The BackdropLatin America as we know it today is the result of centuries of convergence of the peoples and cultures of Asia, Europe, and Africa. According to anthropologists, the first migrants to the Americas were hunters who traversed the Bering Strait in pursuit of game, some 20,000-40,000 years ago. They subsequently infiltrated the hinterland, and dispersed over millennia to various regions of the continents. Eventually, they fragmented into many different linguistic (up to 2,200 according to some estimates), and socio-cultural groups, although they generally maintained similar physical attributes. These earliest Americans, or Indians as they were to be later called, laid no claim to the land that sprawled endlessly before them -- indeed, they had the faintest notion of possession -- especially the possession of land and other natural resources. Like the water that ran in the streams, the air that they breathed, and the fruits that grew on trees, land belonged to no one, and yet, it to everyone. Additionally, those earliest Americans harbored profound faith in metaphysical forces that they believed shaped and influenced their lives. They had utmost respect for the earth, revering it as sacred, to be neither destroyed nor plundered but to be preserved for future generations. The Arrival of the EuropeanIn a quest to seek newer and shorter trading routes with Asia, Christopher Columbus set sail under the Spanish banner (sponsored by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella) in the early 1490s. He was never to make it to Asia, for his westward voyage to reach the Orient brought Columbus, Captain of the Santa Maria, to the land mass that came to be called America. Mistaking the New World for Asia, he called the inhabitants “Indians,” a name that has obviously since then stuck, (and which obviously poses some problems). The “Indians,” as it turned out, belonged to a large number of sub-cultural groups: the Aztecs and Mayas of Mexico and central America, the Carib of the Caribbean area, the Chibcha of Columbia, the Inca of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, the Araucanian of Chile, the Guarani of Paraguay, and the Tupi of Brazil. Of these, the Aztec, the Mayas, and the Incas had built hugely impressive civilizations, civilizations that were abruptly disrupted by the arrival of Columbus. Owing to their agricultural successes, the Mayans were able to generate substantial surpluses, enough to create leisure time for the pursuit of religious and scientific study. The Mayans advanced their art of written communication from the pictograph to the ideograph, the only Indians to do so. Furthermore, the Mayans were good mathematicians, devising the zero (to represent the concept of nothing or naught), and originating positional numeration. As astute observers of the planetary bodies, they applied their mathematical skills to astronomy, creating a calendar that was actually more accurate than that which was used in Europe at the time. The Aztecs, another notable Indian civilization expanded and flourished in the 1400s. They rellocated to the Central Valley of Mexico where they vanquished some other highly advanced civilizations. From Tenochtitlan, the religious and political capital founded in 1325, the Aztecs grew outwards, assimilating other cultures and civilizations until they dominated all of central Mexico. The Aztecs developed a form of pictograph, an accurate calendar, an impressive architecture and a complex and highly efficient form of government. The Incan civilization--the largest, oldest, and best coordinated of the Indian civilizations, spread out in every direction from Cuzco. The Inca had a rigidly organized and autocratic government. They excelled, as a people, in medicine, weaving, pottery and agriculture. The government controlled the more important resources: land and labor, allotting land to three entities: the sun (in reverence to the religious injunctions), a second for the government, and a third for the Ayllu--the community or people. All three civilizations were built on highly structured societies. All maintained caste systems consisting of hierarchies that resolved themselves thus (in order of importance): nobles, priests, warriors, artisans, farmers, and slaves. At the pinnacle of the hierarchy was the emperor, who had both civil and religious authority, so that for all intents and purposes he bore both spiritual and temporal perogatives. The Motivations for the Exploration and Ultimate Exploitation of Latin AmericaUnder the famed navigator, Prince Henry of Portugal, the Iberian nation formulated a policy of exploration, which espoused ...systematic voyages outward, each based on the intelligence collected by the former voyager, and each traveling father than its predecessor... Evidently, Prince Henry's motivations for exploration were purely based on the desire to venture past the coastal boundaries of the day, for the sheer intrinsic sake of expanding nation's world horizon. However, Henry's policy was to serve as the impetus that drove the Iberians (the Spaniards and Portuguese) to ultimately colonize Latin America. We will return to this matter shortly. Institutions of Iberian ImperialismLabor & LandThe European's exploitation of Latin America, using African slaves is inarguably one of the saddest chapters of human history. In spite of the evils of slavery however, the frantic search for gold and silver (using slaves) was to serve as a catalyst for the development of early Latin American settlements like Mexico City, for anywhere new mines started, people flocked to, attracted by the prospect of the wealth that supposedly ensued from the possession of gold and silver. The EncomindaThe Spaniards introduced many Spanish institutions to the colonies. Prominent among these was the encominda (the entrustment), which required the encomendero to teach the Indians in his charge the Christian religion. The Catholic institution’s approval of the Iberian claims to the Americas required that the monarchs to ...Christianize, civilize, and protect the Indians.In turn, the encomendero virtually owned the Indians and demanded homage from them. This system, as would be expected, gave the encomendero a lot of power, power that the Iberian crown was leary of allowing the colonial landowners, fearing that such powers, left unchecked, would ultimately pose a threat to the Motherland. To this end the Spanish crown often enacted laws that were intended to reduce the powers of the encominda and the encominda class. These laws equally often generated vehement resistance and often had to be reversed, or at least greatly modified. Aside from the sheer resistance to the laws, another problems that militated against the successful enforcement of most of the royal ordinances was that the royal officers charged with implementing these laws often did not, or in fact, were simply unable to enforce the laws limiting the powers of the encominda. The Encominda often argued in their defense that the