The ABC countries
By now, I hope, you've all read the chapter on Brazil. The countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile are often called the "ABC" countries of Latin America. Post a good paragraph or two (in the comments section) giving the similarities and/or differences between these three countries. Worth 5 points.
23 Comments:
So far, each latin american country that we have looked at, have all achieved their current democratic status with some sort of conflict. Some would argue that they have "earned" it.
Argentina though, for instance, has struggled many times to get where it is today. This country has experienced many economic downturns, coups, and political repression. With such things as the "dirty wars," people were not able to express their real political ideals. Not to mention, it's odd achievement democracy through a failed war.
Chile on the other hand has been a bit different. For the most part, Chile has had a very benign run-in with democracy. Aside from their time with Pinochet, in which the country did well anyway, they haven't had much political uprisal, comparatively.
Brazil, has had a strange political evolution. Starting with a monarchical society that was militarily overthrown to establish this "first republic" is nothing new for Latin America. What is strange though is that this republic extremely closely resembled that of the United States. There was another established "republic" before the government was overthrown and ruled by the military for quite some time. Eventually and quite recently Brazil returned to a democratic natured country and has been that way since.
Latin american countries all seem to go through some sort of authoritarian regime before achieving demorcracy finally. Usually it's from the military. The difference between each country only seems to be when in the timeline they must endure this.
The most obvious similarities that I noticed are the similarities of certain leaders in Brazil and Argentina. In Brazil, it was Vargas, whereas in Argentina, it was Peron. One major thing Vargas and Peron had in common was a tendency towards fascism, both Vargas and Peron were fascists.
Both Vargas and Peron considered joining with the Axis forces during the Second World War due to their fascist leanings. Both Vargas and Peron also followed a system of Corporatism for their governments. Both Vargas and Peron were clearly charasmatic leaders, and proved this by being asked to step down from office and then coming back to legitimately win elections.
Another thing the two have in common is the fact that they both had to supress communist movements in their countries. And last, but not least, the two leaders both still have active parties in their countries' political systems. These parties are dedicated to preserving the legacy of these dicators.
These two leaders differ from leaders in Chile because Chile didn't have quite so charasmatic and influential of a leader as did Brazil and Argentina. Though there were obviously influential leaders such as Allende, or Pinochet, they were not as generally supported by the public as were Peron and Vargas.
While studying the ABC countries of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile) there are many similarities and differences. A large difference that I see is how military coups have been performed.
In Argentina, for example, the military coups where more frequent compared with Chile. Also, Chile's military was more united and under civilian control. Finally, Brazil had very unique military coups in that they were ultimatums proposed to the current leader who stepped down. It wasn't until Vargas's second presidency that a leader refused to comply, but even then the military did not face violent resistance because Vargas committed suicide making himself a martyr.
I see these differences in military coups being affected by how the countries gained independence. Brazil didn’t gain independence from a devastating revolutionary war, and neither did they have massive bloody military coups. Other countries had problems with demobilizing their armies after independence was gained, but because Brazil didn’t have the extremely mobilized army needed to fight a war for independence, their military didn’t have the same characteristics of takeover that the other countries did. Generals and soldiers of the military only knew how to do one thing, fight, and once independence was gained they held on to the mentality that coups were the best way to fix a countries problems.
There is an underlying similarity in Latin America with militaries however, in that they do take over from time to time. In class we discussed how the Church and the military are the main institutions that are understood by Latin Americans as being reliable. This speaks to their culture and is proven in the history.
One quick caveat on Chile's Pinochet regime. I wouldn't actually characterize it as fascist. The Vargas & Peron regimes were at least semi-fascist, but the Pinochet regime wasn't. Fascism is more than just "authoritarian" or "right-wing" -- it contains a specific type of ideological rhetoric/behavior that, really, just wasn't present in Pinochet's regime. Pinochet's regime is best characterized as a "Bureaucratic-Authoritarian" regime, of the same type that governed in the 1970s in Argentina & Brazil.
The similarity which proved most interesting to me was in the comparison of Juan Peron and Getulio Vargas.
Even though voter fraud was common in Argentina, Juan Peron won his first election for President in 1946 with 54% of the vote. He spent the next 27 years of his life both being president and also patiently waiting to regain his presidency; which he eventually did in 1973. In the midst of his political reign he formed his own political party, the Peronist. While president he mobilized the labor movement, and also took control of the unions. Peron was the one who set up corporatism, which divided people by their functions in society. Due to the popularity and respect for he and his wife Evita, Peron and his party will forever mark history.
