EIGHT DEMOCRACY AND AUTHORITARIANISM Latin American Political Culture ‘To better understand the very unique context in which politics are conducted in Latin America, it is necessary to understand not only general aspects of Latin American society, economics, and culture but also those specific beliefs and views that affect how Latin Americans see, judge, and participate in polities. Political cul- ture develops in a society over a period of time. The concept helps us focus on the political beliefs and values that are embedded in a particular culture. Developed through the study of comparative politics, political culture is defined as those atti- tudes and belief that affect the way we think about, engage in, and evaluate politics ‘and political events. Thus, the strong-man rule and authoritarian decision making that is so common in Latin America might be totally unacceptable in Great Britain, Canada, or the United States, where moderation, compromise, and consensus are ‘more highly valued. Conversely, the political vacillation for which US. President Bill Clinton became famous would be litle tolerated in a Latin American president, even though his personal indiscretions might. ‘The nature of politics in Latin America developed over many centscies, with ‘the most remote origins in the pre-Columbian hierarchical and authoritarian rule that characterized the governing process among the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, and other highly structured indigenous groups. There were, however, more participa- tory practices among ess centralized indigenous groups and at lower levels in the far-flung Incan Empire. The communally based ayllu would be an example of the latter and one that has recently helped to engender community-based partici- patory politics in indigenous Andean areas where this unit existed. To this was added the authoritarian, hierarchical, and often dictatorial forms of governing that were brought from the Iberian Peninsula and developed in the colonial and carly republican era. Of particular note is the absolutist tradition (from the abso- lute monarchies in the Iberian Peninsula) that became manifest in the Americas 180 Democracy and Authoritaranism 181 in the unchecked power of the viceroy and other governmental leaders in the colonies and the fusion of political and military power in the hands ofthe viceroy of captain general. Similarly, the seignorial laifundista enjoyed almost virtually sunchecked power on his estate, if not in the area in which it was located. All of these factors made for a tradition and thus a political culture that was generally {ar from democratic. Authoritarian Legacy and Weak Democratic Tradition For the vast majority of Latin American countries that gained their independence in the early ninetventh century, this authoritarian tradition weighed heavily and was further strengthened by the dictatorial practices ofthe leaders of the independence movement as they took the reigns of power in the newly independent nations and by the less statesmantike dictators who all too often followed. One is here reminded of authoritarian libertadores like Simén Bolivar and dictators like Juan Manuel de Rosas in Argentina and Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in Mexico. ‘As Latin America developed, there was little experience with democracy dur ing the colonial period. There were no legislatures or popular representative bod- ies where the people could make their views known or participate in governing, above the municipal level. This level was the exception. For instance, in many areas, the town council, or cibildo, did allow some degree of participation and democracy in many—but not all—municipalities. Many indigenous villages also exercised some degree of democracy in decision-making practices. The general lack of experience with democracy led one astute student of Latin America, Mario Heméndez Sinchez-Barba, to observe that the democratic constitutions patterned fon the United States and France that were enacted in Latin America during the early nineteenth-century independence struggles were attempts to impose a demo- cratic framework on a very authoritarian reality. Although the new Latin Ameri- can nations were launched as democracies with constitutional structures similar to those of the United States and the French Republic, democratic experience and a democratic political culture lagged far behind. It was perhaps a litle like introduc- ing cricket and cricket rules to players who have never seen the game and have been playing soccer all their lives. Although some countries took to the new game {aster than others, all underwent a long period of assimilation that included periods of play much more like the old game. Some even suggest that in times of crisis the players still revert to the old (authoritarian) patterns of play. As was suggested in Chapter 3, nineteenth: and twentieth-century Latin American history saw ongoing pendulum swings between periods of democratic and authoritarian rule. Indeed, it ‘might be argued that Latin American political culture in most countries is charac- terized by a nominal commitment to the practice of democracy and a deep-seated reverence for authoritarian rulers with the strength to govern effectively. On the other hand, after 1950 in Costa Rica and, toa lesser degree, Venezuela and Colom- bia from the late 1950s on, the commitment to democracy and democratic means has been much more pervasive. This was also the case in Uruguay and Chile before they were beset by long periods of bureaucratic authoritarianism in the 1970s and 1980s, when the military ruled.182 Politics of Latin America INprvipuALIsm In addition to authoritarianism, individualism is strong in Latin American political culture. The individual does not like to be subordinated by government or other ‘powerful political forces and often will only accept such control when there is suf- ficient power to sustain it, When power weakens or countervailing power can be invoked, rebellion often follows and the will of another group or individual may become dominant: Political leaders also sometimes individualize their rule. Power is used by the individual ruler and oftentimes for the individual benefit of the ruler orby orfor the group to which the ruler belongs. Equally, power is wielded by small ‘groups, such as the fourteen families in El Salvador or socioeconomic or political lites, and monopolized for their benefit. A commonly held