Latin American countries had adopted capitalism as an economic system that arose from the industrialized Europe and the more developed United Sates. However, capitalism did not solve the societal problems of many Latin American societies. Instead, capitalism created a society where a group of elites controlled the state and the economy of many Latin American countries. Even with the rapid economic development that many Latin American countries experienced in 19th century, economic development was not witnessed among the lower middle class and the peasant farmers. Abject poverty was still a feature of a large percentage of the Latin American populace. The urban poor and the rural peasant farmers were not only excluded from the day to day running of state affairs, they were also excluded from accessing wealth and decent life that came from the resources of their beloved countries. When capitalism did not provide solutions when most economies were retrogressive after the Second World War, partly due to a resurgent European economy that created a fall in demand for Latin American products, many people sought refuge in the new idea of Marxism. Several things explain the reason for this love affair with Marxism. However, two are most important. One was the failure of the capitalist governments to cure poverty, underdevelopment, and elitism. Second, was attributed to the growth of nationalism among the growing middle class. Marxism provided an ideology that was understood as siding with the weak and the impoverished masses against the rich minority and the corporations from the United States.
In Latin America, the peasantry and the urban classes are highly vocal in their anti neoliberal sentiments. Their sentiments reflect the reality of many unsatisfied citizens of Latin American populace. It is a reality of hard work with no little pay and less progress. The alternative to this way of life was a revolution. Marxism advocated for a revolution that was based on toppling the existing system and replacing with one that was controlled with the workers.The growing urban middle class read the philosophies of Marxism and saw that it was the panacea to Latin American problems. In their nationalist feelings, many of this Marxists believed that the United States was a representation of Spanish imperialism. They argued that United States extracted resources from Latin America for the benefit of the few at the expense of the majority. A solution was to topple any government that was friendly with the United States and replace it with a workers’ government. Another reason why Marxism appealed to the poor and middle class was its desire to confiscate property that was ill gotten either through forced labor and slavery to nationalize them for the benefit of everyone. With the works of revolutionary doctor Che Guevara and Fidel Castro in Cuba, revolutionary spread like fire in Central America. In South America, they took a more subtle form of political parties. Marxism was to become a central pillar in Latin American political thought standing distinctly with more right hand capitalism.
In Cuba, Marxism led to a political revolution as a result of ripe anti imperialist attitudes towards the United States in the 1950s. The United States had attempted to instill a pro capitalist dictator in Cuba amidst complains of imperialism. However, the leadership of Fidel Castro and his brother Raul Castro, and the rapid excitement of Marxism as a solution to discrimination, gender inequality and freedom from USA made it hard to beat the revolutionaries. They eventually acquired power in 1958. After acquiring power, Fidel Castro focused on the policy of anti imperialism that was based on nationalism and alliance with USSR, the arch enemy of the USA. With no time, the US had a trade embargo with Cuba that led to the ban of importation of Cuban cigar. The Cuban revolution reorganized the society in terms of income distribution. Castro’s government was focused on programs such as healthcare, education and industrialization. Cuba made strides in the area of human development index. In contrast, freedom of expression and political conscience was taken away for many of the population. Many people of dissenting views were imprisoned and tortured. A lot them fled to the United States as asylum seekers. When the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, Cuban economy was disrupted.
Nicaragua provides another case of Marxism’s violent revolution. Nicaragua had suffered US involvement in its internal affairs. There was a strong anti American sentiment feelings among a section of Nicaraguans. In 1960s, a group of nationalists arose in the name of Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). This was a reaction against policies of Somoza dictatorship of the 1960s and 1970s. In 1979, the FSLN were able to oust Somoza and install a Marxist economy based on the one practiced in Cuba. This Marxist governance led by FSLN put Nicaragua on conflict zone with the United States once more. However, the FSLN managed to change the country’s social structure from that was oligarchic to one that is inclusive in the mixed economic model.
