Authoritarianism in Latin America and Chile

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Authoritarianism is a term that stands to denote “a political doctrine advocating the principle of absolute rule” (Silva, 1996). It is a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state. Limited political pluralism is sometimes permitted in such regimes, herein lays the main distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, though this opposition is limited and often not legitimate. The second distinction is the lack of a defined ideology found in authoritarian regimes.

In the years 1958 – 1975 Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, and Chile all experienced authoritarian coups. Between 1974 and 1989 these regimes were replaced with largely democratic governments (referred to as the third wave of democratization (Handelman, 2004).

Main body

The authoritarian military regimes in Latin America were exceptionally brutal and suppressed civil society and political movements. The constant fear of an increasing opposition of both armed guerrilla movements and leftist political parties led to attempts at restructuring the countries. Personalist dictators headed the regimes; however, the peculiar feature of these regimes was the reliance on military institutions for maintaining control over society instead of sole reliance on the personal power of an individual dictator. In Chile, General Pinochet only emerged as leader months after the bloody coup took place.

The regimes characterized (in Latin America) as bureaucratic-authoritarian appear to be fundamentally restrictive of political and economic institutions resulting in the increasing polarisation between the rich and the poor. The political and economic reforms that were implemented during the bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes did not find support with the citizens and, therefore, needed to be imposed through undemocratic means.

Theories that have attempted to explain the rise of authoritarian rule both the world over specifically in Latin America will now be examined. Firstly, the corporatist theory maintains that the style of Iberian colonization is held accountable for the high presence of authoritarianism in Latin America. The argument states that not only was the culture of the Hispanic colonizers inherently authoritarian but also the native cultures of Latin America were themselves very hierarchical, helping to facilitate this form of rule. This outdated, racist theory has been largely rejected. Critics note the case of Chile here, the fact that Chile experienced one of the longest surviving authoritarian regimes despite not being heavily influenced by Spanish colonization and previously enjoyed a long period of democratic rule.

George Phillip remarks that a populous can come to prefer authoritarian leadership when they have already experienced rising inequality under the democratic rule and become disillusioned. Reformation of political institutions is one method some writers claim would strengthen democratic systems. However, opponents assert that economic growth is essential in preventing a return to authoritarianism and that socio-economic crises create larger threats to stability.

The concept of bureaucratic authoritarianism was introduced by the Argentine political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell to refer to institutional dictatorships that resorted to coercion as a response to what they considered to be threats to the capitalist system. O’Donnell argued that “the appropriate way to oppose them was through an unconditional commitment to democracy.” However, the position exists that sometimes democratic governments are not authoritarian enough to defend positive social reforms (Petras et al, 1988). Salvador Allende’s (1970–1973) government in Chile and the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s demonstrate that the ruling classes do not give up their elite privileges without a struggle.

As the bourgeoisie is not committed to democratic principles, Petras et al argue, it uses any possible tactics to undermine social reforms that require democratic mechanisms (Petras et al, 1988). It comes out that social reformers face the choice either to defend democratic processes utilizing authoritarian tactics or to fail.

Thus, the fall of Allende’s regime in Chile may be considered as a fall of a democratic government to authoritarian power. His reforms resulted in the nationalization of U.S.-owned industries; this made it possible for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to contribute to the military coup on 11 September 1973 after which Allende’s government fell.

Augusto Pinochet’s regime that followed the military coup was the savage military dictatorship that suppressed all democratic principles that existed in the country throughout its history. No political opposition was possible, individual rights were completely ignored.

Although Chile was once one of Latin America’s most established democracies, under the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet it suffered right-wing, military repression, with two to three thousand people executed by government security forces, and many more imprisoned, tortured, or exiled (Skidmore, 2005). On 11 September 1973, less than three weeks after being made head of the junta militia, General Pinochet played a leading role in a CIA-sponsored coup. The attack, led by the armed forces, culminated in the bombing of the presidential palace and the death of President Allende. Pinochet’s grip on power quickly hardened. By mid-1974, he was declared Supreme Head of the Nation, and by December, President. His leadership was characterized by tortures, disappearances, assassinations, and mass executions. The junta militia abolished civil liberties, dissolved the national congress, banned union activities, prohibited strikes and collective bargaining, and erased the agrarian administration as well as economic reforms. Centre left-wing opposition (most notably labor unions and universities) were particularly hard hit as were many of the ‘Poblacion’s (low-income, urban shanty towns) in and around the nation’s capital.

Going by Karen L. Remmer we will analyze the distinctive characteristics of Chilean authoritarianism:

The idea of impersonal control by military institutions is basic to the bureaucratic-authoritarian model. In Chile, this was just the case, as the power was concentrated in the hands of a single individual through rule by the military as an institution. Generalissimo of the Chilean armed forces, Pinochet was unrivaled by any of his recent counterparts in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.
Chilean authoritarianism existed contrary to many obstacles and pressures: a national tradition of constitutional democracy, an established political landscape of parties and interest groups, widespread internal opposition, mass protests, and economic crisis. Chilean authoritarianism appeared to be a rather durable process. Pinochet was the only South American military officer who has ruled for such a long period of time (nearly a decade and a half) in the postwar era (with the exception of General Alfredo Stroessner).
Chilean authoritarianism was characterized by its determined pursuit of orthodox economic policies. The commitment to monetary orthodoxy and market-oriented development policies had been implemented into reality rapidly and consistently.
Chile also had the strongest tradition of state intervention in the economy if compared to other southern cone countries (Remmer, 1989).

