The State of Democracy in Latin America

Post-Transitional Conflicts in Argentina and Chile

Jonathan R. Barton, Laura Tedesco

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134276189
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Latin American & Caribbean History
• Index: History

The State of Democracy in Latin America presents a critical analysis of the contemporary democratic state in Latin America.In a shift away from the more typical analyses of Latin American political change during the 1990s, this book presents a more state-centric perspective that seeks to explain why transitions to democracy and trends towards better governance have failed to provide more political and social stability in the continent. Through a deeper analysis of underlying social relations and values and how these manifest themselves through institutions, the state is understood not purely as an institutional form but rather as a set of interdependent relations that are shaped by particular collective and individual interests.

1 Conceptualising the state

In order to conceptualise the modern Latin American state it is necessary to place it in a historical and theoretical context. State theorisation has a long history in Western philosophy and political economy, and ideas from both are important for the interpretation of current state formations in the light of longer-term changes in capitalist societies. One central theme in state theorisation, especially in terms of understanding the origins of the impersonal state, has been the notion of the social contract. A discussion relating to the social contract and how it plays a part in interpreting contemporary Latin American states is developed further in the following pages. The social contract is, however, only one theme within the state theory literature and it should be borne in mind that we do not attempt to discuss the full range of state theories here or to engage in a broader discussion of state theory per se. The intention is to apply a particular view of the state to contemporary Latin American affairs, on the basis that this view provides a more useful interpretation of how Latin American societies and their states are conceived and operate. This chapter initially presents a brief historical description of the development of the state, which is followed by a theoretical analysis of the state that leads to the particular argument that illuminates our perspective on the Latin American state. The third section discusses some of the main features of the Latin American state and thus contributes to the current debate on directions in contemporary Latin American politics.

The historical development of the state

The modern capitalist state is a product of several centuries of development and adaptation. This long evolution has led to the emergence of diverse state forms and a multitude of arrangements in contemporary capitalist state formations. These arrangements are a consequence of highly diverse social relations and levels of societal organisation and control, of different state functions and of different institutional development patterns. It can be argued that capitalist states, a term which defines all contemporary Latin American states except Cuba, have similarities based on historical materialism, whereby social relations are very much defined by the ownership of the means of production. However, the contemporary realities of these states suggest that the picture is a complex one and that class-based analysis has to be sensitive to these complexities. It is this complexity that leads to the emergence of diverse social relations and state forms, and contains partial explanations for the changes that have been witnessed in recent decades, e.g. the shift from bureaucratic authoritarianism to liberal democracy, and the rise in popular mobilisation.

To move towards an understanding of these contemporary variations within the Latin American capitalist state, it is necessary to contextualise these modern experiences in light of state theory and the historical development of states. Since Latin American state formation is most closely aligned with European state patterns due to colonial influences from the fifteenth century to independence, it is to Western Europe that one needs to turn in order to uncover the roots of the nascent Latin American states from the early decades of the nineteenth century. Since these formations are recent in historical terms and are derived from Western European experiences, it is unnecessary to delve deeper into pre-state formation histories such as tribes without rulers, tribes with rulers (chiefdoms), city states, and early empires to establish a view of the Latin American state of the present day.¹

Prior to the French revolution and the challenge that this generated for the European monarchic regimes, European society was dominated by social relations based on landed titles and an aristocratic élite that generated its wealth from a feudal system of production and social organisation. It is within this feudal system of monarchs and aristocracies that the origins of the modern state can be found since one of the first functions of the early state was to administrate on behalf of the monarchy. In essence, its raison d’être was to ensure the generation of wealth for the monarch. This wealth was managed in order to wage war and defend sovereign territory, but it was also destined for consumption, as can be seen in the elaborate architecture, furnishings and arts of the European royal families and their aristocratic allies.

Two worlds co-existed at this time: a small élite bound by their landed wealth and blood ties, living in splendour; and the vast majority of the population working in conditions of poverty to create this splendour. However, the feudal system of patronage and the control over social discipline exercised by landowners led to a condition of acquiescence whereby there was little opposition to the social relations that were in place. There were examples of popular unrest throughout the continent. However, these were brutally suppressed for the most part, and it was not until the French revolution that a major shift in power relations between monarchy, aristocracy and civil² society (defined in broad terms as the individuals or groups operating in the social space between the state and the family) was achieved, leading to the development of a modern, post-monarchic state formation.

The bureaucratic function of administration on behalf of the monarch or religious leader was enhanced rapidly from 1500 by the print revolution and the spread of literacy. Although literacy would remain socially exclusive for several centuries, the print revolution enabled more widespread communications of regional and national affairs. As such, it was important in extending the influence of those in power, by defining social organisation and notions of commonality, also as forms of social control, e.g. law and order. For example, Benedict Anderson³ emphasises that the invention of print technology helped to develop ideas of nationalism and shared identity within sovereign states; Martin van Creveld⁴ builds on this idea by pointing to the fact that the quantity of paperwork increased with this print revolution, and this in turn led to the development of a modern bureaucracy to manage it.⁵

