When discussing and analyzing Latin America as a region, we must understand the environment in which the region started and the journey it has taken to get to where it is. There are many questions that need to be addressed while we look in-depth into the developing regions democratic problems, questions like; What is democracy? What effect did Caudillo rule have on Latin American democracy? What is the significance of the transition between neoliberalism and neostructuralism in the region? Once we are able to answer these underlying questions we are then able to fully guide our attention towards understanding the significant question of why delegative democracy has flourished and the direct consequences it causes upon Latin American nations.
…show more content…
For a democracy to flourish there are two main aspects in which it must adhere to, mass participation and the willingness for new governments to form and and old governments to accept this turnover. Despite the complexities of democracy its structural components have a relatively simple purpose, the dispersion of power and domination. In Greek philosophers Aristotle’s classificatory schema of governments systems, he classified democracy as a deviant form on the assumption that majority rule will degenerate into mob rule and not benefit all members of society. It is believed that power and domination cannot be extinguished due to human nature. Therefore, to solve the behavioural dilemma of humans, democracy must disperse power through its institutions and procedure so that the domination of individual interests can be kept to a minimum. It is not to say that human nature is a detriment to democracy, in fact we can think of it as the key stakeholder in the formation of democratic …show more content…
In the aftermath of the independence movement nearly 40% of the regions population had been lost and the war had led to the near devastation of the political, social, and bureaucratic institutions. Bolívar believed the rise of political representation would enable the citizens of Latin America to take charge of their own economic affairs, and also stave off the the larger threats to there governance, like the growing threat of US influence and avoidance of social class upheaval. At the time European nations relied heavily on Liberal ideals to drive their governance models, conversely liberalism never flourished in early Latin America. Liberalism involved a commitment to abstract principles of rights and freedoms, which appeared convincing under the tenets of industrial capitalism. Under industrial capitalism workers are notionally free to sell their labour power, which in Latin American countries such as Brazil was effectively irrelevant due to the existence of slave markets. With liberalism not corresponding to appearances and the weakness of the regions governing apparatus, led the region to naturally gravitate towards clientelism and caudillo rule. Caudillos provided a sense of closeness and fictive kinship to the citizens of Latin America, while sneers from the European liberal elite further drove people toward the caudillos
For a democracy to flourish there are two main aspects in which it must adhere to, mass participation and the willingness for new governments to form and and old governments to accept this turnover. Despite the complexities of democracy its structural components have a relatively simple purpose, the dispersion of power and domination. In Greek philosophers Aristotle’s classificatory schema of governments systems, he classified democracy as a deviant form on the assumption that majority rule will degenerate into mob rule and not benefit all members of society. It is believed that power and domination cannot be extinguished due to human nature. Therefore, to solve the behavioural dilemma of humans, democracy must disperse power through its institutions and procedure so that the domination of individual interests can be kept to a minimum. It is not to say that human nature is a detriment to democracy, in fact we can think of it as the key stakeholder in the formation of democratic …show more content…
In the aftermath of the independence movement nearly 40% of the regions population had been lost and the war had led to the near devastation of the political, social, and bureaucratic institutions. Bolívar believed the rise of political representation would enable the citizens of Latin America to take charge of their own economic affairs, and also stave off the the larger threats to there governance, like the growing threat of US influence and avoidance of social class upheaval. At the time European nations relied heavily on Liberal ideals to drive their governance models, conversely liberalism never flourished in early Latin America. Liberalism involved a commitment to abstract principles of rights and freedoms, which appeared convincing under the tenets of industrial capitalism. Under industrial capitalism workers are notionally free to sell their labour power, which in Latin American countries such as Brazil was effectively irrelevant due to the existence of slave markets. With liberalism not corresponding to appearances and the weakness of the regions governing apparatus, led the region to naturally gravitate towards clientelism and caudillo rule. Caudillos provided a sense of closeness and fictive kinship to the citizens of Latin America, while sneers from the European liberal elite further drove people toward the caudillos