Similar to Peron’s passion for political leadership, Getulio Vargas ruled Brazil passionately and refused to accept another man ruling his country. Appointed by the military, his first run at president went from 1930-1946, Similar to Peron’s radical changes, Vargas replaced all the governors of the states. Vargas himself considered fascists on his side for the most part; ironically Peron was a fascist. Like Peron, Vargas was thrown out of office by the military. However, in the second democracy Vargas came back from exile and won the popular vote by 48.7%. Like Peron, Vargas also has a political party, the PTD. Both Vargas and Peron were only able to enjoy their second shot as President for a short duration of time. After four years the military again tried to kick out Vargas from office. However, this time he didn’t leave quietly; he killed himself. Due to his sensational suicide letter, Vargas has enjoyed somewhat of an idol status. He, like Peron, will remain in the history books.
Chile too has a strong leader, named Augusto Pinochet. By military force Pinochet gained power in 1973. He finally stepped down in 1990, but remained in the spotlight. Currently he is up against pending cases of murder and human rights abuses. Not to take anything away from Pinochet, but his violent tactics both in becoming President and during his reign of power have taken away from his idol status. Peron and Vargas, though in different ways, both have glorified stories. Both continued throughout the years against opposition and both men got their second shot as President.
A similarity between all the groups is immigration contributed to their population but it contributed more in Argentina and Brazil than it did in Chile. Argentina was not populated by very many indigenous people, so in order to have a working class they needed immigration. Therefore in Argentina there was very high immigration, these people were mostly European, and once in Argentina they made up the working class. In Brazil the boom in coffee production brought in a wave of European immigrants, who were mostly Italians. But in Chile there was a very large population of indigenous people, making immigration not necessary because there was already people there to make up the working class. Therefore immigration in to Chile was very low.
The population concentration is another similarity that I found. In both Chile and Argentina about 1/3 of the population lives in the capital. In Chile 5 out of the 15million people live in Santiago and in Argentina 13 out of the 39 million live in Buenos Aires. But in Brazil people mainly live along the coast and in all the major cities and only 2 out of the 184 million live in the capital.
Another similarity I found is the languages of the countries. Spanish is the official language of Argentina and Chile. But In Brazil the language is Portuguese.
By the early twentieth century, both Chile and Argentina had widened the electorate to include middle-sector political participation, a concept which had not developed in Brazil as quickly.
Peron entered the Argentine political scene, through establishing a strong relationship with the middle class, specifically, industrial workers. He saw power in the working class and won the Presidency in 1946 with a solid majority. This influence over the workers proved to be greatly advantageous throughout his political career. For example, before he campaigned for the Presidency, he was the minister of war and then vice president. Once President, he continued several of his plans and tactics involving the working class which he promised during his campaign such as the encouragement of strikes that the government was then in charge of settling. In cases such as these the government would allow the workers to win. He promised solutions to the problems affecting the working class and also the rewards that they had been denied. During the beginning of his presidency, hourly wage rates increased by 25 percent. Peron saw the strength in the working class, and it effected his terms as President.
The working class in Chile, although not as big as in Argentina, was increasing at an intense rate. As a result, Chilean politicians started to notice this growing force. Arturo Alessandri, a familiar face within Chile's history, understood that the support of the working class could be crucial in the next election. Therefore, like Peron in Argentina, he tried his best to appeal to the middle-sector, which included workers.
Brazil was much farther behind in allowing the middle-sector to vote. Suffrage was limited to literate adult white male citizens. Thus, before 1930 fewer than 3.5 percent of the population could vote in a presidential election. Even in 1930 only 5.7 percent were extended this right to vote. While people such as Peron in Argentina and Alessandri in Chile, understood the concept of using the middle-sector to advance their political careers, Brazil did not utilize this power in the same way as the other two "ABC" countries did.
Argentina and Chile are similar in that through most of their excistence, they have both shared right-wing ideoligies. They both have been led by strong, authoritarian leaders in Peron and Pinochet. All three countries have been plagued by coups, although Brazil's were relatively non-violent.
Argentina and Chile share similar ethnicities. Most of the population was white, and European. Brazil's population was dominated by slave labor imported from Africa.
Argentina and Brazil both found early wealth in agricultural goods, while Chile found theirs in mining.
All three countries have their differences. Argentina had to fight hard for its independence where Brazil recieved thiers relatively easy compared to the other countries. Each country came about in its own way. Argentina and its people strongly supported a leader and his wife and with this strong support they were able to get many things accomplish and established. Chile goes through an up and down of rulers and it is not untill the 1970's that the economy of Chile is turned around, and on the good side. The three countries are all different. But they are relatively similar in the fact that they all needed to gain independence and establish their own economy. It is very interesting to read what happened so long ago in a place so far away, and compare it with the way the United States and other countries established themselves early in their life as a country.
