Authoritarism in Argentina in the Last Fifty Years Essay

Throughout the course of history, several authoritarian leaders have risen to power and maintained their acquired power through physical, violent means. Two authoritarian leaders that have transformed their acquired power into dictatorial rights are Fidel Castro of Cuba and Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Interestingly, Castro and Pinochet differed in their ideals about the ideal structure of governments. While Castro advocated for a socialist, Marxist, anti-imperialist Cuba, Pinochet favored a anti-Marxist, anti-socialist, capitalist Chile. Despite their differing ideals, both shared several similarities in their efforts to establish and maintain their power. Both individuals rose to power in a similar manner: a sort of coup d’état. Both individuals maintained power through positive and negative means. Castro and Pinochet introduced several economic reforms that mostly benefited the people of Cuba and Chile. While these economic reforms allowed for the financial freedom of many Cubans and Chileans, the dictatorial rulers politically repressed the residents of Cuba and Chile. While many historians believe that Castro and Pinochet greatly differed due to their opposing beliefs, both dictators share multiple similarities in the ways that they rose to power, negatively maintained power, and positively

Q6. During the time, many Latin American countries were slowly trying to find their way to a democracy. A democracy is a government by the people. A democratic way of life includes practice such as free elections, citizen participation, majority rule, minority rights, and a constitutional government. Many nations would begin to follow the democratic practices as well as beginning to accept their own democratic forms of government; however, to achieve a democratic government it would take years. The struggle for democracy in other nations would occur well beyond the 21st century. DUring this time, countless nations were breaking free from authoritarian rule and turning to democracies instead. More specifically, it would spread widely throughout

The Latin American countries have been subject to many changes ever since the American continent was discovered. These changes have mainly affected the economy, culture and power changes these countries have suffered throughout the years. According to Jon Charles Chasteen on his book “Born in Blood & Fire” During the twentieth century, there were three main events that changed the course of Latin American countries and their economies. These three events were, the emergence of nationalism, the end of World War II, and the Cuban revolution. However, in my point of view, the event that created more impact in Latin America and the future of these countries has been Cuban Revolution. It is not a secret that the Cuban Revolution created a big impact to the country’s future, unfortunately this revolution not only changed Cuba, but also the entire region of Latin America.

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Latin America has a long and complex history. From the early 1500s to 1888 there have been many political changes (foreign control, political ideology, slavery) and some continuities (central control), but the changes have had a greater effect because independent nations were able to establish themselves and form their own governments. Globally, the European Industrial Revolution was taking place which allowed for a political advantage because the new technologies could give the European governments stronger control over their colonies.

The Argentine Process Of National Reorganization, more commonly known as the “Dirty War,” was a period from roughly 1974 to 1983 when the president was deposed and the entire government was taken control of by the military. This decade of civil destruction, turmoil, and human rights violations was part of the military’s plan to rid the country of the radical left and communist subversion. The junta spoke of a “New Argentina,” one full of prosperity for all its citizens, order and no longer chaos, they preached they would bring back Argentina’s glory days. For all this talk of an Argentina that would be once again a world power, no one knew of the atrocities the military would commit in the process. They did not think of the innocent lives

Latin America is a continent that is constantly struggling between governmental abuse and oppression of its citizens. In Latin America, it is very common for non –democratic systems to be enforced. During recent years, the continent has experienced a governmental shift from an absolute to a more democratic system. This era is called the democratic third wave, which brought about democratic like tendencies to Latin America. Many factors such as corruption, poverty, and inequality pushed the people to favor this new democratic system. The abuse of power is also very common, and the citizen’s unrest is highly noted. Most citizens are in favor of doing away with the old system of government, and establishing a new efficient political system.

American attitudes towards Latin America can be summed up as an extension of larger global directives, and the exclusion of foreign powers in the region. This was highlighted especially during the Cold War as US involvement was essentially in competition with the USSR. Latin America was therefore a mere pawn in the larger context of US-Soviet competition for global dominance. The actions and methods used are also characterized by the lack of an international authority, or an atmosphere of inter-state anarchy, which shaped their calculations in the endeavor to increase their influence over Latin America. When one analyzes the situation, it seems only rational that the United States treated its southern neighbors so, due to the geographical

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.

Many foreign policy makers in the western hemisphere and other developing countries often behave as if capitalism and democracy are inseparable. Nevertheless, there are some scholars that argue that the relationship between this political and economic systems are not complicated. Democracy and the market economy are two systems that are closely intertwined and mutually reinforcing or weakening. Since both of them are related to freedom. If one of these systems is strengthened , the other also strengthens and weakens if one weakens the other. Most Latin American countries, including Nicaragua have struggled to establish a democratic political system and have a capitalist economic system, since this so called “capitalism” is hierarchical,

Early 19th century marked the end of colonization in Latin America; the countries in the region began to form their own governments, while under threat from each other. Oligarchy was a common form of government in the Latin American region, and was led by the privileged. With the years that followed, the region was thrown into political chaos, and the government was often to blame.

Pinochet was put into power . This is a perfect example of how the US foreign policy replaced genuine democracy with dictatorship for their own benefit, and again, supposedly in the name of National Security. Latin America was a victim of US foreign policy and corporate greed.

During the cold war, in a misguided attempt to “secure” much of South and Central America, the United States played the charade of safeguarding freedom in such places as Brazil, Argentina, and Guatemala; each developed its own strain of repressive autocracy, to which the champion of democracy turned a blind eye. Such cases do not reflect a failure among Brazilians, Argentinians, or Guatemalans. Rather, they are a consequence of loyalty.

The type of development that was formed in Latin America was structural dualism because it is able to define the ways of life for the people. This kind of social infrastructure is in a way very similar to the community society, where all people will work collectively to benefit the whole. This is seen in more liberal forms of government. What I have also learned are the concepts of nationalism, patriotism, and that development is a social process. All of these concepts correlate in some way. Education has led to increases in nationalism and patriotism. This created a loyalty and love for the Latin American countries, and in turn increased the want to fight for their sovereignty and rights. Along with these fights for independence the formation of populism came about and the need to make numbers more predominant in political processes as well as to break the stronghold of the elite powers. With the elite powers, corruption was very prevalent during this time and it became one of the major reasons for the economic instability and dependence of the

During the 1960s and 1970s in Latin America, countries like Argentina, Brazil, and Chile all experienced some sort of authoritarian regime. According to O’ Donnell this new type of bureaucratic authoritarian military regime left many political scientists puzzled because of its quick ability to take over these countries. His prediction of what would happen to these countries were astonishing because it was pretty accurate. Larger countries in Latin America such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile presented perfect examples why these countries failed during this time and led to bureaucratic-authoritarian military interventions. Military threats, economic crises, weak politics, and failing government