view among many is that, like the colonial rulers, those who hold power will use it in ways that will directly benefit them or theie political or socioeconomic group and that this will be done at the expense of the general population. This may result in special projects for home regions or political or business friends or, at times, outright corruption and individual enrichment. Nor do such actions buttress the belief that government benefits all the people equally or that special interests or elites do not rule. Democracy AND AUTHORITARIANISM Discussing elite politics and the roots of democracy in Building Democracy in Latin America, John Peeler observes that the royal absolutism that so heavily influenced the authoritarian tradition became dominant only in the fifteenth century and that it ‘was resisted atthe elite level by the medieval tradition of the uers, or special privi- lidges extended to religious personnel and the nobility. Thus, the idea of special rights and privileges for favored groups and their bility to resist even the strong control ofthe state became entrenched in Latin America as well. The ocal elite often displayed and used its own autonomy to resist state authority, as suggested by the oft-quoted phrase “obedezco pero no cumplo” (Lobey but do not comply). This has ‘continued to the present day and helps to explain why civilian and military elites are often loath to submit to governmental rule. Indeed, they often see themselves as immune from, jurisdiction not controlled by the law. Impunity in such situations DeMocrarizarion Democratization has grown slowly in most of Latin America. Although the process thas accelerated dramatically since the end of military rule in the 1980s and 1990s, it started in the early nineteenth century with elitist or aristocratic democracies where [power was held in few hands. Gradually, it evolved and incorporated more partici- [pants as literacy levels rose, property requirements were abolished, slavery ended, ‘women were afforded the franchise, and lower-class groups mobilized. The demo- cratic ideals continue to inspite and suggest how the republics should function. ‘The persistence of such ideals has helped to shape political culture. In Democracy int Developing Countries: Latin America, Larry Diamond notes that elitist democracies helped to get important players involved and invested in the democracy, which in tum allowed for participation, to which others could aspire. The elitist model of democracy was gradually popularized as new groups began to participate effec- Democracy and Authoritarianism 153 tively in the politcal systems. Diamond further argues that the constitutional liberal, and democratic ide delegitimized the authoritarian ase of power but ult mately did not radically change te elitist procivity of the system. Inhis seminal work, Democracy in Latin America, George Philip i clear as to the persistence of the authoritarian as well as democratic belies. He acknowledges the ‘aration in the region but sees predemocratc pattems of political behavior sur- viving democratization. Nor does he see the broad institutional changes that have usually proceded democratization and democratic consolidation taking place in ost of Latin Ameria, There is positive institutional change in some counties, but throughout the region authoritarian legacies have survived even the most recent transition to democracy in the 19808 and 1990s, Even more erically, he observes that the bureaucracy remains patrimonialist, law eaforcement is weak, and pub- lic opinion is often ready to support open law breaking by political leaders. Thus, the conflicting values that leaders and the public have about democracy versus authoritarian rele have not allowed for the consolidation of democracy in most of atin Amerie, Faris in the work he cites a respected poll taken in Chile in 2001 to the effect that only 45% of those sampled thought democracy was preferable to any other kind of govesnment, while 1% agreed that in “certain circumstances an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one.” Other polls have Shown similar resulis elsewhere in Lain America Politicians and the public have often shown themselves quite willing to supe port extra-constittional ses and assumptions of power a citical times. Venez tla has one ofthe strongest democratic traditions in Latin America, But, even in democratic Venezuela, there was considerable support for the 1992 coup attempt by Hugo Chaves to overthrow the widely disredited Carlos Andats Pérez govern- rent The polarization of atitudes that transpired after Chiver was elected presi- dent and began to transform the state was also ver strong. Incleed, the partisanship became so intense that there was also significant support forthe short-lived coup that temporaily displaced President Chaves from power in 2002, Nor were most Chives supporters overly concemed with the leader's tendency to concentrate ‘more poveer in the presidency or his atempts to extend the presidential term in office, (See Chapter 17 on Venezuela fr a feller discussion ) The Conflict Society Societies and the proponents of political systems in nations like Great Britain often pride themselves on the high degree of consensus on fundamental values and the rules of the game. Others like politicians in Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia, are divided into factions that have very different views of what the society—or even the nation—is or should be and were widely divergent ideas of how to achieve their political objectives in that national political system. There is also a willingness to resolve these issues through the concerted use of organized violence and forms of warfare and to engage in human rights violations of those who challenge their power. As Latin America developed, different historical epochs added new terms of conflict. Thus, to the struggles of the nineteenth-century Liberals and Conservatives18 Politics of Latin America ‘was added the conflict between those advocating radical restructuring on the lines of the Mexican Revolution, such as Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA) in Peru, or total, comprehensive revolution based on the Cuban process that began in 1959, After 1960 and the radicalization of the Cuban Revolution, leftists and leftist insurgencies challenged mainstream parties in charge of governments and right-wing military groups. Thus, ideological values were often polarized between those advocating