Construction of Democracy and Inequality

[robortion]

Political instability and inequality are defining traits of Latin America. In the 20th Century, the entire region was marked by revolutionary movements, counter-insurgent reactions that resulted in authoritarian regimes and in aggravated political, social and economic exclusion of extensive sectors of the population. More recently, yet another change, in the direction of strengthening democratic values and practices has come about in the region.

How are political instability and inequality are related in Latin America? What were the motivations of revolutionary movements in Central America and the Caribbean? What were these movements fighting against? What was the influence of the United States in contributing to an exclusionary model of development in Latin America as a whole? What is an exclusionary model of development? How did the United States economic presence in Latin America aggravate inequalities and increase the likelihood of political instability? How did the United States military presence increase the likelihood of military and authoritarian regimes? How did the construction of democracy in the 1980 come about in Latin America? What was the role of civil society organizations in fighting Military Regimes?

[robortion]

Here is what I have gathered so far...


Pretty much free trade, imo.

There is actually a lot to be talked about here. Why are there so many revolutionary groups? Look at the nature of revolutionaries: all of them want some type of change. It's no different in Latin America. A certain set of circumstances were created by an outside economic and political presence that caused different groups to react violently.

For instance, the 'construction of democracy' during the 80s was created partly by the Reagan administration, which was seeking more profitable ventures in foreign countries. This included setting up puppet governments to play more according to the will of the outside force. Of course, when a repressive military government is set up, the people it controls won't act favourably. Then you have Contras, Sandinistas, FARC, Zapatistas, and other rebel groups fighting against them.

There's a book called The Dispossessed by Alfredo Molano about the situation in Colombia, regarding the Uribe government and the FARC. It's a really sad book, but it covers a lot of your questions a lot more in depth than I could. Colombia is a good model, too, since it has felt the most in regards to outside involvement.

A lot of it is simple. Latin America is a continent full of natural resources, and that makes the idea of trade much more appealing to other countries. That desire, though, can lead to selfishness and ruthless ambition, as we've seen with foreign occupation in the Philippines, Cuba (Guantanamo), Haiti, Guam, Grenada, et cetera.

Basically, when you're looking at this type of thing, you have to first understand the situation surrounding the events. Because of the 'spheres of influence' various countries had in Latin America, unstable and unequal societies were created, held together by a puppet dictator who bent to the wish of his masters. What would best benefit the outside force? Cheap labour, exploitation, and mass amounts of products to be used for export.

In an area rich in natural resources, it's insane to think that there could be such poverty. But this poverty was created by outside forces: everyone who trades with Latin America benefits quite well. In this light, then, it is no wonder to think that opposition arose, much less that it was and is violent.

Still a lot to figure out though.

[robortion]

No South American countries today are communist, but some have socialist-like economies, which is not the total redistribution of wealth, but the centralization of certain businesses and the partial redistribution of wealth and corporate profits. An example is the way Venezuela handles their oil industry.
Think of it like this:
Communism: elimination of private property and wealth. Total centralization and redistribution of all corporate and industrial profits.
Socialism: Retains private property and wealth, but centralizes profitable businesses and redistributes their profits.


Poverty is a problem in Central America and much of South America for a lot of reasons, some the fault of national leaders and some the fault of major economic powers who outsource shitty manufacturing jobs to the cheap labor in these nations, and give incentives for the countries to never raise minimum wage or give their people upward mobility. Corruption is rampant throughout Central America but somewhat less so in South America, who withstood the influence of the Cold War jockying for imperialist holdings by the US and USSR (except for Chile, Argentina.)

Many South American countries are led by dictators and are communist or a "Democratic Republic", which means no matter what the resources are like most all except leaders are gonna be in poverty because of the gathering and redistribution of wealth and asssets that occurs in a communist nation. And the presence of a military force like America's in any other country is unsettling to the inhabitants of that country.

There's an enormous poverty gap in much of Latin America. Many poor are descendants of slaves and/or natives who were taken advantage of by the Europeans. It still goes on today: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (this is why any mention of a middle class in this context treats it as a phenomenon).