Authoritarian Regimes And Totalitarian Regimes

The government’s masking of the truth eluded the severity of the Guatemalan conflict, which delayed humanitarian aid from the problem. Justifications for the war were made when the government stated it was ongoing, which somewhat covered the traces of these massacres. Although the war started in 1960 and ended in 1996 , the “violence faced by the Mayan people peaked between 1978 and 1986” (Genocide). Since the war and genocide at one point occurred simultaneously, people were confused by the situation in Guatemala. Out of the approximately 200,000 people killed in this war, over 166,000 of them were Mayan (SILENT). The massive proportion of victims that were Mayan revealed the government’s purpose to wipe out the one group that may have threatened the government’s power. According to the United Nations, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. This definition is a parallel to the acts done by the Guatemalan military. The struggle for foreign countries to determine Guatemala’s situation between war and genocide helped the Guatemalan military to continue mass killing Mayans. Former dictator Rios Montt claimed that there was “no genocide, but a high cost during a bloody civil war” which many perceived to be true (Castillo). Since Montt was in a position of power, his words carried more

In, “Testimony: Death of a Guatemalan Village,” Victor Montejo describes events surrounding the military régimes occurring throughout Guatemala. The book itself is an eyewitness account detailing one instance of violence between the indigenous peoples village's "civil patrol" and the army. This occurrence leads to the execution and imprisonment of many villagers. Even though the book is mainly a testimony by one person, in which he discusses the personal conflicts and struggle between himself and the army, the account is structured around the Guatemalan civil war and the conflict between the government and civilians. The Guatemalan Civil War occurred between the years 1960 to 1996. It was a battle between the government of Guatemala and

In Guatemala when president Arbenz took office in 1951, he announced the agrarian reform law in 1952 and the sweeping agenda, he found himself at odds with the American companies that dominated Guatemalas economy which together these three companies had more than $100 million invested in Guatemala. (pp. 132-133).This factored American intervention in Guatemala and the overthrow of Arbenz.

The author of this book is Juan Jose Arevalo and he was a professor of philosophy who became Guatemala’s first democratically elected president in 1944. He was elected after a popular uprising against the United States, backed by Dictator Jorge Ubico, which began the Guatemalan Revolution. He stayed in office until 1951 and had survived 15 coup attempts. During his presidency he had passed several social reform policies that included an increase in minimum wage and a series of literacy programs. He also directed and ministered the drafting of a new constitution in 1945. Arevalo focused much on the need of advancement with individuals and communities. After he was exiled as being a university professor he went back to Guatemala to help the new post-Ubico government, focusing on the areas of social security and drafting of a new constitution. He developed the term “spiritual socialism”, in which he defined his political philosophy as. The philosophy was pointed towards the moral development of Guatemalans with the intent to liberate man psychologically. Arevalo strongly believed that this theoretical doctrine was vital to the making of a progressive and peaceful Guatemalan society. He felt in order to create an ideal society it was necessary to allow the citizens the freedom to pursue their own opinions, property, and way of life. He proclaimed that protecting the freewill of the citizens creates more support for governmental institutions, which in turn ensures the security of

Guatemala in 1960 would begin a civil war that would last for decades and since the Guatemalan civil war is very long only the initial years of the civil war will be discussed. According to John A., Booth, Wade, Christine J., Walker and Thomas W, “Colonel Castillo Armas, head of the National Liberation Movement (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional— MLN), assumed the presidency with the backing of the United States.” In 1954, Colonel Castillo Armas was a leader, that was backed up by the United States was pro-capitalism, and as the MLN dominated Guatemalan politics it had only favored the rich and upper middle class. According to John A., Booth, Wade, Christine J., Walker and Thomas W. “The MLN became a political party during the late 1950s, drawing together coffee plantation owners, municipal politicians and bureaucrats, owners of midsized farms.” Eventually Armas was assassinated, and General Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes became president. According to John A., Booth, Wade, Christine J., Walker and Thomas W. “Continued violence and corruption in the Ydígoras government prompted an abortive coup by

The Guatemalan Revolution was on October 1944 and it forced the resignation of Jorge Ubico. He was the President of Guatemala in the previous thirteen years. Ubico's government was a fear period in the country and it was called the “peace on the cemeteries”

United States’ system has its foundation on an agreement between the people and the government to ensure that individual liberties continue to prosper under a free society. The Declaration of Independence lists three important rights that the Founding Fathers considered natural and unalienable. They are the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government exists to protect these rights. On other hand, the purpose of Guatemala’s government, according to the Guatemala’s Constitution, is to promote the common welfare, the consolidation of the regime of legality, security, equality, justice, liberty and peace. Both countries have its foundation on democracy; nevertheless, there are specific characteristics that mark a difference between them.

