Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America

Liberalism, when used in the context of Latin America, originates and often refers to ideals from Locke's political philosophy where he establishes the princple that citizens have a set of rights based on the principles of life, liberty, and property in a society. These main elements of Locke's definition go on to expand into more specific rights defined in liberalism such as consent of the government, the right to private property, and natural rights that every citizen is entitled to.^[1][2]

Liberalism was appealing to individuals in Latin America due to its emphasis on self-governance and economic freedom from European countries that profited from Latin American countries. Profits and goods produced in Latin American countries were intended to be sent to the mother country and to benefit it, without developing or stimulating the local economies of the colonized countries. Within liberalism, free market ideals promote national progress and economic growth for individuals. Additionally, Latin America was under the rule of European monarchies, and liberal ideals promoted rights and boundaries for the governed against government abuses.^[3] Although these ideals weren’t created in Latin America, they spread from movements and advocates of liberal ideals in Europe.^[4]

The French Revolution was a pivotal event in the struggle for independence in Latin America because of the intellectual awakening known as the Enlightenment, which was one of the causes of said revolution. The Enlightenment took form in several ideologies, like equality, the social contract, and popular sovereignty. These ideals were appealing to elite creoles in Latin America because they justified their independence from European ocuntries, and the French Revolution provided a successful example of independence.^[3]

Although ideas of liberalism successfully spread throughout Latin America from Europe, these ideals struggle to be implemented into Latin America government structures. However, as time has gone on, liberalism has taken root more deeply in their political society than ever before across the region. Even if liberalism has had some success in Latin America, it still faces modern challenges that prevent the ideology from fully transforming the region.^[5]

History

19th Century

As previously mentioned, the Enlightenment brought ideals of liberty and equality to the citizens in Latin America. Although the extent of this intellectual movement's influence was not effective in sustaining moral value and structure within later independence movements in Latin America. Many of these movements held directly opposing values such as Catholicism and paternalistic attitudes.^[6] Their governments were controlled by the elite creole class, meaning that the general public were excluded from leadership decisions. Ultimately, Latin American independence movements were not liberalizing for the public. Rather, the shift of power existed between elite Europeans to the elite Latin Americans.^[4]

After independence from Spain, many Latin American countries adopted liberal constitutions. These constitutions sought to decrease church power, create a secular state, and establish 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.

Case Studies

Mexico

In Mexico, liberalism promised equality, but instead made elites stronger. Here, liberal ideology 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 weakening 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 a majority of communal lands with little effort.^[9] The peasants thus lost their 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 instead backfired, and gave way to entrenched poverty for ordinary people while elites built wealth and power. 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. ^[10] In 1853, reforms were made to the Argentinian Constitution; which assured liberal rights and fair elections, but in the end, democracy remained unstable.^[11] 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.^[10] In theory Argentina focused on representative democracy, but in policy, elections were controlled by corrupt elites who would create fraudulent responses. ^[11] 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. ^[10] 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 for indigenous 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.^[12] 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.^[13] 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.^[13] Around the 1820s, Peruvians fought back, creating over a thousand associations which provided spaces for people to engage in civic discourse and practice democracy daily.^[12] 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 war, 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.^[14] This era was considered “liberalism before liberal reform.” ^[14] Like the rest of the countries liberal ideology spread, 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.^[14]

In the 19th century, Nicaragua and most of Central America faced similar obstacles; repeated political instability as liberal governments emerged and quickly crashed. These countries struggled with long periods of conflicts between liberals and conservatives. Liberals wanted individual rights and reforms and a decrease in church power; meanwhile, conservatives preferred traditional systems like strong church influence.^[15]

The short lifespan of the Federal Republic of Central America proved the fragile and weak state of liberalism as an institutional base. ^[14] The organization was challenged by the deeply unequal state of society which made it hard for liberal reforms to reach ordinary people.

The history of liberalism in Latin America is a long, uneven and complicated process. Leaders implemented liberal constitutions and reforms, but the results are fully 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 enforce new laws or extend rights beyond small elite groups. ^[16] Liberalism in Latin America did not “fail” because of the culture or people, but because of the way liberal governments were designed, which blocked real democracy from growing. These experiences highlight how difficult it was to build new political systems after centuries of colonial rule. Durable political change requires more than just new principles; it demands institutional stability and strong social foundations that many Latin American countries were still struggling to build. ^[16] For real liberalism to survive, real economic and social benefits must be given to ordinary people.

