Historic Justification

     When considering the political economic position of many Latin American nations, especially the nations with politicians who bend the rules of democracy if not the rules of righteous governance, as a relatively new scholar on the subject I ask what circumstances led these nations to this point. Even prior to Spanish conquest, Latin American civilizations faced many of the similar ills in their political spheres as the rest of humanity. South Americans dealt with powerful, violent, and tyrannical leaders that Carlos Fuentes, in his book The Buried Mirror goes as far as to compare Incan society to a "big brother" society from the book 1984 by George Orwell. Another example is the strongly theocratic Mayan society where the prisoners of newly conquered tribes were sacrificed to provoke fear across Latin America. Nevertheless, the violence, slavery, and economic subjugation stemming from the Spanish conquest leaves a deep scar on Latin American history. Although my Latin American history from this point (roughly 1800s and onwards) begins to blur, it is my understanding that from the time of the revolutions against Spanish rule, Latin America faced problems in many stages of development. Politically, some Latin American nations did not get the foothold that the United States obtained after their break from Britain. Combined with a pre-existing economic structure that left many Latin American nations in deep poverty, this led to continued political instability and violence. Switching viewpoints to the current period where these problems are still very relevant, the difference between the political economic conditions in the U.S. begs my curiosity (please see the extreme differences in World Governance Indicators as well as World Bank GDP per capita rates).

     This post was inspired by the recent news that Hugo Chavez and his supporters have lost the two-thirds majority in parliament preventing the president from passing many laws that extend his power as well as his economic control over the nation. Prior to this news Chavez was described as a salesman in one news article discussing his planned economic reforms such as "good-life" credit cards and household merchandise offered at discount rates. The good-life cards are also compared to rationing cards given out in Cuba during a period of high inflation. The author describes these cards as a way for the government to exert further control over the people when the (government managed) supply side of the economy cannot satisfy the population's hunger. Chavez has even recently passed an election law giving greater weight to votes in rural areas, which demonstrates his ability to pass illiberal laws. Despite these political moves that to a North American (myself) appear undemocratic and suspicious, Chavez retains the support of roughly 50% of the population. However, this is not entirely surprising since ex-president Fujimori from Peru was supported by the population despite being exposed for human rights abuses. Leaders and ex-leaders of today that are somewhat demonized by United States culture such as Fidel Castro came to power through strong popular support.
     Where does this support come from? My knowledge on this issue has me believing that from the time of the Spanish conquest, Latin Americans have had to deal with instability. This has created a society that favors radical changes because that is what the public desires. Many Latin Americans, though undoubtedly not all, view the United States with admiration and view the relative difference in economic stability and success as something they wish could exist at home. When leaders promise a public dealing with varying levels of violence and corruption large changes to the system, supporters get butterflies of hope. What many North Americans may not know is that the condition of Latin America has at times been exacerbated by the United States. This trajectory of Latin American political economic history should be something any American desiring to understand the rich history of our two beautiful continents should appreciate. What became news to me only recently was that Hugo Chavez, a man who I must now view slightly differently, felt the exact same way. Last April, Chavez handed a book to our president Obama titled Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, which describes the perpetual exploitation of Latin America throughout its history. Like a BBC news article points out, for Chavez, as well as this blogger, this was a big deal. The increase in popularity of the book has me hopeful that many Americans who superficially judge the economic and political conditions of our neighbors as a problem of their own will change their views.