The Factors That Prompted Democratisation in Argentina
The Constitution of 1853 gave the vote to all native‑born males,
irrelevant of literacy levels or ownership of property, and since this
turning point in its history, the Argentine Republic, or Argentina,
has had a precarious and temperamental relationship with democracy.
Argentina has flirted with many differing systems of government from
the end of the Second World War, involving personalities ranging from
General Juan Perón, the 'saviour of the working class,' to the
oppressive and power‑hungry generals of the late 1970s junta, before
seeing its democratic aspirations finally realised in the form of Raul
Alfonsin, a human rights lawyer who was elected following the
implosion of the stratocracy, after the Falklands War of 1982. Between
1955 and 1983 political instability reached critical levels, and
Argentina experienced eighteen presidents in only twenty-eight years.
Not one civilian government stayed in power for its
constitutionally-defined term of six years without having its power
interrupted by the armed forces.
The transition towards democracy started officially in 1983 when the
military held elections, but really started after General Galtieri
took power in a palace coup two years previously. In many senses, the
fate of the rulers was already cast when the invasion of the Falkland
Islands was launched on April 2nd. This essay will investigate what
had brought the military to this point where they relinquished power
in light of the increasing dissatisfaction and mobilisation of the
middle and lower classes.
The military has had a pivotal role in Argentine soci...
... middle of paper ...
...ntina 1976-1981, Adolfo Canitrot, cited
in Skidmore & Smith
[10] George Phillip, The Military Authoritarianism in South America-
Brazil Chile Uruguay and Argentina, Political Studies Volume XXXII
number 1 March 1984 (Guildford, UK: 1984)
[11] Redacción 1980:65, cited in Munck
[12] Phillip: 1984
[13] Confederatión General del Trabajo
[14] Jimmy Burns, The Land that lost its heroes: How Argentina lost
the Falklands War, (London: Bloomsbury 2002)
[15] David Rock, Argentina 1516-1987 - From Spanish Colonization [sic]
to the Falklands War and Alfonsin, (London: I B Taurus & Co Ltd 1987)
[16] Walter Little, The Falklands Affair: A review of the literature,
Political Studies Volume XXXII number 2 June 1984 (Guildford, UK:
1984)
[17] George Orwell, after the Second World War. Taken from Burns 2002
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
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
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.
The Yarur textile factory played an important role in Chilean politics, and was the central role for the uprisings and downfalls in Chilean history. Its first key component was that it represented an economic empire based of paper and cloth that used these resources to gain political power through the aspect of having wealth. The second element of the Yarur factory that gave its importance in Chilean politics was that it represented a monopoly of Chile’s political capital. In Weavers of Revolution, Peter Winn depicts the relationship from a “revolution from above” and “revolution from below” and how the workers of the Yarur textile factory faced an on-going struggle between the working class and the government. Winn focuses his analysis of the Chilean road to socialism around the Yarur textile factory because it is through the modernization and changes of political, economic, and industrial policies that ultimately led to the workers movement to bring about a revolution.
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 ...
After the revolution of 1943 Juan Perón shared control of the Argentinean government. Under Pedro Ramirez, Perón held three cabinet positions. With that he saw an opportunity. He did many reform programs and won a lot of the support of labor unio...
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
Eventually, Jorqe Ubico was replaced with Juan Jose Arevalo under democratic due process in 1944. Arevalo was “unlike his predecessors, and for that matter his successors… a civilian intellectual who had spent most of his adult life teaching at the University of Tucuman in Argentina. His publications on the psychology of development and the concept of social integration were well known throughout Latin American academic circles.” Arevalo’s political viewpoint was clearly influenced by the concept of social integration, arguing that “democracy was a social, not an individual, system, and it was the government's responsibility to prevent particular interests from becoming obstacles to the needs and progress of society as a whole.” Of course, some might find this viewpoint aligns itself with socialist principles, dangerously close to communism in the eyes of the United States. Arevalo repeatedly pointed out that he was not a Marxist, however, believing in liberating nature of spiritual socialism, one that “protected personal interests without producing selfish antagonisms.”
