Question 1 Before the 20th century South America had a reputation of military dictatorship, democracy had yet to be discovered. The transition wasn’t smooth but yet most South American countries managed to enter the 20th century with somewhat democratic governments. This essay will consider how in a fresh out of the oven democratic era they were still some countries that were dealing with dictatorship; that oddly enough operated in very different ways but the result was the same: One man had full power and control over his state. More specifically this essay will study Venezuela and Chile, Hugo Chavez and Augusto Pinochet, populism and authoritarianism which in a remarkable yet fairly different way narrows it down to the same result: Presidents who made their way to the top and managed to become dictators of their states. Throughout time they way governments have chosen to govern their states has been based on different political ideologies that were shaped over history. This essay will focus particularly on Authoritarianism and Populism. Venezuela had an example of a dictator, which some Venezuelan considered a hero, who based is political career promoting populism as the best way to rule a country. On the other hand you have Chile a country that today remembers the darkest years of their history inflicted by Pinochet an authoritarian that took over power through no democratic mean at all, and forced his way to the top. Firstly becoming familiar with the political ideologies is crucial in being able to compare these two regimes. Populism by definition is: “ a core belief that the institutions of classical liberal democracy, especially legislatures and courts, are anachronistic, inefficient, and inconsistent with the true expression of the people’s will” (Seligson, 2007, p. 82) . In

1

shorts, populism as the title suggests it, is all about the people, what the people want and need and it suggests that the hierarchy that is supposed to be in charge of the state isn’t necessarily doing a good job. Furthermore the need of the people, the hard working class are not being fulfilled, and it is usually a charismatic, full of ideas visionary who tries to make the people aware of that. Hugo Chavez was exactly that person, that people’s man to whom Venezuelans would write letters to ask for favors, their leader, their saviors the one who cares about the hard working class. It all sounds very promising, the perfect type of government where the ones with no voices are the ones who are heard. Unfortunately in practice that is not quite the case. “ In practice populism often can mean running roughshod over fundamental democratic guarantees of civil liberties, especially free expression and the right to due process” (Seligson, 2007, p. 82) . This can explain more in details why even thought Chavez gets reelected and is wildly admired by his pueblo, a fair portion of the country opposes him and his political views. Granted Chavez was elected and re elected through “democratic ways”, however can his whole system and regime be considered a democracy? Hugo literally had control over the entire state,

power wasn’t shared like it is supposed to in order to maintain balance, without even needing the consent of the vast majority, the president can execute legislations, he has absolute control over the army and the supreme court has to follow his orders without questions asked. One must not forget that Chavez not only was a president he was also a very important CEO who had absolute control over the state-owned oil company which is one of the major resources the country has. Having power over the major income opens him a world of possibilities to do as he wishes, he was able to decide where the money

2

went. Now looking back at the description provided above for Chavez’s work it all resumes to dictatorship, however how could it be that Chavez didn’t need to repress Venezuela in order to have access to all this power? The answer is competitive autocracy. Chavez didn’t repress or ban he merely opposed the opposition, he gave enough to the poor to give them hope towards a better future but not enough to actually progress. He improved the economy yet the poor are still as poor as they were, which means there is no equality and needless to say there is no better education for the future of Venezuela. One cannot help but give credit to this wise man who polarized his society and made himself a dictator in disguise, yes several hated him yes they protest against him, but yet until the day he died he was a hero amongst most Venezuelans and was never thrown out of his thrown. On the other side of the chart there is a politician who didn’t handle matters in quite the same way. “Chavez is distinct from two other breeds of dictators: the unpopular autocrat who has few supporters and must resort to outright repression and the comfortable autocrat, who haves little opposition and can relax in power” (Corrales, 2006 p. 36) . Now lets switch the shift towards the unpopular autocrat, the one who will use repression and any other weapon in his power to achieve his goals. By definition authoritarianism is “regimes characterized by strong and relatively autonomous government structures that seek to impose on the society a system of interest representation based on enforced limited pluralism” (Malloy.1977 p. 122) . In 1973 Chile was stunned by a military coup d’etat commanded by Augusto Pinochet. Chile who before Pinochet was considered a democracy saw the political ideals of their country turn