a political agenda inspired by socialism or leftist nationalism and those advocating a politcal agenda based on different conservative ideologies or US.style anticommunism and the national security state. The wide gap between these positions and the lack of consensus on common objectives (and sometimes the rules of the game) made for a political culture that in most instances was not con- sensual (Costa Rica since 1948 is one notable exception). As suggested by the title of Kalman Silvert’s well-respected work The Conflict Society, Latin American society and political culture have strong conflictual elements. Indeed, conflict is often taken to the extreme. Like a high-stakes poker game, there is a willingness on the part of ‘many to take their political struggle to the wall. Politics is seen as a winner-take-all game, and losing often means losing power and thus being forced to fold and cash in one’s chips. Players gamble with the power chips they have to win the game. The pot is not to be split. There are winners and losers. Power is to be used to the ‘maximum In the last hands of the game, push may come to shove—and that means ‘one plays all one’s power chips. This may mean buying votes, closing polling places ‘where the opposition is strong, mobilizing friendly army garrisons, or executing a full-blown coup d'état In such situations, there is frequently a resort to violence or the threat of violence. The willingness at times to take the political struggle to such intense and passionate levels means that violence is regularly employed through intimidation, repression, assassination, rebellion, guerrilla warfare, coups, ot even. civil war. The authoritarian military regimes in Chile and Argentina were even willing to engage in massive torture, murder, and other human rights violations to make sure that leftist groups would be kept from power. Alternatively, the Shin- ing Path guerrillas in Peru executed a brutal campaign to overthrow the Peruvian government in the late 1980s and early 1990s that included frequent assassination and massive car and truck bombs. Much of the political conflict in Colombia has been played out in violent confrontations between Liberal and Conservative bands in the late 1940s and 1950s (la Violencia) and between guerrilla groups like the Fues- zas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (EARC) and the Fjército de Liberacién Nacional (ELN) and the government from the early 1960s to the present day. The last few years have seen the interjection of extremely violent paramilitaries begun, by wealihy landowners or businessmen and sometimes tied to elements of the Colombian military. They operate extralegally and are notable for their brutality and human rights violations (see Chapter 18). Other key elements of Latin American political culture include some of the following. Eurrism Flites have dominated Latin America since the Mayan monarch and nobles ran the ‘Mayan states in preclassical times. As suggested earlier, there have been a variety of .- Democracy and Authoritarianism 185 ‘economic, political, and social elites. Early democratization after independence was also controlled by these same elites. Similarly, there are intellectual elites, cultural elites, and even elites that dominate leftist parties and guerrilla movements. The conscious or unconscious belief that an elite should lead, decide, dictate, or other- ‘wise rule has greatly buttressed authoritarian practices in polities and many other areas of society. PERSONALISM ‘As suggested in Chapter 5, personal relations are fundamental in Latin America In societies where trust comes hard, one wants to deal with only those with whom ‘one has “confianza’—trust. Furthet, since the time of the early hidalgos (less-well= ‘off noblemen) and upper-class representatives of the crown, a charming personal veneer has been deemed necessary for successful civil relations. A charismatic man- ‘ner and personal warmth are thus highly valued commodities that are prerequisites for higher-level positions. Men physically embrace each other if they are friends or close business associates (the abrazofabrage), and opposite-sex and female-female greetings in the same circles include a kiss on one cheek (Hispanic America) or both cheeks (most of Brazil and French Latin America). For new introductions and less-well-known acquaintances, one alays shakes hands when one is introctuced or enters a room and when one departs. The more grace and charm a person displays, the higher his or her presumed social status. Such is equally the ease in politics. Personalismo is a valued commodity among politicians. Much oftheir popularity and following may well be based on their per- sonal charm and warmth. A leader is expected to be able to inspire a personal com- mitment from his or her following, and this is done in large part through his or her personalismo, In this context, the term takes on a meaning closer to charisma and has defined some ofthe region's most successful politcal leaders: Vicor Rail Flaya de la Torre of Peru's APRA, Juan Domingo Pern of Argentina, or Fidel Castro of Cuba, Each of these leaders was capable of exuding,an immense personal charm in virtu- ally all social contacts, be ita private meeting with an individual or small group oF 1 speech to an assembled throng of thousand. Fidel Castro became known for his ability to hold an audience's attention in speeches that lasted hours. Stnonc-Man Rute: Cavonro, Cacrous, AND CoRONEL ‘We have established that political leadership in Latin America has often tended to be authoritarian, with the political leader exercising, great deal of power and control. Military dictators who can employ the force and power to maintain their position are tolerated or a least endured until time passes or they can be overthrown. Brutal rulers such as Augusto Pinochet (the military dictator in Chile from 1973 until 1990) have not always had the personalismo of most civilian politicians. Pinochet simply relied on overwhelming force. Since before the conquest, the tradition of the strong, local leader became well established. The cacique came to mean a local indigenous leader who could be best described as a political boss. In his local community and among his awn people, his power base was strong, but it diminished rapidly as he moved away from it. After colonial rule was put in place, other strong men devel- ‘oped. The call initially was a regional politcal leader or boss who might exercise