To answer this question, some brief notes will be offered on the construction of the Latin American state and a comparative analysis will be carried out between three of great importance both in regional and international terms, such as Cuba, Mexico and Brazil.
Thus, we will interpret, broadly and as a conclusion, whether the problems of South America fall on its political, economic trends or own state model.
We will go back, in this way, to the stage that covers the 30s and 40s, culminating in 1953 with the Cuban Revolution, which marks a before and after in Latin American history, a historical limit; and, we will continue until today. Let's get started!
The crisis of '29 causes the fall of oligarchic regimes and mark a new direction in Latin American politics, with the economic populism as a characteristic, and the ISI -o Industrialization through import substitution - as a tool to solve dependency and provide well-being for the masses.
It is at this time that modernizes and forms the National-Popular State, defined as a form of government founded by the association between bureaucratic apparatuses, state policies and the popular masses, whose strength lies in the symbiosis between the State and social movements who ally themselves against the elites, who are considered responsible for the state's problems.
One of its main characteristics is the satisfaction at all costs of popular demands through social policies.
For authors like Laclau it is the political struggle of the popular classes against the elites that they are no longer capable of solving the problems of the masses.
However, the effects were not as expected. authoritarianism grew and the economy and corruption spiraled out of control due to the creation of clientelist networks to maintain control of the masses.
Soon the Bureaucratic-authoritarian state, which is part of the popular national matrix and is the result of this.
The growing imbalance between social demand, political supply, and economic demand led to an authoritarian and repressive regime, as neither governments nor the private sector were able to meet these demands.
His main social base is in the big bourgeoisie and its allies (the conservatives), and institutionally, it is led by organizations of a coercive nature such as the army.
The aim is to restore order to the popular sectors (return them to subordination) and normalize the economy in terms of production, investment, and finance.
An system of political and economic exclusion of the popular sectors that promotes greater transnationalization of economies and results in a situation of economic dependence, while depoliticizing and demobilizing the masses.
The ideologies of the popular Latin American national-state fall into several currents: populism (characterized by the emergence of charismatic leaders who have great support among the lower classes against the background of a strategy of social demobilization channeled by those in power), right-wing military authoritarianism (Doctrine of National Security: it is a phenomenon of reaction against the political instability that threatens the security of the State, supposedly generated by its democratization and the incorporation of the masses into the political system; the State identifies with the interests of the army and the big bourgeoisie), political center (liberals and structuralists), and hand (they focus on democratization and the autonomous development of the region, but they have not had a clear government program).
A Soviet-style model was implemented in Cuba, while in other places they have combined a policy closer to populism, we are talking about socialism of the 20th century. XXI and Marxism. Is during the period from the 60s to the 80s when popular social policies failed and the Cuban Revolution takes place, with which all Latin American intellectuals will try to make their own “Revolution” in the frame of the Cold War, and with the US as a counterpart to left-wing political projects.
The National Security Doctrine is adopted, and conservative military dictatorships emerge. The bureaucratic-authoritarian state is born.
The decade of the 90s, Latin American democracies are covered in neopopulism, a fragile electoral democracy, permeated by structural populism, with weak institutionalization and unchanged transformations (constitutional and state reforms).
With weak and volatile political party systems determined by the presidential model. Efficiency is prioritized at the risk of state patrimonialization, forced constitutional changes, and eternal caudillismo, as in the case of the Castro Brothers in Cuba.
As of 2000, We can talk about five keys to the Latin American political structure, such as the improvement in development indicators (although insufficient), the persistence of structural problems even in times of prosperity (when raw materials fall they worsen again), the survival of polarization, and the formation of hegemonic blocs instead of State consensus.
Therefore, after this brief compilation of the recent political history of Latin America we can conclude that The Latin American State has 3 key moments from 1945: populism within the framework of the popular national State, bureaucratic-authoritarian State, and democracies (neopopulist, some) and are marked in one way or another in the chosen States: Brazil, Cuba and Mexico.
Reflection and linking the stages and governments of the States with their political and socioeconomic situation
En Mexico we met with two steps clearly differentiated, that of the PRI government (Institutional Revolutionary Party), which begins with the popular liberal Republic that emerged from the revolution, and which lasts until the year 2000, and which begins this same year with Vicente Fox as representative of the PAN or National Action Party (which meant the alternation of power in Mexico after 71 years of PRI dominance) to the present day.
During the PRI government it is necessary to comment that during the mandate of Miguel de la Madrid (1982 – 1988) A political reform was promoted to allow the active participation of other parties in national politics, which involved a political effort; However, as we see, the two main representatives of the Mexican State (not counting AMLO's “Together We Will Make History” due to its short duration compared to the others), They are right-leaning.
However, we can compare them and we can see that with both the PRI and the PAN there have been years in which GDP growth has reached 5,95% annually (1981), others in which it has reached -7,83 .1995 as in 2,98, to 2006% already in 6,67 and with the PAN, already -2009% in XNUMX; which tells us that During the PRI's mandate, in general terms, it has grown more, but there is no big difference with the next one.
Furthermore, we can see that the year in which GDP grew the most (1987) was also the year in which the most was invested in social spending (27,33% of GDP), while under the PAN government, it was around 2008% from 2012 to 22. The Gini index (which calculates income inequality between citizens of a territory) has been declining from 1996 with 54,8 to 2002 with 50,1 and currently at 45,4 (the closer the percentage is to 0, the lower the inequality).
