Exam 2 - Political Geography Flashcards
Colonial impacts on independent politics
Post-independence Latin American states suffered from social polarization – a legacy of landownership and economic practices established during the colonial period
- Independence struggles were not class struggles but anti-colonial struggles – began life with internal contradictions and destabilizing internal politics
- Oppressed, illiterate masses ill-prepared for civic responsibility; elites opposed to any form of power sharing
- Independence did not mark a break with the exploitative colonial attitudes and structures – emergence of new elites
- Contradictory political environment – constitutions with eloquent guarantees of personal civil liberties that have been widely violated since independence
Caudillismo
- After independence, the economic elite became somewhat autonomous and left politics to the military figures from the revolutions
- Caudillismo – arbitrary rule by a military or political strongman or chief; rule enforced by violent means (early): political assassination or an army revolt, and non-violent means later: election rigging, intimidation – one candidate, continuismo (rewriting constitution, or rigging election for handpicked successor)
- Caudillos had regional power bases and exerted power over localized areas – a symptom of the disunity within large states
- Some caudillos were able to take over the whole state – Juan Manuel de Rosas (Argentina), Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Mexico) – but most ruled their regional enclaves
- Caudillismo and the support bases established around them gave rise to the cult of the individual that we see later in populism – associated influences of paternalism, clientelism and authoritarianism
Post-caudillo period
- Post-independence caudillo period dissipated around 1850s as elites reemerged from seclusion
- States became more unified – facilitated by rail and road infrastructure development – as foreign investment capital flowed into the region
- During this period, politics was the territory of the rich – either directly or through dictators – Porfirio Diaz in Mexico
Liberals/Conservatives
Key political issues were between two factions – liberals and conservatives
- Conservatives – pro-Church, centralized government favoring big cities
- Liberals – separation of church and state, federalist (power base in outlying regions), egalitarian political philosophies
- In 19th century Colombia, there were 8 national civil wars, 14 regional civil wars, and many other local disputes between the two parties
- Found ways to ensure elite rule was maintained – ballot-box stuffing, vote-buying, literacy laws – illiterate people could not vote in Peru until 1979
Porfirio Diaz – Mexico under his rule
Mexico under Porfirio Diaz
- He encouraged foreign and national investment in oil, railroads, and land development – trackage increased from 723 miles in 1881 to 9029 miles in 1900
- Expanded haciendas – peasants lost their last remnants land and became like property of the hacienda
- By 1910, 98% of arable land was owned by haciendas; 90% of peasants were landless
- Terrazas hacienda larger than Belgium and the Netherlands combined
- Vast amounts of property were under foreign control – by 1910, US held 100M acres (22% of Mexico’s land surface)
- Thousands were transformed into agrarian and industrial workers – indebted to company store, substandard living conditions, rigidly controlled, violently suppressed if they tried to unionize
Results
- Strong land owning class, weak middle class, exploited peasants and workers
- The disaffected coalesced into revolutionary force
Two Revolutions of the Mexican Revolution
- Middle-class professionals, intellectuals, ranchers and merchants who wanted a modern, democratic, progressive state with a strong centralized national government
A. 1908 – Madero publishes The Presidential Succession in 1910 that called for free elections
B. Madero was imprisoned – Diaz re-elected himself - Peasants who wanted land reform and social justice based on local self-rule
A. Two fronts – North led by Pancho Villa, and the South led by Emiliano Zapata
B. Villa and Zapata’s peasant armies defeated the Federal Army in 1911 and Madero became president
Madero’s Rule
- Established free press, independent Congress with power over executive, enable formation of political parties
- But…old bureaucracy remained, haciendas were untouched, peasants did not recover their land
- Battles between police and unions, peasant invasions in rural areas
Emiliano Zapata – his goals for the Revolution
- . Carranza was briefly pushed out of Mexico City by Villa and Zapata – but they did not seize power – they went back to the countryside
- Zapata redistributed land according to each village and the villages ruled themselves according to their customs (1914-1915)
Jose Vasconselos – his role in making Mexico
- Vasconcelos helped to created a new nation – that represented all its parts and history – Indian, Spanish, Mestizo – through…
- Education Reform and the Cultural Revolution – Mexican muralists helped to “write” the history of Mexico – to bring everyone into the story
Nation/Nationalism/Imagined Communities
Nation: A group of people who share particular historical-cultural characteristics or imagine themselves to do so