In 1964, Guatemala was being run by a military junta, violence was a part of every day life, the economy was in shambles, and jobs were scare (Cuevas, 2011). It was in this setting that a young man, my future father-in-law, took a chance at a better life for he and his family. Enticed by rumors of prosperity in the United States, Alex and his brother Rene saved their money to journey to Chicago, leaving their families behind in a search for hope that was borne of desperation. Alex left his wife Ruth with 20 Guatemalan Quetzal, the equivalent of $20 dollars, and their three children, Vivien, 5, Ingrid, 3, and Marvin, a newborn baby. What experience lay in store for he and his family? How would they fare in an unknown country, without

During the 1970’s more and more protests and uprisings in the capital and the southwest part of the nation became very frequent, and overtime, very violent. The Peace Pledge Union expressed a dramatic and detailed example of the violent acts that the military of Guatemala practiced on Indian natives in search of subversives,

Further, in the text “CIA and Guatemala Assassination Proposals,” it is revealed that the CIA “developed a major propaganda campaign” that, “included sending wooden coffins, hangmans’ nooses, and phony bombs to selected individuals” (“CIA and Guatemala”) in Guatemala. This use of terror and psychological warfare was intended to horrify Guatemalan civilians and politicians prior to executing the actual coup. It is clear that American foreign policy was quite dangerous in correlation with Guatemala and exhibited a masculine attitude. In relation to de Beauvoir, American foreign policy can be compared to “the great advantage enjoyed by the boy” in which “his mode of existence in relations to others leads him to assert his subjective freedom” (de

As Charles Bergquist observes, "Crises in Colombia tend to generate cycles of violence instead of mutations in the political regime." The reason is simple: regime changes in Colombia tend to produce very little change in anything other than nominal rule. Since Colombia's independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Colombia has seen a series of civil wars and secessions (Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama the last coming rather conveniently at a time when the U.S. was prepared to pay millions for a canal through its nation preparation that later resulted in a multi-million dollar redress to Columbia). Colombia's political history, therefore, has been colored by outside influences pulling on the two dominant liberal and conservative parties, with violent exchanges, and long periods of instability being the consequences. While regime changes have occurred, they have not produced significant improvements. Rather, Colombia in the 20th century has become a nesting ground for paramilitary forces and drug traffickers, with U.S. Central Intelligence operatives contributing heavily to the violent conflict that has risen between regimes. This paper will examine the regime types that preceded the Rojas Pinilla regime in mid-20th century Colombia, analyze their similarities and differences, and discuss the extent to which Rojas Pinilla reached his goals and objectives.

When the liberals took the power away from the conservatives, commercial agriculture and product exportation took place. Eventually, came two agricultural modernization strategies; the radical policy strategy and the reform policy strategy. As stated by James Mahoney, “when successfully implemented, a radical policy strategy gave rise to radical liberalism, as in Guatemala and El Salvador. The reform strategy led to reformist liberalism, as was the case for Costa Rica” (230, Mahoney). Aborted liberalism took place when the two strategies mentioned before were not successfully implemented. The point of these liberalisms was to provide a structured and organized foundation for “military-authoritarian, democratic and traditional-authoritarian regimes” (230, Mahoney). In Guatemala and El Salvador, radical liberalism made changes in the military-authoritarianism aspect. In Costa Rica, electoral incorporation allowed politicians to go after the demands of democracy. In Honduras and Nicaragua, US intervention cut off the reformist and radical liberal ideas. Liberalism changed a lot of things Central America and was a part of the development of each

Guatemala once was a magnificent vacation country for many Americans. Now, many Americans are choosing a different getaway.Guatemala has seen many changes to daily life due to drug cartels and street gangs. Drug cartels and street gangs have been taking over the cities and rural areas. These two very dangerous groups of people have been threatening some people and killing others. Many families have to pay to guarantee a safe life. If a family can not pay, they have to escape their homeland. The cartels and gangs ruined many families and traumatised many more. The citizens need help but, not from only themselves. The government needs to help and realize that there is a problem that can ruin their country. The government needs to take

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the 1930s as Totalitarian States A totalitarian state usually refers to a country in which the central government has total control over almost all aspects of people's life. Main features include an infallible leader, one-party rule, elitism, strict party discipline, purges against enemies and political dissidents, planned economy, strong armaments, indoctrination, encouragement of nationalism, an official doctrine that everybody has to believe, and absolute obedience of individuals to the State, etc. In the 1930s, to a large extent, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler could be deemed totalitarian states.

Those people ranged from low end soldiers who made their money by raiding villages. To higher end lieutenants. To become a lieutenant for the governments military it seemed as though you had to kill as many people as possible. Outside of the governments military their were bands of guerillas who fought to bring a new government and change to the Guatemalan society. They would attempt to do this by fighting against all people who they saw is believing the government was right. The other type of people in the society around them was the government workers and officals themselves who promised all these small villages such great things but just keep the money themselves instead. If you were defy the government you would be killed, imprisoned or tortured.