Jujuy) by the Menem governments that were in many cases the only source of employment. Their repertory consisted of generalized revolts of small towns (puebladas) and road blockings. These movements increased with the impressive growth of unemployment that occurred from 1994 to the crisis of 2001: from 15% in 1992 to 40% in the wake of the crisis. During the next years and especially during the De la Rua government that led to the 2001 crisis, these movements extended to the rest of the country and especially to the Buenos Aires region, where the results of the neo-liberal economic model had been more dramatic and concerned mainly private enterprises (Svampa and Pereyra, 2004). This situation did not lead only to this broad unemployed movement but also to the occupation of hundreds plants that had bee closed by their owners that were run cooperatively by the workers themselves. Although all these movements were reacting to the consequences of neo-liberalism (Silva, 2010), their sense goes well beyond this reaction as their main demand was the right to work. The significance these movements gave to their action appears more clearly when we analyze the character of the social programs implemented in response. The original plan “Trabajar” That was during the Kirchner government, converted into a more orthodox and more easily “clientelized” purely assistance and means tested program: Jefes y Jefas de Hogar”. differed from the assistance programs applied in the rest of Latin America. It consisted in temporary employment in communal tasks such as the building or rehabilitation of roads, clinics, schools, etc., rather than in a monetary allowance with no financial or labor contribution (Weitz-Schapiro, 2006). The two waves of student mobilization in Chile, that of the secondary students in 2006 and the one of university students of 2011, is also representative of these kind of action. Both of these mobilizations mark a fundamental rupture with respect to social action in Chile, which was always intertwined with political parties that were the main channels of socio-political participation in Chile. For the first time in Chile’s history, a social movement acted with total autonomy from the political parties and in fact rejected them (Garrretón, 2009). Both movements were set against one of the main “social” enclaves of the Pinochet dictatorship, the educational system, where little had been reformed by the democratic Concertación governments that had concentrated on pensions and health. The young were manifesting against an education model where both public and private schools and universities charged significant fees and obliged the students and their parents to contract loans that implied a heavy burden for years to come. They were demanding that education be considered as a social right and not as merchandise. The inefficacity of the judicial system and the corruption of the police forces in most countries of Latin America that has led to an almost total impunity, aggravated by the increase of the violence staged by drug and other illegal activities and the repressive policy of some Latin American governments, have given birth to more or less massive and spontaneous actions demanding security. In many occasions these actions have been sparked by a hideous crime, such as the one of Axel Blumberg in Argentina in 2004, the son of a well-known Mexican entrepreneur, Alejandro Martí, in 2009, and that more recent of the son of Javier Sicilia, a well-known Mexican poet. In the case of Mexico these movements have suffered a transformation, from actions against insecurity, where the demand was oriented to the State asking it to impose its force, to another that is critical of the repressive and militarist policies of the government, that is demanding a deliberation on alternative solutions to the problem of violence and more recently, with the impressive increase of deaths (more than 50,000) in the fight against drugs of the Mexican government of Calderon, the right to know the details of each one of these deaths and an end to the mere statistics that the government gives that only enhances impunity and the loss of the value of life. In the last two decades we have seen a significant increase in the ecological movements in many regions of the Continent. These have surged against the construction of water dams in the Chilean Patagonia and in many regions of Mexico, against cellulose plants in Uruguay and Argentina, toxic waste reservoirs in San Luis Potosi in Mexico, polluting plants in Torreon and the northern frontier. Some of these actions have been raised by populations that have suffered grave health disorders and are demanding retribution, others are located in the context of the preservation of Indian territories, and others have been set in the name of the right for individuals to have control on the risks that are imposed upon them by private or public industrial or other types of projects (Pleyers, 2010 and Velazquez, 2010). They are thus set within the context of a struggle to define social rights, but also in the ones defining collective and subjective identity, we will discuss below. Democratization in Brazil set the context for ONG’s to transform their actions from attending social needs to demanding rights. The fact that civil society was crucial to assure democratization and that contrary to what happened in Chile and Mexico society was not demobilized after the transition, and that the country was characterized by a very open process of constitutional review resulted in a very active social participation in the 1988 Constitution. This Constitution was not written by a congressional commission or exclusively by Congress, but it included a procedure whereas any group that could collect 100,000 signatures could submit articles that would be then discussed in Congress. For the first time in the history of Brazil and (probably) in Latin America, the population and not only the political elites was able to participate in an active manner in the elaboration of the Constitution (Chaves Texeira, et. al.). This process enhanced the existing organizations and associations of civil society and helped form durable nets between them. This resulted in very intense discussions among organizations, associations, academics for almost three years (1986-1988), in almost all the localities of the country in order to elaborate articles to be submitted to Congress (Ibid.). This process gave birth to a very progressive Constitution that serves as a reference for the political actors. Adding to the fact that this process led to the emergence of movements demanding rights, it developed a criticism of the limits of liberal democracy, that contrary the criticism of revolutionary groups in the 50 and 60 that posed the substitution of formal democracy by real democracy, in this case it led to a process of deepening democracy in the direction of deliberative and participative democracy (Held, 2006). The fact that the PT, a party created by “new unionism”, the Christian “comunidades de base” and different leftist (communist, Trotskyists, Maoists) groups, consolidated during the transition and stayed in opposition for more than twenty years prevented it to be “neutralized” as did Solidarity in Poland when it arrived to power just after the transition and the peronistas in Argentina during the Menem government. The fact that the PT remained out of power allowed it to maintain its active connection to unions and other social actors and to innovate its public policies in the municipalities it conquered in order to distinguish itself from the governing party. This latter led to the implementation of the celebrated participatory budget that became a window of opportunity for civic action at the municipal level and that signified the decline of clientelism (a widespread characteristic of Brazilian politics) in those localities where it was implemented. According to Arvitzer, before the implementation of participatory budget in Belo Horizonte, 60% of the people interviewed declared that they benefited from the personal relations they maintained with political figures, while after its implementation this percentage was reduced to nothing. In Porto Alegre the percentage went from 41% to zero (Arvitzer, 2002). Although it is true that in some cases the same clientelistic leaders adapted to the new system and managed to lead the assemblies where the distribution of resources was decided, (Abers, 2000), they succeeded to do so by transforming their action in important ways. All of the movements described so far, regarding needs, rights and the deepening of democracy, situate themselves within the limits of the existing institutions of society, they accept these limits. Whereas the action of the NGO’s can be considered to fill the gaps of these institutions, they pose as their task what is not accomplished by the existing institutions, the social rights movements fights to inscribe certain actions of the State as rights. The actions seeking the deepening of democracy are situated at the limits of the democratic institutions, and fight to extend deepen them. The following movements we will discuss go beyond the existing limits of the institutions of society. This is clearly the case of the demand of cultural rights of minorities in societies that are designed as being homogenous in ethnical or ethical terms. The Indian movement is situated at the first of these dimensions, while the subjective rights movements (gender, divorce, abortion and gay rights) in the second. Most of the Indian movements in Latin America demanded the recognition of their identity the right to be different of all the different members of their respective national societies, without excluding any. They