History of Political Parties in Twentieth-century Latin America

Torcuato Di Tella

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138525153
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351515498
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Latin American & Caribbean History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The general perception of modern Latin American political institutions emphasizes a continuing and random process of disorder and crisis, continually out of step with other regions in their progress toward democracy and prosperity. In "History of Political Parties in Twentieth-Century Latin America," Torcuato S. Di Tella demonstrates that this common view lacks context and comparative nuance, and is deeply misleading. Looking behind the scenes of modern Latin American history, he discerns its broad patterns through close analysis of actual events and comparative sociological perspectives that explain the apparent chaos of the past and point toward the more democratic polity now developing. Di Tella argues that although Latin America has peculiarities of its own, they must be understood in their contrasts - and similarities - with both the developed centers and undeveloped peripheries of the world. Latin American societies have been prone to mass rebellions from very early on, more so than in other regions of the world. He analyzes, as well, such significant exceptions to this pattern as Chile, Colombia, and, to a large extent, Brazil. Turning to the other side of the social spectrum, he shows how the underprivileged classes have tended to support strongman populist movements, which have the double character of being aggressive toward the established order, but at the same time repressive of public liberties and of more radical groups. Di Tella provides here a necessary examination of the concept of populism and divides it into several variants. Populism, he maintains, is by no means disappearing, but its variants are instead undergoing important changes with significant bearing on the region's near-term future. "History of Political Parties in Twentieth-Century Latin America" is rich in historical description, but also in its broad review of social structures and of the strengths and weaknesses of political institutions. Choice commented that "this heavily documented volume with an extensive bibliography would prove valuable to researchers and advanced students of Latin America.

1

The Early Setting

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Latin America seemed to be in the process of consolidating—with a few exceptions—as a successful extension of the West, finally administered in an efficient manner, leaving behind ages of civil war, caudillismo, and chronic instability. Seen from the theoretical perspective of evolutionary positivism, as stated in the very widely read books of Herbert Spencer, the continent was in an advanced transition from militarism to an industrial and civil society. From a Marxist point of view it, could be posited that imperialism was performing a progressive role, implanting capitalist economic structures, together with liberal institutions. An essential ingredient of those institutions was a system of political parties allowing the bourgeoisie to be represented, but also giving scope for the organization of the middle classes and the proletariat, which should prepare for the moment when the times might be ripe for them.

Less optimistic, of course, were the visions of classical conservative, or Catholic origin, for whom technological innovation was not an obvious good, nor did it necessarily produce social changes beneficial to all. Far from it; the deleterious effect of modernization on traditional mores and respect for hierarchical superiors might bring about chaos, not a civilized polity.

But let us see in more detail what the situation was in the various countries of the region in the early years of the twentieth century.

Mexico, or the Reasons of Authoritarian Liberalism

In Mexico, after the terrible convulsions of the Insurgencia (1810-1816) and the wars of Reform (1857-1860) and Intervention (1861-1867), an era of authoritarian but constitutional development had been inaugurated, overcoming the succession of military coups and popular rioting that had marked the nation’s history. Porfirio Diaz’s regime was heir to the radical liberalism of the earlier part of the nineteenth century, which had successfully waged the struggle against religious traditionalism and foreign conquest. Its great foundational symbol was the Constitution of 1857, paradigm of possible future developments, which for the moment it was necessary to apply parsimoniously. Power should be delegated to a paternalist and solid government, ruling over a basically apathetic majority, while watching the ever-present, dangerous activist minorities.

The only serious problem was that in order to avoid the national tendency to slip into civil war, an excessively personalist system had been created, based on the reelection indefinitely of Don Porfirio. The system, in practice, was one of single-party rule; as a matter of fact, it was not even possible to speak of a governing party. What really existed was the entourage of the president, made up of officials and some intellectuals, plus regional caudillos who were slowly being transformed into civilian administrators in an expanding economy.

The Catholic Church had been ostracized since the mid-century convulsions, but it was slowly returning to a position of respectability. It maintained an excellent liaison with the upper classes, and a correct relationship to the ruling circles. For the presidential elections of 1904, Diaz would be reelected once again, for the sixth time, which was not too much for a country under reconstruction, and he promised he would not insist. Formally, the governing party called itself Liberal, though it was quite different from its European namesakes, or even from the Conservatives of the Old World. But precisely in this—it could be argued—rested its claim to efficient adaptation to its difficult milieu.

