LATIN AMERICA WHAT IS IT?

Term thought to be coined by French Emperor Napoleon III, during occupation of Mexico Reference to cultural commonalities shared by those who speak Romance languages: Spanish, Portuguese, French. Confusing point, since some countries in region are English speaking: Belize, Jamaica, Guyana; Suriname- Dutch speaking 34 nations, 590 million Geography Region south of Rio Grande to tip of South America. 8 mill sq miles, Huge, 2.5 times size of U.S. Frozen windswept land of Patagonia to South: Tropics of Central America and Caribbean; rain forests, largest mountain chain on earth, savanna grasslands, driest desert on earth (Northern Chile) Has second longest river on earth, carrying more water than any other (Amazon). Panama not always associated with Central America Panama Canal and U.S. Intervention Originally part of Colombia T. Roosevelt could not get Colombia to agree to allow for canal construction U.S. encouraged a revolt in Panama, backed up by U.S. warships to stop Colombia Thus, Panama breaks away forms new state, under U.S. protection Racial, Ethnic background Ethnically and racially diverse-; pre-Colombian civilizations: Incas, Aztecs, Mayans. These indigenous peoples. But they are divided into many ethnic groups. Mestizo- mix of European and Native Indian race. Largest group in L.A. Mulatto- Mix of African slave and European Zambos- mix of Indian and African When did people arrive in Latin America? Trek across Siberia-Alaska land link between 35,000BC and 10,000BC Reached tip of South America by 9,000BC First Agricultural Settlements 3,000BC. First civilization: Olmecs Mexico, around 1200BC. Next were Mayans starting 300AD Next: Aztecs 450 AD. Africans brought over in slave trade. Between 1550-1850, 4 million Africans brought to Brazil; 3 million to Caribbean; another 1.5 million to rest of South America. After Slavery abolished in L.A. Brazil being last in 1888- other sources of cheap labor needed. Thus, Chinese brought into Peru; East Indians brought into British West Indies. Italians, Spanish, Germans, Swedes, Irish, Jews also came as freemen. Labor shortages filled by these Immigrants. Reasons for emigration: new economic opportunities to escape from persecution, pioneering. Example- Jews emigrated to Argentina in early 1900s. Why? new promised land, long before Palestine. Most fertile land in L.A. open immigration policy Some Jews escaping pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe.

 Jews settled in rural communities and became farmers. Gradually moved to cities. Buenos Aires has a Jewish pop. Of 200,000 largest in L.A Rural- Urban Latin America once a mostly rural place is now urbanized. Shift from farms to cities- increased mechanization on large farms, lost employment opportunities there; Wage employees on large farms once owners of their own plots. But too small, nowhere to expand. Overtime, subdivided into even smaller plots for the next generation; impossible to earn a living. Futility of farming very small plots pushes them first to the large plantations and after that to cities Cities show great contrasts: between wealth and poverty. You can find a first world within the third world in any Latin American city: Very wealth bankers, businessmen, who live in mansions or in posh, gated communities. They drive to work in limos, or in Brazil, helicopter in. They hire private security guards, forces to protect their assets, their lives. Crime is rampant in these cities, some of worst homicide rates in world in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Caracas, Venezuela Guatemala City, Guat. But the rich do enjoy life, and their lifestyles can compete with the rich and famous in any advanced democracy. Then there is the other end: those desperate souls who left the farms. They move into barrios or favelas. no internal plumbing, potable water, electricity-if they can get it from illegal taps into power lines. drug gangs Unemployed or underemployed. Sao Paolo- city of 18 million, 8 million or 44% of the city live in the favelas. Why Study It? Why should we bother with Latin America? A. Not of strategic significance to us like Europe, Mideast or Japan. Latin America not key to our geopolitical interests or survival. Contrast- Europe- military alliance of NATO 1. an attack on any one country there brings U.S. in by military agreement; 2. No such military organization exists between U.S. and Latin America. Japan- U.S. security agreement in case of attack from China or North Korea or some other country. We have huge military bases there. Same in South Korea - 30,000 U.S. troops. We act as insurance for Taiwan in case of Chinese threat. No such presence of troops in L.A. Thus, East Asia and North East Asia vital geopolitical areas of interest. These countries welcome our security umbrella or blanket; consider us indispensable security allies.

 Latin America- U.S. We do have Monroe Doctrine 1. 1823 said any future efforts by European powers to colonize L.A. viewed by U.S. as acts of aggression. 2. Reflects the unilateral ambitions of the U.S., not joint agreement 3. Rhetorical mostly- did not mean substantial commitment of U.S. resources, troops to actually defend Latin America from an attack. 4. U.S. Navy very weak at time, could not have defended L.A. against an attack We have the Rio Treaty of 1947 1. says attack against one country an attack against all. 2. But Latin Americans would rather ignore it. 3. They see it as an excuse for U.S. intervention 4. Used in Cold War to excuse U.S. Overthrowing governments it did not like Following year, 1948, formed the Organization of American States (OAS) Charter says No state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, in internal or external affairs of any other state in region. Language a defense against ambitions of U.S. U.S. has used Rio to push for its agenda, and L.A. has resented. 1954- Guatemala; 1982, Falklands. L.A. and U.S. have not jointly invoked the Rio Treaty for many decades. Latin America rejects NATO like force attached to the OAS. Fears that it will just be dominated by U.S. military No key enemies of U.S. reside in Latin America, except Cuba. Cuba of course, not a real threat to U.S. on any grounds. Briefly, in the Late 60s early 70s Cuban seen as a viable alternative development model to U.S. Efforts to export Cuban revolution tried, failed. Che in Bolivia- most famous effort By 1980s, a move toward market economies in L.A. and away from Cubas socialism. Cuba- only a model for Chavez in Venezuela But even Venezuela not mimicking Cuba. Nor is Cuba today what it was 20 years ago. Cuban effort to create some limited markets, free enterprise Back then, Cuba was tied to the Soviet Unionat least till 1989. Thus, we saw Cuba as a beachhead of influence for Soviets in our hemisphere. But Soviet Cuban alliance never really did much to challenge our domination of this region. Bottom Line: Cuba does not pose a threat to U.S. Unlike East Asia or the Mideast, Latin America does not pose a permanent security concern; but rather an episodic one. If crisis, Latin America becomes more important. Example: Cuban-Missile Crisis of 1962; the rise of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in 1979;and the subsequent wars in Central America in the 1980s. These crises not common. U.S. concern with L.A. is episodic Cold War ended in 1989, U.S. no longer concerned much with Central America. But U.S. still very much concerned with Mideast, Israel, China, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, and of course now Iraq and Afghanistan.

B. Economically, U.S. not as dependent on Latin America as other places. We need Europe, Canada, Japan, Asia etc. more for trade and investment than we need Latin America. U.S. Top trading partners 2 are from L. America: Mexico and Brazil Latin America, however is much more dependent on us, economically. U.S. is so much stronger economically and militarily so one could argue we do not have to pay attention to the wishes of L.A. states. But good reasons to study Latin America because: A. Population: Huge and growing Hispanic community in our country: Latin America is not this separate and isolated place-its people now live in U.S. About 50 million Hispanics- 1 in 6 Americans- fastest growing part of U.S. pop. Grew 43% between 2000-2010- 4x faster than the rest. Hispanics come mainly from Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic and rest from other parts of Latin America and Spain. Emigration to U.S. economic, political reasons. So we are directly connected by population. more migrants and refugees come from L.A. than any place on earth. Many send $ back to their families. Difference between survival or not. Remittances- largest source of income for many L.A. countries after tourism and trade. B. Language: we are becoming a Spanish speaking nation ourselves- its the second leading language. 35% of California is Spanish speaking; 47% in New Mexico. C. Economics: U.S. does depend on Latin America for a good chunk of its world exports; does import from, and does do business down there Our seventh most important trade partner is Brazil. U.S. exports there in 2009 totaled 26 billion. Thats ahead of Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, India, etc. Colombia, Chile and Venezuela are in our top 20 in terms of U.S. exports. NAFTA treaty of 1994 provides for gradual elimination of tariffs between U.S. Canada and Mexico. Especially textiles and apparel. Bilateral Trade deals- U.S. recently signed with Chile, Peru, and Central America. U.S. oil imports from Venezuela and Mexican 1. Depletion of either source or arbitrary price increases could result in a major shock to our economy. 2. Oil, because of its vital importance to any economy, is considered to have national security importance. 3. If our economy harmed from an oil cutoff, affects production of weapons and support our military. Oil is thus a security issuse D. Politics: Latin America quite similar to us in terms of how its systems set up. They have more in common with us than any other country on earth. Constitutions of L.A. bear striking resemblance to ours, and in fact many were modeled after ours. All have sections modeled after our Bill or Rights; All systems there are presidential, not parliamentary as they are in Europe. All have multiparty systems, Congresses, separate judiciaries, and strong executive branches.

III. Stereotypes
Despite the importance of the region, few North Americans pay much attention to it. Attention only when violence, revolution, war occur that affect our interests. With inattention come stereotypes. These are not true, but we hold on to them. Latin America is thought to be: Exploding in population Backward and Poor Incapable of Developing Violent and Non-democratic 1. Population growth rate True certain countries have high average annual growth rates, but most do not. L.A. below World average and on par with Western Europe All Latin American countries practice birth control, do not follow the old practice of having as many children as possible to (reduce risk of child loss through infant mortality or to increase total family income) Medical facilities have improved Infant mortality is down Life expectancy is up 2. Economic Development Indicators Since the crisis of 2008, U.S. and W. Europe slumping badly. Latin America was hurt but less badly than any other region. It has continued to grow. Domestic demand sustained; External demand- principally from China enormous 3. Other Misconceptions Latin America Agrarian - produces only agricultural products, like bananas, coffee, sugar. or minerals like gold, silver, lead, copper. This often another sign of lack of development: that a country cannot produce non-agricultural items. True? No. In fact, the region manufactures goods and has a huge service sector. Among world leaders in textile production (Brazil fourth, Mexico eight ) Heavier consumer goods produced in bulk: TV's, washing machines, frigs, Heavy industry: steel, cars, vessels Capital goods : machinery to make other things ; Venezuela - one half of industrial output in intermediate capital goods. Heavy industry and production of capital goods often thought to be a sign of economic development; capacity of country to produce goods for itself that are needed to allow industry to grow and consumers to have what they need Export of mfg goods indicates ability to compete with other countries on international market-- also a sign of development

 Political Rights and Civil Liberties Freedom House Measure Political rights (a) leaders chosen based on open and fair voting (b) significant opposition competing for office (c) multiple political parties (d) freedom from foreign or mil control. Civil rights = freedom to individuals and press, rights to free trials, separation of powers Conclusion - none of the stereotypes of Latin America are true. The region does show potential for development, and has had experience with democracy. At same time, it is a varied place, with considerable differences between countries. IV. How Should We Study Latin America? Complicated place Number of country issues staggering So, obviously we will limit ourselves to number of issues and countries we can deal with. But once we do, we are still left with the problem of how to approach these. Causes and effects. Next, think about the forces behind key events and/or decisions, within an issue area. In social science we call them independent and dependent variables. Independent variablesthe causes. Dependent variables the effects or results. Every decision or event or phenomenon ever made is the end product of forces large and small, near and remote, proximate and historical. events not the result of a single cause, but multiple. Events not just the product of an immediate cause and effect, but rather a chain of causes. In between IV and DV are intervening variables. Return to our interest list: A. The Latin American Funnel of Causation Think of a political outcome as being lodged at the stem of a funnel. Focus is on what pours out of the stem, forgetting there are forces at work at the other end that cause it to pour out. As we move away from the stem, the funnel widens, and the distance increases. When we get to the other end of the funnel, weve reach its widest circumference and greatest distance from the narrow end. Transpose this image of the funnel to the political sphere. Moving from the narrow to the wide, there are individual, institutional, international and historical levels of analysis available to us. Example Take a street protest in any Latin American city Protesting dramatic increases in unemployment and the cost of living. Protesters block the roadway and refuse to budge. Police are called in to break up the protests Civilians injured and arrested. This incites an even larger and angrier demonstration the following day Police vastly outnumbered, ask military help. The protesters are unarmed but angry, military end up firing weapons.

Several protesters are killed. Charges of human rights violations are leveled at the security forces, followed by mass demonstrations whose organizers demand that justice be served. We are at point A in our funnel What accounted for this confrontation and tragedy? look at the most obvious causes, the ones captured by television news reporters on the scene. police officers and soldiers who confronted them were the culprits. Demonstrators are individuals acting on their own Security agents could have overreacted; or poorly trained, or held personal or political animosity towards the demonstrators. Whatever their motivation, they acted on their own. Thus, investigate their motivations, make some determination, and bring our inquiry to a conclusion. End of story? No, because we are only at the stem of the funnel. (A) Lets move back up the funnel to get some perspective, to point (B) Organizations behind demonstrators Which organizations? political parties, labor and peasant unions, student groups, human rights organizations, consumer advocacy groups and so on. Each organization represented some constituency, has position on issues knows how to energize members to act . We are shifting from individuals to institutions: Who are these orgs? How do they shape behavior? How do they frame problems, mobilize resources, and motivate their followers? Police officers and soldiers part of institutions too Members of their respective security forces. These forces are hierarchical, meaning command and obedience is the rule. Thus, unlikely that the troops who fired weapons acted on their own. Was the decision to violently crack down on the protesters made in a secret joint meeting of the police and military top brass? Possible, suggests these forces enjoy tremendous autonomy and have their own political agenda to fulfill. If so, what are the interests of these security agencies that would motivate such behavior? Equally plausible scenario - police and military did not act alone. After all, they serve the constitutional political authorities and are answerable to them. In all likelihood, a political leader or leaders either gave the order to use coercive force. Thus, we need to know the political views and objectives of the government in power at the time. Also leads to the governments allies in the business and financial sectors of the economy. They may have an interest in seeing these policies through, and at the same time enjoy some sway with policymakers. Here, we move back up the funnel again to point (C). How did the government view the demonstrators? As enemies of the state, or simply as agents of their political foes? Why did they opt for state-sanctioned violence instead of negotiation? Why didnt they try to head off the protests altogether by redesigning their economic program to lessen its painful impact on average citizens? At this level of analysis, we are focused on interests and objectives of the president, his administration and business class allies.

Perhaps not Lets move to the mouth of the funnel (D) Here we have broader causal forces that help shape how the political leaders react in these situations. This government fits within a larger global system. Economically, that system features very powerful banks and other lending agencies who control the purse strings. Impoverished third world countries, short on cash, must often accept strict conditions for loans from the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank and other creditors. Governments must routinely seek approval from these lending agencies for their policies or face the consequences. We also presume that the government has the independent authority to formulate and reformulate its own economic policies. But is that true? The consequences: suspension of further loans, warning to potential investors that the country is a poor risk The IMF wants macro-economic policies that will reduce public sector employment while raising prices on subsidized goods. These are precisely the kind of such policies that would trigger the type of demonstrations we previously described. So who has the power? Who is at fault? Is it the government who decreed the policies, or the international lenders who gave them little or no choice? The international--an important causal agent. Not just the international lenders; its the network of alliances between international creditors, investors, and powerful states that combined can exert great influence on national policymakers. Each of these global players have interests which they want to defend, and ideas about how best to defend them. We are at the mouth of the funnel (D). We think of it in Geographic terms, moving away from the national players towards more distant players from abroad. Or historical terms; that there are chronologically remote influences that still exert influence on todays politics. So rather than take a snapshot of events at one point in time, we can take a longer view that goes back in time. The event in question is a result of a chain of events that predates it. As we move from the stem to the mouth of our funnel, we move from the present to the past. Past governments used military power to subdue protesters often. With each use, it became that much easier to do it the next time. By the time our event occurs, governments in the habit of calling out the troops, and thus there should be no surprise about the current response. Or, prior governments failed to implement policies because they failed to stand up to their political opponents. This time, to avoid failure, they use violence. Finally, we can visualize this one episode as an event shaped by large socio-economic relations of labor and production that formed decades before. This government acting out an old role written for it by the most powerful business, financial and landed interests in society. Those interests always relied on security forces and compliant governments to prop up their economic system of domination.

They fought to preserve their unique privilege and position, and this episode another attempt to do so.

II. The Analytical Tools We Use To sum up: political funnel of causation, moves from small to large, from the near to the distant, and from the proximate to the remote. At each step, we have hinted at a set of questions that should be answered. Let us make those questions explicit. 1. What is in it for the political players? What motivates them? 2. Why is it that they visualize the problem the way they do? 3. Is their behavior molded by institutions, international agents, the global system, or great historically determined forces much larger and more powerful than they? Or are they acting on their own? It should be evident to you that this political event, like any, can give rise to multiple explanations. We have a choice. We can narrow in on one of these explanations, abandon the others, and hope it will be adequate to fully account for the event in question. Or we can consider a combination of causes. You will not find the same solution to the many political puzzles you confront as you study Latin America. The fact is, the political world is too complex for one, single size fits all explanation. For that reason, you need an assortment of different analytical approaches. Think of it this way. Analytical approaches are like tools. If all you had in your tool box was a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. We need screwdrivers because there are screws up there, and wrenches for bolts. We need an assorted tool box. Likewise we cant rely on one kind of causal explanation time and time again. Its a complicated world out there; we need an assorted analytical tool box. We will refer to five tools in this course, referred to as the five is : interests, ideas, institutions, inheritance and the international. 1. Interests- selfish material and political motives that drive behavior. Whats in it for a political actor? What motivates him/her? Political actors attempt to maximize their self-interests-pursue plans that advantage them Actors also mislead public about their motives; want to be seen as selfless not selfish We need to figure out what their real agenda is. Example. A legislator in the U.S. What is self-interest? to get re-elected. His voting behavior in Congress geared first and foremost toward his individual career, and second party. But in Latin America, legislators rarely get-re-elected; Congress as stepping stone to get elsewhere. Also, less concern with constituents, more with pleasing party bosses. Why a congressman in Latin America votes the way he does? Know his partys interests, those of his party boss, and his own career ambitions 2. Ideas Political actors operate according to their understandings of interests, not the interests themselves. Understandings may not fit perfectly with interests, or come from them Origins: intellectual, religious, ethnic, or memories of shared experiences.

Ideas help interpret interests or even generate their own. Ideas can rally believers to their cause. Example. A government confronts unemployment by reducing inflation, by granting special tax breaks to businesses and by making life harder for labor unions. Why would the government help out business and hurt the unions? Why not just spend government money to create new jobs, as in public works? Because the government is guided by an idea: the free market idea. Idea is: you get more employment by stimulating economic growth. The best way to do that? make the economy more attractive for business investors. Best way to do that? weaken unions. Why? So unions wont push up wage levels too high, permitting businesses to achieve higher profits, then hire more workers albeit at lower wages. How do we know which ideas guide them? Look at economic policymakers training: what schools? What influences? Analyze speeches, documents: examine what policymakers say, how often do they refer to the benefits of the free market? How do we really know the government is guided by ideas? We dont know for sure. Someone could say, its interests, not ideas. Government represents the interests of capitalists and is against unions and workers. That is why their policies favor business. What would we have to find out? a. Alliances between government officials and business: political party ties, campaign contributions, personal connections of government officials before they entered government. B. Track policies - consistent biases against workers and unions or not? Conversely, consistent favors to business or not? 3. Institutions standard operating procedures of political life: the rules, norms, and conventions governing conduct within an organized sphere. Institutionalists believe that action not the result of an individuals free choices or ideas, but of the duties and obligations imposed on him. Actors are rule followers, more than interest maximizers or true believers. Members of organized system are duty bound; they follow obligations, not self interest. Following rules, procedures is a kind of short cut guide for getting through life. Military example. A soldier, in the heat of battle, is given an order. He doesnt sit back and wonder whether its in his interests to follow it, or if its a good idea to follow it? He just follows. Why? Because: 1. Command and obey is the institutional rule 2. Presumption: Those in command positions know what they are doing 3. Institutional knowledge: built for years for war situations like these. 4. Soldier feels bound by his role to follow orders, with the knowledge that is the best course of action. 5. This frees him from a lot of thought or moralizing; itself a problem 6. Risk of punishment should he disobey 4. Inheritancehistorical traditions of analysis; legacies of the past that affect societies, governments and individuals today. Irrefutable truth: It is hard for any of us to give up on our own past. We are a product of where we come from. Hard to liberate ourselves from past influences: key events shaped the politics of a bygone era, but those influences persist.

Events of the past set a path; hard to veer off course. Phenomenon known as path dependence. 5. The International focus on external explanations for internal events. These outside forces can be individual nation states, collections of states, governmental and non-governmental organizations, International financial institutions, etc. We must ask, how is some event influenced by political forces beyond the countrys borders? U.S. influence Global forces SO, BE THINKING ABOUT THE FUNNEL OF CAUSATION AND THE FIVE IS AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE REST OF THE COURSE. The Latin American Military Coup and the Five Is. Coup a military takeover of a government Sometimes violent, happens quickly Used to be common in Latin America important to study Think of as simple act which results from a more complex set of causes. Coup makers give reasons for their actions. Are these the actual causes? Could be Or they could be rationales, designed for public consumption which mask the real, underlying reasons for the coup Rhetoric is noble: We took over for patriotic duty, to save the nation, etc. Self interest is not noble: self-aggrandizement for key officers: power, position, perks, etc. Benefit to the military as a whole: greater defense budget, modernize forces, etc. What about citizens? an interest in seeing the military seize power? Yes. winning resources for themselves via access to a military regime, as opposed to working through democratic channels Ideas: coup plotters have strong views, likely to differ from those of other political actors. Based on deeply held beliefs formed by indoctrination within the academy. Feelings of: Superiority Resentment Ideological differences with current office holders Exaggerated sense of danger Acting out of convictions seems worthy, but those convictions may produce a distorted view; prompting an unwarranted intervention Indoctrination takes place inside the organization, we would next want to factor in the military institution itself. Institutions as sources of ideas, values, beliefs and perceptions. Most soldiers are dutiful Duty is inbred via institutionally controlled and directed methods of indoctrination. Norms, rules and procedures which make it easier for soldiers to follow their leaders than to follow their conscience. Punishment- military can also use to get soldiers to fall in line behind Once a decision is made by senior officers to overthrow the government, they use the institutional rally the rest of the soldiers to their cause. Militaries inherit traditions of coup-making. They have done it in the past; they could do it again. The next coup becomes easier. In some countries, military intervention became normal.

