Latin American Politics - Report Example

LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS Introduction For a very long time, Latin America has come to be regarded as a good success story following the wave of much democratic developments that have proceeded the many years of the renowned cold war. After the cold war, this region was renowned for many military juntas, violent insurgencies, a high amount of caudillo rule and even oligarchies. So far, this region has undergone a much bigger transformation that has seen almost every country having leaders that have been elected by the majority population as well as development of civic environments where various arrays of liberty are being respected. After many countries have decided to embrace and follow the rule of democracy, the only remaining holdout has been Cuba. Cuba has remained to be very inflexible, with an increasingly anachronistic dictatorship communist republic (Merino 2001). In almost a decade ago, the country’s efforts to adopt democratic standards have continued to waver. It is expected that by most neighboring countries to Cuba having adopted the rule of democracy, it won’t take long for the country to sink in the wave. One of the region’s economic powerhouses, Brazil, has continued to experience the strengthening and stability of its free institutions; the country has taken great strides towards positing great rates of economic growth and development, something that can be attributed partly to adoption of the democratic rule of law. Uruguay and Chile have continued to ranked among the leading democracies not only in the region but also in the whole world (Tilly 2007). This paper examines some of the issues common in the politics of Latin America especially the democratic rule of law. Question One: What constitutes the biggest threat to democracy, and conversely what represents a key favorable element for democratic stabilizing/consolidation, in contemporary Latin America Democracy can be described as the government system where all individuals in a polity or state are actively involved in the decision making process over its affairs, especially in the election of its elect representatives. Additionally, the system of governance has been commonly defined as a people’s government, which means that it belongs to the majority. In the rule of majority, as proposed in democracy, supreme powers are often vested in people and exercised in a direct or indirect way by their elected representatives in free and fair elections. Threats to democracy in Latin American politics One of the biggest threats that has been identified as a hindrance to the democratic process in Latin American countries is the idea of populism. This state has been known as an approach or strategy used by some leaders in winning elections and thereafter exerting the power of the state forcibly (Weyland 2013). The idea of populism rotates around the kind of leadership that is personalistic in nature, which feeds directly on the quasi-direct links and associations to several loosely organized masses of heterogeneous disciples. The leader is often prone to bypassing intermediate institutions like organized parties in making decision that involve the state. Before, leaders often had a lot of face-to-face contact with the people in order to force out their agenda but nowadays, populists use television and other forms of the mass media in reaching the masses. In Latin America, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez commonly used this approach, most often; he held talk shows on national television almost every Sunday. In turn, he used this opportunity to ascertain the will of the people through opinion polls and other regular popular votes. In the process of showing a vigorous kind of leadership, seeming indispensable and boosting the loyalty of followers, populist politicians are always happy with attacking their rivals constantly in rhetoric. In such a kind of approach, he tends to blame the problems and challenges facing the people on the political rivals presenting himself as the father and savior of the state. In order to create and consolidate on the advances that have been made in the democratic process, it is important that political leaders in Latin America copy from other advanced democracies in the world like the United States, United Kingdom as well as Brazil, Uruguay and Chile among other advanced democracies in the region. The leaders are supposed to empower the people to know their democratic rights and respect their will in elections, which is an essential ingredient for the growth of democracy in any country. Favorable elements for democratic stabilization In Latin America, the process of establishing the democratic rule of law can only be achieved if the favorable elements that can enhance economic stabilization are present. One of those factors that need to be developed include personal freedoms; countries in Latin America need to ensure that their citizens have a right to freely enjoy various freedoms including speech, religion, association among others. This process makes people develop confidence in the governance of the country including the set political structures. Secondly, it is important to have political freedom in the country; in this regard, should have the power to form association, speak freely and participate in the voting process without being coerced and intimidated. Thereafter, their verdict should be respect such that losers of elections are not victimized for voting contrary to the majority. Political equality is also another important feature of democracy; here, countries should ensure that they give their citizens the right to participate in elections and run for elective public offices at their own volition. Question Two Explain first why Latin American governments implemented economic restructuring in the 1980s and 1990s, and whether this strategy was successful. During the 1980s, most countries in the Latin America experienced a great democratization wave that happened at the time the region was facing extreme economic crisis. Given the preponderance of various political theories that associated economic growth and development to democracy, the trend swept most of the countries in this region by surprise. For instance, according to the modern theory, there is a very strong correlation between social development and democracy. By applying various socioeconomic indicators associated with urbanization, education and industrialization, Fraga (2004) has expressed extensively the positive association that exists between democracy and socioeconomic development. In his assertions, he argues that wealth and education have been the chief drivers of tolerance and moderation. In the same case, more sophisticated and subsequent quantitative research has emphasized the positive relationship talked about by Fraga (Baer 1972, p. 34; Geddes 1995, p. 76). From the above discussion, it is clear that one of the main forces that prompted the countries of Latin America to undertake economic restructuring was that it would lead to the process of democracy, which would later cause economic growth and development. The dependency theory, also common in these countries tied economic prosperity to democracy, although it was quite different and more optimistic as opposed to the modernization theory. Dependalists that existed in the 1970s and 1960s explained that the democratic process was not just viable amidst widespread exploitation and poverty that was characteristic of countries in Latin America (Geddes 1995, p. 81). Was the approach successful? To most people, success means different things at different times; however, in the