Latin American Dictatorship

Prior to the Great Depression, Chile had prospered amidst the workings of free-market and mercantilist polices. The Great Depression, however, disrupted this, as it brought about the necessity of government intervention in the economy. Indeed, government intervention even stretched so far as to transform Chile into a nation insulated by protectionist policies. Furthermore, the Great Depression had undoubtedly brought about a political crisis in Chile with the ousting of Ibáñez del Campo in 1931, who himself had partaken in a military coup d’état to achieve presidency in the first place. It has even been posited that the nationalization of copper that had begun during the presidency of Ibáñez del Campo and which was completed during the presidency of Salvador Allende in the early 1970s built the foundation for a future international economic boycott, which further

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

According to Garreton, the oppositions had successfully created a political front that aggregated enough support for an alternative to the current regime. This resulted in a democratization in Chile that was also free and repressive. Chile had a pacted transition which was actor-centered. This transition to democracy was repressive in that the elections were started from the top down, only once the elites and the official agreed to hold an election was there any form of a transition. As O’Donnell described it, it is ironically non-democratic because these pacts are negotiated among small numbers of elites. It was also repressive in that once Chile was democratized it delayed truth and justice. Those that were involved in many of the atrocities did not serve jail time because of the amnesty laws. However, this transition was also free because it resulted in elections that allowed for the public to decide whether or not they were going to transition to democracy. These elections were also free in that they were inclusive and also non-violent. This then resulted in a stable democratic government that was bred through both freedom and

As was laid out in the previous section, the United-States always had a ‘hegemonic presumption’, the conception that Latin America was inferior, a supposition that gave the right to Washington to intervene in the region’s political and economic affairs (LeoGrande, 2007:384). This second chapter will explore how the U.S. intervened in Latin America, more specifically after the World War II. Indeed, the U.S. benefitted greatly from the aftermath of the war. A subsection will be dedicated to the Pink Tide in Latin America, with a focus on the U.S. foreign policy under President GW Bush and President Obama. The overthrown Presidents of Honduras and Paraguay were part of this movement and their outset signals a reversal in the region.

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

One of the most speculative experiences of conquest and dictatorship in the history of Latin America has been the socialist and dictatorial regimes in Chile. Chile has gone through multiple times of dictatorship, lead by the military, and also had lapses of a socialist government. The film “Machuca” by Andres Wood provided an insight of the series of social events in Chile in 1973, ranging from inter personal experiences to political issues and the Chilean nation. “Two dictators, Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet, both brought tremendous suffering upon the Chilean people -- one through his socialist policies and nationalization of

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.

Selbin identifies the most important part of a social revolution is the transformation of the society that is broken up into two parts consolidation and institutionalization of a country (Selbin 13). Augusto Pinochet and Fidel Castro both tried to succeed in these aspects, but both had success in areas but also failures in others. Their rise to power, reign and their political ideology separated them on a fundamental level, but they did have some similarities.

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.

To what degree were the measures taken by the DINA effective in stopping opposition to Pinochet from 1973 to 1977?

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

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