Causes of Political Instability in Latin America - Essay Example

?An Analysis of the Role of United s behind the Causes of Political Instability of Latin America of the Nineteenth Century and social awakening of Latin Americans Background & Introduction Latin America became the center of political instability in the nineteenth century because of the European powers’ strides to maintain their stronghold through the colonial rule. It is rightly argued that an honest American quest to oust the European colonial powers for the better political future of the Latin people was made, but unfortunately it later turned out into the strengthening of its own strategic interests in the region. Monroe Doctrine was a proof of new American imperialism, which attempted to secure American interests in the Western Hemisphere, as is evident from the speech of President James Monroe, delivered on the occasion of seventh annual meet of the Congress on December 2, 1823. It was made clear to the Western nations that America wanted no outside interference in the political matters of the countries of Western Hemisphere. Actually, the Monroe Doctrine was an indication of American desire to increase its political hold on the Latin countries, being ruled by proxy of the European powers. The purpose of the Doctrine was initially concurrent; it aimed to thwart away the European powers from the region, which later became part of its policy to bring the Latin countries under American impression, irrespective of the feelings of the people of Latin American countries. Things turned for the worse for American interests when the Monroe Doctrine was invoked in 1865 because of military support provided by America to the Mexican President Benito Juarez for organizing a successful revolt against the Emperor Maximilian (The Monroe Doctrine 1-2). US Policy Failure It is also contended that the Pan-American movement of the US in the 1880s and 1890s was initiated to secure the commercial stakes of the US. The leader of the movement, James G Blaine, thought that such a movement could help in reducing the European social and political impact and promote undisputed resolution of inter-linked issues of the US with Latin countries. The American attempt to enter into a treaty with eleven Latin countries for the resolution of issues could not succeed as no Latin country ratified the agreement later. Argentina was giving competition to the US to lead the region in the matter of creating economic and political impressions in South America; it boycotted the opening session of the Pan American conference (Hall and Coerver 21). The US wars in the Caribbean region were fought with the aim of expanding the US impression strategically against Cuba and Puerto Rico. The two ocean issues focused on the significance of an Isthimian canal, increasing US stakes in Central America. The US came to recognize the critical role of the navy, an issue of top concern for the upcoming President Theodore Roosevelt. The expansionary intentions of the US in the Caribbean region created worries even in far-flung countries, as Chile and Argentina, over the US war initiative to get political and economic leverage in the hemisphere. There can be no doubt that the US took only first step in the right direction of freeing a colony, but only to become an expansionary power later. Monroe Doctrine is a proof of American defensive policy turning offensive. The American war paved the path for its becoming a global power, which was incidentally its first phase of aggressiveness through interventionist policy in the aligned area of its stakes (Hall and Coerver 21). Latin American revolutionaries were under the wrong impression that the US would help their freedom movement but to their dismay, the US approach was cautionary. The government preferred to remain neutral. The US had doubts that any ousting of the European powers from the Hemisphere would lead to democratization of institutions. A policy shift in the US approach was seen only when Monroe became its president, but the US waging a war on Mexico was a planned attack of a powerful nation on its militarily weak neighboring country, which is a genuine proof of the expansionary policy of the US to win a piece of land through bullish might to practice slave labor (Hall and Coerver 22). Latin American liberalism was a live project for the cause of constitutional and democratic rule. This initiative thwarted the colonial right of absolutist and corporatism rule but opposition emerged between liberalism and political truths. Certain political realities were responsible for not letting liberal elements function forcefully in Latin America. A way out was found to bring political certainty by establishing constitutional model of centralization (Negretto and Aguilar-Rivera 396). Experiences of Mexico and Argentina It is believed that the United States was behind the change for better in the political spheres of Latin America, but the two examples of Mexico and Argentina, the two Latin American countries, reveal how both countries learned through their own experiences. To begin with the examples of Mexico, the liberation movement opted out for a model of parliamentary sovereignty but a timid executive and flexible federal mechanism. On the contrary, the example of Argentina showed more reliance on strong presidential form of governance along with centralized federation, which was followed late by Mexico after the emergence of incessant problems between central powers, local authority and national leadership. In Mexico and Argentina, electoral outcomes were manipulated to satisfy informal arrangements. Both the countries could not attain political stability due to making compromises to resolve conflicts. Later, political stability arrived in the 1880s through centralization of power and holding of elections. Relatively, Argentina better managed its system of inclusive and competitive elections under PAN than Mexico under the leadership of Diaz (Negretto and Aguilar-Rivera 396). It would be wrong to contend that United States was not the sole initiator for strengthening the roots of modernity through enforcement of democratic institutions in Latin America. The wave of modernism that started way back in the 17th century, took all leading regions of the world in its compass, although credit is bestowed on America. Yes, America played a lead role when it came to the point of modernity; the wave of modernism encompassed not only America, but Europe and colonial Latin America as well. Thus, the movement for Enlightenment encircled the whole universe through such Societies, as the Societies of the Friends of the Country, with the ditto questions for research and the same topics of analysis. This spirit of exploring nature led everywhere to work for the reformation of society and its institutions, which cleared the way for political freedom, which was one among other positive attributes of that time (Quijano 150-151). It needs to be argued that credit not be given unnecessarily to the American awakening on modernism, as Europeans were actually the first recipients of the intellectual insights made worldwide, which was proved from the visit of Humboldt. To his astonishment, wherever he went in the centers of knowledge and learning of the Americans, the questions that were raised in American circles on modernity were ditto, as raised in Europe. It was not due to the sole reason that content read all across the world was same but the intensity of desire to find answers to the questions was also equally matching. Interestingly, a number of Latin American intellectuals and politicians were active participants in the debates on Enlightenment. For example, it was not just incidental that the Peruvian Pablo de Olavide was a celebrity of the Enlightenment groups in Europe; he was a friend of Voltaire, and took active part in French and Spanish political discussions on Enlightenment. It can be argued that Latin Americans were the torch-bearers of the Enlightenment movement in the Cadiz Parliament in 1810; the Latin American deputies were among the most comprehensive followers of the spirit of modernity, the most forward defenders of revolutionary liberalism. Therefore, it can be argued that they played a brilliant part in the conceptualizing of the liberal constitution in a commission headed by one of their own intellectuals, the Peruvian Morales Durez, who was later promoted to the presidency of Parliament (Quijano 150-151). Conclusion It is clear that the US intentions at the outset were genuine for the political, social, and economic uplifting of Latin Americans, but capitalism overpowered the desire to help the Latin Americans to grow and progress politically and democratically. Countries like Argentina were capable enough to give tough competition to the US strategic interests in the hemisphere. It gets proved that instability in Latin America got heightened due to American interference to fulfill its strategic military and political aims in the nineteenth century. Works Cited Linda, Hall, and Coerver Don. Tangled Destinies: Latin America & the United States.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999. Negretto, Gabriel L., and Jose Antonio Aguilar-Rivera. “Rethinking the Legacy of the Liberal State in Latin America: The Cases of Argentina (1853-1916) and Mexico (1857-1910).” Journal of Latin American Studies 32. 2 (2000): 361-397. . Quijano, Anibal “Paradoxes of Modernity in Latin America.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 3. 2 (1989): 147-177. . The Monroe Doctrine, Presidential Messages of the 18th Congress, ca. Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789-1990; National Archives. . Read More