1
5114044

Liberalism was the dominant political and economic theory of the world throughout the enlightenment and that gave way to many economic and social advances. In particular the 19th century saw an increase both in the literature associated with this movement and the amount of leaders that nominally subscribed to this theory. In Latin America, specifically, liberalism took a very unique path that culminated in the abandonment and complete rejection of these theories.
The adoption of liberal policies both economically and socially moved from adhering very strictly to the theory at first (whilst being disconnected from reality) to the eventual degradation and disassociation of liberal ideals around the 1930’s. The initial adoption was due to the closeness of Latin American intellectuals with their European and American counterparts, while the shift towards autochthonous movements was caused as a response against the ever-present influence of Europe over the Latin American subcontinent and the effects of positivism.
Liberalism is defined by a set of policies, ideas, and beliefs that hold individual autonomy, equality, and freedom as the pillars of human life. From this basic concept the economic ideas of laissez-faire economics and free markets are developed. Further on, democracy naturally stems from this idea that people are autonomous, rational, free agents that are capable of having decision making power and thus elect the best person possible amongst a pool of potential candidates. This ideology resonated with many social elites in Latin America as it justified their position in the world. The revolutions and wars of independence that occurred in the 19th century are nominally based on the beliefs of the French revolution: equality, liberty, and fraternity. However, although elites claim to be liberals, there is little in practice that they do that translates to truly liberal economies and democracies.

2

One clear example of the relative commitment to liberalism are numerous Constitutions developed throughout Latin America that emulate, if not directly copy, the Constitution of the
United States and “generous ideas of the French revolution”(Hirschman). Although in theory the form and structure of the newly established governments resembled the working “democracy” the US had, there were great discrepancies with the actual implementation of these. One of the biggest and most glaring issues was the lack of universal suffrage. Not only was the right to vote reserved for males alone, but it also excluded a big portion of the people present including natives and African American slaves. Thus the very core principle of equality was almost immediately violated.
Further on, another clear violation of the principles of liberalism is the persistent authoritarian character that haunts Latin America well into the 21st century. It’s impossible to separate the region from this particular characteristic as it determines so much of its history. In
Mexico for example there were over twenty heads of state (dictators) between 1823 and 1835.
Even during the most liberal points of Latin American history, around the 1880s, one could still observe caudillos and strongman appear and be central to the way of life. According to Hale
“Bunge, echoing a widely held view, referred to Porfirio Diaz as 'the progressive cacique', one of the great statesmen of the century. ‘He governs Mexico as Mexico must be governed.’” It is clear that the autocratic nature of the Latin American character was accepted socially and even defended by many despite its illiberal roots.

Albert Hirschman points out that Laberinto de Paz (a book about Mexico’s political reality) and Nuestra America are two books that espouse on the topic of ideological and practical discrepancies in political and economic life in Latin America. The latter work is a “recitation of

3

vices and failures” that were popularly believed at the time. In particular Nuestra America stresses that the people are lazy, sad, and arrogant which accounts for the economic and social lag that Latin America experiences relative to European countries. Many others continued to expand on inherent problems with Latin America, some delving into determinism and hereditary predispositions. Francisco Encina believed that Chileans were unable to be cooperative, ostentatious, and lacked initiative due in large part to hereditary considerations and the lack of a proper education that civilized the masses.
It is here that the influx of positivism can be clearly seen. Positivism is defined as a philosophy that confines itself to data from experience and excludes a priori information
(Britannica). Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer were both deeply influential social commentators that strictly adhered to this philosophy. Their works and their reasoning had a deep impact in Latin America even though many of their conclusions and fundamental premises were in rough contrast to the liberal ideas. Spencer advocated social Darwinism which was a racist approach to explaining why some societies lagged behind others. While Comte argued that societies were living organisms that developed like one. These beliefs were at stark odds with liberalism which held that individuals were equal and thus the difference in race was not relative to their rational decision making because they were human.
There were however many ways in which Liberalism was implemented. This is mostly true in economic policy. Countries focused largely on the production of exports in which they had the comparative advantage due to their natural endowments. Brazil, for instance, was a big producer of Rubber which brought great wealth (for a short period of time). It later on focused on coffee exportation which attracted foreign investment into the countries. Liberalism fostered the growth of industries that countries were comparatively good at and imported those industries at

4

which countries were less competitive at (SSG 346). The free trade of goods and the free market seemed to achieve its ends quite efficiently and thus that part of liberalism stuck. Further on governments, although authoritarian, were very laissez-faire and non-interventionist so as to not disturb the free market.
It would seem until this point that Latin Americans were enthralled with the idea of liberalism but were put off by some of its social effects and thus modified it with the inclusion of positivist ideas. After the turn of the century there started to be a shift away from liberalism as positivism gave way to new forms of societal study that rejected philosophical notions (the basis of liberalism) as a means to understand societal phenomena. This was furthered by many world events. US interventionism, the Great War, and the Russian and Mexican revolutions all changed the way Latin America viewed and interacted with the world (Hirschman 9).
For the most of Latin American History, intellectuals and elites had, like Simon Bolivar, believed that the root cause of the economic problems was the genetic pool the region was endowed with. They felt that they were inherently inferior and determined to be inferior.
However as time went by, this notion started to change and the look for blame switched outward
(Hirschman 11). Liberalism was an imported philosophy from a different people that was imposed on Latin America by European powers seeking to maintain the mercantilist hierarchical relationships established during the colonial period. Thus local powers sought to find a solution that was distinctly autochthonous. More problematic than just economic lag, the apparent economic benefits of liberalism seemed to dwindle at the turn of the century. Argentina for one saw a large part of the value of its exports drop dramatically due to world events. The Great War and the recessions of the early 20th century destroyed much of the confidence regional elites had in liberalism and non-interventionism as means fostering economic growth.

5

Carlos Bunge argued that the government of a nation must develop organically from the racial and psychological heritage of its people not from a philosophical notion such as liberalism which was at odds with the realities of the country. In other words, intellectuals and leaders sought to look for institutions that would develop accordingly to the racial and sociological background of the country (Hale 409). This is how corporatism (which has nothing to do with preference to corporations as one would tend to infer from the name) came about. It was an attempt to align populist interests with the economic goals of the country. A good example of a country adopting this would be Mexico. For most of the 20th century Mexico was ruled by PRI which had corporatism at the core of its policies. This was a much more active and interventionist approach than liberalism that protected the interest of industries. Corporatism had an active role for the state to play in the economy which eventually led to ISI policies being adopted in much of Latin America (SSG 261).
Liberalism had an insurmountable impact in the early days of Latin American independence. It structured the way leaders thought and operated and thus was the basis for government and social interaction. The perfectibility of man was a goal that was within society’s grasp if only the right decisions were made. This was, however, always at odds with the political and social realities of inferior races and landed entry that could trace their superior lineage to
Europe. Thus liberalism, especially after the introduction of positivism, was doomed to fail.
Despite massive gains from trade and other applications of liberal theory, there were always areas (such as autocratic governments) that spelled out the end of Liberalism. The 20th century, especially after the Great War and the Great Depression were the final push that broke all confidence in this philosophical movement.
Alejandro Calderon

6

positivism. (2015). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/471865/positivism