Much of Latin Amerca has gone through a struggle of the same force. This is no different for Chile and Brazil. I have found through their stuggle of developing their countries, they have gone throug numerous political and ecomonic change. Economically the change has been dramatic because of the political inbalance. Chile and Brazil had powerful leaders who had changed each country economically towards the best, but as a leadership and freedom, for the worst. Pinochet took over Chile and leaned toward a more communist like ruling, just like Vargas. Both presented a tighter ruling therefore economic status boomed. They also both took over office again despite the hardened hatred for each.
Another intresting similarity is that after ruling both countires both were for political parites and strictly politics. The military soon after each leader was thrown out were forced to step in and rule, throwing politics out the window. The only difference is that in Brazil, Military rule actually lasted longer. Though the Military was producing economic boom at first, failing and having another leader step in to clean it up was the only way to go. The political parties of these two countires are also similar. They both have a very strong left and right. The parties are set up a little differently, and in Brazil, Vargas had his own party, but they bascally demonstrate the same context. Both these countries have gone through much change. The one difference between them, is that Brazil had a much easier independance. I guess Chile can say they earned theirs through the drama they had to endure.
One of the major comparisons that can be drawn between the three ABC countries is the storng influence that industrialization had on creating a union and a working class, and how the formation of these groups led them to be an important part of the countries political systems. As the countries moved from agrarian societies to indutrstrialized ones, the need for workers increased dramatically, and caused an influx of population to the urban centers of the major cities. As factories and the need for workers continued to grow, leaders throughout Argentina, Chile, and Brazil became focused on utilizing the working class as the major players in getting elected.
Brazil was the only country who strayed from this idea, but once they realized the force that could be utilized by allowing the working class to vote and make political decisions, the comparison with the other two countries becomes increasingly similiar. Without the help of these working class forces many of the leaders would not have been as powerful, and would not have been able to achieve leadership for extended periods of time.
Much like politics today, the political parties that were associated with the working class also tended to be liberal in the three countries. They were in favor of social and political reform rather than conforming to the strict political guidelines that were trying to be imposed on them. It is for this reason that many of the working class continued to support political leaders who favored change, even long after the leader had left office.
There are many similarities between the countries of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The reoccurring theme between all of the "ABC" countries were how the military and coups would eventually gain control of power and leadership within the state. Brazil's military coups were surprising less bloody and even less violence. They simply would ask the leader to step down and he would.
All of them have also had their share of economic struggles and problems. Especially in the early 1980s when countries were using so many loans to establish its economy. Inflation rates had raised close to 200 and even 400 percent in Argentina.
Another similarity between the three countries is the vast amount of precious agricultural land the countries have to offer to itself and the rest of the world. Argentina had an comparable advantage in producing meat and grain. Chile also had an impressive Nitrate economy in exporting. Chile also had incredible wealth in silver. Brazil has some of the most resources of land in the world. They specialized its agricultural success on coffee.
Immigration was very similar between Argentina and Brazil and how they looked to Europeans for its growth. Where as Chile had a far greater population in its indigenous poeople.
When looking at the ABC countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Chili) there are many similarities but also differences. For example all three countries have gone some time of military government which helped the countries come out of economic difficulties only to fall once again in the 1980's. In Argentina military rule came again in 1976-81. In Chili the country experianced a time of military rule starting in 1973 when Augusto Pinochet moved into power. In Brazil the military took control of the government in 1964 to 1985. During each of these military regimes the countries were able to achieve large economic and industrial growth. Each government was able to lower inflation, increase foreign investment. However during the 1980's the ABC countries economies crumbled due to large debt to foreign countries and other economic and political instabilities.
Also when looking at the ABC countries especially comparing Argentina and Chili is the racial break down of these two countries. With Argentina having a 97% white population and Chili having a 95% white/meztizo population. Due largely to european immigration to these countries. In Brazil however we see a racial division in the people with 55% being White and 38% being Mulato and 6% black.
The economies of all three ABC countries relied heavily on exports, most of which were natural resources or agricultural. With reliance on these types of products these countries were dependant on a large lower class of workers and peasantry. The roles and origins of these classes, however, were quite different for each country.
Argentina relied heavily on the export of agricultural products, such as meat and grain. Because Argentina lacked an indigenous peasantry, they turned to European immigrants to build their lower class of workers; 60% of their population is attributed to immigration. With urbanization and industrialization, the European influence showed through in the mobilization of the working class and the formation of strong unions.