It can be seen then that, with the PRI, the economic data have been slightly positive regarding the next stage; although this does not mean that this government has been able to respond to social needs (inequality was still very high), nor did the others.
Although it is among the fifteen largest economies in the world, the problems of economic inequality remain, Mexico is among the 25% of the countries with the highest level of inequality in the world according to the GINI index itself; Therefore, it can be translated that The Mexican model benefits the economic elites, who are the ones who influence different public policies to maintain privileges.
Social policy has always acted as a “poverty relief” and not as a guarantor of equality; That is to say, whoever governs, and whether we have one economic data or another, the government does not meet the needs of its country; We are facing a structural problem.
For its part, Brazil It is a great example of the construction of the Latin American State itself, since we find a first populist period (1945-1964), followed by a bureaucratic-authoritarian State (1945-1985), and with the New Republic that continues to the present day.
It was in the second period, with ARENA (National Renewal Alliance), that GDP grew the most, but also in which the least was invested in social spending (24,42).
While, it is in the last stage, from 1995 to 2015, specifically with the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) of Henrique Cardoso and the PT (Workers' Party) of Lula Da Silva and Dilma Ruself that inequality has been reduced more, reaching 51,9 in 2015.
In the last 15 years, 28 million people have been lifted out of poverty.
From what we can see that, during the populism of the successors of Getulio Vargas social spending increases and the Gini index decreases; that is to say, Brazil improved.
However, after the second term of the Workers' Party there is a change in policy.
The Brazilian elites, tired of their socio-economic status being put at risk They manage to carry out a legally correct coup d'état against Dilma Rusself, Michel Temer enters and finally the well-known Jair Bolsonaro.
It is therefore clear that, When there are social policies that reduce inequality, there is a crisis of legitimacy.. In this case, then, the problem, although it may seem to fall on the governing party, like Mexico, is structural.
As for Cuba, The Cuban Revolution marked a before and after in Latin American history.
Cuba was the epicenter of a revolutionary movement that violently shook Latin America and the world.
Castroism became one of the US's favorite enemies, which in 1962 imposed a trade embargo on the island that still stands, and the USSR responded with the installation of Soviet missiles that shook the planet.
The collapse of the USSR (1992) was a devastating blow and caused terrible hardship on the island that continues to this day. Despite this, Castroism remained afloat, recovering even after Castro's retirement.
Today the island is governed by Miguel Díaz-Canel and in February they voted a new Constitution that ratifies the communist party as a single party, but it also recognizes private property, the market and opens the doors to foreign investment.
Since the 90s, Cuba has implemented a Soviet-style model focused on the autonomous development of the region, which has led to an exponential increase in inequality.
The crisis of this decade was not effectively addressed; decisions were postponed for political reasons, and the State maintained a high degree of centralization and a shortage of productive supply.
However, other factors, such as the US embargo, have also been decisive, contributing to the island's failure to improve.
Despite the differences between the actors, we see similarities in the evolution of the Latin American State; in which the inability to create modern, inclusive and cohesive nation-states due to inequality, instability, dependence and periphery is a significant feature of the region.
Geographic and political heterogeneity, dispersed and conflicting economic, political, and social interests, strong social dualism, poor institutional functioning, lack of trust in these institutions, and the persistence of latent, unresolved conflicts make it very difficult to consolidate pluralistic democracies that safeguard citizens' interests.
Even more so in the case of Cuba, which is a totalitarian regime as such.
The construction of these three states has been marked by revolutions, embargoes, and socialist regimes in the case of Cuba, populism and dictatorships in the case of Brazil, and by the 20-year rule of the PRI, characterized by its authoritarian tendencies, in Mexico.
El The common denominator of these countries is the mismanagement of governments, the polarization of a society with different interests, corruption and violence..
We can therefore determine that, In the case of Brazil and Mexico we face a structural problem.
Although the governing political party does matter in Brazil, it is the very structure of the state, led by the economic elites, that prevents the system from being changed.
While in Mexico, both periods have been similar, neither party has been able to respond to the needs of the people, but this is due to the political and economic structure itself that demands it.
For its part, Cuba also has economic, political and social problems derived from an authoritarian Soviet-style government.
For more information:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=CU-CL https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CL https://estadisticas.cepal.org/cepalstat/tabulador/ConsultaIntegrada.aspIdAplicacion=6&idTema=131&idIndicador=2206&idioma=e https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/kamel/sela16_guanche_cv_sp_20160425.pdf https://www.ecured.cu/Presidente_de_Cuba https://althistory.fandom.com/es/wiki/Lista_de_Presidentes_de_Brasil_(Kennedy%27s_America) Villaldando, José Manuel (2010). Historia de México a través de sus gobernantes.
La Civiltà Cattolica Iberoamericana (2017). History of Brazilian politics: the end of an era.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019). Mexico Country File. Diplomatic Information Office.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019). Brazil Country File. Diplomatic Information Office.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019). Cuba Country File. Diplomatic Information Office.
LL.M in International Business Law and Law from ISDE and graduated in Law and International Relations from Loyola University. CEO and business internationalization consultant at Reáculoateypunto.
