Posted on 06/06/2005 6:24:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The threat to Latin America's fragile democratic order grows steadily more visible, from the latest round of paralyzing strikes in Bolivia, to the creeping Sandinista coup against Nicaragua's beleaguered president, to Hugo Chavez's preparations to militarize Venezuela with Cuban-style popular militias. But the greatest danger of all may be the refusal of the region's remaining democrats to acknowledge what they see.
As President Bush addresses the general assembly of the Organization of American States today in Fort Lauderdale, his aides will quietly be struggling to persuade the organization's new secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza, and the region's big governments to agree on ways to counter the anti-democratic movements that are steadily gaining ground in Central and South America, or at least to help the weak presidents and struggling dissidents they threaten to swamp.
Bush appears finally to have awakened to the challenge, which is embodied by Chavez. In his ever-closer bonding with Havana's security and intelligence apparatus, his aggressive encouragement of the insurgencies in Bolivia and elsewhere, and his constant stoking of Latin anti-Americanism, the elected but increasingly authoritarian Venezuelan is emerging as the natural successor to a fading Fidel Castro -- only Chavez is neither broke nor bound to an outdated Soviet ideology.
Bush, meanwhile, finds himself confounded by a familiar Latin conundrum: Direct U.S. intervention, however benign, risks regional rejection as Yanqui imperialism. But even the governments that secretly share Bush's anxieties resist standing up on their own -- partly out of deference to the region's tradition of nonintervention, partly because of their disgruntlement with Bush's first-term policies and partly because they covet a slice of Chavez's growing pile of petrodollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Will Latin America ever get its act together? Not with socialism so dominant among the masses. I am certain though, that when the socialist governments fail to produce results for the people, the US and capitalism will be blamed.
No mention of world-wide terrorism or Al Queda makes this piece glow with errors of significant ommission. Oh yeah, was Communist China even refferred to in this "Valentine" to idiocy?
A "democratic" vote for "Hugo Chavez" appears to be one free vote, one free time situation.
But of course we need 'free movement of persons' don't we?
Is socialism really dominant among the masses, or is this just the image that the revolutionaries have created?
***...."But Chavez doesn't need to close newspapers in order to force people to censor themselves. He doesn't need thousands of political prisoners if he can make examples of a few people in every sector of society, a labor leader here, a journalist there. And he doesn't need to cancel elections if he can use his appointees to change the rules so that the voting can be easily manipulated. It is a terrific facade, but inside is an atmosphere of total control and fear. Traveling around the country, as I do, it's shocking to see how frightened people are about what the government can do to their lives."
Machado got to make her case to Bush and to the OAS ambassadors only because her organization was invited to the nongovernmental forum by the United States.....***
The default political philosophy of the average latin american is a kind of populism that sometimes takes a leftist form, sometimes a rightist form but always results in a centralized government.
As a consequence, although the traditional political parties dislike a Chavez, there is no philosophical bright-line between their platform and his. They can see that he is a bad guy, but they are powerless to stop him on the field of ideas because in their heart of hearts, they agree with him.
So that leaves only yet another coup as the available tool to remove him from office.
There is no equivalent in latin america to the Republican Party. There are left-leaning and right-leaning socialist parties, anti-business and pro-business socialist parties, pro-church and anti-church parties, but the entire spectrum from left to right would fit within our Democratic Party. The classical liberal notion of limited government, distributing power to individuals and to lower levels of government, these notions do not exist there. They will tell you, sure, thats fine for a rich country like the US, but it would never work here. There is no inkling that it is by empowering and protecting individuals that you set the stage for economic prosperity.
Except for Costa Rica, it is my opinion that the failures of democracy in Latin America is due to an unfortunate history of Caudillismo. Before their independence, Spain dedicated itself to plunder its colonies as opposed to the American tradition of building something for themselves, which created the pillars of democracy: Individual liberties, a strong work ethic and a republican form of government.
After their independence, Latin American nations were and have been governed by strong men (Caudillos), who did to the people what the Spanish crown had done before - exploit them. It's the fear of liberty - better let others make the hard choices for you.
Marxism takes roots in the region because even if Cuba does not count with a Soviet sponsor anymore, its spreading of the marxist revolution is now financed by the drug trade.
Interesting posts.
If laws and the assurance of not having to bribe everyone could take root, things would be different.
One of the interesting themes of "Aztec Blood", by Gary Jennings, is that the initial governments of the new world installed by Spain were ones of institutional corruption -- the governor of an area obtained his position by paying a bribe to the King of Spain, and was in turn expected to make his fortune by soliciting bribes from those he ruled. The next tier of officials bribed him, and were in turn solicited bribes from the next level to them.
Corruption became an ingrained part of their culture, and has become an insurmountable impediment to freedom since.
And that practice is still in effect in at least Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Panama. The police have a system of "mordidas" (bites), where the cops on the beat collect "fines" on the spot and move money up the chain of command. The better performing ones get rewards such as motorcycles and patrol cars. Depending on who you are, if you refuse to give the mordida you are taken down town.
In other places the military have power over civilians. I have seen air force officers tell customs officials to butt out while they unload their planes of the goodies from their shopping expeditions to Miami and San Juan. I have seen army officers barge into a bar and order everybody out because they want the place for themselves and their guests. We had to cancel an exchange program because, correctly, our chain of command did not want us involved in any of that, as guests.
Again, the exception in the area is Costa Rica. And more so, after Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the U.S. after the War of 1898, and the U.S. brought with it its liberal (in the good sense of the word) institutions and republican form of government, power was wrested away from the local caudillos and given to the people. Although the process has not been perfected yet in Puerto Rico due to a colonial status quo and lack of participation in national politics, at least it demonstrates the magnificence of the American model of government, even if imperfect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.