Brazil, relying on coffee and sugar exports, also looked to outside sources for workers. Brazil used slave labor to fuel their production of agricultural products, and experienced far less European immigration than Argentina; resulting in a very large African population in Brazil. The abolishment of slavery became a huge issue for Brazil; with agricultural reliance on slave labor, it became an industry vs. agriculture battle. Brazil's "slower and later" urbanization correlated with their "slower and later" abolishment of slavery (1888).
Chile, unlike Brazil and Argentina, relied on Native born and indigenous peasantry for their nitrate and copper exports. In 1895, only 3% of Chile's population was foreign born. Chile also differed in that they did not experience over population. One result of this was the presence of women in their working class.
Looking at the ABC countries' of Latin America, we naturally see many differences and similarities in comparing and contrasting these countries; politically, economically, culturally, demographically... A paragraph of one or two are not enough to explain what these concepts are but a few major issues that stand out, that I have observed, are as follows...
As Miguel has said before, the politics of LA countries is like cycles; there are elections, then the military takes over, then elections again. While Chile and Argentina's independence required hard work, Brazil had relatively an easy independence, by accident. Spanish is the native language in Argentina (although it sounds like Italian)and Chile, while Portuguese is also the common language along with Spanish in Brazil. Argentina is famous for Tango while Brazil is known for Samba. Both Argentina and Chile were pretty wealthy countries, they both dealt with issues of mobilizing the working class, they both have convservative and liberal parties. Chile had much earlier democracy then Argentina and Chile also did not have as big immigrant population as Argentina did. Caudillo politics is the norm in Argentina while in Chile it was not common. These countries had different agricultural interests as well, coffee was huge in Brazil while in Argentina beef was being sold to the allies during WWII. As for Chile, Allende nationalized copper.
Political leaders are also different in their way of approachments to politics. Peron was a huge figure in Argentine politics, while for Brazil it was Vargas. Chile's Pinoche's did not receive the support that Argentine's and Brazil's people provided for Peron (Argentina) and Vargas (Brazil). Vargas took away decentralization and eliminate while Peron started organizing military movement, started his own party and was in power for quite some time. Argentines also think of themselves as Europeans. Buenos Aires is Argentine's Paris. Its politics are also Buenos Aires politics.
Brazil and Chile also stand out to be more diversed than Argentina. There are mulatos in Brazil and mestizos in Chile while Argentina is 97 % white.
In reviewing the similarities between these three countries, the most striking feature Chile and Brazil share are their attitudes toward the economy. They both saw the economic problems that plagued their country as political issues. Their solutions, similarly, were to simply remove politics from economics. Both countries, under their respective form of military rule, limited state influence on the economy. In both countries inflation was soaring and had to be controlled. Brazil and Chile both took drastic steps toward capitalism. In Brazil, Roberto Campos took economic control and overhauled the banking system, instituted a stock market and a government securities market, and simplified export regulations. In Chile, the state returned almost half of the nearly 500 state owned firms to private control. Also, these regimes share the fact that their legitimacy as leaders came to rest on their prospering economies. In both cases, when the economy failed, the military lost legitimate control of the state. Eventually, their loss of legitimacy leads to their fall from power.
One similarity that stands out between the ABC countries is the intervention of military in the government. All three countries, at some time, were ruled by military government. The fact that all three countries, while under the military government, had thriving economies also correspondence to strong leaders in the government. In Brazil, it was Vargas, in Argentina, it was Peron, and in Chile it was Pinochet. Each of these men had long standing regimes in their respectful countries. This is where Argentina, Brazil and Chile differ. Argentina and Chile had bloody war’s or coo’s when a leader took over, while Brazils leaders were vary quick to step down when the military intervened. This also leads to the simularities between Vargas in Argentina and Peron in Chile, where both men had close ties to fascist regimes in world war two.
The three “ABC” Countries Argentina, Brazil and Chile had similar inconsistancies in the early success of their economies. Brazil had early success mainly because of their sugar which accounted for almost a third of their exports during 1821-30. They then suffered a long period of slight economic decline which lasted until the nineteenth century only to be revived by their production of natural rubber. Prior to 1900 Chile experienced a lack of success in their agriculture partially due to the Wars for Independece which stalled their trade with Peru, Santiago and others. Following this setback they experienced short term success exporting because of the California gold rush only to slow down again soon after. Argentina, like Brazil and Chile also had inconsistant progess in the early success of their economy. Argentinas main econmic progress started in 1880 and lasted until 1914. Argentina’s success was based on their supplying the industrial North Atlantic with meat and grain. They also made significant technological advances which allowed them to take advantage of their fertile pampas. Although their was success during this time Argentina’s inconsistency came when they lacked capital and labor. They soon solved this problem obtaining both labor and capital from Europe.
