4 – Latin American politics
Contemporary Latin America experiences profound transformations, mainly manifested
in a distinctly leftward political drift and general economic malaise. The region’s
political history has been characterised by governments of virtually every type, but has
been a movement toward democratic civilian rule, whose sustainability sometimes
remains in question. The implementation of painful economic reforms has severely
undermined support for political parties, legislatures, and elected leaders and mounting
cynicism and frustration has triggered a shift to the left in politics, leading to the
emergence of populist leaders that eroded the democratic system again. The question
then becomes, can democracy survive in the region or is it just another phase in the
historical alternation of democratic and authoritarian impulses.
The three decades after independence were characterised by economic stagnation and
political turmoil. Directly after independence the criollos simply replaced the
peninsulares in their power-position and left the remaining system intact many
colonial institutions and practices endured. Furthermore the wars had left the country
devastated and had caused the strong, unifying central authority to fall away (apart for
the monarchy of Brazil and some islands of the Caribbean). The most problematic
challenge now was determining how the newly independent countries should be
governed. The absence of a democratic tradition made promoting democracy almost
impossible. The result was a rivalry between caudillos and local elite. In some cases,
virtual anarchy gave rise to national caudillos, who came to dominate their respective
countries in its initial stages of independen. Examples: Antonio Lopez in Mexico, who
started a war with U.S.A, and Juan Manuel de Rosas, who reigned with strong-arm rule
and oppression and personalismo (the dominance of the individual. Caudillo rule
provided some sort of order, but hold back the creation of permanent institutions.
Around the mid-1800s some sort of a modicum order had been established. Amond the
elite emerged two political sides: the Conservatives and Liberals, who apart from
subjects as free trade, central or federal authority and separation church and state,
differed little. The competition for power, however was intense and often violent.
Because of the Industrial Revolution in Western Europe and North America, foreign
investment (mostly British) stimulated the expansion of national industries and
economic infrastructure, all of which served to integrate LA into the global market as an
exporter of raw materials and agricultural products. As international demand increased
Latin American leaders sought to establish governmental systems capable of providing
the stability needed to sustain the export model of development. In certain countries
(Chile, Brazil, Argentina) the conservative oligarchy consolidated an exclusionary
system of rule designed to preserve its interests ( a system that would fail under
pressure of the changes of modernisation). Elsewhere, there appeared Caudillo
leadership, who became known as ‘order and progress dictators’, as they did offer the
stability the global market and investors demanded. The most succesfull of these
rehimes was that of Mexico’s Diaz, who ruled from 1876 to 1910.
The case of Mexico
After Spain left, Mexico endured decades of political strife and economic stagnation as a
result between rivalry between conservatives and Liberals. After the main man of the
liberals died, conservative Diaz seized power in 1876. His policy rewarded his
supporters while the army and police harshly supressed all opponents, bringing the
,country under central government control. As a result of the created order, many
investors came, spurring Mexico’s economic growth. Under Diaz, the country gained
unprecedented political stability and industrial and infrastructural development.
However Critics charged Diaz which selling the country to foreign investors, as mainly
European and US investors reaped enourmous profits at the expense of the campesinos
(peasants). As a result of economic development, middle class became more demanding,
but Diaz ignored them. What began as a middle-class disaffection soon evolved into a
mass rebellion: the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1917. It began when Madero called
the masses to rebel after Diaz tried to extend his term beyond constitutional limits
(continuismo). But even after Diaz resignated in 1911, the conflict was not over yet.
Madero won the election, but his plans proved to be far from revolutionary. He set his
sights on a more open democratic system, which concerned the elite, while ignoring the
promised land reform for the peasants. The results was a new uprising overthrowing
Madero in 1913. After him came Huerta, who miserably failed as he faced two rebellions
and the opposition of the U.S. government. Eventually Carranza came to power and
produced the 1917 constitution, which limited the power of the church, restricted
foreign corporations, granted rights and benefits to labour and called for agrarian
reform. Even though Carranza didn’t like his own constitution and tried to go against it
in 1920, which resulted in his ouster, he had laid the groundwork for the
institutionalization of a new political system. One of the next presidents established the
National Revolutionary Party, designed to integrate all groups into the Political arena.