were affirmative identities without an exclusionary character, in contrast to the identity movements in other parts of the world that defined themselves in exclusion to the other. Although the indigenous movement got international recognition with the Zapatista rebellion of 1994 in Mexico, the social actions rejecting the assimilationist policies that the Latin American governments had been implementing during most part of the twentieth century began in Ecuador and Bolivia in the seventies. In most cases, this movement was sustained by leftist church representatives, participating of the theology of liberation movement. In the amazon region of Ecuador, what began as a movement against the intervention of the oil companies in Indian regions transformed into a cultural movement, that merged at a national dimension through the Confederación de las Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (Confeniae), which according to Albo, was the first Indian organization to adopt the term nation (Albo, X., 2004). In Bolivia, the Katarista movement that developed during the sixties and seventies, began as a peasant organization demanding land. This movement fused with other social movements in 1979 to found the Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia (Csutcb), that was crucial to assure the election of Evo Morales as the first Indian president of a majoritarian Indian country as Bolivia more than twenty years later. (Ibid.) Although these indigenous movements actively intervened against neo-liberal measures such as the signing of NAFTA between Mexico, the US and Canada, against selling gas to foreign companies and the price of water charged by private companies in Bolivia and the dollarization of the economy of Ecuador, the sense of these movements went beyond these socio-economic actions in order to orient itself towards the recognition of the right to be different without rejecting the larger national structure. The actions against neo-liberal measures were in a sense a window of opportunity to intervene in the social stage. This had different results: in the case of Mexico, the EZLN was a crucial catalyst of the democratic transition, although it did not directly intervene in the political scene and in fact marginalized itself from it; in the case of Ecuador it led to the defeat of the Indian movement, when it allied with the military that staged a coup against the corrupt and inefficient elected government of Bucaram. In the case of Bolivia, the participation in the so-called gas and water “wars” and the organization of a union of coca producers in the region of the Chaparé, that contested the settlements between the Bolivian and the U.S. governments to eradicate the coca plantations, set the stage for the election of its leader Evo Morales to the presidency of Bolivia in 2006. In all these cases the protest against the economic model went far beyond economics and instrumentalized them in order to affirm their indigenous identity and demand rights for these populations: socio-economic, cultural, political, and in some cases territorial (Le Bot, 2009). These movements question the ethnical limits of society where its institutions were established under the idea of a homogenous society or one that was on the path of becoming one. Against these collective actions that have given rise to massive and well organized movements in some countries of Latin America with a significant Indian population, in all the countries of the continent arose smaller, more atomized but very visible movements demanding equal rights for women, the right of divorce, to have control of their bodies, notably when it means to deciding to abort. These actions have been accompanied by others led by sexual minorities, demanding the right not to be discriminated upon, to be treated as equal, the right to marry, to adopt, etc. Finally, some ecological and alter globalization movements, that define alternative manners of modernization, the consumption of goods and services, of using the existing means of communication, technological advances and in general the power of knowledge, than the one that has been promoted up to now by governments and enterprises (Pleyers, 2010). All of these actions go beyond the limits of the existing institutions of society; they affirm the subject vis-à-vis the political, social and economic order, they pose an alternative conception of life that goes beyond the dominant ethics. Concluding remarks. The new social movements emerging after democratization and in the context of globalization diverge in important manners from those that existed before. In the sixties, seventies and early eighties, the dominant movement was labor and other socio-political actors that oriented their action towards concessions from the State and that were, in turn, in many cases coopted by the State or promoted by it. These interests