Authoritarianism or Democracy in Latin America?
After reading Collier and Chapter 3, there are some ideas about the construction of Authoritarian regimes in Latin America that I want to discuss. Firstly, it was interesting to read about the relationship between industrialization and political transformations. Collier parts from O’Donnel’s view on how modernization changed the economic model from entirely dependent on agricultural activity to the creation of a working class in the cities. This change is drastic to any political regime, since the movement of production of consumer goods from a rural to an urban setting, shapes the way in which the people want to be represented. In this sense, any Oligarchic regime that starts industrializing will experience a drastic change in social class, and hence the basis for a populist regime will emerge. What is key about this process is not the transition of the regime itself, but the transformation of the societal schematics. It will be very difficult for any regime, even a democracy, if there is a fractured society, and an unclear division between classes. In Colombia, for example, the division between the “working” and the “elite” classes, shaped the political cultures of liberals and conservatives, which can be interpreted as one of the main reasons why Colombia has remained more democratic. (A defined social class will ensure make power in any regime to persist)
Another interesting idea that was born while reading the conclusion in Collier was to see whether Authoritarian regimes where a con or a pro to Latin American countries. The idea is somehow confusing if we view this based on western political principles i.e. democracy, however, most of the efficient modernization and industrialization processes in Latin America happened during Authoritarian regimes. (Even if this might sound bold to some, there are some examples that might bring relevance to the claim. In Colombia, the construction of the national airport, the first interstate highway, T.V cable, and the first efficient cease-fire between parties were made by the “military dictatorship” of General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla.)
In Chile, the story has gray lines. Pinochet’s regime was brutal and sanguinary. However, his economic policies restored private ownership, created a free-market, opened trading with the U.S, re-organized the working class and imposed military discipline amongst workers, modernized agriculture practices, industrialized mining practices, and developed interstate highways which in turn facilitated transportation of goods and services. However, the hardships of his dictatorship are still felt today, and definitely pose authoritarianism as a primary regime against human rights.
One question to all, do you think that democracy has faster ways for modernization and development than authoritarian regimes do?
Juan, to answer your question, I believe they do because it allows for a larger base for innovation and invention to occur rather than an authoritarianism regime would. The regime would not want something to have a greater influence over its people than they do and therefore they would want to control it to the utmost of its ability to maintain the status quo or power that they hold. Next I agree with your point about a fractured society making it difficult for any institution to hold, but I think it is easier for an institution to hold within a democracy because it allows more involvement and prosperity. At some point an authoritarianism regime can only hold a society together for so long before even more fractures occur, but in a democracy it can fluctuate with fractures and remain.
As a counterpoint to Brandon, how would you explain the rapid industrialization and development under authoritarianism of the East Asian Tigers? These countries were essentially able to “catch up” to developed countries in a very short period of time under authoritarian governments, giving rise to the Lee thesis, which essentially claims that it is necessary to delay civil liberties and human rights in order to achieve rapid industrialization.
I think although both democracy and authoritarian regimes have ways for modernization, most countries where real democracy is respected have faster ways to modernization giving the fact that people are free to express themselves through various means, be creative whereas in an authoritarian regime things might be much more restricted, there are rules to follow on the “do’s and don’t s” as the people in power may have fear in regards to what these new inventions or ideas represent for their authority and interest. There is this constant fear of losing power if too much civil liberty is granted therefore not much room is left to evolve at the same paste as others. Besides, I believe democratic countries are more likely to have healthy relationships with other countries and are more welcoming to new ideas.
In order for a country to be modern and be developed the country has to be open to trade and be a free market economy. However, most authoritarian countries tend have business that are state-controlled and empirical evidences have shown that the most democratic countries tend to be well developed thus, democracy is the best way for a country to advance.
In response to your question, there was a psychology study done with kids in which they guided them in creating some lego contraption in which one team was run like an authoritarian regime and the other with a democratic process. The authoritarian regime was able to build the contraptions much faster initially but the kids lost ambition and tapered off at the end and the contraption was poorly built. The other group run democratically was slower to take off but ran more sustainable. I think that authoritarian regimes may modernize more quickly but they won’t be as sustainable like the tortoise and the hare.
You have ignited my utmost interest on the study you pose! Can you post the link for this study? Or is there a video? I am very intrigued by this.
I remember it from Psych when I was in High School but I’ll try to find it!
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/218207?journalCode=ajs
Thanks for sharing this great resource — you have also piqued my interest!