“Hard liners” and “Soft Liners”
In an authoritarian regime there are two kinds of people having their feet stick to the power, the soft-liner and the hardliners both groups present different chemistry in an authoritarian regime. More specifically the authors of the book identify these two groups as “duros” hardliners and blandos as soft-liners. The duros or hardliners are the ones who still believe that continuation of the authoritarian regimes in some cases are possible by ignoring and rejecting democratic reforms. In an authoritative regime these hardliners are composed of various fictions and layers and cling to the idea of position of authoritarian for various purpose and reasons. Some adopt this position to maintain and keep their positions
…show more content…
But according to the authors the main nucleus of this fiction are likely to hold on to their undercover positions and once the transition toward democracy is started, this group will likely be the main source of the conspiracies and future coups by trying to eliminate the or tackle the transitions of authoritarian regimes into more liberalized and democratic regime. Shortly on can say hardliners are the ones who are just taken up in their own survival and long terms projects for the survival of an authoritarian regime by eliminating all forms of democracy. On the others hand, contrary to the hardliners the soft liners blandos are the one who are eager and keen to a soft process of democracy from an authoritarian system. Due to their increase awareness of system implantation toward democracy they are called soft liners. Soft liners in some case tolerate and keep their eyes blind on the arbitrary action of the populations. But as hardliners it should be said that among the soft liners the fractions varies, majority of the soft liners seek liberalization, some soft liners are in favor of the thorough liberalization toward democracy. But some blandos in order to keep their positions they are just in favor limited freedom and
Part I: “Consensus in Argentine Society and the Rise of Perón”. Chapter one, “ The Crisis of the Liberal Consensus” begins explaining the low participation of the Argentinean population in the government due to electoral fraudulence and intimidation. Then, he goes on to detailed how the democratic liberalism governmental system was threatened by the elites of Argentina because they fear the possible loss of their power from the new sectors that were rising. After, the author expressed that the
Derby Lauren, The Dictator's Seduction: Gender and State Spectacle during the Trujillo Regime, Callaloo 23.3. Summer 2000, pp. 1112-1146.
I intend to outline the background of the political circumstances that lead to the coup. This will include Guatemala, the US and the world scene at the time, when anti-communism contended with communism as state ideologies. I will contend that the coup was all but inevitable in the prevailing political climate of 1954. But that still doesn't make it right. We have been finding out for nearly half a century how wrong it was. Opinions have always varied with the positions of their adherents, but I believe there is one thing that can no longer be disputed: the CIA catalyzed a turn for the worse, even to the inhuman, for many Latin American governments by its actions in managing the Guatemalan coup. They provided the essential weapon for the modern national security state, the knowledge of how to organize an efficient apparatus of state repression and terror.
In 1930 a man named Rafael Leónidas Trujillo was elected, he was known for his dictatorship. During his Campaign he had it arranged with a secret police force called SIM “Servicio de Inteligencia Militar” (Military Intelligence Service) so that his opponent would get killed. In 1950, Trujillo tried to find reasons to put the three sisters “in their place”. Trujillo felt threatened by the sisters, not only did they oppose him secretly but publicly as well.
The Allies’ victory in WWII marked democracy’s triumph over dictatorship, and the consequences shook Latin America. Questioning why they should support the struggle for democracy in Europe and yet suffer the constraints of dictatorship at home, many Latin Americans rallied to democratize their own political structures. A group of prominent middle–class Brazilians opposed to the continuation of the Vargas dictatorship mused publicly, “If we fight against fascism at the side of the United Nations so that liberty and democracy may be restored to all people, certainly we are not asking too much in demanding for ourselves such rights and guarantees.” The times favored the democratic concepts professed by the middle class. A wave of freedom of speech, press, and assembly engulfed much of Latin America and bathed the middle class with satisfaction. New political parties emerged to represent broader segments of the population. Democracy, always a fragile plant anywhere, seemed ready to blossom throughout Latin America. Nowhere was this change more amply illustrated than in Guatemala, where Jorge Ubico ruled as dictator from 1931 until 1944. Ubico, a former minister of war, carried out unprecedented centralization of the state and repression of his opponents. Although he technically ended debt peonage, the 1934 vagrancy law required the carrying of identification cards and improved ...
"We are presently confronted by fundamental questions concerning the nature of order and authority in a traditional society, and these questions have been given added point by researches into the ideological transformations wrought by adaptation to growth and ex...
The historian Ronn Pineo wrote “Beginning in the 1980s nearly all of Latin America began to take part in a great experiment, the adoption of capitalist free market economic policies.” This great experiment began with the promotion of democracy and free market that promised a better future for Latin America. Neoliberalism, the economic ideology that promotes free-market capitalism, laid the foundation for many of the US military interventions and economic policies that caused a dramatic transformation of Latin America. This promise of a “democratic” government came from a policy initiative labeled as polyarchy. Polyarchy is “ a system in which a small group governs and mass participation in decision making is limited to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed by competing elites” (Lecture: Polyarchy and Resistance).
