Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy in central and south america
The role of government in social welfare policy
Democracy in central and south america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democracy in central and south america
This section will address the general trends occurring in the region and will discuss the relationship of the Latin American left to neoliberalism, dependency development, the consistency of the region regarding policies of the Left, economic performance, and resistance to U.S. hegemony.
Leftist governments of Latin America show evidence of the neoliberal trap. Neoliberalism can be defined as free-market economic policies enforced in reaction to the import substitution industrialization in Latin America (also known as the Washington Consensus) and include untampered market prices, fiscal discipline, exchange rates set by the market, privatization and trade liberalization with the ultimate goal of reducing government intervention in the economy
…show more content…
Though leftist governments in the region have sought to overturn neoliberal reforms by exchanging market oriented policies with ones allowing for state intervention of the economy, lingering effects of the neoliberal trap persist.3 Social democratic governments adhering to more orthodox policies have neglected to produce widespread access to welfare and, though slight declines in poverty have occurred, social programs often fail to undertake meaningful reductions in inequality.4 The most significant shortcomings of welfare are that these programs have not consolidated rights, and remain unaccompanied by policies to support structural change.5 In many cases, income is not sufficient enough to ensure access to health, housing, and education and simply pulling the impoverished masses into market dynamics is an inadequate strategy to true poverty alleviation if states do not offer sufficient social services; thus, numerous social programs of Latin America mimic neoliberal solutions which result in the financialization of poverty rather than a reduction in …show more content…
Democracy has taken hold in Latin America, yet discussion of economic issues tend to overshadow attention to strengthening and consolidating democracy.18 Without a renewed focus on democracy and human development, poor governance and poverty will outweigh any economic growth; as it is, Latin American economic and social inequality is among the highest globally while corruption dissuades international and domestic investors.19 Some consider the multiple protests in Latin America in response to corruption and the disenfranchisement of Indigenous rights and lands to be a manifestation of consolidated democracy in which the citizen are unafraid of voicing dissent, while others consider the protests a signal that the rights of minorities have gone unrepresented in governance and that the failure of Evo Morales to abdicate his power after his second term (the limit of terms allowed in Bolivia) and attempt to pass a referendum for an unprecedented fourth term are alarming signs that democracy has not been consolidated in the region.20 The recent rise of civil society organizations and human rights recognition signals progress as demands for increased transparency and accountability pressure governments to strengthen democratic
This paper will be exploring the book The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders. This book focuses upon the early 1800 to the 1900 and explores the development of South American political system as well expresses some issues that some Latino counties had with Europe and North America. Thus, Sanders focus is on how Latin America political system changes throughout this certain time and how does the surrounding countries have an effect as well on Latin political system. Therefore, the previous statement leads into some insight on what the thesis of the book is. Sanders thesis is, “Latin American’s believed they represented the future because they had adopted Republicanism and democracy while Europe was in the past dealing with monarchs
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
After gaining independence, Latin American countries had difficulty in how to govern the newly instated states. In the chaos, people took advantage of this and instated themselves as dictators. They had simply took the position from the Spanish that they tried to vanquish (class notes). The power structure remained and the people who fought for independence were largely ignored and continuously oppressed. These dictatorships had remained in power until very recently. Paraguay was finally freed from the dictatorship in 1989 (Chapter
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 ...
Peter H. Smith. , & , (2012). Democracy in Latin America. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.” (1) 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). It, however, was a sales pitch to continue Latin America’s subordinate position in to the global market. As a result, much of Latin America, by the late 1980 through the early 1990s, transitioned into this form of “democracy”. Consequently, Latin America suffered and still suffers today from underdevelopment, high levels of socioeconomic inequality, and immigration. Globalization of capital, off-shore production, and new technologies have created structural barriers and have
Bolivia was once a rich and prosperous country but is now one of the poorest nations in the world. The economy of Bolivia used to be rich in agriculture and mining but now searches to find something prosperous again. Privatization of certain companies has started in the country but was expelled when mass protests began. The companies’ prices are too high and the people used their culture and history to get rid of them. The Cochabamba protests of 2000 and the Bolivian gas referendum of 2004 are a couple of examples that show the power the people of Bolivia have over their own government.
Neoliberalism is a form of economic liberalism that emphasizes the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade, and relatively open markets. Neoliberals seek to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political/economic priorities of the world and are generally supporters of economic globalization. During the 1930s and the late 1970s most Latin American countries used the import substitution industrialization model to build industry and reduce dependency on imports from foreign countries. The result of the model in these c...
Populism has been part of Latin America history since early 1930. From Getulio Vargas in Brazil and Juan Peron in Argentina to Bolivian President Evo Morales and Ollanta Humala in Peru, South American leaders have used the power of the forgotten masses on several occasions against the elites promising radical changes and a better future for their supporters. Populism re-emerged in South America and other parts of Latin America in late 1990’s and early 2000s due to the economic decline and financial crises that affected the region in the late 1990s. After these events, the politics in the region took a “left-hand turn” (making reference to an increasing number leaders gaining political power from left-wing parties). One of the reasons why left parties started to gain power was due to the commodity booms and high demand for mining, oil and agricultural products. Populist leaders have the tendency to take over private sectors of the economy to increase the state’s revenue and redistribute the gains with the population. In addition, government crises are also significantly connected with a move to the left-wing politics. For example, the Argentine Great Crisis of
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The Idea of Latin America (pp. 1-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The Idea of Latin America (pp. 1-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
The neoliberal policies have benefited some people in generating great wealth for them, but controversially, the policies have failed to benefit the people who live in extreme poverty and those people are the most in need for financial support (Makwana, 2006). In the last 2 to 3 decades, the wealth disparity between nations as well as within nations has increased. Currently, one out of every 5 children in the United States is in a state of poverty, continual hunger, insecurity and lack of health care (MIT, 2000). This situation is becoming even more desperate. Between 1960 and 1980, the developing countries’ economic growth was 3.2 percent. Then it dropped significantly to 0.7 percent between 1980 and 2000, and this is the period when neolibe...
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.