Jorge Videla was the leader of the military-run government. At the time, it was very easy for Videla to seize power because of the highly unstable condition that Argentina was in, and had been in for decades. In September of 1955 all three branches of the military revolted and forced the president, Juan Perón, into exile. Eleven years later, in 1966, a new leader, Juan Carlos Ongania, imposed the military rule again only to have the former president, Perón, return in 1973, and ...
All throughout the 20th century we can observe the marked presence of totalitarian regimes and governments in Latin America. Countries like Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic all suffered under the merciless rule of dictators and military leaders. Yet the latter country, the Dominican Republic, experienced a unique variation of these popular dictatorships, one that in the eyes of the world of those times was great, but in the eyes of the Dominicans, was nothing short of deadly.
By the fall of 1981, the Argentinean government under the leadership of General Galtieri and the military junta was experiencing a significant decrease of power. Economical...
The rise of illiberal democracy is about how democracy for some countries has become illiberal democracy. Free and fair elections have become the majority and so what happens is the majority gains power and the citizen’s natural rights are completely abuse and ignore. Zakaria mentions that “Leaders in these countries have argued that they need the authority to break down feudalism, split entrenched coalitions, override vested interests, and bring order to chaotic societies” ( Zakaria 32). Illiberal democracy is on the rise is growing fast especially in the third world countries where leaders feel having more power would actually aid in changing its countries into a more liberal democracy. Today more than half of the countries in the world are illiberal democracies. Illiberalism is nowhere near going away it’s actually a mixed of democracy and illiberalism. So what happening is the majority are electing these dictators into office which are going as extreme as restrictions on speech, assembly and etc. Zakaria believed that in order to truly have a liberal democracy they should be strong base for checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals and the separation of church and state. The truth is that an illiberal democracy doesn’t cater to all races, to which really cause more problems. Zakaria also mentions to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism. In contrast to the Western and East Asian paths, during the last two decades in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia dictatorship with little black ground in “Constitutional liberalism have given way to democracy.( Zakaria 28)”. Most countries today are in face democratic, but actually have s...
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.
Throughout the history of mankind, almost every major event has been affected by the type of authority involved. The ancient Egyptians were oppressed by an absolute ruler and saved by the hope of freedom. Both World War I and World War II were majorly affected by the political and personal ideals. The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were fueled by extremist rage against the “evil” American capitalist and pro-democracy beliefs. The factor that decides the level of democracy or authoritarianism in a country is the average education level of its citizens. More specifically, the less educated the citizens are, the more authoritarian the government will be. As they are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum, France and North Korea can show through their history and current events that education is the pivotal foundation as to how authoritarian or democratic a country is.
Third world countries became the perfect battleground for cold war proxy battles during the early 1940’s to late 1990’s. United States wanted to flex its political muscle and try to curtail the spread of Soviet Communism in the developing nations. Most of the nations in developed world had already made their political and socio-economic stand regarding the form of governance and leadership pursued. Underdeveloped nations in Asia, Latin America and Africa were still vulnerable and easily influenced in terms of ideologies and political direction. Most nations in Latin America like Chile were recovering from colonialism and thus logistic, economic and political aid from powerful nations to propel their economies which made it easy for Americans and Russians to act as their “saviors’”. The quest for global dominance had intensified between United States and USSR and the shift was focused to developing nations like Chile. Both Americans and Russians used different mechanisms to enhance their propaganda and support the regimes which were friendly to them and used any means necessary to topple hostile regimes. CIA used covert operations in Chile and most of the Latin nations to plant their puppet leaders in order to safeguard their foreign policy interests and maintain dominance. Military coups and social unrests were planned, orchestrated and executed with the assistance of CIA. The research paper tries to critical analyze the impact of the cold war on Chile and influence of United States.