were in general well organized and centralized, and acted both at the social and at the political level. Since the 80’s Latin America has seen the emergence of a great number of organizations (or associations) of civil society dedicated to tackle many of the problems and needs of different sectors of society caused by the retreat of the State. Many of these organizations were instrumentalized by the governments in order to apply their public policies more efficiently. Those of them that preserved their autonomy have led the quest for the recognition of rights. In effect, many civil society organizations dealing with privations and specific demands of different sectors of society, managed to transform their action into one claiming for rights. We have also seen a decline of these movements and the emergence of more grass roots, atomized social actors that demand rights and pose a different ethnical and ethical conception of society, rather than concessions from the dominant forces of society. Their demands are mostly social or cultural as they do not pretend political power or the overthrow of the State, they are “self-limited” according to Touraine and Arato (Arato, 2000). This is clearly the case of the indigenous movements, human rights, women rights, sexual minority rights, alter globalization movements, etc., that are demanding the right to be and act differently, the recognition of their subjective, cultural, ethnic, religious identity. From this basis will derive other economic, social and even political rights. Bibliography Abers, Rebecca Neaera, Inventing Local Democracy; Grassroots Politics in Brazil, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 2000, pp. 269. Arato, Andrew, Civil Society, Constitution, and Legitimacy, Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000, pp. 351. Arvitzer, Leonardo, “Sociedad civil, espacio público y poder local: un análisis del presupuesto participativo en Belo Horizonte y Porto Alegre”, in Evelina Dagnino (éd.), Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Brasil, México, Unicamp/Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2002. Aziz Nassif, Alberto et Jorge Alonso, « Votos, reglas y partidos », in Alberto Aziz et al., México al inicio del Siglo XX I: Democracia, ciudadanía y desarrollo, México, CIESAS-Porrua, 2003. Bensusan, Graciela. 2008. “Regulaciones laborales, calidad de los empleos, modelos de inspección: México en el contexto latinoamericano.” Cuaderno de la CEPAL. L-861. México: CEPAL-UN. Bizberg, Ilán, “La democracia vacía”, in Bizberg and Zapata, Op. Cit. ------. “The global economic crisis as disclosure of different types of capitalism”", Swiss Journal of Sociology / World Society Studies, vol. 37, núm. 2. Geneve. Seismo, 2011. pp. 321-329 . ----- , (with Bruno Théret) « Pourquoi le Brésil et non l’Argentine et encore moins le Mexique, peut-il être considéré comme un pays (ré)émergent ? Quelques éléments de réponse», Revue de la Régulation, Paris (in press). Bizberg, Ilan and Francisco Zapata, Los Grandes Problemas de México. no. 6. Los Movimientos Sociales, México, El Colegio de México, 2010. Bloj, Cristina, “Presunciones acerca de una ciudadanía indisciplinada: asambleas barriales en Argentina, in Mato, Daniel (coord.), Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de globalización, Caracas: FACES, Universidad Central de Venezuela, 2004, pp.133-150. http://www.globalcult.org.ve/pub/Rocky/Libro2/Bloj.pdf Bronstein, Arturo, “L’évolution sociale et les relations professionnelles en Amérique latine : Bilan et perspectives”, Revue internationale du Travail, Vol. 134, No. 2, 1995. Bronstein, Arturo, “La réforme de la législation du travail en Amérique Latine: Régime de garanties et exigence de flexibilité”, Revue internationale du Travail, Vol. 136, No. 1, printemps 1997, pp. 5-27. Chaves Teixeira, Ana Claudia, et. al., “La constitución de la sociedad civil en Brasil”, en Evelina Dagnino (coord.), Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Brasil, México, Unicamp-Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2002, pp. 21-74. De la Maza, Gonzalo, “Sociedad Civil y Democracia en Chile”, in Aldo Panfichi (éd.), Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2002, pp. 211-240. De Souza Keller, Wilma, ”Neocorporativismo y relações de trabalho: elementos para um debate sobre a experiêcia brasileira recente”, Boletim de Conjuntura: política social, No. 14, São Paulo, FUNDAP, 1994, pp. 31-40. Delamata, Gabriela. 