Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethnicities in latin america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethnicities in latin america
The author analyzes how indigenous people’s movements in Latin America transformed into viable political parties. For her, these new parties are good for the democracy because they enrich and enhance the legitimacy of the political and electoral system. She assumes that the primary link between state and society are the parties and its accountability impact on the institutions. She proves that the crisis of the traditional parties and the transformation of the historical electoral constrains were determinant factors that contributed to ethnic party formation and consolidation. Van Cott conclusions were based on the study of six countries: Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela as successful cases, and Peru and Argentina as failed examples. The chosen time frame is from the early eighties to the late nineties.
The puzzle that motivates this research challenges common places in the political parties’ scholarship. According to the author, the formation of strong ethnic parties is not an automatic outcome of societies with large ethnic population, also, the awake or the re-edition of the ethnic needs neither justify the alternative parties’ appearance, because those were there before, Indians could even vote and participate in democracy prior to become a party. Although, during the nineties, different ethnic groups refused to participate in the programmatic benefits provided by a consolidated party, and began to translate their specific demands into social cleavages and collective interest. They took advantage of the economic instability, the increasing rates of violence and corruption, plus the exhaustion of the class struggle’ discourse along with the armed subversive option; and turned, in some cases, into acceptable p...
... middle of paper ...
...fferent realities in despite of their geographical proximity. The book opens an unexplored trail by setting the conditions for further research on the social movements’ issue. To this point, it seems clear the path taken by certain indigenous communities after significant changes in the democratic panorama of the selected Latin America countries. Now different questions need to be raise: which social processes the violence have stopped and provoked? In the case of Colombia; also, what is the role of other minority groups in the political-electoral field? Are there any general recommendations for an ideal electoral system? How the current populist governments in Latin America affect the political scheme? And how the social movements with political components have reacted to this new feature? These are only some examples of the inquiries that produce the reviewed work.
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.
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
A variety of ideologies and parties nowadays is an inevitable and essential feature of the democracy. Every party by its nature tends to gain the official state legislature position, and essentially every party differs from other ones in its ideological core. The modern political system, parties, believes and attempts are different form those 50 years ago, and it is the normal sequent political world development. It is claimed that the modern party competition is not driven by ideology anymore. In this essay the definition of party systems, party competition, the changing shape of the modern parties will be discussed. Also, the question if the party competition is still driven by ideology will be answered in accordance with the relevant arguments.
For the 71 years that the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was in power, Mexico saw great political, social and economic upheaval. This can be seen in the evolution of the PRI party, whose reign over Mexican society came at the expense of true democracy. “A party designed for power, the PRI's mechanisms for success involved a combination of repressive measures. The party professed no specific ideology, enabling it to adapt to changing social, economic and political forces over time. It attached itself virtually all aspects of civil society, and in this way, it become the political extension and tool of the government.” In 2000, however, the PRI’s loss of its monopoly on political power and institutional corruption gave rise to inter-cartel violence that was created in the political void left after the PAN won the national presidential election. These conditions gave rise to the Zetas: a new type of cartel that changed the operational structure of previous drug cartels. The Zetas operate in a new militant structure associated with a higher brand of violence, which has led it to branch out beyond a traditional drug smuggling enterprise common under the PRI government. Simply put, the electoral defeat of the PRI in 2000 was supposed to usher in a more democratic era in Mexican politics. Instead, the PRI party’s defeat created a state of chaos that gave rise to inter-cartel violence and the birth of the Zetas cartel.
Walker, Thomas W and Armony, Ariel C. Repression, Resistance, and Democratic Transition in Latin America. Scholarly Resources Incorporated, 2000. Wilmington, Delaware.
1. Explaining Indigenous and Afro-Latino Disparities in Collective Rights. Hooker explores countries of indigenous resistance and ability to organize and speculates on why Afro-Latinos are not as successful in organized and becoming recognized by their government. She suggests why formal multicultural recognition is important and what has been gained for successful groups. She claims Afro-Latinos are much less likely to gain formal recognition as only seven the fifteen Latin American countries to implement multicultural reform give collective rights to Afro-Latinos and only three give Afro-Latinos the same rights as indigenous groups.
The historian Ronn Pineo wrote “Beginning in the 1980s nearly all of Latin America began to take part in a great experiment, the adoption of capitalist free market economic policies.” This great experiment began with the promotion of democracy and free market that promised a better future for Latin America. Neoliberalism, the economic ideology that promotes free-market capitalism, laid the foundation for many of the US military interventions and economic policies that caused a dramatic transformation of Latin America. This promise of a “democratic” government came from a policy initiative labeled as polyarchy. Polyarchy is “ a system in which a small group governs and mass participation in decision making is limited to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed by competing elites” (Lecture: Polyarchy and Resistance).
Wood, James A., and John Charles Chasteen. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Print.
Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 24, No. 4 (96), Pp. 489-497 Sherman, H., 1995. Democracy and Capitalism. Reinventing Marxism, JohnsHopkins University Press, pp.
Christopher Schmidt-Nowara. "Politics and Ideas in Latin American Independence." Latin American Research Review 45, no. 2 (2010): 228-235. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed November 14, 2012).
After gaining independence, Latin American countries had difficulty in how to govern the newly instated states. In the chaos, people took advantage of this and instated themselves as dictators. They had simply took the position from the Spanish that they tried to vanquish (class notes). The power structure remained and the people who fought for independence were largely ignored and continuously oppressed. These dictatorships had remained in power until very recently. Paraguay was finally freed from the dictatorship in 1989 (Chapter
Indigenous people of the world have historically been and continue to be pushed to the margins of society. Similarly, women have experienced political, social, and economical marginalization. For the past 500 years or so, the indigenous peoples of México have been subjected to violence and the exploitation since the arrival of the Spanish. The xenophobic tendencies of Spanish colonizers did not disappear after México’s independence; rather it maintained the racial assimilation and exclusion policies left behind by the colonists, including gender roles (Moore 166) . México is historically and continues to be a patriarchal society. So when the Zapatista movement of 1994, more formally known as the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación National (Zapatista Army of National Liberation; EZLN) constructed a space for indigenous women to reclaim their rights, it was a significant step towards justice. The Mexican government, in haste for globalization and profits, ignored its indigenous peoples’ sufferings. Chiapas, the southernmost state of Mexico, consisting of mostly indigenous peoples living in the mountains and country, grew frustration with the Mexican government. It was in that moment that the Zapatista movement arose from the countryside to awaken a nation to the plight of indigenous Mexicans. Being indigenous puts a person at a disadvantage in Mexican society; when adding gender, an indigenous woman is set back two steps. It was through the Zapatista movement that a catalyst was created for indigenous women to reclaim rights and autonomy through the praxis of indigeneity and the popular struggle.
As the Latin American nations set out to construct a new government and society in the 1800´s, two opposing models aroused regarding which one would best benefit the countries. ¨Civilization vs. Barbarism¨ by Domingo Sarmiento, a recognized Argentinean revolutionary, contrasts Jose Marti´s ¨Our America¨ ideology which critiques U.S. capitalism and focuses on developing a good government based on the needs of the nations and each nation´s autochthony. Contrastingly, Sarmiento, guided by his beliefs in democratic principles, declares his preference towards the European urbanized way of life as the key to progress and stability for the nations. Despite the differences in the models proposed by Marti and Sarmiento for the New Nations to follow,
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews
Radu Ban and Vijayendra. (2007). The Political Construction of Caste in South India. Working paper