labor of the Indians was a little price to pay for eternal life, which Christianity (which presumably Iberians introduced) afforded them. Juan de Sepulveda proffered another argument, a not very reasonable one in today’s scheme of things, that because of the mental superiority of the Europeans, the Indians ought to be subordinated to the European, which would help the Indians to attain a higher level of existence by associating with higher levels of “virtue, devotion and industry.” Arguments such as these served to maintain the status quo. The RepartimientoReplacing the encominda as the major labor system was the repartimiento, a short-term disbursement of Indian laborers to perform a given task. Under this system, the royal officials allotted Indians to colonialists that needed labor. The colonist in need of workers petitioned to the royal official enumerating the nature of the work to be done, the amount of time it would take, and the number of workers that he required to do the work. The authorities were supposed to see to the welfare of the Indians: that they received fair and prompt payment and worked under satisfactory conditions. Reality was quite different from the ideal however; abuse of the repartimiento system abounded on a rather depressing level. The Mita of PotosiA form of the repartimiento that is worth mentioning is one that was prominent in the viceroyalty of Peru. Here the Spaniards created the mita of Potosi, in which all adult male Indians of the Peruvian Andes were required to work in the system for one out of every seven years. The AldeaYet another system of labor that prevailed in colonial Latin America was the Aldea (village) system. The Aldea system took a semblance of the encomienda in that the Indians enclaved in the aldeas were Christianized and Europeanized -- Christianization and Europeanization both being gifts in return for which the Iberians expected the Indians to give their labor to the church and state. On the other hand, the aldeas system corresponded to the repartimento system in that landowners could petition to the village authorities for Indian laborers to carry out specific tasks for a specific period of time. Waged LaborIncreasing agricultural exports and the limited supply of labor heightened competition amongst plantation owners for laborers, prompting them to create a new system: contracting the Indians as wage laborers. This too, quite unfortunately, turned out to be a tool of exploitation as the hacendados made deceptive loans, which were practically impossible to repay; debt passed on from generation to generation. This system gave the Indians some ability to maneuver, however, as they tended to be (quite naturally) drawn towards landowners that offered higher wages and better working conditions. The decline in the Indian population (most of whom had been wiped out by European diseases, to which they had little immunity) by the mid-16th century eventually was to eventually "necessitate" a tremendous increase in the importation of African slaves. Appropriation of LandThe Iberians instituted a series of legal apparatuses that bewildered the Indian, and helped the colonialists to appropriate land in stunning proportions. These included:
PartrimonialismTo conclude this section, it is worth mentioning another labor system, partrimonialism, under which a landowner exerted authority over the workers that lived on his estate, so that in a sense the workers were a part of the estate: all workers who lived within the landowner's domain fell under his jurisdiction, and he employed an armed militia to enforce control within the confines of the estate. The StateIn colonial Latin America, as in the Iberian homeland, the Iberian monarch lorded over the state, ruling by divine right and genetic governance, as ordained by God. Due to the immense distances between the Iberian Peninsula and the American colonies, the European mornarchs could only expect to draw up general policies for the colonial administration, leaving much of interpretation and implementation to the discretion of local officials. Therefore, although absolute power rested in the hands of the Iberian monarchs, they required administrative assistance in handling the extensive empires to which they laid claims. The Senado da CamaraIn the Portuguese colony, the senado da camara (the municipal council) often served as a forum for the encounters between the mazombo, the whites born in Brazil, and renois, the whites born in Portugal. While the point of view of the renois was that Brazil was no more than an extension of the Portuguese empire, the mazombo’s perspective was that Brazil should be independent of Portugal. The Spanish-American Audencia & Portuguese American RelacaoThe audiencia was the highest royal court and consultative council in Spanish America, and in some cases it also prepared legislation. The Spanish audiencia found its equivalent in the Portuguese relacao. The ChurchA resolution that the Iberian monarchs took very seriously was the one to Christianize the Indians in the American colonies. Specifically, the charter to Christopher Columbus was: ...the king and queen, having more regard for the augmentation of faith than for any other utility, desire nothing order than to augment the Christian religion and bring home divine worship to many simple nations.The task of Christianizing the Indians turned out to be a very complicated one. By Christianizing the Indians, the missionaries would, in effect, be Europeanizing them, imbibing in them the trades, manners, customs, languages, and habit of the Iberians. Conversion was as far as the Iberians saw it, not only to give the Indians the true faith and eternal salvation, but also to assimilate them into the all-powerful empire; in other words, to make them subjects of the monarch, and members of the Catholic Church. To be sure, the church and state were inextricably one. One reinforced the other. The monarchs defended the faith within their realms, in return for which the pope bestowed “royal patronage” on the monarch. The royal patronage imbued the large-scale temporal power with a great deal of divinity. IndependenceColonialism can not expect to last forever. With time, the inferiority complex of the Americans gave way to feelings of equality, and ultimately, superiority over the Iberians. This feeling of superiority was one born out of ‘nativism’, “an innate allegiance to one’s locality,” that eventually developed into feelings of nationalism, “a group consciousness attributing supreme value to the land of one’s birth and pledging unswerving dedication to it.” Changing Perspectives of the AmericansAs Latin Americans came in increasing contact with Europe, and with European ideas, as foreigners visited America, as representatives of the American elite traveled more frequently to Europe, and American students went to Iberian universities, Latin Americans became increasingly desirous of independence. Foremost amongst the numerous thoughts that gained grounds with Latin American intellectuals was the Physiocrat doctrine – “the idea that wealth derived from nature (agriculture and mining) and multiplied under minimal governmental direction.” Anselmo de la Cruz’s question aptly summarizes this doctrine:
De la Cruz, though without any formal training in economics, had drawn upon the Law of Comparative Advantage. The factors that catalyzed the desire for independence can be summarized in six points:
These were the factors that served to speed up the struggle for independence. As one distinguished representative of the Creole noted, ...the hatred that the Peninsular [a white born in Spain] has inspired in us [the people of American birth] is greater than the ocean that separates us. A visitador to New Spain Jose de Galvez expressed to the crown the popular Creole complaint: ...Spaniards not only don’t allow us to share the government of our country, but they carry away all our money. Such was the deep-seated resentment that the colonial powers had incited in the minds of their subjects in the colonies, and these were to ultimately impel the Americans to fight, vigorously, for their independence. The independence movement in Latin America can effectively be summed up in four far-reaching events:
The Aspirations and Impediments of the Emerging Independent Latin American NationsThe newly independent Latin American nations -- most of which had gained independence by 1825 -- effected minimal socio-cultural and economic changes, as ...the ruling elite remained spiritually linked to Iberia, culturally dependent on France, and economically subservient to Britain... (Burns, 85). Often, the elite created "democratic" republics, which in practice where often as repressive as some of the more totalitarian dictatorships today. TransitionThe new nations' earliest conflicts concerned issues that surrounded the transfer and legitimization of power. Specifically, there were debates as to whether the new governments should be republics or monarchies, and amongst republicans, whether to adopt federalism or centralism. The more conservative elites, who favored the hierarchical, aristocratic structure of Spanish America advocated monarchy. The more liberal elites, however, impelled by three factors: a desire to renounce at least the outward manifestations of the Spanish past, an affinity for the political ideologies of the Enlightenment, and the success of the United States, tended to advocate the republican government model. Brazil quite contrarily, was hardly faced with such a dilemma-at least not to the same extent as was Spanish-America. The presence of the royal family in Brazil helped them to quickly resolve the type-of-government question that arose in Spanish-America. Hence, Prince Pedro, son of King John VI, was granted the monarchist prerogatives in the independent Brazil. Early Fears and ConcernsThe new nations were justifiably concerned, frightened even, of possible European attempts at re-conquest, aggression from their neighbors, and often enough, internal conflict. These apprehensions-not unfounded-created or intensified) local, regional, and national tensions, which in turn diverted energies and resources that could have been invested in more developmental concerns. The Economic ParadoxIn the face of the abundant resources, and potentials, the people – the masses, that is – lived in abject poverty. This paradox is captured in the question posed by Luis dos Santos Villena: "Why is a country so fecund in natural products, so rich in potential, so vast in extent, still inhabited bysettlers [who are] poor, andhalf starved?" Jose de Cos Iriberri asked a not dissimilar question: "Who would imagine that in the midst of the lavishness and splendor of nature the populationwould be groaning under the oppressive yoke of poverty, misery, and the vices that are their inevitable consequences?" An attempt to investigate the cause of this paradoxical anomaly reveals a peculiar land ownership and land use pattern, one that characterized itself by a grossly unequal distribution of land, which favored the few large landholders, but reduced most of the population to "overworked, underpaid, and landless peons." The land ownership and land use pattern was largely sustained by the export-oriented economy, which developed in postcolonial Latin America. Emphasis was placed on the mass production of the agricultural products needed in Europe - a state-of-affairs that "necessitated" the ownership of vast expanses of land earmarked toward growing enough cash crops to meet foreign demands. The Latin American economy was thus subordinated to Europe's needs. "Latin America's exports depended upon and responded to the requirements of Europe" Quite unfortunately too, even with the attempts to satisfy foreign demands, most of the landholders could not possibly efficiently exploit the extensive estates to which they laid claim. An editorial in the Buenos Aires newspaper El Rio de la Plata captured the situation thus: "[The] owners possess vast tracts of land which lie fallow and abandoned. Their greed for land does not equal their ability to use it intelligently or actively." (106). Foreign investments in Latin America were the sorts that were intended to facilitate the production and export of the products the European countries needed the most. Hence with their capital, the Europeans shaped the Latin American economy to suit their own needs and not those of the Latin Americans. Yet another fundamental set-back to the early Latin American economy was the effect of the numerous wars brought about by the struggles for independence, and subsequently, amongst the independent nations, for reasons ranging from the flimsy (for example, the war waged against Paraguay by the "Triple Alliance" of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, who were decidedly alarmed by Paraguay's national development [118]) to the outright outrageous (the "need" for territorial expansion, and other attempts at general appropriation-or misappropriation-of land). The severe political instability that was characteristic of those periods served greatly to divert attention from matters concerning economic development. Indeed, "politics rather than economics absorbed most of the attention and energies of the new nations." (103). Warped Conceptions and Definitions of Growth and DevelopmentThe elites of newly independent Latin American nations were by and large of the notion that progress entailed a replication of European culture, architecture, and political ideologies. Progress was, therefore, to be measured in quantitative -- rather than qualitative -- terms. It could be measure by the presence or absence of physical infrastructure and social amenities like railroad tracks, telegraph lines, etc (no matter what ends these facilities served!). Progress was hardly ever assessed in qualitative terms vis-à-vis: the comparative relationship between the quality of life and standard of living of citizens from two reference periods. In the estimation of the