Factors Affecting the Rise of Military Rules in South-American Countries in 20th Century - Essay Example

During the 19th century, South America remained isolated from the rest of the world because of many reasons; however the 20th century observed a reversal of this trend and the governments and people of South America wanted to end this isolation and started looking out for means through which they could interact with the world for the collective benefit of all. The economic growth triggered in the northern part of the land mass encouraged the states in the south to follow the footsteps but their pursuit of economic stability was always hindered by political instability and social immobility (Reyes and Sawyer). As a result civil wars, political assassinations, coups and military rules became the hallmark of the politics of this region during the middle of the 20th century. The power struggle in world politics after the Second World War also contributed to the instability of the region. The military rules of Latin America in the middle of the 20th century are mostly attributed to the economic stability and the consequent public unrest; however there are some other important reasons which triggered the rise of military governments in this region of the world. After the end of the Spanish and Portuguese rule, the power went to social elite which consisted of big landowners and families of military stature. The greater part of the population was living in extreme poverty and did not have access to any sort of education making a large majority of the people unproductive and virtually outside the state. The countries were under an oligarchic rule and a small minority of people owned 60 to 90 percent of the lands and natural resources. So the political unrest which later showed up traces its history to the very onset when the European colonists left this region of the new world (Calvocoressi). The possession of lands in the hands of a very small minority of people was the reason behind the slow economic growth because the cheap labor never forced the landowners to look for modern methods of agriculture and increasing production. There was no room for industry because half of the population was too poor to buy the industrial products. The oligarchic leaders were not concerned about development because they could easily import the luxuries for themselves. So a revolutionary situation always existed in most of the Latin American states. The liberators who came forward in this region of the world were not as democratic as most of the revolutionary liberators were and encouraged authoritarian rule as a solution to the problems faced by them and thus the military was never discouraged to intervene in the political and social life of the countries. Some of the conservative political scholars in Latin America believed that the common men of these states lacked the political insight needed for ruling the country through democratic process and thus backed the social elite to rule the country paternalistically on behalf of the whole country (Close). Thus there was a lack of support for democratic system among the people and the scholars created and encouraged a mindset among the public which not only accepted authoritarian rule but also encouraged it. A very important reason behind the involvement of military in the state politics in South America lied in the fact that there were no security threats to the nations of the region. After the European colonists left this region of the world, the states of this region seldom engaged in war among them and thus continued to preserve a peaceful and stable region. There were no considerable threats to national security from the outside world as well. Under these circumstances the militaries of the states of South America did not have considerable security assignments which led to an increase in their intervention in the national politics. The officers were more concerned about their domestic role rather than the function of national defense and indulged more in politics by convincing people that national armies should become more socially and politically conscious (Vanden and Prevost). This trend was not discouraged by the public either because of the economic decline of the states and the failure of the civilian governments to implement policies for the revival of economies. The role played by the civilian leaders in this scenario only encouraged the admission of military in the national politics. For saving their regimes the civilian leaders sought to revive the economies by getting foreign aid and compromised national integrity in return, allowing international powers to intervene in the local politics. Moreover the foreign investments and aids were not channelized properly and did not produce the desired results which only contributed to the already existent political unrest. The civilian leaders not only failed to revive the economies for winning the hearts of the people but also lost the ground on moral grounds because most of them had invested their own wealth on foreign soils (Blackwell). Following the footsteps of the US and the western European nations, who achieved economic development and stability through industrial revolution and industrialization, the states of Latin America adopted Import Substitution Industrialization as a solution to their economic problems. However these attempts were not very successful because there was a lack of planning and improvisation in the leaders of Latin America (Franko). The most important pre-requisites of industrialization i.e. power and infrastructure was not developed and industrialization was attempted without preparation resulting in shut down of most of the industries immediately after their erection. The shift of countries from imports to industrialization