TheArt2

The Art of the State in Latin America: 

The Art of the State in Latin America The Art of Dissolving States 27 September 2005 Gerard van der Ree Leiden University

General Considerations: 

General Considerations State = Project Closely tied to development Patterns of development are reflected in change in state formation Combination: Outside influences Inside pressures Inside pressures generally involve key role for middle classes

State Formations: 

State Formations Oligarchic state: 1820-1930 Populist state: 1930-1960s Bureaucratic-authoritarian state: 1960s-1980s Democratic/Neo-liberal state: 1980s- Exceptions: Colombia (oligarchic until 1980s), Uruguay (early liberal democracy), Mexico, in some countries no Bureaucratic-authoritarian state

Oligarchic State: 

Oligarchic State Independence: not the result of rebellion External: fall of Spanish and Portuguese crown Internal: criollos vs peninsulares

First Phase: 1820-1870: 

First Phase: 1820-1870 State Building States remained very weak and instable: Economic stagnation Maintenance of colonial social order Protracted conflict between conservatives and liberals Caudillismo Exceptions: Chile, Costa Rica

Second Phase: 1870-1930: 

Second Phase: 1870-1930 Consolidation state: liberal-authoritarian Export-oriented growth Orientation towards ‘progreso’ Examples of England, France Positivism Material modernisation Foreign investment Example: Porfirio Diaz

Transition to Populist State: 

Transition to Populist State External: WWI and crash of 1929 Internal: Erosion of the power of the oligarchy Rise of urban masses Contest for power: middle classes Two routes: Constitutional: Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica Conflict: Mexican Revolution, Peronism Exceptions: Vargas (Brazil) and APRA (Peru)

Populism: 

Populism Based upon-but not emanating from- popular mass mobilisation Corporatism: state regulation of social sectors Styles of leadership: Civil: Betancourt (Venezuela 1958); APRA (Peru); Arbenz (Guatemala 1951) Authoritarian: Cardenas (Mexico 1934); Perón (Argentina 1946); Vargas (Brazil 1930/37)

Populist Agenda: 

Populist Agenda Inward-looking development Import-Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) Social citizenship and integration Social legislation Incorporation of representative organisations Centralisation of State Nationalism

Breakdown of Populist State: 

Breakdown of Populist State 1960s: emergence of violent authoritarian regimes Brazil; Chile; Uruguay; Argentina; Peru; Guatemala; etc. Unexpected: break of democratising trend, fall of caudillo-regimes (Batista, Trujillo)

Explanations: 

Explanations External: Cold War and Cuban Revolution Internal José Nun: Middle Class Military Coup Guillermo O’Donnell: Bureaucratic-Authoritarian coups

Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Coups: 

Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Coups Populist state: mobilisation of the masses. Was stable because of economic expansion 1960s: ISI model becomes exhausted Mass mobilisation can no longer be mediated through economic growth Attempts to reform antagonise the lower classes: social conflict Military step in to de-activate the masses

Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regimes: 

Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regimes Repression: doctrine of national security Argentina, Guatemala: extremely violent Brazil, Peru: more selective repression Neutralisation of Politics Chile/Argentina: parties suspended Brazil: democratic façade Technocratic leadership Development: Brazil: maintenance of ISI Chile: neo-liberal project Exceptions: Peru 1968-1980

Twilight of the Despots: 

Twilight of the Despots Early 1980s: return to democracy Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala Causes Internal erosion within coalition Decay of legitimacy (debt crisis, Malvinas) Growth of opposition and the creation of a viable democratic alternative Falling external legitimacy for anti-communist dictatorship

Dual/Triple Transition: 

Dual/Triple Transition From dictatorship to democracy From state orientation to free market External: Pressure from IMF/World Bank Globalisation Internal: Debt crisis + crisis ISI model Demand for consumption by middle classes Central America: from civil war to peace

Democratisation: 

Democratisation Mixed results Democratically chosen governments in all L.A. countries (except Cuba) Low risk of military takeovers Executive: personalistic, abuse of power Congress: weak party system, ineffectiveness, no clear ideological direction Rule of Law: often arbitrary, ineffective, aimed against the poor Legitimacy of democratic system declining

Neo-Liberalism: 

Neo-Liberalism In general: negative social impact Especially income distribution and poverty Different models Neo-populism combined with radical neo-liberal reform: Argentina, Peru Relatively stable growth: Costa Rica, Uruguay Muddle-through: Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil Chile

Conclusions: 

Conclusions State change in LA is the product of simultaneous internal and external pressures It reflects both changes in developmental strategies as well as political readjustment Transition to consolidated democracy and consistent economic model is far from complete