Populism has been part of Latin America history since early 1930. From Getulio Vargas in Brazil and Juan Peron in Argentina to Bolivian President Evo Morales and Ollanta Humala in Peru, South American leaders have used the power of the forgotten masses on several occasions against the elites promising radical changes and a better future for their supporters. Populism re-emerged in South America and other parts of Latin America in late 1990’s and early 2000s due to the economic decline and financial crises that affected the region in the late 1990s. After these events, the politics in the region took a “left-hand turn” (making reference to an increasing number leaders gaining political power from left-wing parties). One of the reasons why left
Part I: “Consensus in Argentine Society and the Rise of Perón”. Chapter one, “ The Crisis of the Liberal Consensus” begins explaining the low participation of the Argentinean population in the government due to electoral fraudulence and intimidation. Then, he goes on to detailed how the democratic liberalism governmental system was threatened by the elites of Argentina because they fear the possible loss of their power from the new sectors that were rising. After, the author expressed that the
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.” (Jefferson, 1801) This idea echoed far beyond it’s time and into the minds and hearts of the Populist’s, and became the center and the driving force of the Progressive era. During the gilded age railroads were being built, Industrialization was rising, the population of United States was increasing dramatically; and corporate businesses were becoming extremely powerful. The gilded age was known for its corruption and business domination, it wasn’t until the Populist movement when people started to fight back and also not until the Progressive movement when people started changing the government system.
The Populists and Progressive were form of movement that occurred during the outbreaks of the workers union after the civil war. The populists began during the late 1800s.The progressive began during the 1900s. There are many differences between these two movements, but yet these movements have many things that are similar.
Pratt and Clark’s (2005) cultural argument of penal populism ignores the inequalities of New Zealand, in which the structural explanation would stress that inequalities reflects the deep foundational ways of how it shapes the criminal law and the justice system (Workman & McIntosh, 2013). The structural perspective recognizes that New Zealand’s prison population has increased substantially over the last 40 years, simultaneously, so has the inequality between the rich and poor (Workman & McIntosh, 2013). Thus, New Zealand’s punitiveness reflects on the way in which growing inequalities feeds the desire for harsher punishment, and neo-liberalism reflects this relationship (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). The introduction of the economic system of neo-liberalism in 1984 focused on individualism, little government intervention and social support, which created the gap between the
The People's Party, also known as the "Populists", was a short-lived political party in the United States established in 1891 during the Populist movement. It was most important in 1892-96, and then rapidly faded away. Based among poor, white cotton farmers in the South and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the plain states, it represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to banks, railroads, and elites generally. It sometimes formed coalitions with labor unions, and in 1896, the Democrats endorsed their presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan. The terms "populist" and "populism" are commonly used for anti-elitist appeals in opposition to established interests and mainstream parties. Though the party did not win much of anything it did however shape the United States we know today.
Harry E. Canden. , & Gary Prevost, (2012). Politics Latin America. (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.” (1) 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). It, however, was a sales pitch to continue Latin America’s subordinate position in to the global market. As a result, much of Latin America, by the late 1980 through the early 1990s, transitioned into this form of “democracy”. Consequently, Latin America suffered and still suffers today from underdevelopment, high levels of socioeconomic inequality, and immigration. Globalization of capital, off-shore production, and new technologies have created structural barriers and have
Bolivia was once a rich and prosperous country but is now one of the poorest nations in the world. The economy of Bolivia used to be rich in agriculture and mining but now searches to find something prosperous again. Privatization of certain companies has started in the country but was expelled when mass protests began. The companies’ prices are too high and the people used their culture and history to get rid of them. The Cochabamba protests of 2000 and the Bolivian gas referendum of 2004 are a couple of examples that show the power the people of Bolivia have over their own government.
After the civil war, especially during the late 1800s, the US industrial economy has been thriving and booming which reflected on the numerous improvements that occurred in transportation through new railroad, in new markets for new invented goods and in the increased farm yield. However, most of this wealth has been captured by the capitalists, they looked down on the working poor class and expected them to submit to them. Also, they had control over the government seeking to maintain a system of monopoly to allow them to grow richer from others. Thus, they were controlling both political and economic conditions of the country.
Latin American Independence was the drive for independence from Spain and France by the Latin American people. There were many contributing factors that ultimately led to the uprising of Latin American colonies. Europe's strong hold on the economic and political life of Latin America, was creating friction between the Latin Colonies and the European nations. Eventually, this would become enough for the Latin American people and the drive for independence from France and Spain would begin.
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
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.
The farmers feared that Eastern industrialists and bankers were gaining too much influence, power and control over the government. During the “bust” cycle, and times of difficulties, farmers got together, talked about their problems and formed the Populist Party. The Populists were formed because of challenges and difficulties in which they were forced to deal with every day. These challenges included crop failures, falling prices, and the inability to pay loans. The Populists party called for reform by wanting the government to intervene and lessen the impact of economic depressions, regu...
Hugo Chavez's political discourse based on the Marxist thoughts soon was creating "The Bolivarian Revolution", and since its beginning offered the XXI century socialism, which one was never described specifically to people. As a result, with the passing of the years Chavez created an atmosphere of division, violence and unrest within the population. Thus, Created a marked difference between the supporters and opponents of his policies, a situation that President Hugo Chavez took in advantages for his own purposes, deploy a communist regime disguised as a socialist. In other words, Chavez tricked Venezuela’s people, offering the establishment of a socialism that was nothing more than a dictatorship adapted to their own purposes, become the most recognized leader of the left in worldwide.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews