Is Democracy Threatened by Social Unrest and the Rise of Latin America’s Left? What many have been calling “The Pink Tide” in Latin America has caused some changes in Latin America that some expert deem are good for democracy while others say it is a threat to democracy. The rise of the left has been one of the main points of contention between people from different political spectrums both in Latin America, the United States and elsewhere. One thing is for sure, this “pink tide” has ha a ripple effect throughout Latin America in recent years and it has caused some polarization between different political spectrums. Step 4) Carlos Alberto Montaner makes several core points as to why social unrest and the rise of the left in Latin America will be the demise of Latin America. He starts his argument by naming leaders of the leftist movement in several Latin American countries. He then, goes on to say that in these leftists’ governments, parliaments are discredited, political prestige has lost its value, and the judicial branch and police are unjust and corrupt. His first core point is that Latin America did not follow in the footsteps of Eastern European countries and former USSR countries which, had become successful after the Berlin Wall fell. By this, he means that Latin America did not distance themselves from populist ways of thinking and old ways of thinking. In other words, Latin America did not follow the path of globalization. Those countries that were successful followed in the footsteps capitalism. Because of this, these Eastern European countries are much wealthier than their Latin American counterparts. Several Latin American governments worked to incorporate their countries into the global market; privatize sta... ... middle of paper ... ...r the World Bank. These leftist governments were tired of having their country be governed by the U.S and multinationals thought right-wing governments who only sought to advance politically and monetarily. I support leftist governments because they support social mobility and not just mobility of the rich. Finally, I support the leftist movement because we in [Latin America] should determine our own destiny. If socialism does not work, we shall see our legacy in the history books; flaws and all. But, even if we do fail at it, we should be able to learn from our OWN mistakes committed and dictated by OUR governments, not by multinational companies and the United States interests. Yes, I admit there are flaws in the way that these countries have chose to govern (Castro and Chavez are prime examples), but at least they know they are dictating their own future.
Mexican Lives is a rare piece of literature that accounts for the human struggle of an underdeveloped nation, which is kept impoverished in order to create wealth for that of another nation, the United States. The reader is shown that the act of globalization and inclusion in the world’s economies, more directly the United States, is not always beneficial to all parties involved. The data and interviews, which Hellman has put forth for her readers, contain some aspect of negativity that has impacted their lives by their nation’s choice to intertwine their economy with that of the United States. Therefore it can only be concluded that the entering into world markets, that of Mexico into the United States, does not always bring on positive outcomes. Thus, one sees that Mexico has become this wasteland of economic excrement; as a result it has become inherently reliant on the United States.
...l power in Latin American. The United States didn’t engage in classic direct imperialism which is colonialism, but engage in indirect imperialism which focused on controlling and intervening in the economic and social institutions of Latin America. The United States only cared for their economic well-being. They didn’t care the suffering the people of Latin America were going through. The United States only cared that their economic interests were thriving in Latin America. The policies the United States government undertook clearly show this. The policies of Roosevelt’s corollary and Taft’s dollar diplomacy only mention the United States’ interests. There is nothing about the Latin American’s interests and well-being. Many people suffered because of the United States’ policy that only supported and protected the rich and powerful corporations.
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.
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.
In fact, both contributed decisively to the nascence and global spread of a sort of Enlightenment that traversed, polish, languages and, neighborhood, in the process inventing new ideas of liberty, opinion of human brotherhood based on empathy, and truly universal conceptions of equality that became a point of departure for sociable, cultural and political experimentation. They have both developed a culture all their own, but look for inspiration to one another more than they do elsewhere, at least since the onset onrush of the Monroe Doctrine, and in view of a constant exchange of goods, populations and even territories. Those same commutations are the reservoir of their stark differences. The United States of United States of America is rich, while Latin America is comparatively poor. America fights war elsewhere in the world. Latin America does not. Look closely, however, and some of these distinctions between America and Latin America begin to blur. In fact, as America's
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.
