Recent events in Brazil lead us to question what constitutes the difference between the Left and the Right these days. Until a short time ago, the point of differentiation between the Left and the Right was the concept of the State's relationship to the economy. The Left wanted state control; the Right defended the free market.

Today, in relation to this point, there is no difference. The Left evolved, came to understand the limits of the economy, assumed fiscal responsibility, perceived that the State cannot always consider the interests of the population, and that the private sector often has a dynamic, positive social role.

But the Left did not evolve in the sense of replacing its former Utopias with others. It became a prisoner of its evolution and identified with the Right.

The changes of the past few decades have created a separation between workers and the poor, setting in place a social apartation that often unites modern-sector workers and rich capitalists against the excluded poor. By representing the workers, the Left distanced itself from the excluded.

The Left has evolved, negating itself and identifying with the good side of the government-assistance Right. One year ago, heads of state met at the UN headquarters, called together by Brazilian President Lula and Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.

They agreed that the fight against poverty should begin with combating world hunger and that this would take place with economic growth and distribution of its fruits, in the form of government-assistance measures and financial contributions from the rich countries.

This will be a great humanitarian service but it will not effectively reduce social exclusion. Instead of calling for the distribution of the economy's products, something the Right also does, the Left should differentiate itself by presenting a social-inclusion strategy.

Initiate a struggle against poverty not thanks to economic growth but rather by means of public investments. Do in the 21st century what Europe did decades ago for its population: prioritize education and other social investments.

Go beyond what was inspired by John F. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress, which sought economic growth, to launch a new Global Social Marshall Plan, seeking to meet the needs of the entire world's poor population. The best mechanism would be the worldwide expansion of a program in the Bolsa-Escola model, created in Brazil, but applied more successfully in Mexico.

With a worldwide Bolsa-Escola, it would be possible to transfer income to families who send their children to school regularly. That income would immediately reduce the problem of hunger.

But the educational improvement would transform the families' reality; it would increase the demand for spaces in the schools and for instructional quality; and it would oblige the governments to increase their investments in education.

But no one is presenting a proposal like this one because, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Left has been ideologically imprisoned. It accepted the logic of distributing the products of the economic growth, while leaving behind the ethical commitment to inclusion. If the Left defers from initiating this debate, it will not be difficult for a recycled Right to fill that ideological void.

When politics creates a Left of hunger, people's thoughts begin to hunger for the Left. We need to take back our dreams and our commitment to the libertarian objectives of education, healthcare, employment, pensions, culture and all aspects of social issues. Renovate the parties of the Left so that they can, once in power, effectively reorient the future of the nation.

Cristovam Buarque has a Ph.D. in economics. He is a PDT senator for the Federal District and was Governor of the Federal District (1995-98) and Minister of Education (2003-04). You can visit his homepage - www.cristovam.com.br - and write to him at cristovam@senador.gov.br.

Translated from the Portuguese by Linda Jerome - LinJerome@cs.com.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites