The Role of Traditional Political Parties in Latin America - Essay Example

?The Role of Traditional Political Parties in the Democratization Process in Latin America Latin America had always been known for its political instability. This is especially true in the 1900s, when many of the countries in the region were ruled by the authoritarian governments. What makes it interesting though is that nearly all of the countries had professed establishing democracies patterned particularly after that of the United States. In practice, however, as history has proven, military dictatorships and despotic civilian rulers solidly backed by the armed forces and the economic and political elite took control of nations for a decade or more. Almost each of the nations in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean had experienced having such kinds of governments in their history. Among the most prominent names in Latin America’s list of authoritarian governments are Somoza of Nicaragua, Batista of Cuba, Duvalier of Haiti, Trujillo of Dominican Republic, Peron of Argentina, Noriega of Panama, and Pinochet of Chile. The path to power that is quite common among them is the coup d’etat. A number of these dictators were brought to power after they had overthrown duly elected governments. There were also those civilians who were democratically elected into office only to usurp all the powers vested in the legislative bodies and ruled by decrees instead with the aid of the military. Despite the fact that major parts of the region were under military dictatorships for long time, there were still traditional parties that did assert their influence on politics in each of the countries in Latin America. The impact of the traditional political parties in governance was, however, reduced with the rise of authoritarian regimes. It must be pointed out though that it was the main characteristics of the said political parties that brought about the emergence of dictators and despots. In the 19th century, when many of the countries in region won their independence from Spain and other colonizers, political power was exclusively held by the upper classes, particularly the landed and the business elites. However, the upper classes were also divided when it comes to issues related to how their country must be governed. Upon the departure of the Spanish colonialists, political debates revolved around the treatment of the Catholic Church, which virtually shared power with the colonial administrators, as well as the form of government to be established in post-colonial and modern Latin America (Bray 76). The liberals wanted a state that is absolutely free from the meddling of the Church, a form of government that devolves power to the localities, and capitalism. The conservatives, on the other hand, insisted that the Church should retain the privileges and power that it has had since the colonial era. They wanted a more centralized form of government and the protection of the interests of the landed elite. The liberals and conservatives of the 19th century were the origins of the traditional parties that later on developed and gained greater influence by the 1900s. It is clear though that with such respective agenda, neither of the two political forces had the democratic interests of the masses in their minds, although the liberals were sympathetic to the masses because they need public support for their issues against the conservatives. However, both the liberals and the conservatives do not address “the basic problem of incorporating masses of Indians and Negroes into society or to the overwhelming poverty and ignorance of the general population” (Bray 76). Hence, even if government power changed hands between the two, real democracy did not occur but the traditional political parties remained. It was only when social turmoil worsened because of inequalities, that the military officers took over through coup d’etat. The usual excuses made by the military officers for launching the coups were that public order needs to re-established, that the spread of communism must be prevented, and that government corruption must be stopped. This resulted in the despotic rules that reduced further whatever semblance of democracy that existed. Starting from the 1980’s though, the trend was toward democratization. At this time, the conservatives, those identified with the despotic regimes were also removed from influential political positions. With the dictatorships becoming hugely unpopular and with the successful revolution in Cuba, which overthrew the Batista regime, people’s struggles intensified in several countries in Latin America. A number of these were armed struggles that were led by Marxists. While not all the Marxist-led revolutions were successful, authoritarian regimes were ousted and democratization took place. It is clear that traditional political parties contributed to the rise of military dictatorships in Latin America. However, it is also important to determine whether these have also been factors in the process of democratization. Doing so would provide ideas on whether the current traditional political parties have transformed themselves fundamentally in order to meet the challenges of the present times. In order to pursue this, it is necessary to find out how much these parties have contributed in the process of democratization. Such role, from the point of view of the people, is a major determinant whether such party deserves support or not. In relation to this, it is necessary to explore the roles that these traditional political parties in the elections. Currently, however, there is an apparent trend that the said traditional parties are becoming unpopular while the Left, some of them former armed revolutionary groups, has managed to gain political power through elections. According to some observers, this is because, “disillusioned by corruption and a failure to deliver prosperity, voters are increasingly captivated by new, mostly leftist movements promising to redistribute wealth, punishing traditional parties and turning political systems on their heads” (Forero). Because of this, it would be important to establish the reasons why the power of the said traditional political parties has declined and if there is any possibility for these to recover in the future. In countries where military dictatorships rose to power and usurped the roles traditionally held by the conservatives and the liberals in politics and government. There were three sectors that emerged to challenge the status quo; these were the conservatives who were not accommodated by the military dictatorship, the liberals who were deprived of the rights that they once enjoyed, and the Left, ranging from the progressives to the die-hard Marxists, who wanted to see a radical transformation of society. Of the three sectors, the traditional political parties are composed of conservatives and liberals only. While there might be conservatives who benefitted from the military dictatorship, and therefore were not expected to be part of the opposition, there were also those who fought against the authoritarian regime for the convenient reason that they were not given shares of the spoils in government corruption and in the abuse of national and natural resources. The military dictatorships and their civilian sponsors from the landed and business elites could only accommodate so much. Because of this, there were countries that were virtually dominated not by a unitary upper class, the promoter of political conservatism, but by a certain clique only. There were the Fourteen Families of El Salvador, the Oligarchy of Peru, and the Twenty-Four Families of Colombia (Wickham-Crowley 165). Such setup naturally alienated the other upper class families who also comprise the members of conservative political parties. However, there were a number of factors that restrained the disenfranchised conservatives from actually posing as contenders to the dictatorship. Many of its members were much better-off than the rest of the population and while they were no longer politically influential, they still had economic power, which is what they fear losing the most if ever they challenge the regime. Besides, the most powerful opposition groups were mostly radical and even Marxist, their sworn enemies. As a result, the conservative political parties were basically passive if not supportive of the military and civilian dictatorships. This consequently led to the conservative political parties being labeled as part of the structure that opposition must destroy along with the dictatorship. It was the middle class, deprived of their civil rights as well as some of their economic privileges under the military regimes, who were encouraged to join the broad united opposition. Their traditional political formations, which are essentially liberal, either chose to establish themselves as distinct anti-dictatorship forces or to ally themselves with the popular grassroots movements and even with the armed revolutionary groups led by the Marxists. However, being out in the open and without the support of the peasantry and the urban-based workers and students, the anti-dictatorship traditional political parties were always vulnerable to repressive measures conducted by the military regimes. The media which was the most potent instrument held by the liberals were stifled while those in favor of the regime were promoted by the dictatorship. In Argentina, for instance, the Vanguardia was destroyed by the Peronistas while even the conservative La Prensa was forcibly closed by the regime because of alleged legal issues (Lewis 147). Such cases naturally push liberals and their political parties to ally join the struggles against the dictatorships. A prominent example of this is Nicaragua’s anti-Somoza UDEL or the Democratic Union for Liberation, which was the middle-class’s response to the tyrannical rule in the country. Due to the fact that they have shown their worth to the people while participating in the anti-dictatorship and anti-fascist struggles, there were members of the traditional political parties that got elected when democratic elections were actually made after the downfall of the military regimes. It is apparent that the memories of the repression were still fresh and it was only expected that the people would support only those who have sacrificed in the struggle against it. A clear example of this is the case of Violeta Chamorro’s electoral victory in Nicaragua. While there may have been other major factors that led to her being elected as president of the country, including the US intervention that was prompted by its hatred for the Sandinistas, she nevertheless won the approval of the middle class and the urban population since she was a widow of one of Somoza’s most ardent political opponent. The coalition that backed her candidacy, the UNO, is composed of fourteen political parties that opposed the Sandinistas (Spalding 118). This case exemplifies the return of traditional political parties into power after the military dictatorships are ousted. However, this is also a proof that all traditional political parties do not easily return to power. Only those with track record in the fight against the dictatorship could immediately win the support of the people. However, it must also be pointed that as in the Nicaraguan experience, foreign intervention could also be a major factor in the return of traditional political parties to power. The United States, particularly, has always