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
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.
Walker, Thomas W and Armony, Ariel C. Repression, Resistance, and Democratic Transition in Latin America. Scholarly Resources Incorporated, 2000. Wilmington, Delaware.
The Allies’ victory in WWII marked democracy’s triumph over dictatorship, and the consequences shook Latin America. Questioning why they should support the struggle for democracy in Europe and yet suffer the constraints of dictatorship at home, many Latin Americans rallied to democratize their own political structures. A group of prominent middle–class Brazilians opposed to the continuation of the Vargas dictatorship mused publicly, “If we fight against fascism at the side of the United Nations so that liberty and democracy may be restored to all people, certainly we are not asking too much in demanding for ourselves such rights and guarantees.” The times favored the democratic concepts professed by the middle class. A wave of freedom of speech, press, and assembly engulfed much of Latin America and bathed the middle class with satisfaction. New political parties emerged to represent broader segments of the population. Democracy, always a fragile plant anywhere, seemed ready to blossom throughout Latin America. Nowhere was this change more amply illustrated than in Guatemala, where Jorge Ubico ruled as dictator from 1931 until 1944. Ubico, a former minister of war, carried out unprecedented centralization of the state and repression of his opponents. Although he technically ended debt peonage, the 1934 vagrancy law required the carrying of identification cards and improved ...
Peter H. Smith. , & , (2012). Democracy in Latin America. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
If one accepts democracy as a practice, the question is then begged what kind of an institution sustains it? This discussion---though ...
General Augusto Pinochet gained power during a blood-filled coup during 1973 when his militaristic, authoritarian rule began. He continued to rule in a brutal regime of repression and human rights abuse until 1989 when his regime was lifted in favor of a more democratic system. Since 1990, Chile seems to be on the right track to re-establishing a once strong democracy that will continue to strengthen in the future. The three factors that have increased the likelihood of this success are the tripartite party system, institutionalization of the party system, and reduction of the ideological polarization that gripped the country. Finally, some of the elements of change were present to ensure a successful push to instate democratic principles.
Jelin, E. (1994). The politics of memory: The human rights movements and the construction of democracy in Argentina. Latin American Perspectives, 21(2), 38-58.
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
Rohter, Larry. "After 30 Years Argentina's Dictatorship Stands Trial." SIRS Issues Researcher. N.p., 20 Aug. 2006. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2014. .
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.
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?”
Democracy is robust, widely accepted and highly anticipated around the world. It is the triumphant form of government; dominantly used in Europe, North and South and America and becoming reformed and taking new roots in Africa and Asia. Although the term democracy is based on its Greek origin, demos kratos, meaning people rule, the term cannot be simply understood as such. Due to vast coverage, the adaptation of democracy has varied greatly, whether regionally, nationally, by state or through different branches of government. Perhaps this can be advantageous when the different categorizations listed above can use democracy to rule and suit themselves best, but other factors, such as globalization and neoliberalism, has caused the need for
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.
Actually, democracy is deemed to be a difficult form of government regardless if it is favourable circumstances or not. It seems to be all the more difficult when society’s economic environment is weak, civil society is still developing, and finally ...