contemporary 'elite' politicians, historians, and scholars, a nation that had the outward manifestations of Europe was progressive (even if the quality of life, and standard of living were dismal), and in the same light, an economically 'viable' and self-sufficient Indian village that remained loyal to its indigenous past, was considered backward," "uncivilized," and "primitive," and by implication, unprogressive. Political Stability and Economic Prosperity: Imperatives to Industrialization, Urbanization, and ModernizationIn the search for an enduring political ideology, the emerging elite in the various Latin American nations began tending towards two political suasions. On the one hand, those of liberal tendencies toyed with federalist ideas, held at least theoretical interests in human rights, argued for laissez-faire economic principles, insisted on striping the church of its temporal powers, and generally displayed a willingness to experiment with new (often European and U.S.) political ideologies and economic practices. The conservatives on the other hand advocated centralism, supported the church and a hierarchical society, and felt more at ease with a regulated, centrally planned economy. The formal, partitioning of these two political divisions contributed to political stability in many parts of Latin America (as exemplified by Brazil and Chile)—they provided a feasible mechanism of checks and balances that insured political stability. In some cases however, the separation of political beliefs into liberal and conservatives produced not a system of checks and balances, but one of warring factions. Nicaragua and Columbia provide perfect examples of this kind of situation. The political stability fostered by the former situation (exemplified by Brazil and Chile) in which bi-partisanship yielded positive results proved to be a prerequisite for economic prosperity, and economic prosperity in turn served to engender political stability. Indeed, both could be argued to have buttressed and reinforced each other. Political stability provided an atmosphere conducive to foreign investment, and foreign investment generated revenues that benefited at least the bourgeoisie elite, who made all the major economic decisions. So then, with Latin American economies being increasingly geared towards satisfying the European and U.S. demands for agricultural produce, raw materials, and natural resources, foreign investment volume went up drastically. However though, these investments were mostly in the sectors of the economy that were directly involved in nourishing the export-oriented Latin American economies, including railways, power and utilities and export-oriented agriculture. And so though Latin America was industrializing, the industrialization was of the sort that favored foreign interests. Railroads, for instance, were build not to connect the cities within Latin American nations, but to facilitate the transportation of agricultural products and natural resources from the point of harvesting and/or extraction, to the ports for shipping to Europe and the United States. If the railroad did serve the lofty ends of uniting the large and diverse nations, that was only an almost inadvertent consequence. Foreign commercial motives were more important considerations, and were dictated by market not political factors, by foreign not local demands. As a matter of fact, the railroad can be effectively argued to have had adverse effects on development of Latin America. They worsened Latin America’s dependence on foreign goods, strengthened the neocolonial institutions and diminished the economic potentials of the government. This was because very often, foreigners built and owned the railways, and did so where they would best complement North Atlantic economies rather than Latin America’s. Indeed, the trend towards urbanization and modernization served to increase Latin America’s taste for foreign (especial European and U.S.) products and ideas. This situation stifled government investment in the development of local products and services, as anything European or North American was considered inherently superior. Furthermore, the free flow of foreign goods and services into Latin American nations effectively stunted the growth of native industries, so that in time, the need to import goods and services was almost unassailable. The essential point that the Latin American elite failed to see was that the material infrastructure they had acquired: the very steamboats, railroads, and ports, increased their dependence on the industrialized western European and north American nations which bought their agricultural products and raw materials and provided manufactured goods in return. They seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the railroads did not link their major cities, but ran directly from the mines or plantations to the ports, “subordinating the goal of national unification to the demands of the industrial nations for agricultural products and raw materials.” Worse still, foreign or international trade did not mean trade between Latin American nations. Indeed, the Latin American nations were largely aliens in each other’s markets, yet each complemented some western European market. Sadly, with the source of capital, markets, and headquarters of most of the foreign concerns abroad, foreign investors identified neither with the Latin American countries nor with local interests. Typically, foreign capital investments flowed into Latin America, and profit remittances flowed out, with little or nothing directed towards tangible development of the host nations. The ability of these foreign investors to control their capital in their interests, their opposition to trade tariffs, and their overall inclination toward pressing for free-trade policies all adversely affected Latin America’s overall economic development. Also, there were various attempt to adopt, wholesale, foreign political ideologies without any consideration whatsoever for the peculiar yearnings and aspirations of the Latin American nations. Obviously, these foreign political ideologies were not much suited to the atypical needs and circumstances of the Latin American nations, which attempted to or succeeded in adopting them, and adopting those ideologies served, if anything at all, to aggravate the political problems at hand. In the strides towards urbanization and modernization, the major Latin American nations replicated their European models. Hence there were tendencies towards wide boulevards and palatial mansions. Progress for these nations entailed effecting minimal social changes, while adopting the outward manifestation of European civilization. In this regard, the Latin American nations experienced growth, without undergoing development. In other words, there was a numerical accumulation of infrastructure—only in the major cities, and an increase in wealth—only in the hands of the elite few. The hinterlands still remained largely underdeveloped, and