Question 1
After the military junta lost power in the late 1980’s, Argentina went through a burgeoning period where it expanded its economy in the middle of the 1990’s and attracted several investors who poured money into the country at highly favourable interest rates which were clearly unsustainable in the long run.
This eventually led to a collapse of the banking system and there eventually was a huge run on the banks which resulted in several thousands of investors losing their money and ending up with nothing. Politically the country was also affected as the instability created by the financial crisis ended up palpably destroying any form of law and order and all this was coupled with weak leadership which also eroded the country’s political system.
The eventual outcome was that the political system was strengthened with multiparty elections and liberal politicians being elected to office. One has to view Argentina’s recent progress holistically but it does appear that there is hope for the country to continue developing accordingly and to face the challenges it currently has with some alacrity.
However the recent diplomatic spat with Britain on the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) does threaten to undermine its stability on the international circuit.
Question 2
Carlos Menem remains a polarizing figure in Argentinian politics but it is through his assiduous leadership that the country eventually survived the economic and political crisis. Levitzky is forceful and direct about Menem where he is also consistent on the way he nationalised the banks and provided strong leadership in the face of considerable adversity.
More importantly he reorganized the police force and the army making it much more respondent to him and chose his cabinet with an eye on economic stability accordingly. Menem could also be described as somebody who could get things done and who had the charisma of a giant which served him in extremely good stead.
Although one may disagree with Levitzky’s views on Menem’s authoritarian and almost dictatorial policies, there is no denying the fact that the country was much more stable at the end of his second term largely through the reforms that had been put in place.
Menem was also forceful in implementing democratic reforms in all areas of social and public life partly due to the fact that the system had been crumbling and collapsing for some time. In this manner he left the country in a much stronger position for Fernando la Rua although this election eventually precipitated the banking crisis which was unfortunately to engulf the Argentine economy in a bad way.
Question 3
Nestor Kirchner can be said to have transformed Argentine politics both by his charisma but also by his magnificent way of looking forward and instilling some sort of pride into the country which was suffering from a certain malaise of insecurity. Kirchner continued instilling democratic reforms in the country and styled himself as a true man of the people with several aspects of his style instilled into the consciousness of the Argentine people.
His wife, Cristina Kirchner continued the democratic reforms instilled by her husband and also played on the personality cult which he created with the result that she was even more idolized than him. She also continued the democratic reforms which were instilled by her husband much more entrenched with the result that the Argentine nation can claim to be quite securely free as democracy is concerned.
An issue which Christina Kirchner inherited from her husband and for that matter every previous Argentine president is the Malvinas issue. This continually creates a lot of tension in the international scene and as has happened recently, the Malvinas has now flared up even in the sphere of the United Nations with lots of problems being felt and made.
However the popularity of Christina Kirchner has remained undimmed and she has managed to use the populist stance for which she is famous and work this to her advantage. This makes her an important figure on the world’s stage apart from the fact that she has inherited a lot of policies and ideas from her husband which have served her in good stead to mould her image.
Question 4
Mexico is obviously a difficult country to govern although it has a tendency to be subordinate to the United States on issues of national importance. The PRI was a party which controlled most of the factions in state government and was dominant not just on political issues but also on social issues where it controlled the cultural aspect of things as well as the unions and workers movements.
That way although it was a dictatorship, Mexico still could move forward with political and social reforms. Growth was also an issue and the government generally implemented policies which helped the economy and made it richer. The way the economy was controlled also indicated that a dictatorship could always flourish if it was properly controlled.
Again although Mexico was a dictatorship, there was still some tolerance for human rights and there were very few cases of political detainment or torture which were recorded, at least. Tolerance for political opposition was also very much present and although there was little headway made in a plural democracy, at least a semblance of openness was maintained.
Perhaps the country did need a certain element of dictatorship to develop and structure its political system if it was to fare better in life especially after the Second World War.
Question 5.
The revolution in Mexico was successful due to the fact that a lot of forces in the country combined together to create a force for good. Still the Mexican political system continued to evolve with the liberal faction wanting more democracy and to reduce the power of the Church which was still all encompassing in Mexico at the time.
However the issue which reduced Mexico’s influence in the world sphere was the annexation of Texas by the United States which then declared this an independent republic. Naturally enough the Mexican government was hurt by this development and felt that the country had been bullied by the United States.
The second half of the 19th century saw various liberal reforms enacted which further reduced the power of the Church and saw a transfer of landed estate from the Church to the state. This also meant that the rise of political parties continued to grow apace and the influence they had on the development of the country was quite substantial.
The early decades of the 20th century also saw a sea change in Mexican politics with the election of Obregas in 1923 after he had his predecessor assassinated. The succession of Presidents which followed all focused on several issues such as nationalization of state industries and further expropriation of oil companies rights to grow the economy.
The changes continued right up to the 1990’s when democracy began to take shape with the election of President Vicente Fox which opened up a larger plurality of voters and participants in the country’s economy. The transition from a dictatorship to a democracy was slow at first but the relatively benign dictatorship in Mexico made the actual transition much easier.
Question 6
Juan Peron and Carlos Menem were Presidents who played on their intrinsic popularity and charisma whilst also portraying an image of openness and democracy. Although Peron was perhaps more concerned with his image more than anything else, the result was that he ended up assassinated and overcome by the military junta which was far more aggressive and militarily minded than the previous government.
This contrasts with Lazaro Cardenas who was intrinsically a military minded President who was much more concerned with bringing about military change and increasing power in the country.
Carlos Menem was perhaps more of a benign autocrat who brought about the changes that the country needed when faced with economic turmoil and social challenges caused by the previous military government. In the early to late 1990’s, De Gortari embarked on a similar programme of reform and social upheaval in Mexico which brought about substantial changes to the way society was constructed and how it performed.
The pre Noughties were important years for both Mexico and Argentina which appeared very much part of the international community which also accepted their governments with alacrity. Naturally enough both countries suffered greatly in the early years of the seventies when life was hard and tough in this respect but there was also a long way to go for development which the administrations of Peron and Menem nurtured slowly but surely.
Question 7
Raul Alfons and Vicente Fox could be said to have brought Argentina and Mexico into the real world in the early years of the 21st Century. Although they were strikingly different in style and context, both had the common good of their country in mind when they took up their respective presidencies.
Alfonso was slightly more aggressive than Fox on certain issues especially the Malvinas Islands which always seem to crop up with every Argentinian President.
Fox seemed to have a good relationship with the United States, especially with President George Bush although the latter was from Texas which was something which still rankled on the Merxican side.
Fox was also circumspect about the issue of immigration which is another issue that crops up regularly between Mexico and the United States. However Fox also advanced democratic reforms at a substantially swift level when compared with his predecessors.
In conclusion both presidents have similarities although they cannot exactly be the same in the way they conduct their country’s affairs as both countries are also intrinsically different.
