The revolution Agendas

The heritage of the past is still heavily weighing on Lain America. Progressive politicians, modernizing the military men, a growing urban population, disadvantage peasants and dissatisfied workers have been pushing the political and social changes.
Social injustice, civil wars, class conflicts, foreign interventions, colonialism and nationalism head to revolutionary path. Indeed, Latin America is more prone than other regions of the world to revolution.



Atlantic revolution of the late 18th century and early 19th century shook and taught the Latin America to achieve the independence from colonial rule of Spain and Portugal. Four external events emerged as impacts on Latin America political thoughts. American Revolution evidenced how colonies could break with empires. Slogans of French revolution; liberty, equality and fraternity inspired the Latin America people. The third event might be said the extension of French revolution, but it had own dynamics. When the internal conflicts created the turmoil in France, the sugar colonies of France became divided, and Haitian slaves took the opportunity to get the independence. When the France invaded Portugal and Spain, long guerrilla wars and general insurrection created central committee or junta central ruled in Spain. At the same time, the confusion on the meaning of legitimacy in Spain sparked the crisis in the colonies. Indeed, in the early 19th century, the various regions of Latin America fought for their independence and tried to born new nations. In that ear, “Latin America nationalism celebrated the unique” and mixing of indigenous, European and African genes, and wide nationalism appeal was trying to take the power. In Mexico, 1810 Hidalgo revolution evidenced the great social revolution after several foreign invasions. In 1910, Mexico was full of revolutions. But most of the leaders had different goals and agenda according to their historical backgrounds. Thus, revolutions delivered peasant guerrillas of southern movement like Zapata’s, Pancho Villa who built former cowboys, railroad workers, miners and oil field roustabouts and Constitutionalists who were better connected and more urban and middle class in 1917. Despite those revolutions took many different perspectives, those were full of nationalist images. In addition, the nationalist figures of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahol joined the Communist Party and offered Leon Trotsky exiled Russian communist, and then nationalism of Mexico became the tone of communists. However, in Argentina and Uruguay, the strong constituency of nationalism could able to take the power without revolution when they had more urbanized, literate, and middle class exited in their countries. As a result, Uruguay became the most progressive country in the world. On the Central America, the nationalism, ISI and the growth of urban middle class left many problems because internal markets of some Latin America were too small. Thus, the conflicts between old style landing oligarchies and progressive nationalist were still exit. The tragic events at Panama, coffee growers in Guatemala and the Slaughter in El Salvador evidenced for the indigenous people as victims of neocolonial.

But the form of government, the economics structure, the role of religion and the different political ideologies created deep problems in new born Latin America countries, and those ideological conflicts led to bitter political struggles. At the same time, the shadows of foreign interferences from old colonials, from new imperial regimes and from neighbors seeking territories or economic advantages have been shaping the political instability and revolutions in Latin America. During the post World war II, Latin America nationalists faced a lot of challenges; “urgent social need, counter-attack from old political adversaries, a weaker economics bases, and hostility of the United States.” Peron’s presidency of Argentina in 1945 to 1955 witnessed how the industrial working class movement struggled with military groups and foreign interference especially the several protests from the United States. When the Peronist government tried to end the foreign own including banks, insurance companies and important businesses, the military forced out the Peron’s government to exile and the welfare programs for working class were in the deadlock. But the spirit of Peron movement was still occupied sympathies of Argentina people. In Brazil, although economics development was significantly seen, the redistribution of wealth was stopped. Same mismanagements and goals would be witnessed in Mexico. Despite Mexico industrial growth was higher than before, the majority of Mexican did not receive the welfare benefits under the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Those lacks of welfare programs and social gap created the class struggles and ideological conflicts.

