Major Periods in Latin American Politics

1. Major Periods in Latin American Politics • The politics of periodization: Sometimes helpful, sometimes it makes you miss things (cultural vs. structural history) • Some common divisions worth thinking about: • The colonial period (1500s – 1800) • The independence era (1800s-1830s) • The age of caudillos, conservatives & state building (1830s to 1880s) • The era of progress, liberalism, & neo-imperialism (1880s to 1910s) • The beginning of mass politics & populism… or in Wiarda’s view: Modernity (1910s to 1930s)

2. Why independence (1804-24) after three centuries? How did the US (1776), French (1789), Haitian (1804) and failed Mexican (1810) “revolutions” impact Latin American elite thinking on separation? A fun counter factual: What kind of “revolution” would the US have had if it occurred bw 1807 - 1825…? How and why did the elite (creoles and peninsulares) split? Why didn’t the Creoles split earlier? • How did changes in Spain—the Bourbon reforms (1713), followed by lousy monarchial (King Charles IV) rule, and then poor war performance against Britain (1790s)—impact life in the colonies for creoles? • Why did Spain enlarge the role of creoles in local militias in the decades preceding independence (especially in Rio de la Plata)? What impact did this have? • The unexpected triggers of independence: What role did Napoleon’s occupation of (1807) and then removal from (1814) the Iberian peninsula play in independence across new Spain? What was diff. about Brazil’s pathway to independence?

3. How were LA’s wars of separation different from US? • How revolutionary—or counterrevolutionary—was the struggle for separation in both regions? Was Haiti (1804) the regional model? How about Mexico’s Miguel Hildago (1810)? • What was the motivation for every day people to get involved in elite wars? How did the creoles secure independence without sparking a real revolution? LA nativism (I prefer nationalism) vs. US’s liberalism (which led to a slow motion rev) • How did the level of violence compare? US: 7k KIA, 63k Disease; Ven. Alone : 300k KIA, 700kciv and Mex: 300-500K (>25% pop) • How coordinated were the independence mvts? (US = Continental Army, Dec. of Ind. and Articles of Confed; LA = series of revolts that coalesce) • How were the stakes different for the people fighting in the two conflicts (state boundaries, post conflict career options in civil society/business/pol opportunities)? • Who were the key emergent leaders from conflict: How “Latin America’s George Washington”—Simon Bolivar—vary from the real thing? • Who fought, and how did the struggle change social relations (upward social mobility), especially through the military? • How was Brazil’s post-rev transition different? Sort of US-like…

4. What emerged from independence? The age of caudillos (1820s-1850s) Was there a dramatic restructuring of the social hierarchy? Had a revolution really occurred? Would profound change emerge over the long-term like in the US? • No, no, and no. How did the US end up having more revolutionary change than you would have expected? Why didn’t that happen in Latin America? What did the “conservative” emergent political institutions look like? • Very little change in the power structure: Church, landed elite, + army replaced the peninsulares/crown (No triumph of liberalism like in the US post war settlement • They largely copied US institutions but “small” differences were critical: • Why did US politicians, but not LA pols know how to behave? • Property and literacy restrictions on voting • Unlimited executive degree power and no “enumeration” clause (Amend 10) • Special privileges were retained for landowners and the church (Amend 1) • The army as a fourth branch of government (Amend 2, Congress & war) Why did the seeds of “democracy” (vs. republicanism) take root in the US, but not so in Lat Am? • Geography: the concentrated nature of the economy and boundary conflicts • The missing ingredients: Elite ambivalence towards enlightenment ideas, no civil society except for the Church, and no previous experience with democracy

5. Why did LA finally begin to modernize? (1850s-1980s) • What do you call this period (s)?: The age of progress, age of oligarchy, age of neoimperialism (it’s called all of these in different LA pol. textbooks) • Ideas matter. Fortunately, liberalism continued to be advocated during the post indep. period, even if it didn’t penetrate the masses the way it did in the US. The high tide of conservatism was in the 1850s. • While good at resolving key issues (state borders are pretty much set by the 1880s), why weren’t the conservatives actually interested in “modernizing” Latin America? How would economic growth with structural change threatened their power base… (think about the US South). Why weren’t the liberals very democratic (by comparison, were our founders all that interested in democracy)? • What role did the industrial revolution (esp. after 1850s) and the increased invest. of the Britain and then the US (and disruptive technologies) play in reshaping the balance between liberals (“progressive” urban elites) and conservatives (rural elites) in Latin America? • How democratic did Latin America become as it finally began to grow in the 1850s to the early 1900s)? (Not very: Three patterns define the early attempts to grow and manage mass politics): Modernizing tyrants, closed elite oligarchies (why elections), or US intervention and “neo-colonialism)

6. 20th C. Latin America Why did WW1 (and Russia’s revolution) change everything… 14 real revolutions in the region in the 20s and 30s, and it became clear that the pueblo/povo had to enter political life The era of corporatism, state capitalism, and hints of fascism (1930s-40s) • What is “corporatism”? How does it differ from “pluralism” or just permitting labor to organize freely? • What is state capitalism (versus free market capitalism, or socialism, or socialism, or communism—which is really command socialism—or democratic socialism? • Why is state capitalism pursued by many late developers? What was the ISI approach to development and how does it differ from most of today’s most successful state capitalist economies? The era of populism , clientelism, and failed democracy(1950s-1960s) • Why wasn’t Latin America ready for democracy when the military finally gave it a go? Institutions, elite agreement and behavior, global politics, mass behavior and culture • Who got left out with Lat Am’s early democracies? Why are populism, patronage and clientelism bad? (Incidentally, how well does America with respect to democratic inclusiveness when compared to other democracies?) The era of bureaucratic authoritarianism (1970s-1980s) And finally the “third wave” of democracy consumes Latin American (1980s-present)

7. 20th C. Latin America, cont. Military rule and bureaucratic authoritarianism (1960s-1980s) • The US and anti-communism (National Security Doctrine)An example: comparing Mexico’s nationalization (1940s) to what happened elsewhere after Guatemala and Cuba • Why did the military take over (the allure of anti-politics, snowballing?, US interference?, Because elites asked them to)? • How successful were they? How violent were they? Neo-liberal democracy (1990s) • Why did Latin American democratize?: Snow-balling, the fall of the Soviet model, the ironic success of many military regimes in crushing the left and imposing economic success, the professionalization of the military , & changes in the Catholic church • Why did Latin America finally turn to free markets? For the same reason everyone else did. • Did their politics and economies stabilize? Latin America’s “new” leftist turn (2000s) • Why did the region turning to the left? And how far did it really go? • Three lefts?: Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela • Why back to the right now? Brazil, Argentina, Honduras (but Mexico?)