the majority still remained largely impoverished. External Interference, Internal Strife: Latin America's Search for an Enduring IdentityBy the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States posed a primary challenge to the European—especially British—powers that exercised influence in Latin America. An increasing conviction that the United States possessed a “Manifest Destiny” to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific (and to encroach as far south as possible) engulfed Americans generally and gave the impetus to neo-American Imperialism. In addition to the aforementioned imperialistic drive, security concerns and economic motivations impelled the United States to assert itself as the protector of at least most of Latin America. The somewhat revered 1823 proclamation of President Monroe, for instance, essentially warned Europeans to keep out of hemispheric affairs. In truth, the Monroe Doctrine served to facilitate the expansion of the United States, an expansion that was well underway by the mid-1840s. For example, upon invoking the Monroe Doctrine (or more appropriately, interpreting it to suit America’s imperialistic purpose), President James Polk warned the Europeans that the United States opposed “any transfer of territory in the New World from one European State to another or from a nation in the western hemisphere to a European nation.” Obviously, this interpretation of the doctrine did not prohibit territorial changes amongst nations of the western hemisphere, and by no means precluded the United States from acquiring territories in the Americas. This interpretation satisfactorily complemented the annexation by the United States of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California in the mid- to late-1840s. Expectedly, U.S. southward infiltration and intervention generated a lot of apprehension within Latin America. The question of how best to contain the “Colossus of the North” engaged the minds of the contemporary Latin American leaders. However, those leaders were not to worry about U.S. encroachment for very long, for the internal strife generated within the United State by its own civil war was to divert America’s attention and resources from its expansionist tendencies. It was during this period of U.S. retreat, that various European powers reestablished themselves in Latin America: Spain re-annexed the Dominican Republic, and fought Peru and Chile, France intervened in Mexico, etc.) The success of the northern armies (in the US civil war) however, eventually served to convince the European powers that they had quite literally overstayed their welcome (if they were ever welcome) in Latin America. The U.S. subsequently intervened economically, politically and militarily in Latin America (in Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Columbia, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic) and greatly influenced the course of most of Latin America’s advancement. The Emergence of the Middle Class Dissatisfied with the state-of-things in nineteenth century Latin America, most of the educated middle class in Latin America increasingly began to challenge the entrenched oligarchy and the institution of slavery. They began to advocate democracy and its tenets: free elections, effective suffrage, no reelection, fundamental freedoms, etc. The military were also a group that was growing increasingly restless with the status quo. The ruling elite could not reasonably ignore the military’s consternation however, for they possessed the arms and munitions to effectively overthrow governments and they often successfully did. Women were another group that sought fundamental equality in society. Women in the urban working class held in common with their middle-class and elite contemporaries the desire to improve their roles in the evolving Latin American drama. They sought in large part to raise their social, economic and political status to correspond to the roles they played in society. These three groups, especially the former two, not withstanding their general administrative inexperience, often formed coalitions to overthrow governments they considered undesirable. Essentially, they found the institutions of monarchy and slavery to buttress the already elevated positions of the elite, and to be detrimental to their own interests. They sought to eradicate these institutions and to transform the nation through industrialization. Interesting though, when these radicals eventually entered office, they often almost immediately become hesitant to effect the changes that they had hitherto advocated. In some cases, they even became as conservative as the displaced oligarchy, striving to retain the status quo. The result of this situation, in Argentina for example, was that the radicals made no significant structural or institutional changes in the Argentine society or economy when they took power. And so then, the masses were often dissatisfied with the radicals as they were with the displaced conservatives and often enough, the military emerged as the arbiter of many Latin American nations’ political destiny. Conclusively, it would be worth mentioning the successes recorded by the Uruguayan middle sector in the early twentieth century. Uruguay presents the best example of how a government under the middle sector can effect peaceful and meaningful change. Uruguay gained its independence following a protracted impasse between Argentina and Brazil (both of which were essentially carrying on the Luso-Spanish territorial conflict over the left bank of the Rio de la Plata). Uruguayan middle-sector liberals (Colorados) had fought almost incessantly with the conservatives (Blancos) until the former gained power in 1872. From then until 1959, a period in which the liberals held power (especially during the last decades of the nineteenth century), economic prosperity and infrastructure development gave way to the modernization of the economy. During this period Uruguay expanded education, restricted foreign control, enacted a broad welfare program, and unified the republic. Indeed the government run by the middle sector proved that not only conservative oligarchies could effectively administer nations. They proved through the Uruguayan advancement that meaningful, progressive change could be brought about by a middle sector. Nationalism: The Impetus for ChangeNational advancement in early twentieth century Latin America called for a repudiation of certain past and undesirable ideologies and institutions. Specifically, land allocation, the influence of the church, control exerted by foreigners over national economies, oligarchy, and slavery were amongst the numerous facets of the status quo to which the masses desired radical (and in some cases revolutionary) change. Mexico was one of the Latin American nations that choose the revolutionary option in its attempt to effect fundamental changes to the status quo. The Mexican revolution was to serve, eventually, as a prototype of