2008. “Luchas sociales, gobierno y Estado durante la presidencia de Néstor Kirchner.” In Maria Regina Soares de Lima (Ed.), Desempenho de Governos Progressistea no Cone Sul: Agendas alternativas ao Neoliberalismo. Rio de Janeiro: Edicoes IUPERJ. Franceschelli, Ignacio y Lucas Ronconi, “Clientelism, workfare and the emergence of the piqueteros in Argentina”, LACEA, 2005. http://wwwtest.aup.edu/lacea2005/system/step2_php/papers/ronconi_ronc_000.pdf Garretón, Manuel Antonio et al, « Movimiento social, nuevas formas de hacer política y enclaves autoritarios. Los debates del Consejo Asesor para la Educacion en el gobierno de Michelle Bachelet en Chile”, Polis, no. 30, 2009. Goirand, Camille, « La démocratie participative au Brésil: les expériences de budgets municipaux participatifs », Cahiers du Gela-IS, no. 2, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2002. Held, David, Models of Democracy, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2006. Le Bot, Yvon, La Grande révolte indienne, Paris, Robert Laffont, 2009. Lindenboim, Javier, “The precariousness of Argentine Labor Relations in the 1990s”, Latin American Perspectives, No. 137, Vol. 31, No. 4, juillet 2004, pp. 21-31. Marques Pereira, Jaime and Bruno Théret. 2004.  “Mediaciones institucionales de regulación social y dinámicas macroeconómicas: los casos de Brasil y México.” In Carlos Alba and Ilán Bizberg (Eds.), Democracia y Globalización en México y Brasil. México: El Colegio de México. Murillo, María Victoria, “From populism to neoliberalism: labor unions and market reforms in Latin America”, en World Politics (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press), vol. 52, núm. 2, 2000, pp. 135-174. Novick, Marta, “Nuevas reglas de juego en Argentina, competitividad y actores sindicales”, in Enrique de la Garza (éd.), Los sindicatos frente a los procesos de transición política, Buenos Aires, CLACSO, 2001, pp. 25-46. Novick, Marta, Miguel Lengyel and Marianele Sarabia. 2009. De la protección laboral a la vulnerabilidad social. Reformas neoliberales en la Argentina. Revista Internacional del Trabajo, 128(3): 257–275. Oxhorn, Philip, “Where did all the Protesters go? Popular Mobilization and the Transition to Democracy in Chile”, Latin American Perspectives. Vol. 21 No. 4. Newbury Park, Sage, , Ca., 1994, Automne. Palomino, Héctor and David Trajtemberg. 2006. Una nueva dinámica de las relaciones laborales y la negociación colectiva en la Argentina. Revista de Trabajo, 2(3): 47–68. Palomino, Héctor, “Los sindicatos en la Argentina contemporánea”, Nueva Sociedad, no. 169, sept.-oct. 2000. Peruzzotti, Enrique, “Emergencia, desarrollo, crisis y reconstrucción de la sociedad civil argentina”, in Aldo Panfichi (éd.), Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2002, pp. 103-104. Pleyers, Geoffrey, “El altermundismo en Mexico. Actores, culturas pol´ticas y practicas contra el neoliberalismo”, in Bizberg and Zapata, Op. Cit. Radermacher, Reiner et Waldeli Melleiro, “El sindicalismo bajo el gobierno de Lula”, Nueva Sociedad, No. 211, sept.-oct. 2007. Raes, Florence, “Consolidation démocratique et médiation politique au Brésil”, en Cahiers du GELA-IS (Paris, L´Harmattan), núm. 1, 2001, pp. 129-162. Riethof, Marieke, “Changing Strategies of Brazilian Labor Movement, from opposition to participation”, in Latin American Perspectives, No. 139, Vol. 31, No. 6, novembre 2004. Risley, A.E., Creating Political Opportunities: Civil Society Organizations, Advocacy, and Public Influence in Argentina and Chile, (tesis de doctorado), Austin, Universidad de Texas, 2005. Saba, Roberto, “El movimiento de derechos humanos, las organizaciones de participación ciudadana y el proceso de construcción de la sociedad civil y el estado de derecho en Argentina”, en Aldo Panfichi (ed.), Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur, México-Lima, Fondo de Cultura Económica-Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2002. Silva, Eduardo, Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009. Smulovitz, Catalina, “Organizaciones que invocan derechos, sociedad civil y representación en la Argentina”, in Bernardo Sorj et Darcy de Oliveira, Sociedad civil y democracia en América Latina: crisis y reinvención de la política, Rio de Janeiro, Ediciones Centro Edelstein, 2007, pp. 13-62. Svampa, Maristella y Sebastian Pereyra, “La política de los movimientos piqueteros”, Revista da Sociedada Brasileira de Economia Política, Rio de JAneiro, Brasil, no. 15, december 2004. Touraine, Alain, La Production de la Société, Paris, Seuil, 1973. Velázquez García, Mario Alberto, “Los movimientos ambientales en México », in Bizberg and Zapata, Op. Cit. Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca, “Partisanship and Protest: The Politics of Workfare Distribution in Argentina”, en Latin American Research Review (LASA), vol. 41, núm. 3, 2006, pp. 122-147. Zapata, Francisco, “La cuestión democrática en la izquierda latinoamericana: del dilema izquierda-derecha al dilema democracia-autoritarismo”, manuscrito, El Colegio de México, 2008. Zermeño, Sergio, “La participación ciudadana bajo los gobiernos perredistas del Distrito federal (1997-2003)”, en Alicia Ziccardi (ed.), Participación ciudadana y políticas sociales en el ámbito local, IIS-UNAM, México, 2004, pp. 145-166. 26