context of Latin America, success in the economic restructuring process can be approached in the form of how effective the process was. Democracy in this region managed to grow despite great levels of poverty that were prevailing. Scholars of the democratization process often paid great attention to the process itself and not the obstacles that it was facing. In moving from the economic reduction process, some authors and researchers emphasized the need for various political variables in giving account for the process of transition. Baer (1972), stressed on the need for shifts in ideology that favors democracy as being the product of discredit in the military governments. Other scholars like Fraga (2004), showed preference for the critical roles that political leaders play in developing and consolidating on the democratic process. Modernizationists’ arguments and perspectives were of the idea that the democratic rule of law was simply the end-product of various international conditions that were favorable to countries in Latin America. They also pointed out that the progress witnessed in the domestic socioeconomic aspects had been preceded by the democratization wave that was sweeping in the Latin American region. Some of the most common critical analysis of the process of transition like Baer (1972) expressed their concerns and even skepticisms over the stability an nature of democracy and whether it would actually cause any forms of economic growth and development. For the people that showed preference for political variables in the economic growth and development process, democracy was even thought as the best approach that would prevail the adverse economic conditions, only if people would show their utmost commitment to the process in the most democratic ideal. Question Three MST as a democratic actor in Brazilian politics The Landless Workers Movement, also known as MST is a large social movement that exists in the republic of Brazil. The movement has been described as the largest to ever exist in Latin America, having an estimated about 1.5 million people in membership drawn from about 23 of the country’s 26 states (Carter 2010, p. 45). According to MST, one of its main objectives is ensuring that poor workers get land, which is critical for their livelihood and sustenance. By using activism, the movement strives towards enhancing equal distribution of income and economic development opportunities, abolishing sexism and racism among several other issues affecting the Brazilian people. Following in the footsteps of its partisan-inspired and messianic movements in issues of land reforms in Brazil, MST has quite a different approach in the way it advocates and achieves its objectives. First, it is a single-issue movement. In which it gives the issue of land reforms a very self-justification cause. The movement has often emphasized that its efforts towards land occupations are justified according to the rule of law; in fact, it says that the issued is deeply rooted in Brazil’s constitution. A lot of criticisms have been raised over the legality of the activities raised by MST in its advocacy of land reforms on Brazil,’ however, Carter (2010), has explained that the movement has played a big role towards the growth and development of democracy in Brazil, something that should be emulated by other movements and even political parties. In his test, he Landless Rural Workers Movement and Democracy in Brazil, Carter (2010) insists that the MST is a democratic actor in Brazilian politics. Carter (2010), claims that relations by MST in the political system in Brazil is dynamic and very multifarious. This is owed much to the kind of assorted structure that existed in the state of Brazil, including its multiple players; many decentralized institutions as well as other variegated kind of access. The federalism regime, a string local government, a special and effective electoral system as well as intricate bureaucracies have played an imperative role in shaping MST’s repertoire towards its collective actions (Carter 2010, p. 87). At any point in time, the movements and activities of MST in its choice of strategies and tactics can be determined by the prevailing challenges and opportunities at stake. Carter explains in his article that MST’s parlance and its range of various strategic alternatives often arise from its analysis of correlations that are common in its political and social forces. In this perspective, it is therefore important to explain that public activism by MST, different forms of bargaining ad lobbying as well as civil disobediences are in line with the rule of law in Brazil, something that explains why the social movement has been an active player in the democratization process in Brazil. Criticisms to the movement Inasmuch as the movement seems to have achieved a lot in the democratization process, it has received praise and criticisms in equal measure. Schmitter and Karls (1990), in their analysis of democracy and its application, explain that MST does not represent all the challenges facing the people; instead, it concentrates on the land issue, which is only a single issue or challenge facing the people of Brazil. ODonnell (2007), in his book, The Perpetual Crisis of Democracy, explains that for a country to have a stable democratic process, it should ensure that it gives people the freedom to express the views and perspectives freely without victimization. It should create systems by which people can decide what is good for them and in accordance to the constitution. The challenge with MST is that it represents views of a minority group, leaving many other social problems and challenges that need to be addressed by its leaders. Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to note that Latin American countries have achieved great strides in development of the democratic rule of law. Inasmuch as these countries have struggled to develop their democratic space, they have so far strengthened the rule of law and encouraged participation of citizens in the country’s governance. Many of the country’s that have managed to develop the democracies have often faced huge challenges in this process; however, commitment to the process is paramount for in order to achieve the goals and objectives of a stable democratic process. Latin American countries have become a model for many other countries especially in Asia and other regions of the world. Many of the democratic countries have also used the system of governance to enhance the process of their economic growth and development. Notes Carter, Miguel. The Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) and Democracy in Brazil. Oxford: Centre for Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford, 2010. Merino, Manuel. Democracy in Latin America: (re)constructing Political Society. New York: United Nations University Press, 2001. ODonnell Guillermo. Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy. 7.2 (1996) 34-51. ODonnell Guillermo. The Perpetual Crisis of Democracy. Journal of Democracy. 7.3. 2007. 37-52. Philippe Schmitter & Terry Karl. What Democracy Is... And Is Not. Journal of Democracy. 10.3. 1990. 19-23. Przeworski, Adam. What Makes Democracies Endure? Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Tilly, Charles. Democracy. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Terry Karl. Economic inequality and democratic instability. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2000 Weyland Kurt. 2013. Why Latin America is becoming less democratic. < http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/why-latin-america-is-becoming-less-democratic/277803/> (Accessed April 17 2015). Read More