To analyze the reasons that made bureaucratic-authoritarian regime come into being possible in Chile we will examine Chile’s pre-1973 conditions through three perspectives:

Import substitution industrialization strategy;
The threat to capitalist order;
Activation of the popular sector.

In 1830-1960 the import tax for final consumer goods encouraged imports of producer goods but not consumer goods. Consequently, during 1870-1907 the share of consumer goods in Chile fell down significantly. As relatively smooth import-substitution industrialization took place, it gave rise to an entrenched industrial bourgeoisie that was dependent on high levels of protection from trade (Silva, 1996).

Though in general, the import-substitution industrialization-oriented tariff structure remained until 1960, by 1937 the early phase of industrialization which concentrated on consumer goods had reached its limit; it could not be achieved despite continued government effort.

The gradual stagnation in the growth of industrial employment (after 1950 new employment opportunities came only from non-industrial sectors) indicated a halt in industrialization. The increased domestic production of consumer goods led to significant growth in the imports of capital goods. More foreign exchange was spent on imports of capital goods that led to the deterioration of the balance of payment conditions. The foreign debt of Chile increased (Ma, 2002).

2. In 1964, Eduardo Frei of the Christian Democratic Party was elected president of Chile. His policy contained some elements threatening the existing capitalist order. He recommended a set of constitutional amendments on property rights to establish a legal basis for the agrarian reform. Also, he recommended a tax reform to extract more from the rich, an equalization of wages, and a liberalization of labor laws. All these threatened the upper bourgeoisie as the reforms contradicted the basics of capitalist private property rights.

The reform program failed because it faced a crisis caused by strong inflation. Frei’s government responded by a contractionary budget, a slowdown of monetary expansion, and a change in the structure of public investment that resulted in a significant fall in production and unemployment rise.

In 1970, Frei lost the presidential election, and Salvador Allende we talked about above came to power. For the national bourgeoisie, his rise to power meant the downfall of the capitalist order in the country and they organized a series of strikes that almost paralyzed Chile. The citizens gradually lost their commitment to democracy. In the military it was believed that the armed forces should be subordinated to the constitution and civilians are able to maintain social order. As a result, the military forces disregarded the constitution and became active participants in political actions. The military coup of 1973 brought Pinochet’s military government to power, replacing Allende’s social one (Ma, 2002).

3. Chile’s working class first appeared in the second half of the 19^th century. Mostly, the workers were from the copper, coal, and silver mining industries. Until 1880 workers’ riots were sporadic and unorganized. The situation changed when the number of workers engaged in the nitrate mining industry increased significantly during 1880-1890. A high concentration of workers in one industry contributed to the organization of the working class. Since 1890 mass strikes and demonstrations gradually became more organized. In 1912 the Socialist Working Party was formed enabling Chile’s working class to enter the political arena.

At the same time, Chile’s working class became more and more active. In the 1850s the growing urban classes and newly appeared mining capitalists worked out a set of demands that were to be met in terms of liberal reforms. The demands included constitutional reform, administrative decentralization, and more democratic suffrage. As a result of this movement the Radical Party was formed and it soon became one of the leading forces of the middle classes in the political arena.

In the mid-1930s the threat of a growing Fascist movement in the country enhanced the formation of the Popular Front alliance among the working and the middle classes. In 1938 the Popular Front won the presidential election. The Popular Front increased the government’s role in the economy through expanding state investment, protection of domestic industries, and social welfare that was willingly supported by the working and middle classes (Ma, 2002).

As far as the problem of the rise of bureaucratic authoritarianism in Latin America is concerned, the role of the US government is especially important. Instead of fostering the democratic principles in the countries of Latin America, the American government supported authoritarian regimes “that promised stability, anticommunism, and economic trade and investment opportunities.” (Schmitz, 1999).

Oscar (1984) argues that the fact that Pinochet supported capitalistic ideologies which were advocated by the United States also encouraged the United States to support him. The US fought the Marxist and socialistic ideologies of the Soviet Union which were firmly embraced by Pinochet’s predecessors. In short, the USA supported Pinochet because they realized the benefits that the support of the capitalistic ideology adopted by Chile could bring. Authoritarian leadership was considered by the US government as the necessary tool to maintain order, prevent social and political chaos and succeed in policies aimed at economic modernization. But “democracy emerged and economies grew in Latin America in spite of, rather than because of, U.S. policies.” (Bureaucratic Authoritarianism).