Past governmental practices may just reinforce this idea. Civil society has its own inheritance. Opposition political parties, interest groups that grow impatient with democratic procedures, get in the habit of knocking on the barrack doors. The more ingrained and advantageous this behavior becomes, the easier it is to forget about democracy And finally, the international environment. Military training abroad, importing influences. Institutional relations with foreign officers: the MAAG Group. Receipt of weapons from abroad. Security environments within which their nations are situated. When international or regional security environments are dangerous, military may exert more influence over government, or just take it over. The Military and Democracy in Latin America Third Wave of Democracy in Latin America, began 1979 in Ecuador. World wide began 1974, in Portugal. What is it? What do we mean by wave? Periods where many countries turning toward or away from democracy at roughly the same time. First Wave: early 20th century, after suffrage granted in many countries; 29 countries went democratic; crested 1922, then into decline. Second wave- following allied victories, WWII. Crested 1962 with 36 democracies, then declined in 1970s. Third Wave- has ebbed Longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin American History. Now over 30 years. By uninterrupted, we mean democracies not overthrown by military coups. Only two successful coups since 1979: Haiti, 1994, and Honduras 2009. Before 1979, interrupted democracies: victims of military coups; presidents seldom completed their full terms of office Before the beginning of the Third Wave, 73 percent of presidential crises resulted in regime disruptions, at the hands of the military. After 1979, only 13 percent resulted in such disruptions Presidential Crisis? When a Governments leader is in trouble; cant rule effectively; opponents challenging his right to rule ; often constitutional questions raised Disruption? What do we mean? That means presidencies are being disrupted, which could also lead to removal. Disruption, as opposed to regime breakdown. President forced to leave office but the democratic regime is surviving; wasnt the case before. What is regime? How different than government? Presidential Removal not at ballot box. We mean removal of presidents by other means than voting. Impeachment is considered and sometimes passed. Between 1992-2004, 6 presidents faced impeachment charges; 4 removed from office. Examples: Brazil, President Fernando Collor de Mello, 1992. Charge corruption. Campaign manager had routed corruption money , 6.5 mill, into secret bank accounts for President. Sometimes, Congressional removal by means other than impeachment

Example: 1997- Ecuador- Abdala Bucaram, declared by Congress, mentally incapacitated to hold office Needed less than supermajority easier route under Ecuadors law. Congressional removal - often preceded by massive civilian protests. Hundreds of thousands took to streets in Brazil and Ecuador. Protests have also ousted presidents on their own, without Congress. What does this have to do with the military? Militaries did not save these presidents who were removed. Why might we expect them to save presidents? Constitutions say president is commander-in-chief. Military sworn to follow his orders. Military cant make decisions on its own Brazil Military did nothing to save President Fernando Collor de Mello in 1992 Other Example. In Argentina, December 2001, Pres. Fernando de la Ra flees presidential palace. Protesters threatened to kill him. The military remained quartered. Why? Military obeyed the defense law of 1988- said, that military not in charge of internal security. In fact Latin America militaries have not prevented any presidential fall over the last 20 years. Other examples of militaries staying on the sidelines: Venezuela, 1993; Peru, 2000; Bolivia, 2005 Why militaries are unable or unwilling to do so is a topic we will analyze later. For now key point is, the military remains a political player but a weaker one than in the past If we want to understand why Latin America today is not falling victim to military coups, we have to understand why it once was. How did the military become involved in politics in Latin America? To answer, we also need to know why political and social groups were once in favor of military solutions. In U.S. ,voters choose between leaders of governments. In Latin America, common for political forces to choose between regimes: democratic or authoritarian Rare for military to choose for itself the option of a coup, but political forces, groups, parties and individual voters opted for. Militaries didnt coup unless there was public support Goes back to one of our Five Is. Interests. Political groups saw it in their interests to abandon democracy in favor of authoritarianism. And military of course saw it in its interests as well to cooperate. Puzzle I.: if military coup and dictatorship, then all the advantages of democracy are lost for all the parties and participants. In other words, congress is closed, civilian courts often closed, and thats for everyone. That means even pro-coup parties groups, lose rights of democratic representation in Congress and due process in courts. Civil liberties are reduced. That means restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, protest, etc. Thats for everyone. Why would any one group favor a coup if it would lose its political, civil rights as well? Loyal vs. Disloyal oppositions What do we mean? Loyal- oppose the government and its policies, but continue to support democracy; wait it out till next election. Disloyal- no longer support democratic rules; willing to consider non-democratic options. What would motivate party to cross that line? Military- party links

