Summary Of Costa Ric The Breakdown Of Democracy

The Breakdown of Democracy: A Comparative Analysis of Chile and Costa Rica

On September 11, 1973, within a matter of hours, the once proud and historic democracy of Chile gave way to a coup d’état orchestrated by the most senior and trusted leaders of the State's military. As explained by Pamela Constable and Arturo Valenzuela in A Nation of Enemies, “The coup shattered … the myth that Chile's 150 year old civilian constitutional government was invincible”(Constable, p.20).

Looking for answers to the various questions about how a State, with such an austere culture of civility and history of democratic rule (Constable, p.20), could devolve into a military dictatorship it helps to compare this State with another one that has a similar culture. For this purpose, I will compare the circumstances and results of the breakdown of Chilean democracy with Costa Rica's ability to remain democratic in the face

of analogous circumstances. The outcome, I intend to show is that the existence of a strong military, coupled with the strong ideological tendencies of its leadership, was the exact ingredient needed to tip the scales, and create a breakdown in democracy. To make a comparison of the States of Chile and Costa Rica, I will use the method of difference to show that in both cases, the outcomes were completely different; yet all the causes, except for one, were the same.
The causes that were the same in both States, and the justification to use Costa Rica in this comparison, can be seen in the similarity between the two States' histories. Both States were considered strong democracies following the shift of world powers after World War II. In addition, both countries were considered “Third World Countries” under the accepted terminology used to define the geopolitical composition of the landscape following World War II.
The first cause to compare is the economic instability that threatened both countries. In the case of Costa Rica this instability was during the “late 1970s” (Background, p.2). In 1978 the Costa Rican “national debt had more than tripled” and inflation had increased from 50 percent to 100 percent by 1982 (Background, p.2). In comparison, Chile also had numerous occasions of economic instability. For this comparison the late 1960s, until the coup d’état of 1973, were marked with a grim economic State. By the time the junta took power in Chile the “inflation rate was 900 percent”, and the government deficit was equivalent to “24.7 percent of the gross domestic product” (Constable, p.167). In both cases the cause is the same: poor economic policies, and global economic stress.
The next cause to compare is the United States' intervention into both Chilean and Costa Rican affairs.

In the case of Costa Rica, at numerous times during the 20th century the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in operations to counter the threat of communism from neighboring countries, and provided support for Contra rebels who were engaged in a civil war with neighboring Nicaragua (Background, p.2). The CIA also interfered with the affairs of Chile to counter the threat of communism.

During the 1964 Chilean presidential campaign, the CIA “funneled a huge amount of aid” to back a Democratic presidential candidate (Constable, p.22). As was the case with the CIA involvement in Costa Rica, the underlying principle was to combat the spread of communist ideology.

In the case of Costa Rica, the support given to the Contras by the CIA generated a great deal of polarization between citizens who believed that the United States should not be involved in their affairs, and those citizens that thought the State should do more to combat communism (Background,

p.2).
Comparably, in the CIA involvement in Chile, the plan to back the presidential campaign in 1964 backfired. Although the person whom the CIA wanted to be elected was, it turned out that instead of countering the communist ideology, President Frei advocated a compromise between capitalism and Marxism (Constable, p.23). The effects of this led to a cascade of events that culminated in the election of a socialist president by 1970 (Constable, p.23). This in return led to increased polarization between citizens of Chile, as Allende won the presidency by receiving a slim 36 percent of the vote in a “three-way race” (Constable, p.23).
Probably the most important cause, and surely the one that made the difference between the cases of Chile and Costa Rica, was the fact that Chile had a standing military force, while Costa Rica did not. In the case of Costa Rica, it did experience a coup d’état, much like Chile, prior to the democratic elections of 1948 (Background, p.2). The difference is that just prior to the 1948 election the government junta, that was in power, “abolished the Costa Rican military”; Even now, Costa Rica does not have a standing military (Background, p.2).
In contrast, Chile had a particularly strong and proud military heritage. The Chilean government recognized the need for “an effective fighting force” after capturing territory during the 1879 war between Peru and Bolivia (Constable, p.41). After receiving proper training and being modernized, with help from the Prussians, the Chilean military's role of “subordination to civilian authority” became clouded (Constable, p.41). By 1924 this culminated in Chile's democratically elected president resigning, and a military junta being placed in power for four months (Constable, p.41).
Again in 1931, the military had to intervene in Chilean politics until “fully competitive elections were restored in 1932” (Constable, p.41). Finally, in 1973, these clouded lines between military and civilian authority were forever shattered with the complete breakdown of the democratic government, and the subsequent installment of a dictatorship under Pinochet.
Within the comparison of Costa Rica and Chile, the existence of a strong military highlights the cause of democratic breakdown. I am comparatively confident that if the decision had not been made to abolish the standing military of Costa Rica prior to the 1948 democratic election, that just like Chile, Costa Rica would have fallen victim to more attempts of a military takeover. At the same time it is important to make a claim as to the effects of specific ideologies within the leadership of Chile and Costa Rica, and how they can be compared or contrasted. In the scope of answering the question on leadership ideologies, I also want to note how these leadership characteristics helped polarize citizens, as in the case of Chile, or helped to bring them together, as in the case of Costa Rica.
Looking at Chile, from a historical point of view, you could already see the citizens getting further and further away from each other with the election of Allende with only a “36 percent plurality” (Constable, p.23). In this context, he was not really voted into the presidency by a majority. In addition, Allende pushed forward a “platform of revolutionary change” (Constable, p.23). It can be implied at this point that by pushing forward an agenda that did not have popular support, the result would be resistance and polarization. Specifically in the case of the military budget, where a good portion of the needed money for social programs would surely come from.
As a counter-position to the Chilean example, the same thing could be said of Costa Rica. During the CIAs involvement in the States' affairs, there was polarization that took effect within the Costa Rican citizenry (Background, p.2). In fact, there was even talk that the country should reinstate a standing military force (Background, p.2). The support given to the Contras generated very strong debate in Costa Rica, Some citizens thought that there was not enough being done to combat communism (Background, p.2). Other citizens were very adamant about not wanting the United States involved in any State affairs (Background, p.2). In this case, the issue was resolved by electing a moderate President, Oscar Arias, in 1986; “Arias reasserted Costa Rica's national independence, and strongly affirmed neutrality” (Background, p.2).
As can be indicated in the comparison between Chile and Costa Rica, there are independent variable causes that underscore that the outcome, in those variables, and for both States, was the same. The single and dependent variable, the existence of a strong military, coupled with the strong ideological tendencies of its leadership, was the exact ingredient needed to tip the scales, and create a breakdown in democracy.
In conclusion, it is important to appreciate that there exists other comparisons to both States that could equally explore both the differences in outcome, and perhaps other social, political, and regional intricacies, that could be seen to contrast in both States. These variables could include such things as: Religion, proximity to other States with competing ideologies, strength of the political parties in the countries, public support of particular political ideologies, and the actual makeup of the governmental institutions. It is reasonable to say that, although a few comparisons have been made in the cases between Chile and Costa Rica, this is not an exhaustive comparison.