These developments can be described as the emergence of the state as a set of institutions. The number of bureaucrats required to manage this paperwork on behalf of the monarchy transformed the concept of the monarch embodying the state and its will within a highly personalised state. Louis XIV immortalised this view with the statement: l’état c’est moi (I am the state). This growth of an administrative cadre to support the monarch’s management of society led to important changes in the balance of power within countries and by the 1700s, the state had became a more impersonal institution. This impersonal state was no longer fully dependent upon, or subject to the monarchy, and was no longer identified solely with the monarch.⁶

The objectives of the new state form would change to reflect this shift in character. While the early state had been created to defend the power of the monarch by exerting influence and authority internally and through war with external or internal opposition, the impersonal state began performing these functions in its own right, exerting a dominant influence over the sovereign territory and waging war in its own defence. This marked the end of a period when war was considered a personalised affair between monarchs and seigniorial élites. It was now carried out between nation-states, brought together through state structures of order and control, also bound by myths and iconographies of social cohesion emerging from early nationalism.⁷ The establishment of regular armed forces, the police and prisons followed this transformation in order to pursue these dual objectives of order and control. These tools of internal and external domination would become the earliest features of the exercise of state power and their maintenance would require the expansion of state functionaries beyond purely administrative roles. The key consideration here is that this process gave rise to the emergence of authority that was no longer exercised by the absolutism of a monarch. Individuals from civil society rather than royalty were becoming increasingly influential in terms of the exercise of power, particularly in terms of social control. This in itself marked a sea change in social relations. Rather than the marked clear division in social relations between the populus and the monarch, an intermediate tier of power began to emerge that would provide a link between the two poles.

The evolution of this impersonalised state was still closely aligned with élite interests. For instance, the initial priorities of state activities were the defence of life and property, primarily of the monarch and aristocracy, secondly of the wider population. Nevertheless, over time the institutions that would be created to manage the impersonal state would become gradually more autonomous and a separation of powers would emerge between this state form and the monarch with his or her own personal bureaucracy. The most important aspect of this process was the shift in authority. Whereas the monarch or religious leader could traditionally be defined as the national figurehead and most powerful actor in domestic politics, the creation of state institutions at least partially independent from monarchy and religion would inevitably lead to conflicts in order to control those institutions and debates over rights of control and the role of the state itself. A consensus around control by right (conferred by deity or line of succession) had changed to a condition of conflict over state control by political, economic and social actors. The state was changing and was being socialised in the sense that it was no longer considered merely an extension of monarchic power. Civil society had become more organised within the political space provided by a more independent state, and was more active in the politics of it.

This historical materialisation of the idea of the state reveals some of its most dynamic features. The early institution created to defend the monarch had gradually become a set of institutions that reflected the broader social relations within a territorial space at a particular moment in time. The values imparted by this impersonal state were also important in that they were less élitist than those of the monarchist regimes. Consequently, notions of citizenship, social inclusion and equality became recognised as significant themes around which the state could organise itself, and institutions would be created to advance these values. The historical development of this emerging state form has been analysed, at that time and more contemporarily, through the lens of the social contract – an unwritten agreement between those that manage the institutions of the state and civil society, effectively establishing the rights and duties of each party.

The evolutionary process of the state as described above can be summarised as follows. The primary objective of the early state was to wage war, and this need to wage war helped to centralise power in the hands of the monarch (by establishing external threats to domestic security, and by facilitating the raising of revenues that were managed by the monarch). The impersonal state came to replace this monarchical power. Through a tautological process, this new state form established itself in order to be able to defend its autonomy (from the monarchy and external threats). Through revenues and other forms of social control, it was able to generate the resources required to achieve this objective.

The state created and developed elements or tools that facilitated the deepening of this process of state formation. These included the development of infrastructure and transport, communications and weaponry technologies. Although these had played an important part in the consolidation of monarchical regimes, the impersonal state became more proactive in developing these technologies since they facilitated the process of the construction of the nation-state. In contrast to the personalism of the monarchy, the impersonal state had to create sources of power and a social order that would be acceptable to social groups across civil society. The idea of nationalism, and the strong political movements associated with it, became pivotal elements of this process during the eighteenth century in particular. By acquiring an ethical rather than purely functional dimension, the state became gradually more multidimensional in form; administration and bureaucracy were combined with notions of identity, belonging and themes of social development. The nation-state sought to encourage consensus and unity across civil society through these activities, and through this process the state came to dominate within national spaces, replacing or at least competing with other sources of power such as the church, the monarch, and the landed and commercial élites. The ways in which the state was able to become dominant included the creation of new sets of values, interests, norms, institutions, rights and obligations.

Although it can be argued that élite groups within society still controlled production through ownership, and thus exercised power over most of civil society through exploitative labour relations, there is a case to be made that the impersonal states did have a closer engagement with wider society than the monarchical regimes that preceded them, and that new political spaces were opened up to question and challenge existing social relations, particularly the most exploitative ones. The expansion of state education, the regulation of health and working conditions, and the public dimension of social welfare all point in this direction.

Herein lies the debate about the nature of the capitalist state that had become the most prevalent form of the impersonal state by the mid-nineteenth century. Essentially, this process of change over time – the passage from the l’état c’est moi to the impersonal state – reveals the shift from the private ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: The State of Democracy
• 1. Conceptualising the State
• 2. Perspectives On the Latin American State
• 3. The Unfolding of Argentina’s Political Collapse and Social Decay
• 4. In Search of the Post-Transitional Chilean State
• Reflections On the Contemporary Latin American State
• Bibliography