Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strength and weaknesses of presidential systems
Evolution of presidency
Democracy in chile
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The people of Chile have been starved of a proper democratic regime for much of their history. Although there have been measures in place for the country to be categorized as a democracy, there have also been a series of interruptions that never allowed the democratic process to blossom. The dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet carried profound and ostensibly sturdy changes that manipulated the political landscape of Chile and stagnated its economic growth; crushing the revolutionary left and heavily shifting economic focus to the marketplace. Thus, I argue that Chile can only be considered a true democracy after the fall of Pinochet; which can be attributed to military adherence of the law and a societal reinvigoration in democracy.
By defining what a democracy is, and Chile’s previous governmental form of authoritarianism, there can be set objective barriers for evaluation. First, a “democracy” as defined by Larry Diamond is: “A civilian, constitutional system in which the legislative and chief executive office is refilled through regular, competitive, multi party elections with universal suffrage…, the absence of reserve domains of power, … the vertical accountability rulers to the ruled, requires a horizontal accountability of officeholders to one another”.1 Authoritarian, as defined by Samuel Huntington, “is characterized by a single or a weak party, no mass mobilization, possibly a ‘mentality’ but no ideology, limited government, ...and no effort to remake society and human nature.”2
In almost any system of government the military usually holds the tools most capable of taking human life, resulting in their indisputable ability to usurp power; consequently, whatever side the military is on usually wins. Throughout Latin America...
... middle of paper ...
... has as far as governmental outlines. However, there are plenty of countries in the world that use ancient outlines for their government but are able to practice democracy, because they have barriers to prevent power from being abused. Chile’s creation of programs like the “Confederation of Production and Commerce” creates a healthy barrier between the market and the leaders of the country, so that there is communication but not manipulation, other institutions such as this have been implemented by leaders following Pinochet.14 Making the most difficult task for the future of democracy, be the maintenance of a good civil-military relationship.
Returning to the central argument, the notion that Chile can only be considered a democracy after the fall of Pinochet is fully supported. Looking at the definitions set at the beginning of the paper, a democracy is one that is
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 Peter Winn’s book, Weavers of revolution, the revolution from below collided with the revolution from above, producing unexpected yet catastrophic effect in Chile. Generally speaking, a revolution is a complete transformation of an established government or a political system and a radical change in people’s views and behaviors. However, a revolution from above refers to major political and social changes that are imposed by the government on the population. In contrast, a revolution from below is when the people of a nation rebel against the hierarchy to gain a revolution. In Chile, the revolution from above was initiated by Salvador Allende’s election in 1970, but it was mistaken as a signal to the workers “to take the revolution into their own hands and fulfill their historic aspirations through direct action from below” (140).
Walker, Thomas W and Armony, Ariel C. Repression, Resistance, and Democratic Transition in Latin America. Scholarly Resources Incorporated, 2000. Wilmington, Delaware.
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
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).
Argentina and Chile experienced similar periods of extreme human rights violations. The response of the international human rights regime to the crimes against humanity, and the pressure placed on these count...
Anita Isaacs focuses on the consequences the new democracy faces after the rule of former President Molina, “The Congress stripped him [Molina] of immunity, thus diverting attention from its own corruption cloud; in last week’s elections, half its deputies were re-elected, and the same three incumbent parties obtained the bulk share of seats.” This lack in alternation of political parties may maintain a similar form of government but the new President Morales expresses reformational interest towards the corruption of the country. Guatemala does not have a strong enough justice system to properly restrain governmental power, but the state justly accused higher governmental officials of customs fraud resulting in the imprisonment of former President, Otto Pérez Molina, and Vice President, Roxana Baldetti. The removal of the top two rulers of the country from office uncovered Guatemala’s legitimate, democratic stability through one of the most important factors of a strong democracy, the rule of
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.
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
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.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
In 508 B.C, a civil war in Athens ceased; giving rise to a new democratic constitution under the leadership of Cleisthenes. The changes made under his leadership and other subsequent reforms resulted in a relatively radical form of government for the time known as democracy (Hyland Lecture, 26/09/2013). Democracy is a system of collective decision-making in which the participants have equality at least at one essential point of the decision making process (Christiano, “Democracy”). Furthermore, the term ‘democracy’, which comes from the Greeks, literally means rule by the people. The system of government, created by the Greeks, known as Democracy possessed many unique characteristics such as judicial review that have come to influence modern governments. The principle of equality allowed all Athenian citizens to participate in government on an equal level, a practice that as Plato pointed out is no longer feasible. Ancient Athenian democracy also utilized direct representation and did not distinguish political rights from individual rights. In this way, while Athenian democracy has influenced modern democracies through ideas such as equality and checks and balances, it cannot be said to be democratic in the modern sense of the term due to its utilization of institutions and promotion of values that no longer are applicable or desired in the modern realm of politics. Since the time of Athenian democracy, the world has experienced many intellectual movements including the enlightenment, Protestant Reformation, and the industrial revolution to name a few that have forced governments to change in response to new popular opinion and technology.
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.
American foreign policy directed and influenced its activities in Chile. United States although contradicted its firm belief of democr...
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.