POSC 3315W12-2

HistoryWhy history mattersPath dependence

◦What it means◦How it works◦“Off-path” changes◦History shapes but doesn’t

determine

Think of hyperexecutives – Drake◦Once establishedcontinued if

worked◦Applies to other institutions

Institutions – what they are◦Durable patterns of interactions◦Formal ones have legal basis +

physical presence + table of organization

◦Not so with informal ones

Want to know◦How they started◦How they developed◦How they keep going◦How they change

Have a historical trajectory or path

Another exampleFragment theoryReconquest: What:?

◦Civil + religious war: Christians v. Muslims

◦In Spain, 8th to 15th C.; ends in 13th in Portugal

◦Christians won

Significance◦Defining issue in Spanish history

Less so in PortugalAffected

◦Organization of state and society◦Outlook: values and beliefs◦Role of religion◦Thinking about colonizing the

Americas

Was about capturing land and people ◦Putting non-Xtians to work for

conquerersMilitary modelAdministrative procedures

◦Encomienda and RepartimientoValues

◦Role of religion◦Proper work for Christian gentlemen

Set pattern for 250+ yrs of colonial administration◦Changed somewhat in mid-18th C.

Portugal was somewhat different◦Less a national project: more foreign

knights◦Ended earlier Portugal turns to

exploration and trade

Colonial politicsNot like British NA

◦We had legislatures, representative govt, from outset

◦Appointed governor + elected legislature Franchise varied

◦Local govts

Spanish and Portuguese ◦No representative institutions◦Local administrations (cabilidos)

weaker than in BNAAt independence, 1776, BNA had

◦Experience with self-govt + autochthonous political class used to governing

Ibero-America did not

What resultedIn NA, USA, eventual civil war,

1861-65◦But also lots of compromises and

attempts to find peaceful solutionsIn NA, CDA, post-1867, keep

bumping along, finding compromises

In LA: most countries enter extended periods of instability

Why?British North America: CDA &

USA◦When: over a century later (1607)◦Different econ, pol & social contexts

+ different metro institutions◦Circumstances: religious

freedom/dissent◦British politics in 17th and 18th

centuries v. Spanish or Portuguese in 15th and 16th centuries

Other examples: NicaraguaGeneral shape of history

◦As colony◦Independence, 1821, to 1858

Nearly constant conflict and civil war. Why?

◦1858-1893: Peace, order and good govt in the Switzerland of Central America

◦1893-1909: dictatorship◦1909-1934: Civil War, then

insurgency; USMC occupation, 1912-1933

1936-79: Dictatorship; 2 generations of Somozas

1979-90: Revolutionary government, FSLN◦Frente Sandinista de Liberación

Nacional1990-2000: conservative elected

govts2000: FSLN-Liberal Pact2006-present: FSLN again as

elected govt◦Hegemonic tendencies

How can we describe Nica’s historic political path?

What should we look for in the future, assuming no more big, off-path changes?

CubaA bit of history

◦Spanish colony until 1898◦Then US semi-colony due to Platt

Amendment, 1902-1933◦Although there were elections since

1901, few were free – 1940 for one◦Main form of government dictatorial

Dominant theme is Cuban politics anti-imperialism◦First Spanish◦Then American

History, pre-1959 ◦External domination + dictatorship

Reasons for Castro’s revolution

Look more at Castro laterFor now, reflect on Cuba’s

political trajectoryColony to semi-colony to foreign

dominated to independent but dependent on foreign assistance to now

Where is it likely to go?

ReadingsBoth

◦Role of institutions◦Ask if personal rule =

institutionalized◦Role of structural factors◦Role of contextual/conjunctural

factors◦How they use history, especially

national histories

DrakeHis objective: Show the

democratic side of LA history◦Lots of experiments, few successes◦But didn’t lag far behind historic

dems in experiments (or Central/Southern Europe in practice, pre-WWII)

◦Faced same problem as many others: reconcile political equality w/soc-ec inequality

Sees two broad types◦Protected democracy◦Popular◦Neither wanted political equality + procedures – NA/GB/WE model

◦Either could be paternalistic or authoritarian

◦Popular likely personalistic + saw democracy = building solidarity & bringing equality

◦Not about forms & processes

Focus is institutions + civil liberties◦Why this matters

Debate over how to define democracy Procedural; input Results; output His partially bridges the two

◦Historical – tracing trajectories – how we got where we are

To note: causes of democracy◦The nature of the elites & lack of

elite consensus◦Subordinate classes: only mentions

labour; In CDA/USA farmers drove early

democratizationOligarchic competition

◦What this means◦Why it matters: fairly common

pattern

LewisDoesn’t define authoritarianismCurrently

◦Any non-democratic regime – Broad◦What this connotes

Govt unaccountable; weak no rule of law Govt can’t be changed by peaceful

means Govt likely to rely on forceful coercion Govern the people; not govt by the

people

PL emphasizes personal rule◦Often w/charismatic leader◦V. Important in LA; as now in Africa;

lost a bit I mid-eastHis ch. 1 lists some causes of

authoritarian rule in Latin America◦Overdetermined

His list: ◦undemocratic culture—criollo

dominance; Independence: lots of violence, lots of armed men; post-independence breakdown of order: politics changed, not society

Caudillos◦Highly personalized rule◦Not too attentive to party

labels/ideas

How they ruled◦Got stuff to distribute to followers;

violent political bosses◦No institutionalization. Why?◦But you can only steal so much◦Eventually need stable govt to get

taxes for patronage◦But this ends caudillo rule and

demands new skills