The result was that the government could elect any who would threaten its control as
fellow member, therefore demolishing opposition.
Parallel to the order-and-progress dictatorship of Diaz, a number of similar regimes
emerged in a number of Carribean Culture countries. They were not established by
individual caudillo leaders, but as part of a series of direct military interventions and
occupations by the United States.
Change in the 1930s
The weaknesses of export-led development and the elite’s hold on power were evident
in the early 1900s. The overreliance on raw materials exports and industrial imports
made Latin American economies vulnerable to market fluctuations and increasingly
dependent on the importation of manufactured goods and technology. Because of the
1930s Great Depression, governments fell through the region (elections, coups, or
revolts). Leaders of more economically advanced countries realised change was
necessary and turned to turned to a new model of economic development: import
substitution industrializations (IZI). IZI focused on the domestic production of industrial
and manufactured goods that had previously been imported, creating jobs and reducing
dependence.
Rapid economic growth resulted and sparked profound changes in the social structure.
The middle class expanded and the urban working class emerged on the political area,
strongly unified in unions and political parties. Modernisation also generated pressure
for change in the traditional elitist political order. Traditional patterns were usually
modified to reflect the new conditions, incorporating the new elite and middle classes.
However, it became increasingly difficult to ignore or repress workers whose awareness
and expectations had risen dramatically and who were mobilised within an union
,movement (Marxism). A variety of strategies was used to incorporate the labour
movement in the government. In Mexico you had the weird NRP system, while in Brazil
and Argentina populist leaders emerged who ruled hard but tried to give the movement
their will. In the smaller countries, the use of repression marginalised the labour
movement for a time (army + police), but the regimes faced mounting discontent and
demands for change as the pace of modernisation accelerated. A low level of
institutionalisation and the regimes’ unwillingness to accommodate demands for reform
set stage for the most turbulent period in Latin American history.
Revolution in the 1950s
By the 1950s, industrialisation had stimulated change and the social structure grew
more complex. Instead of a two-class social hierarchy, there was now a more
differentiated structure with the emergence of urban-based groups. This emergence of
new power contenders created problems as conflict among groups with divergent
interests escalated. Societies became so polarised and disputes among groups so
contentious that it was difficult for anyone to govern effectively, which led to a
“revolution of rising expectations”. The level of popular discontent rose, which let to
numerous revolts, guerrilla insurgencies, and ultimately military interference. For
example in Bolivia with the NRM, who focussed on economic development and social
injustice. In Guatemala, Arevalo came to power. His land + labour reforms and his
promotion of unions and political parties, highly dissatisfied exploiting U.S investor
companies. So the CIA sponsored an invasion to destabilize the government. The US
legacy became a brutal military-dominated regime that violated human rights. The
result was a civil war for decades between paramilitary organisations, death squads and
security forces against left wing guerrilla forces (who formed the Guatemalan National
Revolutionary Union).
