Liberals and Conservatives in Post Revolutionary Latin America

Since the beginning of the importation of the Iberian ideals have sprouted a class system, which the reverberation still, are echoing today. This has created a class struggle from the poor indigenous peoples of Latin America to the elitists. Since the times of Independence the ruling upper class and power hungry elitists had tarnished the notion of a true democracy. With the Spanish arrival came their structure of government separating the peoples of Latin America into social and racial classes. The minority whites held positions of power while darker colored peoples were relegated to being low class and under the direction of the elites. This tradition of minority rule has been carried with the Latin American peoples for centuries tracing its roots to the European countries that conquered the Americas. Thus this idea has transcended centuries causing the peoples to become complacent and the notion of a Caudillo became a social norm. In modern day the main problems for countries facing democratization is the gross inequality between the upper class and lower class. In these societies there is not a middle class and it has been increasingly difficult for people to have mobility between the classes. You are either born with a silver spoon or you were born to make that spoon. With classes stagnant the elites in the upper echelon of society can dictate the fate of millions and the direction of the country. This causes the poorer to be poorer and the richer to become richer. Most Latin American countries have ‘democracies’ but the political elite that does not give credence to the inequality crisis at hand governs them. This detracts from democracy by creating a political system based on wealth and power rather than having the people ...

I agree that “Spanish America is a geographical area within which the power struggle between archaic and modern traits stands out very clearly.” An archaic society is a society governed by blood relations and marital rules. In an archaic society the individual is unimportant, what is important is the collective which is emphasized by the need of a strong family. These strong family ties in turn lead to high levels of corruption such as nepotism where people in power favor their relatives or very close friends and these relations are given jobs that they are either under qualified in taking or someone else is better qualified in undertaking. A modern society in juxtaposition emphasizes the role of the individual. It is through the efforts

US immigration is a historical reoccurring phenomenon that is situated upon the exploitation of workers to bring economic prosperity to the country. Immigration is the backbone aspect to the success of the US as large influxes of immigrants are imported to work in physical demanding job sectors. There are comparable feelings of alienation of Mexicans and many views that express the feelings that illegal immigrants should return to their homelands. By examining the laws, policies, and structural forces that bring migrants to the United States, we can see the extent to which immigration is closely related to our position in the global economy and how a group of leftist armed activists dare to disrupt the globalization tactics of capitalism, neo-liberalism, and a hegemonic government. On a closer examination, you find that many of the economic challenges Mexico faces are directly linked to policies that have been supported by the United States, U.S multinational corporations, or institutions supported by the United States. This group of campesinos in the southern state of Chiapas in Mexico, reject, refuse, and remodeled a new autonomous world that seeks to “work within worlds”, free from the political, economic, and social constructions of the Mexican government. It opposes the liberal economic policies Mexican presidents have pursued since 1982. While its revolutionary project is rooted in the injustices suffered by the indigenous population of eastern Chiapas, the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional questions globalization and calls for the reorientation of Mexican economic policy along traditional socialist lines and the transfer of political power from elites to the mass of poor Mexicans.

Latin America countries changed to authoritarian system to have a “ New Path to development into new nations” (Malloy, James M, pages 3), there was a demand for new political system, which gives high levels of modernization. There subtypes to authoritarian regimes “ self-consciously oriented towards the development and modernization in respective societies.” (Malloy, James M,...

The concept of patrimonialism in Latin American countries is a subject that has been studied and researched by some of the world’s most renowned sociologists and political scientists. In this literature review I will use the information gathered from several of these researchers and combine their theories and ideologies in an attempt to understand why many Latin American countries such as Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, and Bolivia have continued to remain oppressed throughout history and stand on a slippery slope towards democratic reform of their national governments. The impeded development of democracy in these countries is much derived from Spanish empirical forms, reigning from the colonial era in which Spanish conquistadores implemented the first forms of government in Latin America based off of the authoritative structure of power that was brought over seas and applied in the “new-world”. (Zabludovsky, 1989) explains how theories of famous sociologist Max Weber have been utilized in distinguishing the effects and differences between traditional domination, and charismatic authority in which autocratic regimes continue to implement these authoritative practices, which have disregarded the notions of a more rational power which have obstructed the process of creating a more effective form of government. In this excerpt from Weber’s study on India and china, we can understand how his theory of patrimonialism has been used to describe the form of authoritative roles in these under-developed governments; patrimonialism is conceived as the form of state political organization, which permits the triumph of an authoritarian administration over the different local powers (Weber 1968: 52-03). As a result of this, we are able to view ...

Prior to its independence Latin America had been controlled by external forces for hundreds of years. To be freed of control from these outside interests did not in any way guarantee Latin America a return to the status quo. In fact, the inhabitants of Latin America had done very well in assimilating their in house controllers. They adopted European language, religion, color, and just about everything else that the European culture had to offer them. Although they were free to do as they please and run their own affairs in the global neighborhood as we know it, they struggled to create an entity for themselves. They embody too much of what is not native to their region, yet the people that used to represent their land 500 years earlier were a truly unique culture. Let us go back to that point in time and trace the route Latin America has taken, from an isolated civilization with a unique, independent culture to a Europeanized puppet continent with little cultural identity.

Many in Latin America believed that they would achieve a similar self-governance much like the United States and many European nations. The members of Latin American society that lived in more urban environments enjoyed the amenities similar to any highly advanced city centers around the globe. However those living in rural areas in Latin America suffered a different fate. A sort of new colonial system had been imparted upon them. A system of increased American and European influence that was very reminiscent of the previous colonial governments. So once again social status and big money that attracted foreign investments ruled the day leaving small rural farmers out to dry on the socioeconomic ladder.

These dramatic shifts originally began as protests against the lack of incorporation and equality within the neoliberal governments. Over time, these movements gained momentum and ultimately resulted in a noticeable shift throughout the entire region of Latin America. “Lula in Brazil, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.” (Lynch) According to Maxwel A. Cameron, this succession to left wing politics occurred due to ‘the disenchantment with neoliberalism, the poor performance of democratic governments and the waning of US influence in the Western Hemisphere created opportunities for the left throughout the region.” (Cameron)

Latin America is one of the most unequal region of the world. Inequality in the region could be traced far back to the Spanish colonial era. Due to the mercantilist political economy of the Spaniards, certain groups such as the European elites, merchants and wealthy landed classes were favoured through the provision of rents while others –natives and slaves –were neglected (Mahoney 2010, 21).

Published by Wiley, on behalf of the Center for Latin American Studies, University of Miami