Nationalism: Strong identification with the nation to which a person feels they belong; encapsulates a set of beliefs and practices which people come to accept as ‘natural’
‘imagined communities’—provide feeling of belonging, solidarity and commonality among people who have never met and, in most cases, never will (Benedict Anderson 1991)
Populism – rise and fall; characteristics
RISE
1. Catalyst for change: worldwide depression and rise of ISI ended dominance of agrarian elite and a shift in politics to populism (appealing to the masses); the state replaces the caudillo as all-powerful provider; Cardenas in Mexico, Vargas in Brazil, Ibanez in Chile, Peron in Argentina
A. Urban-oriented political model – this model coincides with ISI and industrialists and industrial workers are a major support base for leaders – more popular in larger countries (more industrialized)
B. Corporatism – ruling parties set up and controlled labor unions and other mass organizations – they exchanged support by these organizations in return for improvements
a. State/party machine controlled elections; opposition excluded from state’s bounty, hounded by legal system, physical intimidation
C. Nationalistic – populists condemned Latin America’s dependence on outside powers and often nationalized key industries – Mexico’s oil (1938), Argentina’s railroads (1948)
a. Initial success of ISI helped fund the expanded state and programs
D. States with smaller, weaker economies military dictators take over in 1930s (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Dominican Republic); in power for decades, stifling political modernization and sowing seeds of future upheaval, revolutions (Cuba 1959, Nicaragua 1979)
FALL
1. Downturn of ISI led to a fall in populism, and a number of factors led to the take over of politics by the military in some state – Brazil (1964), Argentina (1966)
A. Economic crisis (waning of growth) broke down improbably industrialist/worker alliance; expansion of social groups (middle class) wanting a voice in politics; radical elements such as militant student movements inspired by Cuban Revolution
2. Military dictatorships that emerged during this period were supported during Cold War by the US, and they also had popular support (especially among the middle class) to restore order (improve economic situation)
3. Military rule led to National Security Doctrine – promoted the defeat of ‘internal subversion’ – basically, anything that threatened the status quo
A. As a result, human rights and rule of law became redundant; there was supervision of all activities in the national space; and military governments developed extensive military-industrial complexes under state-led ISI (Brazil exports $1B/year in weapons in 1980s)
Personalism
The reduction of political, economic and socials affairs to the personal is a prominent aspect of much of Latin Amercia - important figures making the government in regards with their personal agenda.
Corporatism
ruling parties set up and controlled labor unions and other mass organizations – they exchanged support by these organizations in return for improvements
Military – anti-politics/justifications for take-over, spatial/social segregation of military;
loss of control
The military in Latin America had always been a central and independent political force since the wars of independence
- Anti-politics position of the military – they touted themselves as efficient economic planners, since they were not subject to the “whims of politics” (formal and informal)
- But, by closing down formal and informal (unions, etc.) politics, they left a political vacuum in which other political actors rose up to fill in the void – begins the rise of “New” Social Movements
- EX: Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo (Argentina) – use the Junta’s discourse of women’s traditional roles, as mothers, to engage in public protest to find their “disappeared” children
- Professionalization of the military occurred since the mid-19th century – building a national army with a proper career structure and a separate value system – encouraging a self image as a caste apart from – and superior to – the rest of society
- This has meant a separation from civilian society – socially and spatially – which separates them from civil values
- Military schools – high percentage are officers sons = increased sense of separation from society
- Other spaces – separate neighborhoods, country clubs/social clubs
Loss of Control
1. Budget cuts from economic restructuring
(military budgets halved across region between
1985-1994); privatization of military industries
2. Post-Cold War – makes National Security
Doctrine obsolete; US now sees military
governments as politically destabilizing,
economically less competent than civilian
governments
3. Without popular support – people less willing to
endure dictatorship because they also can’t
control economic chaos (proven by Debt Crisis)
Monroe Doctrine
was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the American continent in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.
Platt Amendment
Platt Amendment (1902)—gave the US the right to intervene in Cuba “for protection of life, property and individual liberty”