The case of cuba
Whereas the revolutions in Boliva and Guatemala failed, Cuba’s revolutionary leadership
braught complete social transformations. After independence of Spain, Cuban politics
had been defined by a pattern of strongman rule and military intervention. But Cuba has
slowly developed anyhow. In the 50s Cuba did not appear very susceptible to revolution
under the rule of Batista. It was pretty developed and had very close ties to its trading
partner the U.S.A.. This development paid the price of a growing inequality though. But
Batista’s rule became harsher and the close ties to the U.S. dissatisfied nationalist, wo
started the July movement as opposition under the lead of Castro. The guerrilla
movement made the regime more and more oppressive and caused disorder, which in
turn dissatisfied the U.S.A.. Barista realised he lost his support and fled into exile. His
exile left a vacuum of power for Castro, who was committed to a radical transformation
of Cuban society and an independence from US. In the years following the political
system was restricted around the personalistic, centralised caudillo leadership of Fidel
and eventually transformed into an authoritarian single party state. By the late 1960s
the country’s dependent capitalist economy has been dismantled and nationalized and
the ties with the U.S.A. were discarded as much as possible. Castro feared a Guatemalan
style response and found support at the Soviets, who became a new source of
technology and a market for Cuban Export. Castro’s fears were realised when Kennedy
sent an invasion in 1961. The invasion failed miserable and sent Cuba even further into
the embrace of the Soviet bloc. Castro declared himself Marxistlenist and became a
valuable soviet ally. Castro desired to ‘export the revolution’ and delivered troops to the
,SU, which in turn offered protection, and economic and technical assistance. Cuba did
get dependent on SU (castro simply replaced dependency from USA to SU), but Cuban
masses benefited immensely from the socioeconomic reforms designed to address the
glaring inequalities and dire poverty that had ruled under Batista. But then came
Gorbachov who with his policy of glasnost and economic reforms, including the end of
Cuba’s financial support. A few years late the collapse of communist regimes deprived
Cuba its primary trading partners, its source of economic and technical assistance and
its longtime benefactor. Yet still Cuba’s revolutionary government has managed to
endure. It has now focussed on the turist industry and foreign investments, but the next
generation of Cubans face bleak prospects and lack the previous generations emotional
attactment with Castro. The government seems to survive through its relations with
other countries, but it’s future will depend on its ability to revive the economy.
The Cuban revolution has had its’s legacies. So has the U.S. policy since 1959 primarily
been focussed on preventing a second cuba. Under Kennedy LA economies were
stimulate and developed to prevent a revolution. After his assignation the U.S. has taken
on a more harsher measure by just simply sending military assistance to break up the
guerrilla. Sometimes through the CIA, sometimes providing technical assistance,
economic aid etc.
The rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism
As societies became increasingly polarised, civilian leaders were caught between
powerful opposing forces: those on the left, frustrated by the slow pace of reform and
demanding radical change, and those on the right, seeking to forestall change. Both sides
were willing to utilise force to achieve their objectives, leading to an escalation in
violence and a forceful response from national militaries. The 1960s-1980s were a
period of democratic breakdown and military rule. Multiple factors contributed to
the wave of military coups, such as 1. the military’s perception that civilian leaders were
incapable of containing rising levels of violence, 2. economic stagnation and lack of
development, 3. the confidence of many officers of their ability to perverse order as a
result of their military education and finally, actions taken by civilian leaders to mobilise
the masses, who’s elite opposition then begged the military to intervine.
The colonial period had left a strong military tradition, and since independence
praetorianism (a form of militarism in which the armed forced consider their
corporate interests to include control of the state) had been the rule rather than the
exception. However, the form of government switched from caudillo rule to new
bureaucratic authoritarian regimes led by the military and advised by civilian. Their
ideology was that Latin America lacked the capital and technology that needed to get the
economies going again and foreign investors would be the answer. Therefore military
regimes focussed on ensuring order and the creation of an environment favourable to
commercial interest.
The traditional politics were seen as the key factor preventing this order, as civilian
leaders were considered inefficient, corrupt and absorbed in self-interest. As a result
policy focussed on banning political parties and labour movements, keeping wages
down and eliminating any opposition to create a nice atmosphere for investors.
,The cases of brazil Argentina and Chile,
Threatened by proposed reforms, the Brazilian elite and middleclass supported the
military to take power. For a short period of time, the resulting stability seemed
beneficial as the Brazilian economy experienced unprecedented growth. Brazil program
however became highly dependent on imported sources of energy which gave a problem
when the OPEC increased oil prices in 1973. Brazil borrowed money to continue
importing oil to promote its industry growth, expecting its economy to economy
providing positive figures. But after the second oil crisis, export markets contracted and
the interests rates of the loan braught Brazil into huge depth. Furthermore, Brazil
experienced huge inequality, as most money went to foreign investors. Initially the
regime treated the opposition with hard measures, but as opposition grew, the military
allow an abertura (a gradual political opening) that facilitated the transition to civilian
rule.
