La Politics
Essay Preview: La Politics
Report this essay
Latin America harbors a unique place in political science. While political trends like elitism and populism arise elsewhere in the world, their persistence, frequent reoccurrence, strength, and development makes their Latin American forms of particular analytical interest. Latin American society is deeply traditional and politically elitist, but not immune to the influence of democratic ideals. After elites, transitioning out of monarchial rule and into modern politics, failed to actuate ideological goals of legitimate representative government, a reactionary movement aimed at the same principles arose. This paper will discuss the characteristics and historical development of elitism and populism in Latin America to show that populism was born out of Latin American elitist politics problematic transition into modernity. Furthermore, it will examine the general understanding of populism as a concept and its value in political and historical analysis.
Elitism is rule by the elite. In Latin America, it typically manifests as traditionalism. The conventions of social hierarchy are so strong that they translate into similar strati on the political stage. As Francios-Xavier Geurra comments, historically, Latin American “society was structured and perceived itself as a set of groups.” Everything from race to economic divided individuals and designated them a position in structured society. Politically, this composition resulted in isolated pockets of authority- powerful families, clans, or localities- the elites. Exclusion defines the concept of Ðthe people under an elitist scope. Curiously, elitism in Latin American often aimed at modernizing politics by implementing national sovereignty. The effort was contradictory and hypocritical. Even while forwarding modern political principles, elites simultaneously wanted to maintain the uniqueness of their political and social status and the privileges it afforded them. The cleavage of cultural, idealistic inclinations and practicable reality strained the effectiveness of modernization. Similar to the problem ruling militaries had in restoring order after a coup, the elites institution of democratic principles was somewhat counterintuitive. The success of their endeavor was a subsequent source of weakness to their power. Although elites desired to legitimize authority through principles of republican government, they were reluctant to entrust the masses with political power. This tension brought about the institutionalization of informal practices, such as fraudulent elections, to cloak elite control with a democratic front of legitimacy.
Populism, another political style prevalent in Latin America, is particularly difficult to define but stands in apparent contrast to elitism. Definitions often include empirical observations or qualitative commonalities. Analyst Alan Knight describes populism as having “a proclaimed rapport with Ðthe people, a Ðthem-and-us mentality, and oftenÐ a period of crisis and mobilization” as well as an urban base, relation to historical developmental stages, and derivation from multi-class alliances or elite manipulation. A charismatic leader often conveys the populist principles and specific goals of the movement to the populous. The definition is blatantly vague and inconsistent, in its entirety, with historical cases. Variances aside, populism denotes an interest in building cohesion and in governmental legitimacy. Already this elucidates a tie to Latin American elitism. Despite inherent inequity under the traditional system, everyone had a definite place in society. Early 1900s urbanization deconstructed social hierarchy and left individuals feeling class-less, addressed by populisms mult-class alliance platform. A discussion of elitism and populisms historical development will facilitate a more complete understanding of both concepts and their relationship to one another.
As previously mentioned, traditionalism and hierarchical authority are sown into the very nature of Latin American society. Changes in internal political philosophy were not the impetus of political modernization, as Latin American politics rarely exhibited progressive and linear development. Shifts were often dramatic, unexpected, and spurred externally. The Napoleonic invasion in the early 1800s and the resulting displacement of the Spanish king sparked an early and rapid transition to modern politics. Modern politics here describes regimes using “national sovereignty as their legitimizing principle and the representative republic as their form of government.” On the world stage, the popularity of the principles of Ðfree government grew. The trend was to end absolute and arbitrarily power in favor of representative governments serving a free populous. These ideas had significant influence on Latin American political philosophy. However, complex intellectual concepts rarely manifest neatly in practice. Walter Little comments on the resulting ideological tension in saying, “one historic characteristic of Latin American party systems survives to this day: the tendency towards ideological borrowing in the formal sense and its adaptation to Latin American reality in this substantive sense.”
While Constitutionalism was popular in Europe (particularly in France and England, although varying in form), elements of traditionalism restricted its influence in the Hispanic world to intellectual elites. One prominent element of traditionalism was pactismo. Pactismo is the duty-based relationship existing between a king and his kingdom. The principle of pactismo strongly influenced the autonomy and the general direction of the Spanish and Latin American political transition to modernity. A fiercely traditionalist mentality followed the French invasion of the Spanish kingdom in the early 1800s. Inconsistencies in urban law already distanced local Latin American governments from Iberian authority. Elites felt free to pursue their own interests even when in contradiction with royal rule, but maintained a degree of symbolic loyalty. Latin American elites rejected the usurper following King Ferdinand VIIs forced abdication. “The absolutist vision of royal power in the Hispanic world collapsedÐ… because it could not offer any theoretical basis for resistance.” Elites fell back on popular sovereignty for government legitimacy and developed modern constitutionalist dispositions towards politics and economics.
Elites mobilized political activity in an effort to structure the necessary societal representation needed for legitimacy. The Ðpolitical communities thereby established, along with electoral practices, power allotment, and political debate, served as the foundation