Throughout the 20th century Latin America has been a virtual laboratory of development strategies. The principal objective was to discover the solution for the economic puzzle of the region. When attempting to explain underdevelopment, the interaction between the state and the market has been at the core of several theorists. There have been different economic approaches implemented to tackle this issue. Each of them would differ in the degree of importance of external economic relations in their national economies, as well as, the degree of intervention of the government. In the 1950s, responding to Prebisch’s Dependency Theory Latin American governments implemented Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Which was a strategy focused
According to this, Latin America should a well-developed region after the third wave of democracy, its population should be prospering with all of the benefits that come from democracies, such as high levels of education, health, quality of life, and life expectancy. But that is not the case. Does democracy help countries develop? It can be argued that democracy does not appear to "cause" growth, more so it creates a demand for democratic participation (Shin 1994). Democracy is neither a "quick fix" for development problems, nor a substitute for
The two essays, Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America, by Terry Karl, and Constitutional Choices for New Democracies, by Arend Lijphart, illustrate the ways in which a democratic government can be implemented in developing countries. Karl and Lijphart are in agreement over the definition of democracy, depicted by their focus on the electoral system as a vital component of a democratic government. However, Karl’s argument ultimately weakens Lijphart’s by rebuking the idea of implementing a procedural electoral system, promoting the significance of context and a “path dependent” approach when a country transitions into a democratic government.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews
Because these new elites were among the dominant groups in Latin America they began to push this same capitalist globalization structure to there respective countries as they gained control over its capitalist institution in which they then entered into Neoliberism. You can critically see the striking resemblance of the social structure in Latin America to that of the United States (US) where there is now a class order and elites are now reconstructing the political and social economy to become main players in the capitalistic globalization world. Latin America, in a sense, had transformed itself to be the market geared towards accumulation for the global economy to appeal to transnational corporations as a mutually advantageous means to grow their economy. Transnational supermarkets and retail outlets successfully increased from 10% - 60% in their percentage of the Latin American retail market and by the 21st century Wal-Mart became Mexico’s largest private employer, controlling over half of all supermarket sales (Robinson
Populism refers to the political philosophy that pits the downtrodden masses against the apathetic ruling elite. La Moral refers to the conformity to the code of conduct set by employers. Modernization is the transformation from a traditional, rural society that primarily relies on agriculture to an urban, industrialized society. The emergence and flourishing of modern society has been inextricably linked with the development of industries, infrastructure and cities. Sociologists and political analysts agree that “urbanization and industrialization were the main causes of populism in Latin America.” (Conniff and Roberts 6)
By this definition, a democracy is strengthened when control over government decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials, elected officials are chosen in frequent and fair elections, when citizens have the right to vote and can express themself without fear of retaliation from the state and citizens have the right to form independent associations including independent political parties and groups. Political parties are weakened when any or all of these elements are blocked or restricted. To make this argument I will examine how the PRI and PAN in Mexico illustrate why scholars state these political parties have helped strengthen democracy by providing stability to the country and programmatic alternatives to the once one party dominated country. (Schmitter & Karl). I will also examine what scholars have to say about the role of P...
To start, globalization in Latin America during the periods covered in our class was an extremely important factor. From the time of its discovery, Latin America was seen as a land of many opportunities for the Europeans. With promises of gold,
...ing the social construction of the “sense of ownership” of public institutions can lead us to the understanding of civil society’s sense of entitlement accountability. We have seen, for instance, how reviving civil society’s sense of entitlement to the public wealth have driven leaders in and out of power. Most of the South American leftist regimes depend on this “sense” of ownership/entitlement to win election and to stay in power. However, few of these countries show serious interest in institutionalizing the citizen-government relationship, especially if it threatens their stay in government. Further research, nonetheless, should help us understand how remittance, language and expectation of leaving the country contribute to the creation of a passive/inactive civil society. Researchers of both corruption and democratic theory should consider these approaches.