Marginalized Groups

Blog Post #3

Traditional Latin America politics have been exemplified by sexism, violence, corruption, and dictatorship. However, in the modern era, transparency and democracy have become core values most Latin Americans expect. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Latin America politics based on information from two readings on the same topic.

In her article titled “Gender and the Latin American Voter”, Jana Morgan seeks to highlight how women have been sidelined politically in Latin America. The author also shows how politics affect the lives of women in the region. The second reading is “Indigenous Peoples’ Politics in Latin America” by Donna Lee Van Cott. The main idea Lee puts across is the relevance of indigenous people in Latin America politics. Both readings address the issue of political gender gaps in the region. Furthermore, they both present traditional stereotypes about women as the reason for the gender imbalance — both politically and socially. Additionally, both researchers refer to challenges indigenous people and women face, regarding them as minority groups in the Latin American political arena.

However, the studies by the two authors are subject to critique. Morgan’s research seems to be biased in several ways. For instance, she centers more on women and does not offer substantial information on other vital players in the region. Moreover, by only addressing gender, she fails to offer substantial information on other key issues affecting Latin American politics such as racism. In contrast, Lee’s research is biased in terms of selection because only indigenous people are used in the research. In most Latin America countries, the indigenous people constitute less than 10% of the population.

Morgan underlines two implications from the political scene in Latin America. Clearly, most women still hold their traditional political stances because they are not well educated (Morgan, 2010). Besides, they are homemakers and cannot find any work. Second, Morgan infers that the attitudes both genders harbor against each other are not the reason for the gender gap. Instead, issues such as the abortion policy cause the divide. In Lee’s research (2010), the obvious implication is that most Latin Americans have found it difficult to internalize the idea of having indigenous leaders. Consequently, there are only 5% of the leaders in the region who are indigenous. Lee also infers that most of these indigenous leaders accept society’s norms instead of making a better platform for their counterparts.

One question still needs more attention — how can better cases be developed? The main idea is to involve all political minority groups in Latin Americans, including the physically impaired, a matter most political scientists never cover in their research. A suitable theory from class that can be helpful in Latin American countries is the normative political approach. The main concern and future of politics in the region should focus on what should be implemented or changed. By adopting such an approach, leaders can embark on constructive policy-making that will benefit all and inspire political balance in Latin America.

Certainly, most countries in the region are slowly warming up to the idea of electing women and indigenous people. A good example is Argentina, a country that recently elected a woman as a president. Beyond a doubt, there have been many reforms made in Latin America politics over the last decade. However, in order for the political cleavage of the area to keep improving, urgent issues such as corruption and drug trafficking need to be addressed before they influence the society to go back to the old ways.

Despite Morgan and Lee having distinctly different biases in their analysis of the Latin American Political scene, they also seem to have similar ideologies. Essentially, they both think that extensive reforms are required to improve the Latin American electoral process. For instance, Lee believes that empowering indigenous parties will encourage greater participation of native communities in the region’s politics and voting. Additionally, it will offer a platform through which their needs and preferences can also be heard regardless of them being the minority (Van Cott, 2010). On the other hand, Morgan suggests transition of the Latin American political scene from traditional ideals to modernistic appeals that do not limit anyone’s political opinion regardless of past norms or conventions. In her opinion, professional independence can only be achieved via making societal reforms that promote inclusiveness and participation. Effectively, this will encourage more women to vote for leaders who they feel can make positive changes in society. Overall, political reform is a theme that is prevalent in both readings.

Fundamentally, the main way of closing the gender gap in the political arena of Latin America is through establishing policies that promote inclusiveness for both men and women, especially in regards to voting. According to Morgan, traditional gender gaps are wider in countries where distinct ideological choices exist (Morgan, 2015). In such a manner, political parties can reconnect with the more ignored gender through policy appeals and taking ideological positions that favor all people equally.

Overall, it is clear that social and political disparities in Latin America affect the region’s politics significantly. Traditional beliefs and the ignorance of various parties, such as indigenous people, limit their participation in Latin American politics. Correspondingly, this limits the diversity of the area’s political arena. In turn, this slows down economic development. Inherently, the gaps that impede Latin American politics, including gender and ethnic disparities, can be solved through the creation of policies that promote inclusiveness.

References

Morgan, J. (2015). Gender and the Latin American voter. The Latin American Voter, 143-167.

Van Cott, D. L. (2010). Indigenous peoples’ politics in Latin America. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 385-405.