20th Century

Following the formation of post colonial Latin America states in the 19th century, there were numerous shifts from the role of the state as an involved actor in economic development to more free market ideologies. These shifts were associated with increasing clientelism and unequal economic and infrastructural development across Latin America, largely contributing to a decline in support of classical liberalism in the early 20th century.^[17]

Although classical liberalism from the enlightenment period was the foundation for free market policies in Latin America, the rise of conservatism, socialism, populism and neoliberalism contributed to the changes in both the economic and political landscape over the past century.

Economic Liberalism

Economic classical liberal philosophy of the 19th century emphasized free trade and limited government intervention in Latin America. In the early 20th century, this translated into many Latin American countries cultivating trade policies that pushed for the exports of raw materials, such as sugar cane in Cuba, coffee from Brazil and bananas from Central American countries. The beneficiaries of such policies were foreign and domestic economic elites facilitating the growth of these products such as the United Fruit Company, while peasants and agricultural workers received little benefits from the countries rise in exports.

Using the money made from these exports in addition to foreign investment and loans from actors such as the United States, Latin American countries were able to transition into colonial legacies of poor infrastructure to industrialized economies that also supported social welfare policies.

Great Depression

This level of foreign investment, however, left the door open for Latin American countries to feel the harsh effects of the Great Depression in 1929, as global demand for their exported goods dropped sharply. Following the crash of their export dependent system, Latin American states pushed forward shifting away from "laissez faire" liberalism and began redefining along the lines of protectionism and state centered policies that gave rise to the implementation of import substitution industrialization (ISI) across the region.

The adoption of ISI allowed for a new liberal definition that included state intervention as a necessity for industrial progress. Latin American scholar, Werner Baer, cites protective tariffs, preferential import rated for intermediate goods, cheap locals from governments for certain sectors and the direct involvement of the state in certain industries as primary policy instruments used to promote ISI across Latin America. ^[18]

Case Studies

Venezuela

Venezuela was on the path toward a constitution that respected and valued liberal values, such as the rule of law, in which the consolidation of power within the executive was difficult, until the emergence of populism under the presidency of Hugo Chavez.^[19] At first glance, Chavez’s rule seemed to respect basic civil liberties and democratic institutions, as evidenced by his promotion of voter initiatives.^[20] However, several actions during his presidency highlighted his attempts to undermine established political systems.

One of the main indicators of his undermining of liberal values was the adoption of the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela, which amplified the president’s role and powers in the executive branch and minimized the judiciary and legislature’s power.^[21] These changes made it easier for the president, including himself, to act without significant backlash from other branches of government. A number of his supporters filled other parts of the government, where they served more as an extension of the executive branch, in contrast to their original role as a check on the executive branch.^[20]

Another threat to liberal values in Venezuela was the repression of free speech within the country. Television programs and radio shows were required to host Chavez on weekly television and radio broadcasts, where he would deliver his speeches to the public.^[19] The media companies weren’t allowed to refuse Chavez’s appearance on their shows nor push back against his messaging.^[20] Additionally, Chavez created organizations, like the Circulos Bolivarianos, which acted in his defense.^[20] Actions could include attacking or threatening opposition groups, similar to how the mobilization of the Circulos Bolivarianos on April 11, 2002, was deployed at the PDVSA demonstrations.

Despite all the construction Venezuela achieved in the 1960s to instate liberalism in its government, populism has proven to be a strong and central part of Venezuelan politics today.

Colombia

During the 1950s in Colombia, partisan violence between the two predominant parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, was known as La Violencia. To resolve the tension between the parties, an agreement called The National Front was reached, which went against ideals of liberalism.^{[22] [23]}

The National Front was an agreement between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in which power in the government would be shared equally between the two.^[23] The National Front doesn’t allow any candidates outside the two main political parties to participate or run for government positions, regardless of public opinion. Specifically, communist and socialist groups groups weren’t allowed to hold government positions.^[24] Liberalism calls for equal access and opportunity for all citizens to participate in politics. This agreement excluded everyone who didn’t support the two main political parties.

The agreement also allowed the presidency to be alternated between the two parties, and the rest of the government institutions would provide an equal number of seats to the parties.^[23] The party of the president is determined regardless of public participation; therefore, there is limited citizen consent, which is a core value of liberalism. Additionally, there is no incentive for political parties to be responsive to citizens’ needs while in office since the elimination of political competition.^[25] This was no different for the political parties in Colombia. This violates liberal ideals since liberalism supports the social contract in which individuals give up their rights in exchange for an orderly government that serves the interests of the people.

Ultimately, the National Front is an example of the limited influence of liberalism present in Latin American countries.