Perspectives on Underdevelopment and Regime Change in Latin America
Cycle One (1900-1939) was characterized by widespread oligarchy in Latin America. The move away from oligarchy seems to have left lasting effects until it completely disappeared. The elites maintained political power and control, while working class and middle class individuals were outsiders. Social aspects were extremely influential in propelling and facilitating regime change in Latin America. As the middle class emerged, they also began to mobilize to pursue non-elite interests. Is it possible to classify certain regime changes as being caused by social aspects or are regime changes and their causes too complex?
As the middle class grew socioeconomically, more political power was ceded to them. All in all, the elite’s resentment of the middle class and the middle class’ fight for political power in Cycle Two (1940-1977) illustrates a widespread in-group versus out-group mentality. Although development may have inspired transitions to democracy in Latin America, socioeconomic development and the emergence/growth of the middle class truly usurped the traditional oligarchy regime type of Cycle One (1900-1939). The social aspects and mobilization of the newly formed middle class created a new political environment in which oligarchies could no longer exist without opposition. Through the lens of Cycle Three (1977-Present), the middle class provided necessary force that propelled political change.
In Modernization and Dependency: Alternative Perspectives in Latin American Underdevelopment, Valenzuela and Valenzuela explore two predominant perspectives on the question of underdevelopment in Latin America: the modernization perspective and the dependency perspective.
Through the lens of modernization, Latin America seems to be subject to a wide generalization, compromising important and unique characteristics of certain countries. By defining “traditional,” Latin American countries are divided into those that are “traditional” and those that are “modern.” The creation of the standard only serves to antagonize what does not fit the label. While operationalizing the term is necessary, it seems to oversimplify numerous aspects of what underdevelopment may look like. Similarly to Democracy in Latin America, Valenzuela and Valenzuela emphasize that cultural and sociological factors, rather than concrete factors such as development, are central to the modernization perspective. However, certain works under the modernization perspective generalize the attitudes and beliefs of individuals in response to Latin America’s underdevelopment. The value system of the people in Latin America must not be overlooked, but it seems lazy and illogical to attribute the underdevelopment of Latin America to the personalities of individuals.
In other works analyzed in the review, Catholicism faces much of the blame under the modernization perspective, which begs the question: is Catholicism itself antagonistic to modernization? Is religion antagonistic to modernization? What about the effects of indigenous religions?
Generally, the dependency perspective is presented as more thorough in analyzing underdevelopment in Latin America. Intertwining economic systems, economic relationships, state relationships, history, etc., are essential in understanding underdevelopment. Furthermore, colonialism and its impacts are more thoroughly examined in the dependency perspective. Similarly to Democracy in Latin America, Valenzuela and Valenzuela illustrate the importance of the working and middle class on Latin American society. However, Valenzuela and Valenzuela expand on economic relationships and political relationships through many different Latin American countries which only serves to emphasize that there are important contrasts in Latin America states that cannot be overlooked when looking at development in Latin America. The roles of central nations versus peripheral nations varied historically which helped differentiate their political and economic climate. The economic differences, such as nations based in agrarian-based or manufacturing-based economies, inspire questions about political stability and transition in Latin America. For example, were countries based in manufacturing economies more vulnerable to political instability due to labor strikes and other issues?
In response to your question’s about where religion, specifically Catholicism is antagonistic to modernization, I want to change the question to is religion antagonistic to development, because I believe in many ways, the word modernization is a bit loaded. But in response to the question, I would say the argument the “modernity of tradition” is a compelling point. That some more “traditional” nations “have proved remarkably permeable and flexible, assimilating at various points more ‘modern’ and ‘rational’ elements, but without losing their characteristics”(Valenzuela and Valenzuela). That quote uses words like “assimilating” and “permeable” but when you take the “white man’s burden” type language out of the statement, the modernity of tradition may be the answer to your question. That it is possible for a country to develop while holding on to their culture and characteristics.
In response to your last question, I think the issue was corruption and the labor strikes were the response to the corruption, not an issue in it of themselves. But I think that as countries go from agrarian based economies to manufacturing based economies, the root cause of instability changes. Because there can be instability in an agrarian based economy, but its contingent upon the weather that year. Natural disasters such as floods and droughts can destabilize a country that relies on the harvest for the years economy. But I think as countries develop and become manufacturing states without developing a strong political infrastructure along the way are the ones most susceptible to political instability.