sorts for nationalistic revolutionary change in twentieth century Latin America. (Revolution, must at this juncture be differentiated from the numerous palace coups, military takeovers, civil wars, and wars for independence that punctuated Latin American history, and which were no more than transfers of power from one group to another without fundamental economic, social and political changes. A genuine revolution entails a “sudden, forceful, violent overturn of a previously relatively stable society, and a substitution of other institutions for those discredited.”) The Mexican revolution revealed a deep-seated resentment by the masses for the status quo, and a Mexico that still clung obstinately to its neocolonial structures and institutions. The Mexican masses desired drastic change, a change that would markedly separate them from an undesirable past, and that would lead them to a glorious future. That desire for change, coupled with Porfirian despotism propelled the fans of the revolution and led to a series of events that was to eventually reach dramatic proportions. The Mexico that emerged from the revolution was one that was decidedly set for meaningful and positive advancement. The new constitution, which was essentially a general statement of the objectives of the revolution, elevated the state above the individual and handed the government the mandate of remodeling the society. Specific issues dealt with by the constitution-included land, labor and religion. The constitution declared the government’s ownership of mineral and water resources, subordinated private ownership of property to public interest, and laid the basis for land reform. In other parts, the constitution sought to protect the Mexican worker by passing a labor code to set minimum salaries and maximum working hours, provide accidental insurance, benefits, pensions, and guarantee the right to unionize and strike. Furthermore, the constitution placed restrictions on the church and the clergy: the churches were denied temporal powers and legal personalities, and could not own property. The state could limit the size of the clergy, foreigners could not serve as priests and ministers, and the clergy could not engage in political activism—voting, holding office, criticism of the government, etc. Finally, the church could not participate in primary education. The Mexican Nationalistic Experience ExploredTwentieth century Latin American politics was marked by an increasing level of nationalism. The majority of the people began to feel that Latin American resources ought to be exploited by Latin Americans for the development of Latin American nations. A growing resentment for European and U.S. economic establishments for their large-scale exploitation of Latin America began to engulf many Latin Americans. For instance, in 1937 and 1938, President Cardenas sought to declare Mexico’s economic independence by nationalizing the railroads and oil companies respectively. Though this expectedly unruffled the foreign governments involved, Cardenas became a national hero for his drastic nationalistic measures. Mexico was to subsequently prove to the world that it could effectively explore and exploits its own oil, and proceeded to do so more efficiently than the foreigners had done, contrary to adverse predictions. Furthermore, the bulk of Mexico’s oil no longer flowed out of Mexico to Europe or the United States. Instead Mexico’s oil was used to fuel its much-needed national industrialization. In addition to proving its ability to efficiently exploit its own resources, Mexico challenged and in fact changed undesirable neocolonial economic patterns. For instance, the state began to move from foreign economic domination toward a nationalization of its key industries and economic independence. Nationalism: The Impetus for Change IINationalism—a group consciousness attributing great value to the nation-state, to which total loyalty is invested—served (arguably) as the most important single factor to impel change in twentieth century Latin America. This “group agreement” entails a desire to maintain the unity, independence and sovereignty of the nation-state, as well as the existence of unifying national interests. The assertion of political independence from the Iberian colonialists, and the desire for economic independence was borne of nationalism; the symbols of the independent nation-state (flags, anthems, coats-of-arms) sustain nationalism and indeed infuse it into the very essence of the people. And the various wars, boundary disputes, and general foreign threats create a resurgence of the emotions that intensify nationalism within the Latin American nations. As seen by the nationalization of various industries in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, one of the national interests arising from nationalism was a desire for economic independence. Another was a desire for modernization. Conversely, modernization often served to reinforce nationalism. Railroads, telegraph lines, and steamships for instance unified the Latin American nations, and successfully countered a primary threat to national unity: regionalism. In time, as the tides of nationalism swept across Latin America, the leaders and intellectuals, who had hitherto been largely imitators of European structures and ideologies, began to look inwards at their own histories and cultures in a bid to discover the value in their indigenous past. These intellectuals of the time “probed national psychology, questioned national motives, reexamined the past,” and proffered introspective theories about Latin American development that effectively relegated Europe and the United States to the status of the inconsequential in the overall scheme-of-things. Indeed, it was not until Latin America literally turned their backs on Europe (as far as severing all undesirable ties) that they were able to attain the height of national pride to which they aspired. As Euclydes da Cunha argued, the farther one traveled into he interior of Brazil, the more Brazilian one became. For him, only in the hinterlands of Brazil could one observe the true Brazilian. (Of course, the “interior” and “hinterland” as used here have more profound implications that mere geographical distance from the sea. da Cunha’s argument is that the more Brazilians search introspectively for their national identity, the closer they would be to being true Brazilians.) Furthermore, the nationalistic drive impelled a reassessment of national values. Importantly too, the nationalists sought to solve perennial political problems with new indigenous solutions. The Cuban Joe Marti, for instance, argued that in order to govern well, leaders must pay attention to local realities. He argued that a good leader does not need a knowledge of European political ideologies as much as he needs a thorough understanding of his own country, its history, geography, and how to respond to the needs of its people in a manner that is harmonious with the people’s traditions and aspirations. In conclusion, it is noteworthy that in the decades following the World War II, economic nationalism in Latin America was mark by four characteristics:
Economic nationalism, borne of and reinforced by a deep feeling of loyalty to the nation-state and resentment for foreign exploitation helped Latin America to go beyond the threshold of political independence, and to seek economic independence. Indeed, it was with the search for economic independence that most Latin American nations were able to assert their fundamental political independence, and to unyoke themselves of the burden of foreign exploitation. Conclusion: A Study of the Mexican SituationAn exploration of the problems facing Latin America in past and contemporary times requires an in-depth understanding of the complexities surrounding the social, economic, and political ramifications of the continent. Furthermore, an attempt at effective analysis would require a separation of the aforementioned facets (the social, the economic, and the political) into distinct categories. Of course, these three categories are inextricably intertwined, and an analysis of one facet invariably draws upon the others, but for the sake of enumerating the problems I found, and proffering some solutions, I will consider the problems in each of these three aspects independently, and then I will proffer some solutions afterwards. ProblemsPolitical. Perhaps the most pressing problem in most of the Latin American nations studied was that of a lack of an effective system of checks and balances and separation of powers. Quite often, power concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy, and there was often no opposition or dissent to those administrations. The very existence of Caudillos, for all they were worth, typifies this instance of Latin American strongmen who derived most of their powers not necessarily from the office they held, but from their personal status, charisma, etc. As with Mexico’s Diaz, power revolved around the closed circle of the dictatorial strongman, his treasurer, and an ssemblage of “seasoned experts.” It was this small oligarchy and their cohorts that held all the power and almost all of the productive wealth of Mexico. Furthermore, the administration availed to themselves a police force that effectively made voices of dissent quiet—often permanently; and a propaganda machine that portrayed a blissful increase in abstractions like national wealth, even in the face of biting poverty. The consequences of this problematic situation was that disgruntled elements who had any substantial military backing, often sought to overthrow the undesirable government, and often succeeded in doing so. Upon wresting power however, the “radical” in-coming governments often reverted to overall conservative programs that counter-coups were made almost inevitable. Such was the story of erratic power change in many post-independence Latin American nations. Latin America’s post-independence political history was punctuated with frequent coup d’etats, palace coups, military take-overs, etc. Inevitably, the incoming government took upon dictatorial, almost totalitarian prerogatives. Furthermore, once in power, the military strongmen often engaged in corruption, nepotism, and favoritism. Whilst they and their cohorts essentially siphoned the nations’ wealth into their private coffers, the masses suffered the most dismal levels of poverty. Social. A major social (or more appropriately, socio-economic or socio-political) problem that faced the emerging Latin American nations was a warped conception of industrialization, and a confusion about the concepts of growth and development. While some post-independence Latin American nations can be argued to have attained a certain level of industrialization in the decades following independence, it can also be argued that the sort of industrialization that prevailed was not the kind that improved the quality of life of Latin American indigenes. In fact, the opposite can be argued because the kind of industrialization that occurred was the sort that complemented the export-oriented sectors of the economy, and that facilitated the siphoning of resources out of the nations. The railroads for instance did not serve to unify the nations, but to facilitate the transportation of agricultural product and raw material to the points of export. Furthermore, many Latin American nations grew without actually developing (or put more accurately, grew and developed at uneven rates). In other words, they displayed the outward manifestation of industrialization and modernization—roads, railway, telegraph, etc.—but these advancements failed to touch the lives of the common people. The tendency was towards the “quantity” of infrastructure available, and not how the quality of life of the populace would be improved by these infrastructures. Another social problem that I found in my study of Latin American history was the tendency of the elite to regard anything European as inherently superior. Hence, the tendency was towards adopting, without modification, European ideologies, culture, values, etc., or in direr cases, outright attempts to supplant native political mechanisms with foreign ones. The taste for foreign (often-ostentatious) products and a corresponding demand for them were of course to the detriment of local business that produced substitutable products. Sadly yet, the government’s concessions to foreign businesses put a severe restriction on local competition (This obviously is an economic consequence of a social problem). Economic. A fundamental economic problem I found in my study of Latin American history is that of the grossly inequitable distribution of wealth in many of the Latin American nations. Indeed, a mere 3% of the total population held all but a small fraction Mexico’s total wealth. Furthermore, the “economic pump” worked in such a way that profit remittances to foreign nations effectively drained Latin American nations of wealth that could be directed towards its much needed development. The consequence of this was that virtually none of the profits on investment was directed towards local development. Instead, profits on investment were reinvested in export-facilitating sectors or remitted to the European/US headquarters. Another problem that I found was that the Latin American governments tended to subordinate the interests of the locales to that of foreign commercial concerns. Mexico’s Diaz, for instance, granted sweeping concessions to European interests, that allowed them to engage in business without making tangible contributions to their host nation’s development. Obviously, this imbalance in trade was to the disadvantage of the Latin America host nations. Another rather disconcerting problem I found was that though Latin America is a continent that is blessed with an abundance of resources and with favorable climates, the people who inhabit the continent still lived in abject poverty. Why was a nation so