The Significance of Historical Path Dependence in Shaping Institutions and Politics

1. POSC 3315 W12-2

2. History • Why history matters • Path dependence • What it means • How it works • “Off-path” changes • History shapes but doesn’t determine

3. Think of hyperexecutives– Drake • Once establishedcontinued if worked • Applies to other institutions • Institutions – what they are • Durable patterns of interactions • Formal ones have legal basis + physical presence + table of organization • Not so with informal ones

4. Want to know • How they started • How they developed • How they keep going • How they change • Have a historical trajectory or path

5. Another example • Fragment theory • Reconquest: What:? • Civil + religious war: Christians v. Muslims • In Spain, 8th to 15th C.; ends in 13th in Portugal • Christians won

7. Significance • Defining issue in Spanish history • Less so in Portugal • Affected • Organization of state and society • Outlook: values and beliefs • Role of religion • Thinking about colonizing the Americas

8. Was about capturing land and people • Putting non-Xtians to work for conquerers • Military model • Administrative procedures • Encomienda and Repartimiento • Values • Role of religion • Proper work for Christian gentlemen

9. Set pattern for 250+ yrs of colonial administration • Changed somewhat in mid-18th C. • Portugal was somewhat different • Less a national project: more foreign knights • Ended earlier  Portugal turns to exploration and trade

10. Colonial politics • Not like British NA • We had legislatures, representative govt, from outset • Appointed governor + elected legislature • Franchise varied • Local govts

11. Spanish and Portuguese • No representative institutions • Local administrations (cabilidos) weaker than in BNA • At independence, 1776, BNA had • Experience with self-govt + autochthonous political class used to governing • Ibero-America did not

12. What resulted • In NA, USA, eventual civil war, 1861-65 • But also lots of compromises and attempts to find peaceful solutions • In NA, CDA, post-1867, keep bumping along, finding compromises • In LA: most countries enter extended periods of instability

13. Why? • British North America: CDA & USA • When: over a century later (1607) • Different econ, pol & social contexts + different metro institutions • Circumstances: religious freedom/dissent • British politics in 17th and 18th centuries v. Spanish or Portuguese in 15th and 16thcenturies

14. Other examples: Nicaragua • General shape of history • As colony • Independence, 1821, to 1858 • Nearly constant conflict and civil war. Why? • 1858-1893: Peace, order and good govt in the Switzerland of Central America • 1893-1909: dictatorship • 1909-1934: Civil War, then insurgency; • USMC occupation, 1912-1933

15. 1936-79: Dictatorship; 2 generations of Somozas • 1979-90: Revolutionary government, FSLN • Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional • 1990-2000: conservative elected govts • 2000: FSLN-Liberal Pact • 2006-present: FSLN again as elected govt • Hegemonic tendencies

16. How can we describe Nica’s historic political path? • What should we look for in the future, assuming no more big, off-path changes?

17. Cuba • A bit of history • Spanish colony until 1898 • Then US semi-colony due to Platt Amendment, 1902-1933 • Although there were elections since 1901, few were free – 1940 for one • Main form of government dictatorial

18. Dominant theme is Cuban politics anti-imperialism • First Spanish • Then American • History, pre-1959  • External domination + dictatorship • Reasons for Castro’s revolution

19. Look more at Castro later • For now, reflect on Cuba’s political trajectory • Colony to semi-colony to foreign dominated to independent but dependent on foreign assistance to now • Where is it likely to go?

20. Readings • Both • Role of institutions • Ask if personal rule = institutionalized • Role of structural factors • Role of contextual/conjunctural factors • How they use history, especially national histories

21. Drake • His objective: Show the democratic side of LA history • Lots of experiments, few successes • But didn’t lag far behind historic dems in experiments (or Central/Southern Europe in practice, pre-WWII) • Faced same problem as many others: reconcile political equality w/soc-ec inequality

22. Sees two broad types • Protected democracy • Popular • Neither wanted political equality + procedures – NA/GB/WE model • Either could be paternalistic or authoritarian • Popular likely personalistic+ saw democracy = building solidarity & bringing equality • Not about forms & processes

23. Focus is institutions + civil liberties • Why this matters • Debate over how to define democracy • Procedural; input • Results; output • His partially bridges the two • Historical – tracing trajectories – how we got where we are

24. To note: causes of democracy • The nature of the elites & lack of elite consensus • Subordinate classes: only mentions labour; • In CDA/USA farmers drove early democratization • Oligarchic competition • What this means • Why it matters: fairly common pattern

25. Lewis • Doesn’t define authoritarianism • Currently • Any non-democratic regime – Broad • What this connotes • Govt unaccountable; weak no rule of law • Govt can’t be changed by peaceful means • Govt likely to rely on forceful coercion • Govern the people; not govt by the people

26. PL emphasizes personal rule • Often w/charismatic leader • V. Important in LA; as now in Africa; lost a bit I mid-east • His ch. 1 lists some causes of authoritarian rule in Latin America • Overdetermined

27. His list: • undemocratic culture—criollo dominance; Independence: lots of violence, lots of armed men; post-independence breakdown of order: politics changed, not society • Caudillos • Highly personalized rule • Not too attentive to party labels/ideas

28. How they ruled • Got stuff to distribute to followers; violent political bosses • No institutionalization. Why? • But you can only steal so much • Eventually need stable govt to get taxes for patronage • But this ends caudillo rule and demands new skills