3

into a regime commanded by a man who had no problem eliminating whomever dared to go against him. Salvador Allende the President who was there before, the one who tried to introduce socialism to his country, the one who literally gave his life for what he believed in, was trying to integrate the Chilean society towards a more socialist approach one that could bring them a tad closer to equality, however el General had different plans for Chile. He paid workers to stop working in order to prevent Chileans from having their basic needs delivered to them. He was ready to do anything that will get him to the top and he had no problem using repression to that, Pinochet didn’t try to approach Chileans in the charismatic way that Chavez did, Augusto was the opposite, it was his way or the military prison camp which people knew they wouldn’t come out alive. To work his way to the top he killed and terrorized people made them afraid to the point they wouldn’t protest against him. He had men working for him who were devoted to el General who would obey him blindly no questions asked. The upper class of the country had his back, they didn’t want to see their money be divided amongst the poor it was much better to be greedy and want more for themselves, therefore Pinochet never lacked monetary support which encouraged him even more to do what he pleased. “Under radical tutelage, the state became the engine of economic growth” (Constable &, Valenzuela, 1993, p.22). However other parts of the economy were left out thus the economy grew little by little with a lot of struggle, inflation had gone up and the country wasn’t doing very well. How did Pinochet remain at the top? Once again repression and the scared Chilean population wouldn’t dare go against him but because Pinochet went against something Americans dread: socialism, he had the CIA right behind him supporting him, promoting him and

4

helping him to keep the country as it was, which helped remarkably Augusto he they kept that going for several years, until Chileans said enough. Socialism was a scary thought, which lead to a war in the country between Allende and Augusto. Chileans had enough of the war they just wanted peace to be reestablished which is why when Pinochet took over they thought it would get better they didn’t think they were entering the military authoritarian regime that was waiting for them. When Pinochet died there it was fairly different from Chavez’s funeral. Chavez had a lot of supporter in Venezuela while Chileans were happy that Pinochet had died, 2 dictators with two very different stories and endings. To conclude this essay and after comparing populism with authoritarianism, Pinochet with Chavez it comes to terms that in politics there are different ways to approach the state, one can make it easier for the ruler, where the state admires him whereas other take the rough path and impose on their state without a hint of sympathy towards them. However the result is the same. Both state still have so much to be fixed the working class is still the one suffering the consequences of their governments choices whether they sugar coat it or not these dictators dictated their country in very different way but the result remained the same. The poor are still the ones paying the highest cost.

5

Question 2 When one has to deal with discontent there are several ways of approaching the situation, trying to solve the problem in a political correct manner one can argue its point of view, of course in which case both parties must agree to use dialogue. However this approach doesn’t necessarily bring any good outcome. When it comes to politics, dialogue is often the measure chosen by those involved in making the decisions: the rich upper class males who are in control of the country. Granted it is a very stereotypical figure, however it is not far from reality. In Latin America it is often discussed that those in power are often there to make themselves and the rest of the bourgeoisie richer, the working class is often stepped on and their well being isn’t at the top of the “to do list”. Because they don’t have as much money thus, they don’t have much power it is often through violent actions or violent protests that the “poor” portray their anger towards the government. Sadly their violent or aggressive act invites the government to sometimes respond even more aggressively and more violently than necessary and the people pay the price often with their lives. La “Matanza” in El Salvador, the “caserolasos” in Venezuela or the Rise to power or Augusto Pinochet in Chile through “El golpe de estado” are some of the example of how far violence can go when it’s used to make a statement and this essay will consider who are the ones to use violence the state or the people? Who are those on top and who’s at the bottom? What makes them act in that way? All of those questions will be analyzed in the following paragraphs.