Argentina has failed to eradicate peronismo (strong dictatorship) multiple times. Even
when the military stepped it, people were still attracted to Juan Perón. Peron gets back
into power. Peron Dies military decides that its their turn and they theyre gonna
finish this once and for all dirty war, will still failing to make anything better. So
military tries to divert attention to their invasion of the British Falkland islands. Military
fails again military gives up.
In chile we see something more comparable with Brazi. In a period of economic and
social crisis, the Chilean armed forces-with the backing of the upper and middle classes
and a degree of US support-overthrew the dicatator and puts General Pinochet in power.
With the assistance of the Chicago-boys, the regime adopted a free market approach.
Initially, it makes the situation worse, but eventually leads to steady growth. However,
the regime’s dismal human rights record gains international condemnation, that
eventually forces Pinochet to give up.
Military disengagement from power can be attributed to three factors. (1) The
ruthlessness with which military regimes suppressed internal opposition generated
substantial criticism and condemnation, (2) the general economic performance was
poor, and (3) the poor performance did damage to the military’s reputation causing
them to lose support.
Democratisation
In the early 90s most military regimes relinquished as a result of protests or US-led
overthrow and democratic elected civilian governments emerged again. The return to
elected civilian rule was welcomed enthusiastically, but came precisely at the time
national economies were experiencing great difficulties. There was a profound
socioeconomic crisis which seriously hindered the efforts of civilian leaders to
stimulate development and meet popular expectations. National governments were
severely undermined by their inability to maintain order and faced a host of
challenges undermining public confidence and eroding legitimacy of the
democratic system, such as the explosion of narcotics trafficking and guerrilla
insurgencies (e.g. the FARC in Colombia and Sendero Luminoso in Peru). Furthermore
most countries were heavily indebted. During the oil price increases by the OPEC the
military governments has continued to push forward into developing industry and had
paid the raising costs with loans. The expected growth needed to repay the loans
however, never came as the global market fell into a recessions. The interest rates rose
sharply, while the demand for LA export declined. The International community
,responded to the crisis of the 1980s by renegotiating debts and extending additional
loans. But it was of little use. Democratic governments had the difficult task to balance
depth payments and stimulating economic growth, while investors were unwilling to
invest and demand for export was low. Eventually the LA countries had to negotiate
with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which forced the LA countries to adopt a
neoliberal agenda as this was part of the deal of the Washington Consensus.
The structural adjustment programs were designed to stabilise Latin American
economies by reducing the rate of inflation and included privatising state-owned firms,
reducing state subsidies and public-sector spending and employment, and offering
incentives to attract foreign investment. It was a huge blow for the masses and in most
cases governments were actually unable to implement the programs fully because of
public outrage (IMF riots). Democratic leaders faced huge challenges, although nowhere
democracy collapsed.
The current leftist wave is a reaction to the imposition of neoliberal reforms. However,
there is significant variation among the leftists governments that prevail today. While all
have remained open to foreign trade, and have preserved the basic institutions of
electoral democracy, policy differences have led to a division between the moderate
left and the contestatory (or radical) left. In Brazil and Chile neoliberal market
reforms proved effective and stimulated growth. The party system stabilized and
became relatively well-institutionalized following the transition from military rule. As a
result the Workers party (PT) and the socialist party (PS) were deradicalized. In Bolivia
and Venezuela however, neoliberal market reforms were ineffective and discredited
established arties and their leaders. The decline of the centre-left created an opening for
more radical leftist movements, and within this context movements led by charismatic,
populist leaders were able to gain power (e.g. Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez).
One of the most notable differences between contestatory and moderate regimes lies in
their distinctive response to neoliberalism. Centre-left governments as Brazil and Chile
have accepted the basic framework of the neoliberal agenda and maintained the market-
oriented economic programs inherited from their predecessors. Regimes as in Bolivia
and Venezuela have sought to effect more immediate transformation of their societies
and have been able to reverse a number of market reforms implemented by their
predecessors and substantially increase government spending (e.g. nationalisation and
state-owned firms).
In general, the current wave of leftist governments has an impressive record of
generating economic growth, however, they are vulnerable to inflation, Dutch Disease,
and market fluctuations, which raises serious questions about the sustainability of their
economic success.
