Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The pinochet era in chile
The pinochet era in chile
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The pinochet era in chile
The Rise of Democracy in Chile
General Augusto Pinochet gained power during a blood-filled coup during 1973 when his militaristic, authoritarian rule began. He continued to rule in a brutal regime of repression and human rights abuse until 1989 when his regime was lifted in favor of a more democratic system. Since 1990, Chile seems to be on the right track to re-establishing a once strong democracy that will continue to strengthen in the future. The three factors that have increased the likelihood of this success are the tripartite party system, institutionalization of the party system, and reduction of the ideological polarization that gripped the country. Finally, some of the elements of change were present to ensure a successful push to instate democratic principles.
Chile’s tripartite system has been most of the strongest factors in the success of its democracy. Before the military coup of Pinochet in 1973, the tripartite system was seen as the anchor of the Chile’s democracy, which was arguably seen as the strongest in Latin America. When Pinochet took over, these systems remained dormant, but they were not dismantled because they did not serve as a major obstacle to the democratic demise in 1973. When Pinochet’s rule was lifted, this party system reemerged with little change from the pre-Pinochet era. Within this system, there is a clear right, left, and center which all are able to reign in a solid proportion of votes. After Pinochet’s rule, these parties have led to the increased representation for the citizens, and the increased competition between the political parties. These two characteristics lie at the core of a good democratic foundation. Furthermore, the fact that the party system was still in e...
... middle of paper ...
...future. In addition, the elements for a proper change in democracy were present in that the political parties were still intact, military reduced severity of their actions, and the country made it clear that it did not want socialism to reoccur. Furthermore, the institutionalization of political parties, demise of ideology based government, and the tripartite system have provided an infrastructure within Chile that should be strong enough to allow democracy to continue into the future. Many argue that the right will have to learn to adjust their ideological base if the democracy is to survive, but it will surely happen in that the continued pressure from the other parties will force them to make the eventual change. This will lead to a stronger democracy in Chile as the country seeks to emerge from the immediate post-Pinochet era into the twenty-first century.
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
The relationship between the working class and Allende is definitely a difficult to understand because it's hard to understand how a political party is supported by the same group who contributes to their downfall. The working class was not the only reason Allende lost power, but was a heavy contributor. The working class seemed to only use Allende as a reason to enforce reform, and Allende used the working class as a group of supporters. The two groups could only agree on the fact that Chile needed serious social change, and Allende was the best shot they had.
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.
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.
The first turning point in hope for the Chilean road to socialism was that of the election of Salvador Allende as president, which gave many Yarur workers the belief that a ‘workers government’ was on their side. “For the first time, a self-proclaimed ‘workers government’ ruled Chile, dominated by the Left and Pledged to socialist revolution” (Winn, 53). Allende’s role as president gave identity to the Yarur workers that they were being represented and because of so, their struggles of working in the factory conditions set by Amador Yarur would come to an end. This identification with Allende as being represented by there own voice became the first stepping-stone to the demand for socialization of the factory. “The election of a ‘Popular Government’ was a signal...
In the 1960s America, the pope of democratic faith, preached to the world about the evils of communism. When Marxist Salvador Allende lost by three percent in the Chilean election of 1958, the United States decided that the next election of 1964, could not be left in the hands of democracy. The United States began to work to stop Allende from becoming president. They went so far as to create projects to help train and organize so-called anti-communists among the peasants, laborers, students, and the media. Despite their efforts, in 1970 Salvador Allende was elected president through plurality. He became the first Marxist in the world to gain power in a free democratic election. Now you might ask, why would the United States be so interested in the politics of a third world country, furthermore the beliefs of one man. After all a person can only do so much, right?
Unlike any other Latin American country, since the nineteenth century, Chile has had a traditional electoral democracy. With its socialist revolutionary leader, Salvador Allende, creating the electoral coalition called “Popular Unity,” Allende won the 1970 presidential election of Chile. His presidency produced a radicalization among workers, but later his controlled insurrection was defeated by the uncontrollable revolution started by Chilean citizens. The military later overthrew Allende in 1973 and Augusto Pinochet assumed power. Patricio Guzman, a Chilean film director made a film of the depiction of student's reactions to his screening of The Battle of Chile, a documentary called Chile, Obstinate Memory. Even after decades of this regime, the student movement in Chile is going steady and this film compares and contrasts with it in various factors.
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.
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...
Who has the greater legitimacy to represent the people? The president or the legislatures. In comparing the Chilean 1970 Presidential Election to 1979 Spanish appointment of Adolfo Suirez as Prime Minister, Linz notes “Allende received a six-year mandate for controlling the government even with much less than a majority of the popular vote, while Suirez, with a plurality of roughly the same size, found it necessary to work with other parties to sustain a minority government”. Linz supports the fusion of the executive and legislative branches because it forces a sense of cooperation. He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
From the Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) to the National Action Party (PAN) to the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD), Mexico has had many political parties in the past and present but many have questioned the fact that how has PRI manage to stay in power and maintain its place as the dominant party in the past. In this short research paper I am going to be talking about Partido Revolucionario Institutional (PRI) and Mexico. I want to discuss the history of PRI and how it came about during and after the Mexican Revolution. I will also touch upon the party’s weaknesses and precursors that might have signaled its loss in the elections of 2000.
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.
The presidencies of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro are key factors in the lead to the Venezuelan conflict, as their policies and domineering style, have caused great controversy and unrest over the nation. From 1999 until 2013, President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias ruled Venezuela. Leader of the Fifth Republic Movement from 1999 until 2007 when it merged with other parties to form the United Socialist Party of Venezuela which he led until his death in 2013. Nicolas Maduro Moro, alongside Chavez, was Venezuela’s vice president; prior to his death, Chavez proclaimed Maduro as his successor, leading to Maduro’s presidency inheritance in 2013 after Chavez’s death. From the beginning of his presidency, Chavez proposed and ratified democratic socialist economic policies. These included land reforms, redistribution of wealth and democratization of economic activity. Chavez’s claimed these new policies were aimed at improving economic, social and cultural conditions. In 2010 a report showed successes in literacy, healthcare, poverty and ec...
The sustained economic development in many of the most powerful countries in the world has sparked the topic of democratization in developing countries. Cuba is a communist country that is under autocratic rule. Although many countries harbor an eventual trigger for social and economic reform, the country of Cuba is plagued by commonplace conditions that generate a persistent autocracy. Some of the factors that have maintained autocracy in Cuba include the use of revenue maximizing tax rate, the stationary bandit’s capacity for violence, and forces that dissolve a recently established democracy.
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.