also disturbed the capitalist countries whose economic stability was dependent on the exports to these countries. As a result the capitalist countries, USA being the most notable of all, continued to intervene in the local politics to end the policies of nationalization and reduction in imports and these attempts were successful to a great extent (Furtado). Under these circumstances, the people of Latin America looked towards the state militaries for standing up against the external interventions. The military rulers gathered support among public because they were considered as strong political figures who could resist foreign pressures and work for the welfare of the state and its people. The military rulers of Latin America assumed a Caudillo style leadership based on the charisma of their own personality rather than the strength of the military. Most of the leaders, through their exceptional oratory skills and through the novelty of their policies attracted support of common people who were utterly fed up of the economic instability during the civilian governments (O’Donnell). Adopting this Caudillo style helped many dictators of the Latin American states to prolong their rules by gathering support from public who never resisted but supported these leaders at times. The mid of the 20th century witnessed the cold war between the two super powers of the world and the polarization of the world into communist and capitalist blocs had set in immediately after the Second World War. The states of South America continued to maintain a distance from the politics of the Cold War until the Cuban missile crisis which led to the polarization of this region of the world into communist and capitalist blocs as well. The presence of Russian missiles in Cuba forced the US to seek support in Latin American countries and therefore the US was involved in supporting the prospects of military rule in some of the Latin American countries because some military generals of Brazil and Chile were politically inclined towards the US (Skidmore, Smith and Green). The end of the rule of Salvador Allende by the US government is the evidence of the external involvement in the politics of South America which ultimately led to a military rule. Allende was a democratically elected leader and believed in agrarian reforms, nationalization of industry and shifting from the production of luxuries to consumer goods as a solution to the economic problems of the country. These reforms greatly disturbed the interests of the US and thus the US helped General Augusto Pinochet in a coup to remove Allende from presidency and form a military rule in Chile. The case of Brazil is somewhat different from Chile because the civilian leader of Brazil, President Joao Goulart supported the US in the Cuban missile crisis, but the failure of his economic policies resulted in internal weakness and political unrest among the public. He sought help from the communists in his government who supported the policy of nationalization of state institutions and wealth. This worried the capitalist circles in the US who has already extended its influence in the Brazilian military. The pro-American generals in the military were not happy about the leftist policies of the president thus they overthrew the civilian government with American help (Remer). The economic instability is one reason out of many behind the rise of the military rule in Latin America and the political unrest among the public due to economic stability only helped the military to gain control of the governments. The reasons of military rule can be traced back to the times when the European colonists left this region and a small group of people owned the vast lands. The international political scenario and the power struggle between the capitalists and the communists can be considered as the most important reason leading to the rise of military rule in this region. The people of Latin America were not politically aware of the options available to them and thus looked towards the military after the civilian governments failed to solve their woes. To sum up, the rise of military rule in South American states, particularly Chile, Brazil and Argentina can be attributed to a series of events in the local and international politics, starting from the times when Europeans left these states which ended on the emergence of Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis; economic instability cannot be rendered as the only reason for the rise of military rule. Works Cited Blakewell, Peter. A history of Latin America: c. 1450 to the present. N.p.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004. Print. Calvocoressi, Peter. World Politics: 1945 - 2000. Singapore: Pearson Education, 2004. Print. Close, David. Latin American Politics: An Introduction. N.p.: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Print. Franko, Patric. The puzzle of Latin American economic development. N.p.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007. Print. Furtado, Celso. Economic development of Latin America: historical background and contemporary problems. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Print. ODonnell, Guillermo. Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: studies in South American politics. N.p.: University of California, 1973. Print. Remmer, Karen. Military rule in Latin America. N.p.: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Print. Reyes, Javier, and Charles Sawyer. Latin American Economic Development. N.p.: Taylor and Francis, 2011. Print. Skidmore, Thomas, Peter Smith, and James Green. Modern Latin America. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Vanden, Harry, and Gary Prevost. Politics of Latin America: The Power Game. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print Read More