The most significant distinction has to do with the quality of democracy and the
potential for democratic consolidation. Governments in Bolivia and Venezuela have
enjoyed higher levels of mass satisfaction and have effectively integrated traditionally
marginalised groups. Ironically, in those countries there is widespread support for
democratic values and principles. The moderate left has performed well in terms of
maintaining its commitment to liberal democracy and has operated within relatively
stable political systems, pursuing gradual change through negotiation and compromise
with the opposition.
,The emergence of populist leaders raises questions about the process of
democratisation in Latin America as the personalization and centralisation has
marginalised democratic institutions. The tradition of powerful executives is deeply
ingrained in society and democracy must be deepened to transform the narrow, elitist
rule that has long characterised the region.
The existence of formal democratic bodies alone does not necessarily guarantee
representative government. There has been considerable diversity among parties in
terms of ideological orientations, the structure of party systems, and the relative
importance of parties in their respective systems. Parties have become increasingly
pragmatic in the aftermath of the Cold War and have in many cases served as electoral
vehicles for personalistic leaders. Political parties are an integral part of democratic
societies, and the prospects for democratic consolidation are tied to the effectiveness of
parties and the extent to which party systems have become institutionalised.
Democracy is very much on trial in Latin America.
, 5 – The Military
Over time Latin American armed forces have adapted to changing political and social
circumstances. The political role, the social prestige, and the privileges of the armed
forces were an outgrowth of the Iberian tradition. Spain and its military were literally
looking for new worlds to conquer and military forces were required to extend
European control against indigenous peoples. The wars of independence modified
rather than displaced the existing military traditions. After independence, caudillo-led
military forces were both part of the solution and part of the problem. In short, the
nineteenth-century military inherited many characteristics from the periods of imperial
rule and wars for independence. Latin American countries continued to be plagued with
problems of external and internal security that could not be addressed adequately, and
thus sought to reorganise their forces. They looked to Europe and started modernising,
and for that professionalization was needed. Professionalization provided an
additional basis for asserting military over politics and the military became an
institutional actor in its own right. Dissatisfied with the politics and policies of
conservative cliques, military men applied pressure for political reform in the 1920s and
1930s. Professionalization also triggered ambiguity. It changed the class composition
of the officer corps and gave professional officers a mentality that distinguished them
from other classes. It reinforced the principle of discipline. Professionalism meant
loyalty to the nation above all else. Politics was something to be avoided, in theory. In
practice, however, this was out of harmony with the Latin American tradition and with
what military officers themselves often saw as overriding national needs. Political coups
were widely accepted and almost normal means of transferring power and ensuring a
more general stability.
With accelerated social and economic change, the military eventually moved from a
moderating to a ruling role under the rubric of “new professionalism”. The newly
awakened working class became an important political actor and the lower classes could
no longer be ignored. Maintaining stability could not be achieved by simply buying off
and incorporating relatively small and organised groups into the power structure. After
the Cuban Revolution, Latin America seemed on the brink of violent left-wing
revolution. A military response came in the form of the national security doctrine,
making the primary enemy the citizens of a country itself (mainly if they were
communist). The military’s new role became nation building and civic action in areas
where governmental and private sector efforts were inadequate. Military governments
assumed the mission of reforming the underlying social, economic, and political
structure that had been the source of instability. These new-style military governments
went through three phases: (1) the stabilisation phase, in which governments took steps
to control strikes and to curb inflation through stern fiscal measures; (2) the
constructing new institutions phase, to strengthen the executive branch of government
and to make patriotism and duty the dominant ideologies; and (3) the transition to
civilian successors phase, which usually didn’t go very smoothly.
Nowadays the central question is: Can the armed forces be made democratic instead and
their tendencies toward political intervention contained and eroded? Making this
happen involves two related tasks: engendering apolitical professionalism and
protecting human rights. Apolitical professionalism grants the armed forces a
significant degree of autonomy, but it is limited to matters of organisation and tactics
whereas decisions concerning missions and overall funding are the province of civilian
