Bureaucratic Authoritarian Regime In Latin America

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

Throughout the 1800s Latin America was trying to catch up with the rest of the Western world, progressing with increased exports, manufacturing, and industrialization. These advances did not stop the internal problems of most Latin nations. With these changes, as in the rest of the world, there was a growth in urban populations and in the middle class, adding another layer in the social structure; which in turn is just another group that will vie for power, and benefits from the government (180-90). This period is characterized with a large amount of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few, which on paper shows great economic progress in the form of a GDP number, but there was still great wealth disparity. The switch, in Latin America, from conservatives in the early part of the 1800s, to liberals for the latter half, eventually turned to authoritarian governance; the democratic goals liberals set out to achieve were trashed for power and economic benefits, in keeping with previous generations (191).

There are many similarities of right-wing and left-wing authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Cuba. However, for this essay I will focus on the similarities within abuses and the differences regarding the United States’ support.

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,

When the Europeans first arrived in Latin America, they didn't realize the immensity of their actions. As history has proven, the Europeans have imposed many things on the Latin American territory have had a long, devastating effect on the indigenous people. In the centuries after 1492, Europeans would control much of South America and impose a foreign culture upon the already established civilizations that existed before their arrival. These imposed ideas left the continent weak and resulted in the loss of culture, the dependence on European countries, and a long standing ethnic tension between natives and settlers which is evident even to this day. The indigenous people of South America, which

The answer requires a look at the country’s political, economic and social history. This article

It is impossible to separate the history of military dictatorships in Latin America from the history of economic exploitation and of US intervention in the region. The history of slavery and other forced labor in the pursuit of large-scale agriculture and resource extraction in the time of the colonies has created a legacy of economic exploitation. This poverty and inequality has in many cases led to popular uprisings and calls for reform, which provided the reason (or the excuse, depending on your point of view) to use military force to restore discipline. The United States' willingness to support strong regimes capable of securing its interests in the region also has played a decisive role. These

Like most societies around the world, a single elite or a multitude of elites compete with one another to gain or maintain control over a much larger group of people. This distribution of power among a few selected groups to govern the people, is known as the Elite Power Theory; and this theory applies to many of the Latin American countries. Furthermore, elite groups like any other social groups are conditioned by a set of unwritten rules, by which, elite groups have to demonstrate their power and correspond with other existing elite groups in order to maintain control (also called the ‘living museum’ effect by Anderson).

This system of capitalism was originally brought to the Third World countries through a preliminary process called the mercantilism period. This system was made possible by the occurrence of renaissance in Europe that encouraged the birth of modernity. European countries were promoting divisions to gain trade benefits from Asia to Africa. Generally they did so by applying monopoly practices over their colonies. This phase then continued to colonialism. In an effort to change the economic logic of this colonial government organized different approaches. Some by totally changing and some by transplanting local economic structures and or modified them. In Latin America and the Caribbean the separation of peasants from forcible land ownership then sent slaves as workers who contributed surpluses from cotton and tobacco farms. In some parts of Asia it is done by utilizing existing early systems through local high-ranking officials such as those in Java.

After many years of continuous democracy throughout the 20th century, Uruguay’s government later fell to a repressive authoritarian military regime. Eventually, the rule of a hierarchical military facilitated the reemergence of robust political parties and a democratic government institution, succumbing to domestic and international pressure for government change. Uruguay now boasts the title of “country of the year” for 2013, as The Economist cites Uruguay’s tolerant and progressive society. Despite Uruguay’s democratic government, a democratic reversal remains possible. Stagnant economic growth, a fractionalized party system, and poor civil-military relations after the democratic

After many countries in Latin America received their independence, limited change of conditions occurred and the elite maintained control in the new republics. The basis for economic inequality remained the same and the patterns persisted. In the early 19th century, the majority of countries had developed republican democracies yet the upper class still had the power to act in their own interests. A direct bearing established the extent of the elite’s ability to influence the formation of government policies. Landowners opposed any institutional change that could transfer power

For the past two centuries, much of Latin America has struggled to shake the hierarchical capitalist inequities established throughout the colonial period. While the independence movements of the 19th century successfully established national sovereignty, the new governments failed to shatter the export-model which enriched western countries at the expense of the former colonies. This cycle of dependency continued well into the 20th century, until the Great Depression plunged the globe into economic disarray. Spurring discussion about the viability of free-market capitalism, the economic crisis birthed various nationalist movements which attempted to address the structural failures which generated adverse outcomes for Latin America. Leaders

Each country had military coups and regimes because of the way the government was being run before getting taken over. Argentina’s regime was an authoritarian – bureaucratic state, Brazil’s military regime was an authoritarian military dictatorship, and the military dictatorship of Chile was an authoritarian government.

This research paper will focus on the effect of the ideological party system of Brazil and Chile and the consequences on the government efficiency in achieving and responding to the demands of the public. Through using normative\sociological institutionalism to better understand how the role of culture and norms including ideology has a role in establishing the social institutions and formal organizations leading to an institutional behavior [action] that affects the state as on organization and policy making agenda.(Bolfikova, Hrehova and Frenova,2012). It also discusses the historical roots of party system in Brazil and Chile and the reasons for the different outcome that party system through forming coalitions and in Chile that affect the level of responsiveness from the government is able to connect more with the social groups and association in order to accomplish the public demands while in Brazil parties are weakly linked to the social organizations and therefore has little effect on the government level of responsiveness. It also explains why both Brazil and Chile have reached a different political outcome although both are similar in many circumstances as both had a military coup in the mid-60s with the USA help because both were seen as a great threat Capitalist USA during the

In our class we learned a lot about the various military regimes that occurred throughout Latin America. However out of all the ones we discussed, Brazil’s dictatorship was never mentioned. I decided to write about it, but at the same time also compare it to the other military regimes in Latin America. Unlike most of the other governments, Brazil’s military one was not as brutal. It in no way measured up to the brutality of the Argentinian dictatorship or the ruthlessness of the dictatorship in Bolivia. However it was not an easy time either. Many Brazilians were exiled and many lost their lives because of this oppressive government.