Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America

Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America have unique historical roots as Latin American independence began to occur in 1808 after the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars that eventually engulfed all of Europe. French revolutionaries in the 1790s began an intellectual awakening called the Enlightenment, which opened the door for ideas of positivism in Latin American society and people in Latin America turned to liberal ideologies as liberalism means the idea of liberty, equality and popular sovereignty.^[1]

During the early 19th century in Latin America, liberalism clashed with conservative views as liberals wanted to end the dominance of the Catholic Church, class stratification and slavery.^[1] These issues for many years strongly affected the way that Latin American society was organized. The majority of liberals believed in a democratic system of government, but this system would create many changes and much confusion in Latin American communities in the early 19th century. On the other hand, conservatism favored existing systems and hierarchies. Conservatives believed chaos and social disorder would break out if the political system were liberalized. Latin American conservatives generally believed in class stratification and opposed radical change in government in Latin America.

Simón Bolívar, a key leader in the early independence movements in the 19th century, pushed for a centralized government that spanned the entire Northern Andes and a united Latin America. Military and political leaders opposed him strongly, and accused him of seeking dictatorship. This fear of central power came from the regional divisions in Latin American politics.The contest between liberals and conservatives in Latin America, while sweeping in effect, was largely fought between members of the landed, white or creole elite. Creoles were the children of immigrated European families.^[2] Systems in place from the colonial period—such as slavery, patronage by the elite and debt peonage—meant that the great mass of Indians, Africans and people of mixed race had little, if any power compared to the very small creole ruling class. Although Indians, Africans, and people of mixed race had little power compared to that of the Creoles and white elites, they were still victims of conflict and violence caused by the conflicting ideologies of liberalism and conservativism. These individuals would often find themselves more vulnerable to labor extractions, liberal reformism, and mercantile violence than creole elites.^[3] Thus the concern that liberalization would lead to "disorder" that the conservatives spoke about is considered by some historians as a veiled or transparent fear of race war.

Caudillos soon came to power in some Latin American societies, such as Mexico. Caudillos were people of either progressive or conservative thought, who promised protection and restoration of traditional ways to the people. They were generally pragmatic, believing in a ruling system of what works best. Caudillos used military force to hold society together.One of the most prominent figures was General Antonio López de Santa Anna, a conservative caudillo in Mexico who represented the unstable politics of early post-independence in Latin America. Santa Anna went back and forth between holding power and being exiled, serving as president of Mexico eleven times and playing key roles in both military successes, such as defeating a French invasion in 1838, and losses, including the loss of Texas in 1836. In contrast, figures like the Argentine liberal Domingo Faustino Sarmiento strongly criticized the caudillo system, arguing that the dominance of military leaders in Argentina created a threat to democracy. Since the 1980s, there have been several neo-liberal economic reforms across Latin America, in order to support expansive industrialization.^[4]

In most countries the old parties had been replaced by populist or leftist parties.^[5] Only in Colombia (Liberal Party and Conservative Party), Honduras (Liberal Party and conservative National Party), Paraguay (liberal PLRA and conservative Colorado Party), and Uruguay (liberal Colorado Party and the conservative National Party), the two historical parties remain influential.^[6] Argentina still has the liberal Radical Civic Union, Nicaragua has three liberal parties: the PLC, the ALN and the PLI which trace back to the old Democratic Party and in the Dominican Republic, the conservative Social Christian Reformist Party claims to be the successor of the historic Red Party.

Case Studies of Liberalism in Latin America: 1800-1910's

After independence from Spain, many Latin American countries adopted liberal constitutions. These constitutions sought to decrease church power, create a secular state, and free commerce; creating widespread systemic change in Latin American governments. The adoption of liberalism was believed to create prosperity and have a similar effect on Latin America as it did throughout Europe and the United States; however, this was not how it played out.^[7] In Latin America liberal institutions were built on unstable and fragile social and economic foundations. The countries struggled with large inequalities, weak state capacity, and the overall lingering effects of colonization, in the form of ethnic hierarchies, forced labor, church dominance etc. ^[8] Although the idea of liberalism in Latin America saw support, the lack of infrastructure did not allow it to thrive, and made it nearly impossible for liberalism to flourish. Scholars often refer to liberalism in Latin America as “magical liberalism, ” ^[8] the idea that liberal ideas would be written into the constitution and magically repair the damage of deeply rooted social and economic issues. Liberal ideology was widely supported, but the social and economic foundations needed for them to survive did not exist.^[8] Liberalism in Latin America was like a mirage: the ideas looked genuine, but disappeared under a magnifying glass.