Secret pre-coup deals- parties in favor of coup expect to get special treatment from the military in exchange for their support. Channels of access; positions in government, preferred policies- can overcome loss of congress. Economics over politics parties that represent powerful interests figure the military will deliver economically and no need for political access. Future benefits -political groups believe military rule will not be endless Return to democracy, but opponents will first be weakened. They do not anticipate trouble from the military for themselves in the future. But that is their mistake. Military has its own interests and ideas, and has conducted coups against prior beneficiaries. The rules that you help to break against the other guy are the rules that are broken for you as well. Militaries are not loyal to one party; they are strategic. They will link up with one party when its in their interests, but just as easily abandon when its not. A lesson here: key to saving a democracyeveryone agree to the rules of the game always-even you dont like the policies or those who made them. If not, non-democratic actors like the military may ignore the rules because you have. Disloyal party/interest group behavior opens the door to dictatorship. When political actors have no regard for democratic procedure, then why should the military? Disrespect for democratic rules develops and sustains over time, it becomes a culture of disrespect. In this environment, much easier for military to intervene. Military intervention in a praetorian culture: disregard for rules of democratic game On other hand, If no party or interest group agrees to be disloyal, then the military would have to intervene on its own. It could, but generally reluctant to. Why? High support for democracy means potential anger over coup; greater chances for retaliation, even civil war. High support for democracy also with some members of military; coup could cause great dissention in ranks. Example of where agreement to be loyal worked beautifully for decades: Venezuela. Transition to democracy began January 1958 with the overthrow of the dictator Perez Jimenez. Pact of Punto Fijo signed December 1958. Compromise and cooperation between the two major parties, Accion Democratica and COPEI (Committee for Independent Political Organization) Respect elections whatever the outcome - NO DISLOYAL BEHAVIOR! Political truce No going to the military to solve political Problems Sharing of patronage-critical to buying cooperation from those out of power Puzzle II: Why would the military itself betray the government it is sworn to serve? Return to the Five Is: Inheritance. Let us look back at the 19th century for clues. Military as political actor - longer than anyone would care to remember Anti-colonial struggles before there were nations and constitutions, there were armies determined to defeat the Spanish and Portuguese

Under direction of San Martin from the South, and Simon Bolivar from the north, these armies fought the Spanish and won Entitlement- we were there first and the nation owes us respect for our heroics. But of course, U.S. military fought bravely and won our independence from British. Yet, we established civilian control over them and never lost it. In L.A. took more than a century and a half to do so. What explains difference? U.S. 1. 13 colonies came together immediately at constitutional convention. Wrote constitution and formed central government. No anarchy. Major political agreement on what country we should have-this meant less of an opening for military intervention. Moments of instability- Newburgh Conspiracy of 1783 ; over lack of pay at end of Revolutionary War But G. Washington dramatically intervenes to address the officers and rebellion is quieted 2. Standing army and militias. Framers feared former and created one reluctantly. Most favored the militias, later became national guards. These militias were what comprised the army that fought British --citizen soldiers 3. But framers most worried about military power falling into hands of politicians, not political power in hands of military. Thus efforts to limit federal control over militias Did this mean military would run loose? No, control over military always in hands of political authority-not always federal. Congress- power to raise money for the militias, but governors appoint the officers and train the militias. Up till 1903, States had full authority over militias in peace, dual authority between states and federal govt during war. State governments did collide with federal over use of militias. Example. States resisted using their militias during War of 1812 After 1903, dual control in peace, national govt control in war But key is, militias always under political control of either states or states and national government. Never a power vacuum left for militias to fill on their own. While states and national govt quarreled over use of military force, the union held, and military units never seized political power for themselves. Does not mean there wasnt civil-military politics; there was. Example-military had to continuously lobby Congress for pay benefits Example-Political parties saw advantage in militarypatronage. Civilians with no training appointed to high rank in exchange for party loyalties. 1808-1815- of 35 officer of General rank, 9 had been former governors or state legislators, and 8 others partisans of party in power. But this peaceful, democratic politics Military not used violently; not used to settle scores, and not threatening to take over government. By post War of 1812 period, military professionalism develops; emergence of West Point; lengthened military careers, better pay All this means military moved away from party politics and separation from civilian sphere.