The ABC countries of Latin America have very fascinating histories. While they are strikingly similar in some regard, each nation has its own idiosyncrasies that make it stand out from the others.
One beaming example is the role of the military in the governments. On the surface, it seems that each military had a veto power over the selection of rulers. While this is true, in only one of the countries, Brazil, was the decision of the military so binding that it resulted in non-violent leader replacement. In Argentina and in Chile, leaders who were asked to step down would sometimes resist, resulting in defeat and exile.
Another example of some similarities and differences shared in the region are the ethnic and racial makeups of the populations. For example, Chile and Argentina have a very large white population (95% white/mestizo, 97% white, respectively). Brazil's makeup is very different because of the large influence of the slave trade (White 55%, Mulatto 38%, Black 6%).
One more example of some similarity and difference are the literacy rates in these countries. In Chile and Argentina, the rates are both at around 96%, while Brazil has only an 80% literacy rate. While this is purely hypothetical on my part, but it seems that with the wide margin in literacy rates, the prominant use of African slaves in Brazil may have left a large part of the population at a disadvantage, educationally, resulting in literacy rates that are far below many of its neighbors.
ABC countries are the fastest growing countries and the most industrized countries in Latian America. They are also have the highest GPA per capita.
To bigin with the population of each race. Compare to other two countries, Brazil has more mixed blood. Argentina and Chile is contains more pure white.
From economic perspective, even brazil's GDP per capita is the lowest among these three countries, Brazil is the most industrized among three. But there are huge government deficit and huge unemployment rate. Well, large Unemployment rate is a common thing among ABC countries. Farming is a common industries in ABC countries. But Brazil is tends to be more manufacture and Chile is tends to be more mining.
From historically perspective, Brazil was belong to portugal and other two countries were belong to Spain. I don't know this is the reason or not, Brazil got a lot more peaceful recent history.
In political perspective, Chile is in the highest rank. Chile got the earliest democracy. But during cold war, Chile is also the earliest communism country in Latin America.
With my posting being one of the last, most of the similarities and differences have already been pointed out. With that said you have two of the countries that being Argentina and Brazil that still to day have parties’ names after rulers that some would clam to be horrible people on human rights issues.
In Argentina and Brazil the military actually run the government at different points. It is more reluctant on the part of Brazil. Where as in Chile they stepped in at times put saw that it was not their place and got out as soon as they could.
Then you also have the things like wealth, where Argentina and Chile are better off then Brazil. You also have Brazil with a much larger gap between rich and poor. This may be a result of the literacy rate in the countries, Argentina and Chile are higher than that in Brazil
All of the ABC countries have similarities and differences, with respects to economy and political histories that we have discussed in class. One similarity that I found interesting was between the countries of Chile and Brazil. Throughout both of their rather recent political histories, they have had rulers that in one way or another impacted their countries in positive ways and are remembered for this. Vargas from Brazil and Pinochet from Chile are both thought of by their countries as having done some good, which is strange because of the way they achieved their status' respectively. Vargas led a strong regime in Brazil and through man trials and tribulations attempted to take control and fix and economy that was in despair. When the military finally kicked him out, he killed himself and was supposedly thought to be a hero for attempting to save his country even though he was ruthless at times. This is also the case with Pinochet in Chile, as he took over by force and controlled everything for a while as well. Even though he was harsh on many, he did lots of good for Chiles economy, and is thought to be an accomplished, respected ruly by many for doing so.
The first difference to point out among the ABC countries is the manner by which they achieved independence. Argentina and Chile achieved thier's through liberation, while Brazil aquired independence indirectly through Napolean's conquest of Spain and Portrugal. Secondly, it is significant to point out the difference in demographics. Argentina expierenced mass immigration from Europe, not so in Chile. Furthermore, Brazil's population was heavily influeced by slave immigration from Africa.
Socially all three countries share the fact that they were at one point or another, lead by powerful, charismatic leaders. Peron in Argentina, Vargas in Brazil, and Pinochet in Chile. It is significant to point out that Argentina enountered more caudillo politics then either of the other countires, and that shifts in power were more violent in Argentina then Brazil and Chile. Economically, Argentina and Brazil rely on agricluture, while Chile relyed heavliy on mining.
Post a Comment
<< Home