Political Polarization In The 1940s-70s: A Case Study
Sofia Ruales (slr445) April 26, 2016
Part A: Political polarization in the 1940s-70s that led to different regimes in each country.
The political polarization in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile began with the economic crisis experienced in the 1930s, which led to political tension resulting in the emergence of populism and the inclusion of previously excluded population into the political system. The region abandoned export-based policies and it focused on a new model of development called Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Under ISI the state had a more active role in the development process by applying protectionist policies and owning enterprise. The initial stage of ISI was labor intensive and it had a strong domestic emphasis …show more content…
on development. In this economic context, we can see that Mexico, Argentina, and Chile share similarities but it also had its differences. At the macro level, the similarities of Mexico, Argentina and Chile relied on the fact that all have experienced some form of populism and incorporation. Their differences emerge from the diverse types of populism and incorporation seen among these nations.
Before proceeding, it important to highlight that export-oriented development led to the emergence of a middle class that became discontent due to the failure of liberal policies.
On the other hand, ISI led to the development of an urban and working class who experience great inequality under an oligarchic political system. These factors cause increasing political tensions. Under this economic and political context, populism and incorporation became prominent in these countries. Populist were middle class people, who came to power by mobilizing the excluded masses, speaking against the oligarchy, implementing economic policies aligned with the initial stages of ISI, and advocating policies for the poor (Malloy, 12 and 13). Meanwhile, incorporation was the method in which populist leaders provided political representation to the excluded masses. Finally, it should explain that corporatism is the vertical hierarchy (top to bottom) approach that permits the state to organize and manage …show more content…
unions.
In the case of Mexico, the Partido Institucional Revolucionario (PRI) began by giving the workers and peasant a political representation through party incorporation. According to Collier, a party incorporation would “promote progressive social policies”, thus, causing a strong conservative reaction and, in the short-term, political polarization in the country (8). In the case of Mexico, Cardenas used party incorporation to begin mobilizing the peasants and worker. When he reached power, the progressive social policies characterized him as a radical populist who implemented radical reforms, particularly, in land, where he redistributed 44 million acres of land to peasants. This resulted in the weakening of the landed oligarchy. Furthermore, he created state-managed organizations for both peasants and workers, a process known as corporatism. Through corporatism, the PRI created unions that bounded political preferences and ideologies. Essentially locking in the support of these groups of society. The PRI initially implemented very progressive social reforms that led to a wider range of political representation of the majority of society and great redistribution, which later on reduced the desire to demand redistribution. This radical reforms in the short-run created political instability with the landed elites.
In 1943 in Argentina, a group of military ousted the oligarchic government during which time Peron became the labor minister. His interaction with laborers increased his popularity, which worried the conservative leaders who arrested him in 1945. Enormous amounts of working class citizens demanded his release. The obvious support allowed Peron to mobilize the urban working class through party incorporation and he became president in 1946. He followed ISI economic policies, increased wages, expanded social security and strengthened unions (however no form of corporatism took place as was seen in Mexico). Since most of these policies were geared towards the urban working class, he is described as a labor populist. However, the formation of a strong labor party (which he named Peronismo) caused the polarization of those who felt not politically represented. Consequently, the Argentine political situation became very polarized between labor and elite conservatives, which cause political instability. Due to this political tension, Peron was overthrown. After this event, the political instability was obvious under the restricted democracy applied by the military. Presidents were trapped in the impossible game of attempting to please both laborers and military; one would protest in the street and the other would form a coup if they sided with one or the other too often. This resulted in the overthrow of three presidents.
Finally, in the case of Chile, Allende, a left wing populist, came to power by democratic means with only 36% support. He used state incorporation to include the working and peasant population by providing transfers to these sectors of society as a form of redistribution. These fiscal transfers were aligned with the initial stage of ISI economic policies of emphasizing on development through a domestic lens. In addition, the traditional party populism resulted in little political representation for certain populations. Allende catered too often the interest of the working and peasant while disregarding the middle class and elites, which distanced themselves from the government, thus, causing political polarization in the nation.
