Latin American social movements have often been romanticized. Emiliano Zapata, Che Guevara, Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, the piqueteros and Zapatistas: all well publicized, if not necessarily well understood. There is a sense – not entirely misplaced – that Latin America has been a laboratory of social mobilization and struggles for a better life. While state politics change political complexion and their policies, the social movements are always there in the background and on the streets.

There have been many interpretations put forward to explain the seeming “rise and fall” of the progressive or left-of-centre governments in Latin America since 2000. There has been much talk about “tides” (pink or other colours), which supposedly ebb and flow according to the phases of the Moon, and of “cycles”, which also come and go according to some underlying mechanism, never fully explained. Concrete political analysis gives way to some sort of natural rhythm acting in mysterious ways.

What has also prevailed is a rigid analytical distinction between the various types of progressive movements/governments that is less than helpful, as it is based on binary oppositions. From a conservative perspective we have seen a persistent bid to distinguish between a “good” left – respectful of liberal democracy and not seeking radical change – and a “bad” left – “populist”, undemocratic and often articulating irresponsible objectives. Ironically, some left commentators mirror this binary scheme, positing a “hard” left that seeks radical change, builds socialism and confronts imperialism, and a “soft” left that respects liberal democracy too much, does not make ambitious promises and lives within the international rules of the game. Even at a quick glance, we can see these are impoverished schemas that do not help us understand the complex interplay of political and social struggles over the last 20 years.

In the chapters that follow, I will not assume any model along these lines. I will foreground, instead, concrete politics and not assume a position of exteriority that interprets, judges and corrects the actions of others. Against any schema that posits binary oppositions, we will see that politics is always complex and certainly cannot be analysed the way meteorologists analyse the tides around our coasts (and, even here, complexity rules).