It has always been a mystery to most of us why Latin America has developed so differently from the United States and Canada. For a while it appeared that our southern neighbors were beginning to catch up to the notion of participatory government (plenty of elections) and the economies of some were really starting to look healthy.

The public dislike of the dictator model brought strong term limits for politicians for a while — but that is in meltdown. A whole new wave of populist presidents in Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and most notoriously, Venezuela are pushing for what will be life terms because they, and their populist supporters, think they are indispensable.

What is apparent to those of us who are not populists is that power corrupts, and absolute and unending power corrupts absolutely. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been establishing a creeping autocracy, intimidating the press, providing “bread and circuses” to the masses, and now insisting that he must be reelected in order to “continue his great work.”

Even more ironic is that all of the above wannabe dictators came to power by removing an elite authoritarian government before them. But this is what you get when you have a democracy that depends upon votes from a largely illiterate and poor electorate. The poor don’t want democracy; they want food, want to feel good, and want revenge against their former oppressors.

Five centuries ago, Shakespeare described a populist revolutionary, Jack Cade (Henry VI, Part III), who for a period got a following in London by promising endless high-class virgins to rape and that the sewer pipes would run with French wine. Apparently that promise is still appealing to many in our world today (72 virgins for each suicide bomber and wine, forbidden on earth, but abundant in Paradise). It is a sad, small vision of a “brave new world,” but the ignorant buy it.

The countries courting dictators for life have something in common: a large, poor, illiterate underclass and a small autocratic elite. It is certainly true that the autocrats have not produced a just society, but the underclass will not do so either. These countries have never known good governance, and they share in a history that differs greatly from that of the Anglo-Saxon model.

When Spain conquered its vast empire in the New World, it had just come out of centuries of occupation by Muslims. The Spaniards brought with them that autocratic experience of governance, never having had the confrontation of educated Englishmen who limited the power of their monarchs. England, which settled North America, was already on a very different trajectory than Spain, as was apparent even in the 16th century. The differences have been enormous ever since.

In the 19th century, South Americans rebelled against their colonial masters and won independence. Unlike the American Revolution, however, they did not unite, nor did they encourage universal education. The poor just exchanged one master for another, and that pattern has continued until recently.

South American countries such as Argentina, Uruguay and Chile that do not have a native underclass have put their dictators aside and appear to be doing much better in democracy. Mexico, influenced by its North American neighbor, is starting to do better too —although its underclass is still abused economically and socially — but term limits are in place, as they are in Brazil. These countries may eventually catch up.

Why we should care about these other increasingly dictatorial countries is that they no longer live in isolation. Chavez, for example, is making common cause with the Islamic Revolutionary Government of Iran — not a happy thought, and he appears willing to give sanctuary to militant Muslims in their international jihad. All the good that Chavez has done in using his country’s oil wealth on education, health care and food subsidies will disappear as he ruins his country’s oil economy, but with all the force on his side, who will be able to complain?

“Presidents for Life” do not remain “presidents” for long, but turn into Gaddaffi, Saddam Hussein and Mugabe. Bad models indeed.

•••

Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer and writer. You may contact her at lfarhat102@aol.com and www.globalthink.net. The opinions of columnists are not necessarily those of the Register-Pajaronian.





Share on Facebook