Part B: Non-democratic regimes that governed between 1973-1989 in Chile, between 1976-1983 in Argentina and between 1929-2000 (approx.) in Mexico. It important to highlight that the aforementioned political situations of Mexico, Argentina and Chile led to different regimes. However, in the case of Argentina and Chile, we can see the combination of redistributive conflict in society and dependency theory as an explanation for the bureaucratic authoritarian regimes in these nations. Before discussing Argentina and Chile in more detail, lets proceed with Mexico who is experiencing what it seems to be a political stable and democratic situation. In Mexico, as was previously mentioned, the initial radical reforms done by the PRI generated significant redistribution thus reducing the desire to further demand redistribution and weaken the landed elites. The radical reforms of the PRI showed the party’s commitment to politically represent the workers and peasants. Moreover, corporatism allowed the PRI to control ideologies and the demands of workers, thus preventing any social unrest through labor movements. In addition, during the second stage of ISI, Mexico had to increase foreign direct investment. To do so, the PRI expanded fiscal transfers to cover, not only workers/peasants, but also industrial elites. Consequently providing a wider range of political representation of different sectors of society that allowed the PRI to remain in power from 1929 to approximately 2000. In the case of Argentina and Chile, they both share a similar experienced that is explained by the redistributive conflict in society and dependency theory. In the simplest explanation the redistributive conflict in society theory claims that in countries with high inequality the rich will lose more from redistribution. Thus, the greater the inequality, the more likely the elites will decide to repress the population because doing so is less costly to them and their economic status. During the 1940s-70s, both Argentina and Chile experienced inequality as well as a preview of redistributive policies under democracy. Given the high inequality in these countries, the elites decided to repress the population. Furthermore, in Argentina and Chile, the initial stage of ISI caused economic downturn, which increase social unrest and political polarization with a radical left and right wing parties.
Thus, these nations entered a second stage of ISI, which requires foreign capital investment. To accomplish this economic goal, Argentina and Chile became dependent on the investment of core nations, as described by the dependency theory. Given the economic context, the elites, who felt threatened by the radical demands of the working class, wanted to apply more orthodox economic policies to bring foreign capital investment. Additionally, the middle class became more dissatisfied with populist leaders because of the economic downturn. Ultimately, this lead to the coalition of the elites, middle class, and orthodox economist (bureaucrats) who through coups attempted to protect their interests by putting under control the social unrest and implement liberal policies. The combination of these two factions in Argentina and Chile, resulted in the bureaucratic authoritarianism regimes described by O’Donnell. In a sense, these new regimes were bureaucratic because they used the economic techniques of the technocrats, and they were authoritarian because the military was in charge of maintaining a stable society. The main objective of these bureaucratic authoritarian regimes was to change their society by weakening the left and strengthening the right. However, the execution of these aims differs
between these two nations.
In Argentina, La Junta was decentralized and disorganized, thus targeting citizens with no affiliations to the left, causing resentment in a wide range of the population. Also, the greater repression was the result of greater social unrest (a more palpable threat to the elites), thus making overall repression less costly at that time. Meanwhile, in Chile, Pinochet’s regime was very centralized and organized, which enable him to target a specific group and avoid a wide range of resentment from the population. Moreover, social unrest was less visible in Chile because Allende had low levels of popularity, thus, repression was done only to weaken the left. The manner in which La Junta and Pinochet kept social order, and weaken the left, affected the development of future political outcomes.
Part C: Democratization in Argentina (1983), Chile (1989) and Mexico (2000) The democratization in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile, can be seen in three different transitions to democracy. However, before we discuss the types of democracies seen in each country, I must highlight some similarities among these nations. Both Mexico and Argentina experienced an economic crisis that cost them the support of the business elites. Meanwhile, Argentina and Chile lost their external source of legitimization for their regimes with the collapse of the USSR and communism. Thus, making it harder for the United States to continue supporting these dictatorships. In Argentina and Chile the transition to democracy depends on what caused the push to democratization (meaning whether this push was external or internal).