Pinochet’s regime was felled during the 1988 elections. The Constitution was amended to ease provisions for future amendments to it, to create more seats in the senate, to diminish the role of the National Security Council, and equalize the number of civilian and military members in the government from all classes in the country (Skidmore, 2005). Pinochet’s defeat in the polls signified the dead-end of the authoritarian government in Chile. Later, the constitution was amended so that any possible loopholes that could have led to authoritarianism were removed.

According to Skidmore (2005), the church which at first expressed its gratitude to the junta armed forces for saving the country from the danger of a “Marxist dictatorship,” became increasingly critical of the regime’s social and economic policies. The change in the views of the representatives of the church was enhanced by the fact that clergies were dismissed for criticizing the government and were forced to flee into exile. The representatives of the church realized that the authoritarian regime was decaying and took a stance against its leader.

The fall of this authoritarian government was also enhanced by the great Economic crisis of 1982. The increase in foreign debt signified a budgetary deficit, the country could not meet its budgetary allocations. The financial analyses conducted proved that that situation was a result of the economic exploitations of the working class. The latter started to silently revolt against the capitalistic ideologies of Pinochet until the giant was felled by the power of the ballot.

The loss of belief in the government that was common throughout the nation also played a role in the fall of the regime. The inequalities in development ranged from infrastructural to socio-political disparities. Because of regional and technical imbalance, people lost faith in the government. The huge wage differentials between the members of different classes did not contribute to the government’s popularity as well. The bourgeoisie was earning very high wages while the representatives of the middle and the lower class earned very low wages. This resulted in poor income distribution with the effect that living standards declined for the majority. With the middle working and the lower class being poorly paid and doing menial jobs, there arose serious income disparities where the lower class were unable to afford essential commodities of life. People lost faith in the government making them vote it out.

Another reason for citizens’ dissatisfaction with the current government was the education issue. Educational opportunities were a reserve for the middle working class and royal class. The lower class got informal education through apprenticeship just sufficient to make them serve their masters. These people realized the fact that they could not be allowed to open up their minds through getting the appropriate education. On the other hand, the middle working class was also restricted in getting an education as they were not allowed to acquire professional skills since they were a reserve for the royals only.

Health deterioration in the whole country was another major cause of the disbandment of the popular authoritarian form of government in Chile. The problem of equality in health service remained a rather burning one. The royals had life health insurance covers and they were provided with the best medical treatment. The others lacked medical insurance and did not even have access to the basic health care system.

Meanwhile, the trials concerning human rights violations during the dictatorship continued. Pinochet was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in August 2000 by the Supreme Court and indicted by Judge Juan Guzman Tapia (Skidmore, 2005). With this increased human rights activism and welfare reform, social democracy was restored. Cases were heard in court concerning people who had been imprisoned without trial, those who had been exiled were recalled and inquiries about those who were exterminated were made.

Though some claim that there is still an authoritarian tradition that threatens democratic structures (Payne, 2000), authoritarianism has gradually become the vestige of the past. Still, the issue of democratic institutions remains a burning one in the societies of Latin America, as uncivil movements that Payne speaks of do not lose their ability to shape the discourse and practices of democratic institutions.

Conclusion

Everything mentioned above considered we conclude that authoritarian rule does not assume any democratic freedoms and is destined to fail one day. The drastic effects that an authoritarian government might have were demonstrated by the example of Augusto Pinochet’s military regime in Chile. The research has shown that the establishment of the authoritarian government was possible because of the import substitution industrialization strategy, activation of the popular sector, rising threat to the capitalist order, and the United States’ support of the regime. The reasons of the fall of the authoritarian regime in the Chile are also considered in the paper, with the emphasis made on the citizens’ dissatisfaction with the current government. Chile’s example has shown that the government that neglects the fundamentals of democracy will definitely fall one day with no chances to restore one’s power.

Works Cited

‘Bureaucratic Authoritarianism’ [Online]. Web.

Handelman, H 2004, ‘The Security and Insecurities of Democracy in the Third World’, Global Studies Perspectives: Occasional Paper Series of the Center for International Education, 12:1.

Ma Shu-Yun 2002, ‘The Rise and Fall of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in Chile’, Copyright, ABCSO Publishing, p.51-65.

O’Donnell, G A 1999. Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Oscar, O 1984. Public politics and political regimes in Latin America. Washington, D.C. Wilson center.

Petras, J F., and Fitzgerald F T 1988, ‘Authoritarianism and Democracy in the Transition to Socialism’, Latin American Perspectives, winter 1988, p.93.

Phillp, G 2003. Democracy in Latin America; Surviving Conflict and Crisis? Blackwell.

Remmer, K L 1989.‘The Politics of Military Rule in Chile, 1973-1987’, Comparative Politics, 21:2, Jan.

Schmitz, D F 1999. Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921–1965. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Silva, E 1996. The State and Capitalism in Chile: Business Elites, Technocrats and Market Economics. Westview Press.

Skidmore, T 2005. Modern Latin America. Oxford University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!

Authoritarianism in Latin America and Chile

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)