Around the president, a brilliant intellectual group had been formed, imbued with the latest doctrines, and therefore known as the Científicos, a somewhat sarcastic name they finally adopted as their own. They included Finance Minister Yves Limantour, publicist Justo Sierra, and controversial author Francisco Bulnes, who had no qualms in overturning old clichés about the country’s history. The Científicos, organized into a National Liberal Convention, had been in the forefront of the campaign to convince the general to take the presidency once more. Though in principle they were against unipersonal and excessively centralized government, given the existing social conditions they believed this was the only possible solution.¹

There were some opposition groups of a more doctrinal liberal hue hoping to compete at least for positions of influence in Congress, so as to exert some control over the executive. At popular levels a more seriously stormy front was being created, with circumscribed but repeated outbursts of social protest in rural as well as urban and mining areas. Seen from the spheres of power, it was necessary not to lose too much time before enacting necessary reforms, and a search for new formulas was launched among the political class. But what aborted this effort was the firmly grounded fear, quite justified by the historical record, that any serious dissidence, once allowed to raise its head, would degenerate into uncontrollable violence, even if it started as a competition among gentlemen. And this is what happened.

Cuba: A Severely Guarded Boiler

In Cuba, the long-lasting Spanish rule had promoted impressive economic growth, though excessively concentrated on sugar, thus generating high occupational instability. Modernization and urban and educational development were considerably higher than in Mexico, and the Catholic Church less grounded in the hearts of the common people. A two-party system was formed, rather than a single, authoritarian regime, with Conservatives and Liberals rotating in office, depending on the favor they found in the mother country. The War of Independence, known as the Guerra de Diez Años (1868-1878) had seriously damaged business interests, also hampered by competition from the European sugar beet. Towards the end of the century, in 1895, the struggle was resumed, promoted by the Partido Revolucionario Cubano, founded by José Martí, who died in the first skirmishes, leaving a legacy of intellectual leadership and moral proselytizing.

Insurgency was firmly rooted among peasant groups and the lower middle classes, who spawned a guerrilla movement the Spanish authorities could not control. In fact, the revolutionary potential was very high on the island. Massive concentrations on sugar estates of a work force recently freed from slavery (1880) could instill fears of a rebellion along the lines of the one that had destroyed Haiti at the end of the previous century. Only strict security, and an unwritten pact among elites to water down their own internal conflicts could stave off this danger. However, this was not easily agreed to by everybody, because the relatively high level of education and the appalling oscillations in demand for labor of all kinds also impinged on the middle classes, which thus became a recruiting ground for ideological and political activists. To complicate matters, extensive immigration from Spain had created a commercial and industrial bourgeoisie which competed successfully with its native counterparts.²

The 1895 independence movement was on the verge of success, when the United States decided to intervene in order to avoid the kind of “caste war” that was on everybody’s mind. They declared war on Spain in 1898 and quickly occupied the island. Despite annexationist tendencies, American public opinion, conscious of the need to keep good relationships with their southern neighbors, forced Congress to write a clause in the war declaration denying any intent to incorporate Cuba. However, an agreement was soon arrived at with the pro-independence forces on the island, also validated by Congress, adding a rider, known as the Platt Amendment, to the war declaration, authorizing the United States to intervene—without specifying any limits in time— to guarantee life, freedom, and property on the island. This clause became the basis for constant interference in Cuban affairs during the first three decades of the century.

Among partisans of the anti-Spanish insurgency there was a radical sector, based on those who had taken up arms, and a more moderate group of civilians and administrators. However, both had strong popular roots, given their record of opposing the Spanish government, and their rejection of any type of co-optation by the colonial authorities. American occupation lasted until 1902, when Tomás Estrada Palma, a well-respected personality, was elected president. Thus it seemed that Cuba joined, with a little delay, and under the protection of its elder uncle, the pattern of orderly progress which was spreading on the continent.

