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 speaking and as a conclusion, if 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 runs through the 30s and 40s and 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 by import substitution - as a tool to solve dependency and provide well-being for the popular masses. It is at this time when 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 problems of the State. One of its main characteristics being satisfaction at all costs of popular demands through social policies. For authors like Laclau is 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 became uncontrolled due to the creation of clientelist networks to maintain control of the masses. Soon it was reached 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 supply led to an authoritarian and repressive regime as neither governments nor the private sectors were able to satisfy 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. This aims to reimplant order on the popular sectors (return them to subordination) and normalize the economy in productive, investment and financial aspects. It's a 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 counterpart to leftist political projects. The National Security Doctrine is reached and military dictatorships with conservative ideology emerge. The bureaucratic-authoritarian State is born.
The decade of the 90s, Latin American democracies are covered in neopopulism, a fragile electoral democracy, impregnated with 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 takes precedence at the risk of the patrimonialization of the State, forced constitutional changes and eternal caudillismos, 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 (it meant the alternation in power in Mexico after 71 years of PRI rule) until today. 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 not much 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, with the PAN government, from 2008 to 2012 it was around 22%. For its part, the Gini index (which calculates the income inequality that exists between the citizens of a territory) has been declining from 1996 with 54,8 to 2002 with 50,1 and currently with 45,4 (when The closer the percentage is to 0, the smaller 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 the ARENA (National Renewal Alliance), in which the GDP has grown the most, but also in which the least has been 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 further, reaching 51,9 in 2015. In the last 15 years 28 million of people have escaped 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. Therefore it is 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 favorite enemies of the United States, which in 1962 imposed a trade embargo on the island that still exists and which the USSR responded with the installation of Soviet missiles that made the planet tremble. The disappearance of the USSR (1992) was a very hard blow and caused terrible hardship on the island that continues to this day. Despite this, Castroism remained afloat, recovering even after Castro's withdrawal.
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. In Cuba, since the 90s, a Soviet-style model was implemented focused on the autonomous development of the region, which has led to inequality increasing exponentially. The crisis of this decade was not faced effectively, decisions were postponed due to political issues and the State maintained a high centralization and scarcity of productive supply. However, other factors have also been decisive, such as the US embargo, which has helped prevent the island from improving.
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. The geographical and political heterogeneity, the dispersed and contradictory interests both economically and politically and socially, the strong social dualism, the poor functioning of institutions, the lack of trust towards them, and the survival of latent unresolved conflicts. They make it very difficult to consolidate pluralistic democracies that safeguard the interests of citizens. 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 government of the PRI, which was characterized by its authoritarian features, in Mexico. . He 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 in Brazil the political party that governs does matter, it is the structure of the State itself headed by the economic elites that does not allow the system to be changed. While in Mexico, both periods have been similar, no party has been able to respond to the needs of the people, but it 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). History of Mexico through its rulers.
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.