Before delving deep into Argentina or Chile, let look at Mexico, where the transition to democracy was not as clear-cut because the authoritarian regime in Mexico was kept in power by electoral means. Thus, Mexico experienced a smooth transition to democracy. The PRI remained in power with the help of corporatism and/or electoral fraud. For instance, protest about the legitimacy of the presidential election in 1988 led the state to create the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) in order to manage the electoral system. Moreover, under urbanization a new urban poor community had emerged, thus, the PRI no longer provided political representation to the majority. On top of this, an economic crisis (an external factor) hit Mexico in 1994 due to excessive borrowing, thus shifting the support of the business elites from the PRI to the PAN. Ultimately, the combination of corporatism, question of legitimacy in electoral system, the formation of the IFE, the growth of new marginalized urban population, and the economic crisis forced a push in Mexico to transition into a democracy. On the other hand, Argentina also experienced an economic crisis, which made the elites go against the military. In addition, the repression felt by both people on the left and middle class (non-left) caused this great opposition against the military. Furthermore, in an attempt to unite the country through a common enemy, the military declare war on Great Britain, which they lost. It was the accumulation of all these events that inevitably led to the collapse of the bureaucratic authoritarian regime, which also call for election in 1983. Since in Argentina the regime had not institutionalized the power of the military, the military was unprotected after they left power. Overall, in Argentina, the regime collapse due to social forces moving in opposition to the regime causing the military to lose its power, its ability to protect themselves, and its influence over the subsequent democracy. However, this social forces' common dislike of the military does not mean that their interests align, thus without the military the political scene remains polarized and democracy unstable. In the case of Chile, there was no external factor that pushed for democratization; it was rather an internal factor. Under the 1980 constitution, the regime had to organize a plebiscite about the 1983 elections. Given that the transition was conducted according to the constitution created during the bureaucratic authoritarian regime, they had an influence over the condition in which democracy would come to the country. Furthermore, the regime had institutionalized the power of the military and guaranteed the safety of Pinochet in the constitution. Additionally, the economic stability, and target repression tactics didn’t create strong opposition against Pinochet (unlike what we had seen in Argentina). Chile experienced an imposed democratic transition to democracy where the military controlled the transition process and influenced the new democracy, thus creating a restricted democracy that is stable. Finally, the one thing all three nations had in common once democracy was established was the implementation of the Washington Consensus. In the case of Chile most of this policies were already implemented prior to democracy.
Part A: Political polarization in the 1940s-70s that led to different regimes in each country.
The political polarization in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile began with the economic crisis experienced in the 1930s, which led to political tension resulting in the emergence of populism and the inclusion of previously excluded population into the political system. The region abandoned export-based policies and it focused on a new model of development called Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Under ISI the state had a more active role in the development process by applying protectionist policies and owning enterprise. The initial stage of ISI was labor intensive and it had a strong domestic emphasis …show more content…
on development. In this economic context, we can see that Mexico, Argentina, and Chile share similarities but it also had its differences. At the macro level, the similarities of Mexico, Argentina and Chile relied on the fact that all have experienced some form of populism and incorporation. Their differences emerge from the diverse types of populism and incorporation seen among these nations.
Before proceeding, it important to highlight that export-oriented development led to the emergence of a middle class that became discontent due to the failure of liberal policies.
On the other hand, ISI led to the development of an urban and working class who experience great inequality under an oligarchic political system. These factors cause increasing political tensions. Under this economic and political context, populism and incorporation became prominent in these countries. Populist were middle class people, who came to power by mobilizing the excluded masses, speaking against the oligarchy, implementing economic policies aligned with the initial stages of ISI, and advocating policies for the poor (Malloy, 12 and 13). Meanwhile, incorporation was the method in which populist leaders provided political representation to the excluded masses. Finally, it should explain that corporatism is the vertical hierarchy (top to bottom) approach that permits the state to organize and manage …show more content…
unions.
In the case of Mexico, the Partido Institucional Revolucionario (PRI) began by giving the workers and peasant a political representation through party incorporation. According to Collier, a party incorporation would “promote progressive social policies”, thus, causing a strong conservative reaction and, in the short-term, political polarization in the country (8). In the case of Mexico, Cardenas used party incorporation to begin mobilizing the peasants and worker. When he reached power, the progressive social policies characterized him as a radical populist who implemented radical reforms, particularly, in land, where he redistributed 44 million acres of land to peasants. This resulted in the weakening of the landed oligarchy. Furthermore, he created state-managed organizations for both peasants and workers, a process known as corporatism. Through corporatism, the PRI created unions that bounded political preferences and ideologies. Essentially locking in the support of these groups of society. The PRI initially implemented very progressive social reforms that led to a wider range of political representation of the majority of society and great redistribution, which later on reduced the desire to demand redistribution. This radical reforms in the short-run created political instability with the landed elites.
