Military Interventions

While not all South American nations evolved from their colonial roots in the same manner, many shared a common heritage of similar policies and culture that predisposed them to the bureaucratic-authoritarian military interventions of the 20th century. For Chile, Argentina, and Brazil the institutional pillars responsible for the implementation of military regimes were the economy, political system, society, military, and contemporary leadership. Additionally, these military dictatorships arose in no small part to the suspicion of an inevitable communist takeover spurred on by the unanticipated revolution in Cuba. The military interventions in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile during the 1960s and 1970s were caused by fear, a fear (real or not)

The backbone of the economic disasters experienced in South America were due to import substitution industrialization (ISI) policies. These policies caused a slew of problems, the most notable being trade deficits, high inflation rates, and reduced foreign and domestic investment. The trade deficits were caused by overvalued exchange rates used to keep imports artificially cheap, the inflation was caused by high state spending and poor taxation, and the reduced investment was caused by the previous two factors. All in all, these crises led to a dependence on foreign capital in the form of investment or

While each society is unique (in this particular situation) it can be broken down into three classes: the rural working class, urban working class, and elites. The rural working class was generally disenfranchised due to high illiteracy rates, especially in Brazil, but little in Argentina. They were also poor and had very little influence in politics. The urban working class, however, played an important role in the ousting of Allende, Perón, and Goulart. They were mostly literate and thusly were the largest political coalition. As a result, unions were strong, wages were high, and life (for the most part) was good for the average urban worker (or at least better than the rural poor). This was the class that the leadership sought to manipulate and use for revolutionary purposes. All of the big three (Allende, Perón, and Goulart) sought to arm the working class to protect themselves and go toe to toe with the military, if necessary, to retain their own office and power. The final class was the opposing class. The elites and technocrats were unable to accomplish economic reform in the face of populist control. Thusly, they conspired with the military (in some cases) to oust the leadership in favor of neoliberal