While the threat of Marxism and Communism explains the immediate spark off or cause of authoritarianism, institutional weaknesses can explain the reason why dictatorial governments thrived in Latin America. The lack of democratic experience also created a problem with democracy which eventually led to authoritarianism. Little legislative representation of the people from the grassroots hindered their participation in democratic affairs. The lack of institutional strength made it possible for strong individuals to make democracy work. With power vested on the individual as opposed to the constitution, an authoritarian regime is created. This is because of inadequate of checks and balances for the institution of presidency.
Brazil provides an example of an authoritarian government. Brazil had no history of military dictatorship. Brazilian military seizure of government was a function of US’ influence in their politics. The United State’s ambassador to Brazil is quoted to have supported the coup’s by calling it, “ the single most decisive victory for freedom in the mid twentieth century,” this was not true since the military junta in Brazil was later to limit constitutional rights of the citizens, limited political parties and also embarked on a war with Marxist sympathizers. In the end, the only seeable victory for them was a rapid industrialization and a booming economy that was based on intensive foreign investment. There was massive income inequality and increased spending by the governments on white elephants that did not help the economy. The so called Brazilian miracle was to become an illusion that was never true.
In Argentina, Juan Peron rose to military power after a military coup in 1943. Remarkable was the role played by Peron’s wife Eva. While many dictators became unpopular in Latin America, Peron was able to enjoy a great following from the masses. Peron’s following was attributed to his populist’s rhetoric that was anti elites. He advocated for the nationalization of state properties, redistribution of income and provision of welfare for the urban poor. The biggest downsize of Peron’s government was his inability to create a conducive environment for democracy to thrive.
Populist leaders use their connection to the common folks, their upbringings in poverty and their ability their commonness with people to blame the existing system for the problems of the society. In doing so, populists not only create a sense of misguided hope that the elimination of the ruling class will solve the problems of the society; they also become the embodiment of nationalism and the people’s power. Venezuela under Hugo Chavez demonstrates an example of how societal dissatisfaction is an ingredient for populism. Hugo Chavez was born an in poor family, to family of slaves and Native American origin. He spoke the language of the common Venezuelans and based his campaign on the Bolivarian revolution. Bolivarian revolution was based on the desire to have Venezuelan resources such as oil and mining industry to be controlled by native Venezuelans and not foreign corporations. Also, Chavez was concerned about increasing poverty, unemployment of the youth and collapsing neoliberal economic system.
Chavez’s populism was also a backlash to the economic neoliberalism that was practiced in Venezuela. He hated the free market, the privatization of government corporations and all the state owned properties. Instead, Chavez favored an economic system that was inclusive of all classes in Venezuela. He added public expenditure to improve the quality of life among the urban poor. Chavez thus gave political power to the poor by promising them change of lifestyle and given a sense of entitlement in the affairs of the state. By blaming the new liberal economic system for increasing poverty and income inequality, Chavez was able to win the hearts of many poor Venezuelans. Chavez manipulated the Venezuelan class structure by befriending the urban poor and the peasants. He promised them real power and control of the state through a vocal union of the works. Their sentiments were channeled to attack the economic system of neoliberalism that was seen by many as a return to colonization.
In Bolivia, Morales campaigned in the platform of nativism, poverty eradication and a new route divorced from over reliance on Washington’s control. Being the first indigenous president of any Latin American country, Morales has been under pressure to eliminate poverty among native people in Bolivia. In order to do this, Morales has had to eliminate the control of big resources from corporations. Indeed, Morales has privatized gas and oil industry, he also used state money to open schools and health centers. His programs are aimed at helping the poor and including them in the benefits of the state. Morales strong populist rhetoric was his call for the right of autonomic existence of the native people. This autonomy was to be aided with the government’s acceptance of their difference. Morales also promised to change the legacy of racism that was perpetuated with European Bolivians for many years. Together with his own connection with poverty, Morales’ charisma was enough to send him to the presidency in the country where indigenous people constitute quite a chunk of the electorate.
Works Cited
Chasteen, John Charles. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. New York, NY [u.a.: Norton, 2006. Print.
Dorfman, Ariel. Heading South, Looking North: A Bilingual Journey. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1998. Print.
Vanden, Harry E., and Gary Prevost. Politics of Latin America: The Power Game. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.