In 1943 in Argentina, a group of military ousted the oligarchic government during which time Peron became the labor minister. His interaction with laborers increased his popularity, which worried the conservative leaders who arrested him in 1945. Enormous amounts of working class citizens demanded his release. The obvious support allowed Peron to mobilize the urban working class through party incorporation and he became president in 1946. He followed ISI economic policies, increased wages, expanded social security and strengthened unions (however no form of corporatism took place as was seen in Mexico). Since most of these policies were geared towards the urban working class, he is described as a labor populist. However, the formation of a strong labor party (which he named Peronismo) caused the polarization of those who felt not politically represented. Consequently, the Argentine political situation became very polarized between labor and elite conservatives, which cause political instability. Due to this political tension, Peron was overthrown. After this event, the political instability was obvious under the restricted democracy applied by the military. Presidents were trapped in the impossible game of attempting to please both laborers and military; one would protest in the street and the other would form a coup if they sided with one or the other too often. This resulted in the overthrow of three presidents.
Finally, in the case of Chile, Allende, a left wing populist, came to power by democratic means with only 36% support. He used state incorporation to include the working and peasant population by providing transfers to these sectors of society as a form of redistribution. These fiscal transfers were aligned with the initial stage of ISI economic policies of emphasizing on development through a domestic lens. In addition, the traditional party populism resulted in little political representation for certain populations. Allende catered too often the interest of the working and peasant while disregarding the middle class and elites, which distanced themselves from the government, thus, causing political polarization in the nation.
Part B: Non-democratic regimes that governed between 1973-1989 in Chile, between 1976-1983 in Argentina and between 1929-2000 (approx.) in Mexico. It important to highlight that the aforementioned political situations of Mexico, Argentina and Chile led to different regimes. However, in the case of Argentina and Chile, we can see the combination of redistributive conflict in society and dependency theory as an explanation for the bureaucratic authoritarian regimes in these nations. Before discussing Argentina and Chile in more detail, lets proceed with Mexico who is experiencing what it seems to be a political stable and democratic situation. In Mexico, as was previously mentioned, the initial radical reforms done by the PRI generated significant redistribution thus reducing the desire to further demand redistribution and weaken the landed elites. The radical reforms of the PRI showed the party’s commitment to politically represent the workers and peasants. Moreover, corporatism allowed the PRI to control ideologies and the demands of workers, thus preventing any social unrest through labor movements. In addition, during the second stage of ISI, Mexico had to increase foreign direct investment. To do so, the PRI expanded fiscal transfers to cover, not only workers/peasants, but also industrial elites. Consequently providing a wider range of political representation of different sectors of society that allowed the PRI to remain in power from 1929 to approximately 2000. In the case of Argentina and Chile, they both share a similar experienced that is explained by the redistributive conflict in society and dependency theory. In the simplest explanation the redistributive conflict in society theory claims that in countries with high inequality the rich will lose more from redistribution. Thus, the greater the inequality, the more likely the elites will decide to repress the population because doing so is less costly to them and their economic status. During the 1940s-70s, both Argentina and Chile experienced inequality as well as a preview of redistributive policies under democracy. Given the high inequality in these countries, the elites decided to repress the population. Furthermore, in Argentina and Chile, the initial stage of ISI caused economic downturn, which increase social unrest and political polarization with a radical left and right wing parties.
