The main integration mechanisms in Latin America show signs of exhaustion and a growing inability to convert political consensus into concrete measures, in a region increasingly fragmented by the rise of bilateralism, the influence of external powers and the ideological changes of its governments.
The weakening of regional multilateralism is expressed in the paralysis of forums such as Mercosur, the Andean Community (CAN) or the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which increasingly function as spaces for political dialogue than as instruments capable of executing decisions and sustaining policies over time, according to analysts.
This lack of operability left Latin America without a regional center of gravity that articulates common responses to shared crises such as Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua, migration or the advance of organized crime.
Added to this is political fragmentation marked by short electoral cycles, high internal polarization and conflicting government projects, which prevent the construction of long-term regional agendas.
Each change of administration redefines foreign policy and undoes what was advanced by the previous government, which turns the blocs into reflections of the political situation rather than strategic integration tools, the analysts add.
An exhausted regionalism
The wear and tear of regional organizations is also reflected in their disconnection from social demands. For Leandro Querido, executive director of the NGO Electoral Transparency, integration spaces “have been transformed into heavy bureaucracies, without any management or problem-solving capacity.”
“They are institutions that have not had a deep impact on the reality of Latin America, on the reality of the different societies,” said Querido, pointing out that today “citizens see these spaces as a waste of money, as the possibility of paying some politicians some type of retirement.”
This perception, he added, reflects a democratic fatigue that erodes the legitimacy of traditional regionalism.
Mercosur, despite having had more ambitious economic aspirations, faces structural paralysis crossed by trade divergences, ideological tensions and prolonged discussions without concrete results. The CAN subsists as a technical mechanism, but without political leadership or a common strategic vision, while Celac operates fundamentally as a declarative forum, without a permanent secretariat, stable financing or crisis resolution capacity.
For Querido, Celac “has a very marked ideological bias if it is in a crisis, we could say, terminal.”
You may be interested in: The ideological map of Latin America after the triumph of the far-right Kast in Chile
Bilateralism and new alignments
The decline of regional multilateralism occurs in parallel with a shift in the axis of power towards external actors. China has established itself as a key trade partner and investor in infrastructure, energy and mining, while the US alternates periods of disinterest with defensive responses in trade, technology and immigration matters.
This, added to the absence of strong regional institutions, led Latin American countries to increasingly negotiate bilaterally with the great powers, deepening fragmentation.
This scenario is reinforced by a political shift in several countries and by the influence of Donald Trump’s return to power in the United States.
“The perhaps most accentuated feature that we see since Trump’s victory is that there are now right-wing governments that understand this concept of the ideological battle,” said Querido, which marks a change in the way in which these leaderships seek to articulate themselves at the regional level.
Unlike previous stages, this new right attempts to build transnational political networks. “Before, the right in Latin America acted with few levels of regional ties,” explained Querido, who believes that now “they have copied the model of hemispheric political accumulation that the left had at the time in 2000.”
While the large blocs lose centrality, more limited and pragmatic alliances emerge in bilateral cooperation in security and migration, energy or infrastructure axes between neighboring countries and agreements aimed at concrete results.
This trend also responds to a citizenry that distrusts regional organizations and prioritizes internal problems such as inflation, insecurity or corruption.
In this context of fragmentation, some organizations seek to reposition themselves. Querido highlighted the Organization of American States (OAS), in the midst of a change of management and, in his opinion, “it will take a very important role” in the face of eventual democratic transitions in countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua or Cuba.
The balance of the last year is that of a region with less cohesion and capacity for collective influence, more exposed to the dynamics of competition between powers and with a regional multilateralism that no longer functions as an organizing axis, but as a reflection of an integration in crisis.
With information from EFE
Do you use Facebook more? Leave us a like for thisar informed