Despite the achievement of independence, the new dictators, class struggles and civil wars defined the different aspects for revolutions. The new nations were born in Latin America, but new confrontations were at the middle of political representation, social inequalities, regionalism and the role of the church. Thus, those unsolved problems caused the political fragmentation. On the other hand, military commanders and regional caudillos, independent leaders who dominated local areas by forces, were interested in power for their own interest and ambitions. While many caudillos defended for land owners, some mobilized and fought for American Indians, poor people and peasants. In addition, despite the most of political leaders agreed on republic as a basic form of government, centralists, who wanted to created strong and centralized the national governments with broad power, and federalists who wanted taxes and commercials policies t be set by regional governments. It was also the conflicts between liberals and conservatives. The role of the church became a crucial issue in politics. In Mexico, the church had played a major role in education, economy and politics. Although liberals tried to limit its role in civil life, the church fought back with its pro-clerical supporters and refused to cooperate with new governments. Indeed, the church divided the conservatives from the more secular liberals.

When the new governments protected upper classes, land owners and elite people and ignored the ordinary people, the poverty rooted to the peasants and working classes. The wider between rich and poor people, the more questions and dissatisfactions stroke the power legitimacy of new government. Marxists revolutions took the advantages by pointing out those class conflicts and corruption of elite and brutal dictators, but the liberals fought back to defend their dreams. When the cold war emerged between Soviet Unions and the United States, more revolutions from both sides; liberal and communists erupted in the proxy wars. Indeed, in the Cold War era, some Latin America countries were regarded as a sign of “creeping communism” in the eyes of the United States and Western countries. Thus, the United States diplomats strictly looked the Latin America countries through Cold War goggles, and Marxist revolutions composed by peasants, workers and university students were confronted with democratic countries led by the United States. When the Marxist revolutions were seen as foreign invasions, the United States tried to form anticommunism organization such as the Organization of American States (OSA) and Pan-American Union to prevent communist influence. As a result, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, “Papa Doc” Duvalier in Haiti, and Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua took the power stages in Latin America politics and managed the dictatorship style governments. In addition, the larger nations such as Brazil, Mexico and Argentina emerged as anti-communist tones, but the new kind of brutal rightist governments were formed. Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara in 1950s balanced the power in the proxy war of Latin America, and many poets such as Noble Peace prize winner Neruda, folk musicians and writers joined the revolutionary movements. But according to the view of the United States national security, the communist revolutions were shadows of Soviet evil empire, and thus, the Latin America became frontlines of ideological conflicts. As the main agendas of Marxist revolution were to topple the regime with by all means and to kill the upper classes. Therefore, explosive fighting between rebels and government forces led to war-tone zones in Latin America and some dictators took advantages the political gap or the power stages backed by the United States and Soviet Union doctrines. Indeed, dictators were everywhere in Latin America. Therefore, revolutionists have been struggling for their freedom. The characteristics of Latin America revolutions are not only guerrilla wars but also disciplined non-violent struggles. “No campaigns” and people resistance in Chile under General Augusto Pinochet regime and “mothers of disappeared children” movement at Plaza de Mayo in Argentina defied the brutal military government. Despite their movements were cruelly cracked down, the non-violent struggle opened the new century and political thought in Latin America. In the politics of Peru, military dictator could manage to avoid the human rights violations, but the bloodshed oppressions were in Uruguay.

The recent tension among Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia evidenced that the war between liberal democracy and socialist idea are still in high heat. Many Latin America politicians such as Hugo Chavez, Cuba communists are still keeping loyalty for working class. They also believe that free trades and globalization are symbols of neocolonialism and are feared the United States’ influence on their Latin America politics and economies. However, some countries allied with the United States are provoking liberal idea in their regions and accusing dictatorship style countries are supporting terrorists to destroy the stability and peace of the regions. In fact, when nationalism, cultural identity and anti-imperialism sentiments have been griping the hearts of people of Latin America, the revolutionary spirit separate in the region, but counter-revolution of progressive people who prefer globalization and individual freedom are also inevitable. When the countries have different perspectives on equality, limited freedom, market economy, and dependency theories, there will be revolutions. The history would decide those revolutions in Latin America could drive forwards or war-torn future.