6

The ones to govern the country are the richest people of that given country. There is one president per state but there are also several businessmen right behind him helping him maintain power while they all help each other get richer. Hugo Chavez for example, very respected CEO not only was he president but he controlled the revenues that the country was getting from their oiling business, deciding where the money went and how it was spent, there was never better education or less poverty but there were richer men at the top. Fidel Castro received the upper class of Cuba’s support, which helped tremendously getting Batista out of the way. It comes to show how these powerful businessmen are really the ones ruling the country through the image of a president. The President is only there to put a face and a name on a state’s leader however the businessmen are the ones calling the shots. General Augusto Pinochet a dictator who worked his way into power in a non democratic way was hated by the vast majority of Chileans, however the vast majority of the little support he had came from the upper Chilean class, and these are the few examples that portray that the rich people are the ones controlling the states while the poor have to follow the flow. Political violence can arises from several situations, most of the time it is a cry for help from those who are repressed by the decisions made by the government. Venezuela is an example when they tried to overthrown Chavez, which ended up failing but the attempt, was there, the attempt from the people who weren’t happy with what Chavez was doing to their country. Nonetheless sometimes the upper class joins the lower class in a battle against the government, because it seems clear to both that things are not going the way they are supposed to be going and the government isn’t doing a good job, in which case they unite

7

to overthrown the ones in power. However what happens when the government is overthrown? Because even though the up and the low united it doesn’t mean they have the same interests. The greedy rich will want to get richer and the peasants ask for more equality and distribution. Somoza in Nicaragua is the perfect example of that. “Elites opponents of Somoza decided that joining the revolutionary coalition – even in a subordinate position – was less of a threat than the continuation of the personalist regime, with the monopolization of political and economical power” (Midlarsky &, Roberts, 1986, p.189) . When he came into power the Somoza family dominated the country, they used the money that was meant to help build a better Nicaragua on themselves and their friends thus, the well educated middle class and lower class united against him to defeat him, however power is a vicious circle and once people are drunk on it, they repeat history. Somoza was out but the dreams of the poor never came true. Now the question is why does this happen? Why some men are powerful enough to take control over a whole state and do as they please with them? Peasants are often the ones to revolt against the state, at the top of the state rest the wealthy rich. Most of the time the poor revolt against dictatorship complete repression in which what the government ought to do benefits no one but themselves and their very restricted circle of friends. One of the possible answers would be inequality. In most Latin American country the gap between the poor and the rich is so high that there is no place for a common ground, a middle class and with inequality comes the possibility that the “winner” takes it all and the winner up until now has always been the rich, well-educated slim portion of society. “In Cuba for example, the upper-class support granted to Fidel Castro in the final stages of the insurrection was

8

facilitated by the fact that his relatively moderate program posed little explicit threat to the structure of class domination” (Midlarsky &, Roberts, 1986, p.189) . What happened with Castro is a perfect example of how a tremendous gap between the rich and the poor decides whom gets into power, as long as you’ve got the wealthiest on your side you are set for success and more often than other the wealthiest don’t have the same objectives as the poor and it is more likely to happened in a polarized society. “The deeper these cleavages are between classes, the less likely it is that they would manifest common interests and objectives and thus the less likely they would be to act together in the pursuit of their interests” (Midlarsky &, Roberts, 1986, p.186) . Unfortunately, this is the case in several occasions as it was described earlier on in this essay. The powerful always end up with the upper hand. An example of that would be what happened in el Salvador. Violence as mentioned before is a way to portray the anger the poor feel in regards to their government, which is exactly what happened in that country. Several years back “ The revolt there was in El Salvador in the year 1932 “ culminated in the infamous “ La Matanza” during which as many as 30 000 people, mostly peasants were killed by the Salvadorian security forces” (Midlarsky &, Roberts, 1986, p.170) . Once again having money meant having the upper hand which meant that even thought what the peasants were fighting for was legitimate they ended up dying trying to get justice from an unjust government who ended up “shutting” several of them up forever. Needless to mention how frustrating it is to see how the richer get richer while the poorer stay there and live in misery that could be ameliorated if things in the government

9

were done right. Latin America has suffered a lot of corruption through the years, civil wars, dictatorships and more. Not everything in South America is bad, but the polarization of society makes it really hard for those in need to obtain what they deserve. Violence sometimes as the last recourse for help has only brought more pain and grief than positive results. They keep working the land while the rich keep sipping their ridiculously expensive cognac. Justice may never be achieved but one can’t help but admire the courage of the lower class, that maybe one day will get what they have been fighting for. After all as Ortega once said: “El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido” .

10