Thus, these nations entered a second stage of ISI, which requires foreign capital investment. To accomplish this economic goal, Argentina and Chile became dependent on the investment of core nations, as described by the dependency theory. Given the economic context, the elites, who felt threatened by the radical demands of the working class, wanted to apply more orthodox economic policies to bring foreign capital investment. Additionally, the middle class became more dissatisfied with populist leaders because of the economic downturn. Ultimately, this lead to the coalition of the elites, middle class, and orthodox economist (bureaucrats) who through coups attempted to protect their interests by putting under control the social unrest and implement liberal policies. The combination of these two factions in Argentina and Chile, resulted in the bureaucratic authoritarianism regimes described by O’Donnell. In a sense, these new regimes were bureaucratic because they used the economic techniques of the technocrats, and they were authoritarian because the military was in charge of maintaining a stable society. The main objective of these bureaucratic authoritarian regimes was to change their society by weakening the left and strengthening the right. However, the execution of these aims differs
between these two nations.
In Argentina, La Junta was decentralized and disorganized, thus targeting citizens with no affiliations to the left, causing resentment in a wide range of the population. Also, the greater repression was the result of greater social unrest (a more palpable threat to the elites), thus making overall repression less costly at that time. Meanwhile, in Chile, Pinochet’s regime was very centralized and organized, which enable him to target a specific group and avoid a wide range of resentment from the population. Moreover, social unrest was less visible in Chile because Allende had low levels of popularity, thus, repression was done only to weaken the left. The manner in which La Junta and Pinochet kept social order, and weaken the left, affected the development of future political outcomes.
Part C: Democratization in Argentina (1983), Chile (1989) and Mexico (2000) The democratization in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile, can be seen in three different transitions to democracy. However, before we discuss the types of democracies seen in each country, I must highlight some similarities among these nations. Both Mexico and Argentina experienced an economic crisis that cost them the support of the business elites. Meanwhile, Argentina and Chile lost their external source of legitimization for their regimes with the collapse of the USSR and communism. Thus, making it harder for the United States to continue supporting these dictatorships. In Argentina and Chile the transition to democracy depends on what caused the push to democratization (meaning whether this push was external or internal).
Before delving deep into Argentina or Chile, let look at Mexico, where the transition to democracy was not as clear-cut because the authoritarian regime in Mexico was kept in power by electoral means. Thus, Mexico experienced a smooth transition to democracy. The PRI remained in power with the help of corporatism and/or electoral fraud. For instance, protest about the legitimacy of the presidential election in 1988 led the state to create the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) in order to manage the electoral system. Moreover, under urbanization a new urban poor community had emerged, thus, the PRI no longer provided political representation to the majority. On top of this, an economic crisis (an external factor) hit Mexico in 1994 due to excessive borrowing, thus shifting the support of the business elites from the PRI to the PAN. Ultimately, the combination of corporatism, question of legitimacy in electoral system, the formation of the IFE, the growth of new marginalized urban population, and the economic crisis forced a push in Mexico to transition into a democracy. On the other hand, Argentina also experienced an economic crisis, which made the elites go against the military. In addition, the repression felt by both people on the left and middle class (non-left) caused this great opposition against the military. Furthermore, in an attempt to unite the country through a common enemy, the military declare war on Great Britain, which they lost. It was the accumulation of all these events that inevitably led to the collapse of the bureaucratic authoritarian regime, which also call for election in 1983. Since in Argentina the regime had not institutionalized the power of the military, the military was unprotected after they left power. Overall, in Argentina, the regime collapse due to social forces moving in opposition to the regime causing the military to lose its power, its ability to protect themselves, and its influence over the subsequent democracy. However, this social forces' common dislike of the military does not mean that their interests align, thus without the military the political scene remains polarized and democracy unstable. In the case of Chile, there was no external factor that pushed for democratization; it was rather an internal factor. Under the 1980 constitution, the regime had to organize a plebiscite about the 1983 elections. Given that the transition was conducted according to the constitution created during the bureaucratic authoritarian regime, they had an influence over the condition in which democracy would come to the country. Furthermore, the regime had institutionalized the power of the military and guaranteed the safety of Pinochet in the constitution. Additionally, the economic stability, and target repression tactics didn’t create strong opposition against Pinochet (unlike what we had seen in Argentina). Chile experienced an imposed democratic transition to democracy where the military controlled the transition process and influenced the new democracy, thus creating a restricted democracy that is stable. Finally, the one thing all three nations had in common once democracy was established was the implementation of the Washington Consensus. In the case of Chile most of this policies were already implemented prior to democracy.