rich in natural products and potentials, and vast in geographical extent inhabited by a people who were so poor and half-starved? I found that the answer lay in the gross mal-administration of post-colonial Latin American nations (admittedly with some exceptions here and there). Furthermore, I found that a major problem laid in the land distribution system. Land, like every resource in the contemporary Latin American nation, was unevenly distributed. The landowning elite laid claim to incredibly large expanses of land that lay fallow and abandoned. Obviously, they lacked both the ability and capacity to use that resource efficiently. Latin American economies were geared (largely by foreign influence) toward satisfying foreign demands for agricultural produce, raw materials, and natural resources. This obviously served to be a huge setback to the development of Latin American nations, as the export-oriented economies directed local resources towards fueling the export-oriented sectors of the economy. Furthermore, resources that could otherwise be directed towards producing for local consumption were directed towards export, such that while those exports generated revenues, the foregone production for the local populace hurt the masses. As it was more lucrative for local and foreign concerns to invest in export-oriented sectors, local needs were largely ignored. (Proffered) SolutionsPolitical. I have always argued that a nation cannot expect to attain the height to which it aspires without adopting some system of checks and balances and separation of powers. As history has shown, man tends to crave more and more power, and will generally refuse to relinquish power once he has tasted it. Hence, we can expect that in a governmental system in which one or a few persons take upon administrative prerogatives, a tyranny is almost inevitable. A system of separation of powers (the executive from the legislative, and the legislative from the judiciary) checks and balances, and accountability are indispensable foundations upon which a stable and enduring government can be built. It prevents a concentration of power in the hands of a small oligarchy, is more democratic, and generally allows greater participation by the overall populace, in the government. The more democratic government prescribed above gives room for opposition (which itself is a check on the government), allows much greater freedom to the people, and checks tyranny, nepotism, and corruption (since, a system of checks and balances necessitates accountability and transparency). We might expect then that a relatively stable government that is conducive to economic development and foreign investment would result from a more democratic government, and that ultimately, the occurrence of military interventions and take-overs would reduce drastically. Additionally, education and enlightenment of the general populace is a most integral part to ensuring continued democracy. There is the need to raise the general level of intelligentsia and awareness of the people, for only an enlightened people can offer constructive criticism, and engage in political activism, and only them are immune (at least comparatively) to propaganda. Social. As industrialization often tended to be seen in quantitative rather than qualitative terms in many Latin American nations, I think it is important to begin to see the concept differently. Industrialization should not entail a mere accumulation of physical infrastructure, but an improvement of the overall quality of life of the people. More simply put industrialization cannot be considered valid if it does not improve the overall quality of life of the people, even if it generated enormous revenues. Furthermore, I feel strongly that Latin American governments must begin to place local needs, concerns, and demands ahead of foreign ones, and to regard as equal, or in fact superior (inasmuch as it is more suited to local needs) local ideologies, values, customs, etc. Furthermore, I believe that there is a need for a reassessment of the attitude towards foreign goods. Latin Americans must begin to see their locally produced goods and services as close substitutes, and they must begin to patronize their indigenous goods and services. Clearly, this is matter of changing the general attitude and perspective of the people. Economic. I believe the most far-reaching solution to the problem of poverty in Latin America would be a more equitable distribution, or redistribution, of wealth through an effective system of taxation and provision of social services—to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, the haves, and the have-nots. Also, there is the need to reverse the “one-way economic pump,” so that resources do no merely flow out of the Latin American nations without a corresponding in-flux. Reasonable requirements for foreign businesses that exploit Latin American resources to make substantial contribution to their host nation’s growth and development would serve to effectively repair the “one-way economic pump.” Furthermore, Latin American nations must begin to enforce all applicable and fiscally responsible trade tariffs, custom duties and excises. Concessions should be made on the principle of reciprocity whereby the host Latin American nation stands to benefit in one way or another by granting concessions to foreign commercial interests. In doing this, the Latin American nations will be succeeding subordinating foreign interests to local ones. Latin American nations must begin to make concerted effort to effectively and efficiently exploit their resources by themselves (without waiting for foreigners to do it for them). Importantly too, those nations must see it as imperative to direct those resources (or the proceeds from them, towards national development). A more equitable distribution (or redistribution) of land using a formula that would allow for the most efficient use of the resource is, I think, an indispensable part of the steps that must be taken to solve Latin American nation’s socio-economic problems. Also, I found the dire need for many of the Latin American nations to diversify their economies. Many of them were over-reliant on their export products, and were literally at the mercy of the fluctuation of European demands for their products. Afterword: “Changing Attitudes and Perspectives”No amount of positive changes effected by an administration would made a nation advance to its full potentials, if the people do not change certain detrimental attitudes and perspectives, and repudiate undesirable ideologies and institutions.
Originally written for a Latin American History course in Fall 2001 at Harold Washington College, Chicago, by Charles Efetobo Oyibo (Reference: A Concise Interpretive History of Latin America by Burn). Charles Efetobo Oyibo is currently an Information and Decision Sciences major in the College of Business of the University of Illinois at Chicago. All Rights Reserved. Charles Efetobo Oyibo. 2001-2004. |