There are three essential forms of opposing the totalitarian system: covert passive resistance, overt non-violent protest, and armed struggle. The first form of activity results, in a way, from a combination of utilitarian calculating and axiological considerations. The oppositionists may cooperate with the régime and publicly countenance it, while at the same time they venture to take action in order to liberalize the system and take the edge off the dictatorship, whenever this is possible, i.e., not noticed by the authorities, legitimate, or profitable in view of the mildness of the punishment faced by the offenders. Both individuals and institutions may follow this pattern. Under the Communist rule in Eastern Europe, even persons holding publ...
Boykoff analysis is based on 979 articles from the year 1998-2007. Within those times, “Hugo Chavez had won three presidential elections” (Boykoff), yet newspapers called Hugo Chavez a dictator. A dictator is a ruler with absolute power. Mentioning that Chavez had won presidential elections, contradicts with the what newspaper report. Elections are won by the majority of the votes, which comes from the people not by a ruler. Boykoff representation of Chavez is the opposite of what newspaper represent, where Chavez is not a dictator rather a leader selected from his people. Boykoff states that the dictator frame was the most dominant frame amongst the other frames, with “53.4% of all articles framing Chavez as a dictator.” This representation of Chavez being a dictator not only occurred in newspapers, but also on national television. Oliver Stone directed the 2009 documentary film South Of The Border, where he tries to bring awareness to his audience, o...
In the novel 1984, George Orwell elaborates on the idea of an autocratic government. This novel describes Orwell’s views on the dark, twisted form of government that he believes will develop in future years. The culture he created for this story was the most horrifying, troubling place a person could reside. The goals of the Party consisted of keeping the citizens squared away and oblivious to the unethical actions taking place around them. This unrealistic society gave Orwell the opportunity to create a vision of what a future communist nation might resemble. The purpose of this work is believed to be informative to citizens of how the government impacts our way of thinking, living, and believing. Fear from the citizens is used as manipulation by the government; this means the government shapes the citizens that will not conform to their society. Throughout this writing, the author remains in a dark, cold mood; thus, creating the feeling of negativity and opposition to the government. Ethical appeal is revealed in this
A totalitarian government is place that no person should ever be forced to live in because this type of government controls almost every aspect of its citizens’ lives. The dictators controlling these kinds of government’s take away people’s basic human rights, brainwash kids into showing no loyalty towards their families, and imprison or execute all who might be a remote threat to their party. The government then controls the remaining population with the fear of being arrested by secret state police regardless if they have committed, or planned to commit, a crime. The leaders of these societies have no regard for the wellbeing of anybody but themselves, and once they come to power, it is usually too late to stop what happens next.
It was during the 1920’s to the 1940’s that totalitarian control over the state escalated into full dictatorships, with the wills of the people being manipulated into a set of beliefs that would promote the fascist state and “doctrines”.
Soyinka, Wole. “Every Dictator’s Nightmare.” The Arlington Reader: Contexts and Connections. 2nd ed. Ed. Lynn Z. Bloom and Louise Z. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2008. 475-80. Print.
Now days democracy has been establish in every Latin America country except Cuba, which is still a socialist state. It seemed that every other alternative form of government such as Marxism or Leninism has failed and been replaced by democracy. Furthermore it looks like people in Latin American really enjoy democracy and its’ benefits, as they also consider it to be the best form of government. After the failure of authoritarian leaders and the military intervene their lives, Latin American citizens wanted to change their system into a more fair and honest system, democracy. Democracy is usually defined as a system of honesty, equality, freedom of rights, though for Latin America countries it means gains, welfare and patronage. Latin American did not work the democratic system properly as it should be and different obstacles keep the system away from being consolidated. Democracy in Latin America still face serious problems in matters as grinding poverty, huge social gaps, corruption, drug dealing, inefficient governments and most importantly governments who promote and use military. The real question is why democracy actually failed even though democracy is what people want. Paraguay is a case of failure in transition democracy because of the corruption and other things that will be argued in this essay. Paraguay and Ecuador are considered to be the only countries that democratization did not achieve consolidation, in differ from Chilli and Central American.
Frank J. Goodnow’s “Politics and Administration,” infers that politics and administration cannot be divided and are in need of each other to function. However, politics are superior to administration. Goodnow’s further analyzes and identifies three forms of authorities that enforce and implements states will. The first responsibility of authority is to respect the right of the people when conflicts ascend between either private or public matters. The second is judicial authorities also referred to as executive authorities that ensure the needs and policies of the state are executed. The third authority also referred to as “administrative authorities,” focuses on the mechanical, scientific and business authorities pertaining to the government.