Mexico

In Mexico, liberalism promised equality, but instead made elites stronger. Here liberal ideology was centered around individual rights and equality, but when translated into policy, Mexico fell short. La Reforma (1850s-1860s) aimed to break the church’s power, create a secular state, and give citizens individual property rights by splitting up communal land.^[9] In this case, the church played a major role for Mexican politics and weakened the power liberalism could have had in the future. The church was able to influence citizens to rebel against liberal reforms and destabilize whole governments by questioning their legitimacy.^[7] Nevertheless, liberal reforms collided with the social reality of Mexico at the time. Rather than allowing peasants to gain land, wealthy elites bought up the communal lands with little effort.^[9] The peasants lost the land, and rural inequality increased.^[8] Early liberalism in Mexico believed that the state along with social and economic reform was vital for the success of liberalism.^[7] In hopes of giving people access to property, it actually backfired and entrenched poverty for ordinary people while building wealth and power for the elites. Ultimately, liberalism influenced political institutions, the relationship between the church and state and legal structures.^[7]

Argentina

Argentina followed a similar pattern. Around 1830, Argentina was under a liberal oligarchic regime because of a popular narrative that glorified authoritarianism. ^[7] In 1853, reforms were made to the Argentinian Constitution; which assured liberal rights and fair elections, but in the end, democracy remained unstable.^[9] Additionally, liberals and liberalism in the country faced no real opposition. The catholic church in Argentina was not as strong as the one in Mexico and therefore liberalism was never defined clearly and never excelled.^[7] In theory Argentina focused on representative democracy, but in policy, elections were controlled by corrupt elites who would create fraudulent responses. ^[9] Elections existed, but elites dictated who could run, vote, and often extended their terms for decades to remain in power. Leaders believed that society had to undergo a major transformation in order to be prepared for these institutions. ^[7] This shift never occurred, instead the country developed a strong central government controlled by a group of elites. Again, deep inequality and weak institutions prevented genuine democratic participation. In the end, Argentina’s liberal reforms resulted in increasing power to elite families.  

Peru and the Andes

Throughout Peru and the Andes, liberal land laws created serious disadvantages forindigenous communities. Land laws emphasized equality and individual property rights, but the reforms ignored how indigenous communities actually functioned. Traditionally, indigenous people owned land collectively, not personally.^[10] The laws broke up communal lands and forced people to own the area individually, causing indigenous people to lose the space they had farmed for generations.^[11] From the colonial period, Peru struggled with unequal ethnic and class structures. Consequently, indigenous people were disproportionately and negatively impacted, more often than not they couldn’t afford the legal fees, didn’t understand the procedures, or were just illiterate, making them increasingly vulnerable to fraud and manipulation.^[11] Around the 1820s, Peruvians fought back. They created over a thousand associations which provided spaces for people to engage in civic discourse and practice democracy daily.^[10] In spite of the laws that deterred them, the region was able to find a way around the traditional top down process and create a bottom up structure to allow them to voice their concerns.

Central America

In Central America, early liberalism was chaotic. This period (1820-1870s) was characterized by political instability, civil wars, and economic stagnation. The region's broken politics, power struggles, divided race and class structure, and the collapse of the Central American Federation, otherwise known as the Federal Republic of Central America, shaped liberal reform.^[12] The Federal Republic of Central America was an attempt to unite five former Spanish colonies (Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Costa Rico) into a united nation and become the space needed for liberalism to expand throughout the region.^[12] However, the short lifespan of the Federation proved how fragile and weak the state of liberalism was as an institution. ^[12] This era was considered “liberalism before liberal reform.” ^[12] Like the previous countries mentioned, liberal ideology spread throughout Central America, but in this case policy changes had not yet occurred. This period is painted as the “prototype” phase of liberalism. At this point, liberalism was seen as not just an ideology, but a process instead of a fully realized state.^[12]

By the 1870s, liberal reform started to take place. Once leaders visualized Central America as an export economy especially in coffee, they used this as a way to leverage liberalism. It would open the doors to private lands, foreign investment and specifically a way to build infrastructure in the region.^[13] However, Central America faced repeated political instability as liberal governments emerged and crashed, along with extended periods of conflict between liberals and conservatives.^[12] Liberals wanted individual rights and reforms and a decrease in church power; meanwhile, conservatives preferred traditional systems that Spanish colonization had set in place, like strong church influence.^[11] Conservative opposition would become the main reason liberal progress did not thrive throughout the region. ^[12] Paired with the deep inequality of the region made it nearly impossible for liberal reforms to actually reach ordinary people.

Finally, the history of liberalism in Latin America is a long, uneven and complicated process. Leaders implemented liberal constitutions and reforms, but the results are dependent on existing power structures and the strength of state institutions. Across Central and South America, liberalism evolved more quickly in theory rather than in practice, especially where governments lacked the capacity to extend rights beyond small elite groups. ^[13] It is important to acknowledge that liberalism in Latin America did not “fail” because of the culture or people, but rather because of the way liberal governments were designed. Latin America aimed to imitate Europe and Western culture without considering the societal structures of the region; which really prevented liberalism from growing.^[1] These countries' experiences highlight how difficult it was to build new political systems after centuries of colonial rule. Political change requires more than just new laws; it demands institutional stability and strong social foundations that many Latin American countries were still struggling to build. ^[13] For real liberalism to survive, real economic and social benefits must be given to ordinary people.