Latin America: Post independence- states that are not nations: anarchy, no central power, no strong central governments. Withdrawal of Spain did not lead to immediate constitutional assemblies as in U.S.; no drawing up of new rules of game; no constitutions until later. Rather, a power vacuum existed which took decades to fill. These were territories, but not nation-states. Meaning: No sense of collective identity no agreements between different parties, groups to build something in common. To make matters worse, populations were not racially, ethnically, or economically homogenous: White landowners, brown skinned wage earners, black skinned slaves, Indians, mixed blood, etc. Thus plenty of built in differences, and no central authority to arbitrate and reach settlements Wartime destruction- leveling of towns, destruction of economies, made it difficult to create nation states Differences in concepts: what kind of system to create? Centralized, Federalized, Monarchy, democracy, military state? No agreement. Without agreement on this, no central government could emerge. Who dominates? You had powerful landowners, who often hired private militias. You had Indians, who fought to keep communal lands. You had slaves, ex-slaves, you had bandits, cattle rustlers, guerillas. Yes, this was like the wild west. But who would be the marshal of Dodge? Criollos- white descendants of Spain, fought for their rights and freedoms. But not for others Saw freed slaves, indians and mestizos as potential threats. Criollos also large landowners. Some inherited, some confiscated from Spanish owners who fled. Need for protection of property rights against those who had nothing. Thus military force becomes important. Landowners hire military caudillos to protect them in exchange for land and riches. Caudillo- a military political leader; a strongman Military caudillos in turn grew rich and then handed out jobs and land to followers, and in effect developed their own power bases Whereas some benefited from confiscating estates from Spanish, others did not, and there was plenty of resentment to go around. Caudillismo- rule by any kind of pre-eminent leader who derived authority more by an ability through force of character and patronage, to command the loyalty of a band of armed followers than from adherence to the rule of law or the constitution. Caudillos used violence or threat of to get what they wanted. Also commanded respect from loyal followers. Not one military, but many, waging battles on behalf of powerful landowners, or for themselves. Local caudillo bands rule- these were military units badly equipped and trained but had the guns and their word was the law.

1810 to 1860s period of great violence, economic depression, where people depended on decentralized militias for their security and livelihood. Contemporary parallels. Somali warlords? Politics, economic holdings, law enforcement, authority- any semblance of order depended on armed force, not rule of law. In clash of military caudillos, someone would eventually prove strongest Thus emerged national caudillos Seized control nationally and claim to represent the nation, but who still operated mainly through violence. Famous National Caudillo Juan Manuel de Rosas of Argentina Ruled 1829-51 formerly wealthy landowner used a secret police force called the Mazorca- to murder his opponents. Known as Bloody Rosas. Favored a federal form of government- rallying cry was Death to the Unitarians! Rosas ruled because he had the largest army camped outside of Buenos Aires, and alliances with provincial caudillos- themselves ranchers like Rosas was. Latin American States often torn between two opposing sides no national unity. Argentina - torn in two between a confederation of interior provinces and Buenos Aires. Uruguay 2 countries for most of 19th century: Montevideo vs the countryside. Ecuador torn between Quito in Central Sierras (Mountains) and Guayaquil on SW Coast. Peru divided North and South Coast and Sierra. Then there were ideological battles- between liberals and conservatives-these raged through 19th century-each side hiring mercenaries to kill the other. Who would arbitrate between these sides? Who would come in to restore order? Main idea: political order would only be secured via military action. Notice- this was about militias fighting each other inside countries. There were very few international wars- Why does this matter? Old saying: States make wars and wars make states. Why? War necessitates much bigger build up: mass recruitment, supplies, weaponry That entails a national government with taxing capacity- to raise the revenue. Thus, governments get bigger, raise bigger armies which in turn grows the state.