played an active role in domestic affairs in Latin American countries because of its geopolitical and economic interests. In the case of Violeta Chamorro’s victory, “the involvement of the United States as a major financial backer of the opposition candidate provided a significant advantage and proved once again that Washington policymakers were willing to use a broad array of interventionist tactics in order to advance perceived national security interests” (Kryzanek 416). Such case is not unique in Latin America. The US has been instrumental not just in the return of the traditional political parties during electoral exercises in the post-dictatorship era in the region. Ironically, the US had previously gained a reputation for supporting coups launched by the military against democratically elected governments, especially if such governments undertake populist policies that put US economic interests at a disadvantage. This is the case in Guatemala, in Chile, in Brazil, in Uruguay and in many other sovereign Latin American nations. However, when the military regimes it helped install are toppled by popular movements, the US promptly shifts support to the traditional political parties, including those that opposed the dictatorships, just to make sure that the Left would not be able to establish a government that would assert political and economic sovereignty. Currently, there is a downward trend for the traditional political parties and the movements of the Left, on the other hand, have been steadily gaining strength. This phenomenon is no longer just proven by the numbers that the popular movements could muster whenever they call for mass actions against economic policies which are detrimental to the workers and peasants, and the people in general. Since these movements have participated in electoral exercises or have become mainstream political organizations, they have proven themselves to be a just as potent as the traditional parties when it comes to the ballot. In fact, there is has been a growing number of populist governments in Latin America. While the popular movements have developed enough strength to challenge the dominance of the upper and middle class political machineries, the traditional parties have theirs reduced significantly. There are factors that contribute to this phenomenon but these could be summed up in one observation: the people have found out that, despite the absence of brutal repression, the governments led by the traditional political parties were still not able to solve the severe economic problems while at the same time condoning the rampant graft and corruption in the bureaucracy. Hence, these were not much different from the military and civilian dictatorships of the previous decades. Whether the traditional parties were essentially conservative or liberal, these basically adhere to economic neo-liberalism and globalization. Such policies, however, have resulted into the economic displacement of workers and peasants and the reduction of subsidies for agriculture, education, health and welfare. These made the peoples of different Latin American countries furious at their respective governments, as well as the dominant political parties. Popular movements, which included the Left, rose to the occasion, presenting themselves and their agenda as the alternatives to traditional politicians. Such upheaval occurred as Latin Americans became more “frustrated with Washington-backed economic prescriptions like unfettered trade and privatization” (Forero). Such circumstances were favorable for electoral participation and eventual victory of popular movements while the traditional political parties ultimately became the minority in the legislative bodies and were deprived of executive posts. There is still a possibility for the traditional political parties in Latin America to return to power in the near future. The impact of the global financial crisis in the previous decade and the still unsolved economic problems of many countries in the region remain to be a challenge that has yet to be overcome by the populist governments in place. So far, reforms have been made, especially those that deal with the livelihood and welfare of the people. However, these have not yet resulted into a more profound change in the economy, politics, and culture of the countries in the region. Unless this is achieved, Latin America would always be vulnerable to severe economic crisis. If the populist governments are not able to address this problem effectively, the traditional political parties could easily take advantage of the situation. Given the fact that they have better supply in logistics and finance and they are traditionally supported by the US, it would not be difficult for them to make a comeback the moment that people become discontented with the populist governments because of its failures. Works Cited Bray, Donald. “Latin-American Political Parties and Ideologies: An Overview.” The Review of Politics Vol.29 No.1 (1967): 76-86.  Forero, Juan. “Latin America's Populist Shift.” The New York Times, 20 April 2006. 05 April 2012. .  Kryzanek, Michael. “Intervention and Interventionism.” U.S.-Latin American Policymaking: A Reference Handbook. Ed. by David W. Dent. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995.  Lewis, Paul. Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America: Dictators, Despots, and Tyrants. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.  Spalding, Rose. Capitalists and Revolution in Nicaragua: Opposition and Accommodation, 1979-1993. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.  Wickham-Crowley, Timothy. Guerillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes since 1956. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Read More