The Caribbean and Central America

In the rest of the Caribbean, instability was endemic. In the Dominican Republic a series of coups and violence had been temporarily halted by the strong government of General Ulises Heureaux, a man of color popular among the armed forces, who pacified the country and kept the elites quiet for a time. But after his assassination in 1899, agitation returned, and the United States was led to intervene, occupying the customs offices in order to ensure the recovery of their credits.³

Political conditions in Haiti were no better and were even more determined by personalist factions. A period which augured greater stability ended in 1902 in civil war and protracted anarchy, determining the United States to occupy the country in 1915, with French acquiescence.⁴

Central America was scarcely touched by the modernization that the rest of the continent was experiencing. The main exception was Costa Rica, strangely enough as a result of having been the Cinderella of colonial times due to its relative lack of Indian manpower. Thus, an independent subsistence peasantry was formed, and the elements of an alternance of factions in power laid. The Liberals had secured their cultural influence by closing down the clergy-dominated university. It took several decades to replace that old educational establishment with a new one, so that up to 1940 professionals were forced to have their training abroad.⁵

In the rest of Central America the two most populated countries were Guatemala and El Salvador, in contrast with the uninhabited Honduras and the more balanced Nicaragua. Guatemala had another peculiarity: its very high indigenous presence, almost half the total. This population was barely connected to the main centers of the country, and politically not very active. The whites and ladinos (mestizos or culturally assimilated Indians) cultivated mostly coffee in the fertile valleys, with Indian migrant manpower. Towards the south, near the Pacific coast, conditions were excellent for sugar and cotton, attracting deracinated workers from the highlands. On the other side of the mountains, in the strip of land reaching to the Atlantic, the swampy soil was only used for bananas. Several foreign companies were established, concentrating large numbers of workers, unwittingly creating conditions for class confrontation.

On the other hand, the Peten, the mostly low-lying northern part of the country, was sparsely populated, a haven for adventurers, including some Indian colonizers, because lack of transportation made export agriculture impossible. In due time, however, new roads generated, as in some areas of the Altiplano, proletarianizing forces and the expulsion of old squatters by new commercial enterprises.

Modernization of Guatemala had been fostered by the iron dictatorship (1873-1885) of the Liberal Justo Rufino Barrios, confronting the Catholic Conservatives, and determined to destroy the remaining land-owning Indian communities, which were in the way of coffee capitalism. Barrios died in a war aimed at reconstructing the unity of Central America, and was succeeded by a classical Conservative/Liberal alternation, with constant military interferences, leading to another long dictatorship, also formally Liberal and quite developmental, of Manuel Estrada Cabrera (1898-1920).⁶

El Salvador, with an even denser population than the one existing in the settled part of Guatemala, had a very intermixed ethnic composition, so that the pure Indian sector was not numerous. Coffee was also predominant, having displaced, since the middle of the nineteenth century, the subsistence agriculture of the traditional landowning Indian communities. Towards the Pacific, new tropical plantations were established, as in Guatemala. Political competition, during the second part of the nineteenth century, had been highly unstable, with a constant rotation of military and civilian factions.⁷

In stark contrast with Guatemala and El Salvador, Honduras had an abundance of land and a small indigenous population. Most of its old inhabited area was dedicated to subsistence agriculture, with a large peasantry that had managed to keep its possessions. In the Atlantic lowlands, conditions were ripe for banana cultivation, as in Guatemala’s similar area. The political system revolved around the bipolarity of a Liberal party, strong among urban and commercial sectors, and a National party, closely resembling the Conservatives.⁸

Nicaragua also had a relative abundance of land, but with a more diversified economy, including coffee, cotton, and sugar. In its big and underpopulated eastern lowlands, the Miskito Indians lived. They had passed through a period of British domination, converted to Protestantism, and were weakly connected to the rest of the country. The Nicaraguan geography facilitated the planning of a transoceanic canal, using the lakes of the western part, attracting many adventurers and the attention of the United States government. The political system was based on the classical confrontation of Conservatives and Liberals. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, José Santos Zelaya, a Liberal, came to power after overthrowing his Conservative predecessor, and inaugurated a rather long stretch of peace (1893-1909).

In ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 The Early Setting
• 2 Anarchism, Socialism, Revolutionary Nationalism
• 3 The Military and Corporatist Onslaught
• 4 The Postwar Dawn
• 5 The Sixties and Seventies
• 6 The Central American and Caribbean Cauldron
• 7 The Workings of Democracy
• 8 Continuity and Change in Latin American Party Systems
• Bibliography
• Index