I very much appreciate both of your comments.

I agree with what both of you are saying, but I think you may be searching too deep.

What has democracy done for the region? Take a look at poverty and inequality rates before and during democracy (http://websie.eclac.cl/sisgen/ConsultaIntegrada.asp)—quality of life has not really increased. And human rights violations remain high—even if now the perpetrators are police or military forces that no longer count on the approval of the government. And if anything, crime has gone up significantly under democracy. There’s not much to show for democracy, so why not toss it out?

I do think you both have a point in that historically the region has been more prone to populism and caudillos than others, and that is worth exploring, but just looking at the situation now, it seems quite understandable to me why people are disenchanted.

One topic which we haven’t touched on, and which is usually ignored in this debate, is education and parenting. This may just be where the cycle of undemocratic sentiments gets perpetuated. I would like to take a closer look at not only what children are learning in schools, but how they are being taught. I bet there’s a lot there that explains what we all see.

Thanks for the WSJ link. I don’t subscribe to the Journal, so I hadn’t seen the article. (I don’t subscribe to their editorial philosophy either, I should note.)

The article itself is pretty much accurate in description but lacks any real analysis as to the why this has happened before – and is happening again in the 21st Century.

Your question regarding the reasons for the caudillo phenomenon and the LA susceptiblity to it goes to the analytic point lacking in the WSJ article and… well, I shouldn’t be surprised if the same question has been the subject of several graduate or Doctoral theses over the years.

Two aspects of the question come to mind for me (I supposed there are many others, but this is a comments section, not a monograph):

1) The cultural/social ambiente that give rise to strong-willed, smart individuals who are convinced that they, and only they, are capable of leading (or as they like to say, “saving”, “rescuing”, etc.) their country, and who are willing to do anything/anything to do it, including abolishing/neutralizing all other branches of government, doing away with free speech, free press, etc. (I’m reminded of grafitti I saw here: “Solo yo tengo razon. (firmado) Correa”; and that about sums it up.)

2) The passive/aggressive role of the electorate, aggressive in the desire to vote for change, vote for improvement over whatever political system/actors had come before (that’s how you get people like Chavez and Correa in, in the first place), and passive in the sense that that same electorate will let these same people (the winners) use the same election results to do pretty much anything they please, and for however long they please.

Each of the two elements I cite above deserve lengthy treatments in their own right, but if I could sum up the results (or more properly, the impact) of these two problems en conjunto (and in general, in the LA context), I’d say that Latin electorates are trying, in their own stumbling, inchoate way, to move toward governance systems that are pretty much like ours in the States, while they also work to overcome of the cultural/sociological causalities that produce caudillos over time down here. Tackling these two challenges is a pretty tall order, but to LAmericans’ credit, they’re giving a go…

You may have already seen it, but there was an in-depth piece this past weekend in the WSJ about the caudillo, which referred to the caudillo as, for some, “Latin America’s greatest contribution to political science”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203547904574280023928652200.html#mod=rss_Today’s_Most_Popular

Your point about socialism as a branding strategy is spot on. The strongman will stand for anything as long as it means he is in power, and the cause behind which he unites is as malleable as the his ability to spin it to his benefit.

I wonder what the reasons are that make Latin America so susceptible to this, if a strongman could theoretically fall anywhere on the political spectrum.

I read this posting with great interest and I see today (7/14) that it’s come out now in FP Magazine.

I want to say that I share your concern about the direction we’re taking down here regarding the concepts of democracy, the role of democratic institutions, and particularly, the role of the Executive in the foregoing contexts. Put simply and bluntly, I fear that we’re heading back to caudillismo and back to repeating history (all as in, back to the future) in LA – and sadly, we’re doing it all courtesy of free and open elections.

That this is happening – again – in the LA context is a sad commentary on our political culture down here, as expressed in a historical amnesia and a willingness to tolerate, even encourage, the rise of men who would be twenty-first century Perons, Stroessners, Somozas, and etc.

These new, would-be kings hold themselves out as socialists, anti-imperialists, anti-neoliberals, and men of the people who care about citizen participation, etc. Pero al final de cuentas, these people aren’t true ideologues, and labels such as 21st century socialism are basically just branding strategies aimed at enabling these guys to accrue as much power as they can, and to hold on to that power for as possible. In the end, the true ideology is power and power alone.

Chavez, Correa, Morales, Ortega – even Uribe (lust for power is non-denominational) – are all new examples of the recurring trend toward dictators lite, a gentler version of the 20th century caudillos, perhaps, but caudillos nevertheless. These new caudillos are careful to maintain a veneer of democracy and a facade of democratic institutions, but it’s all just that, a facade; as you and others have noted, these people have co-opted or control outright, all other institutions in their governmental systems such that they, and they alone, hold the reins of government.

How boring, how repetitious, how sad, how aggravating: Is this the best that Latin America can do in the 21st century?

Maybe not, maybe there’s room for hope in cases like Honduras (Honduras! Who would have believed it?), Argentina (with recent election setbacks for the Kirschners), Chile, and Lula’s Washingtonian willingness to pass the Presidency to someone else; maybe there’s a chance. Still, we’re left with the question in countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua (and perhaps, Colombia), what are we going to do with these new caudillos, and how long do we have to put up with them?