After many countries gained independence from the Colonialists, the Latin American countries set up independent governments. These Spanish colonies became republics, and as newly developed governments set up the institutions of caudillism. Charismatic military leaders were set up to control and rule a section of a country. These men were often stereotyped to be violent and unfair rulers, but part of their role was to be a mediator between both ends of society.
Until this week’s work, I had never heard of a Caudillo, however I formed the connection that it is somewhat similar to a noble in the old European empires or the Ottoman empire. The nobles would receive a piece of land, where they could create a little town and community, in which they would be able to use the land’s resources and make a profit for their warfare. This worked for the Ottomans just as well as it did in Latin America. Both had vast lands where Agriculture was an important element to their economic existence.
I am interested in the caudillo regarding their stance in between the elites and the poor, very much so the halfway point for both sides of society. A Guatemalan caudillo, Rafael Carrara in the nineteenth-century, not educated and a mestizo. He later pursued the conservative mindset as greed and wealth were exposed. I researched popular caudillos hoping to find a ruler who had a positive impact on a society, unfortunately, this proved to be very difficult.
Why is this?
I am sure there are many answers to this question and I hope to hear your input but, I feel as if there are many factors to why many of these caudillos were not beneficial to the entire society. I do not believe it is mainly because these men were military leaders, as there has been fair good leaders in the ranks. But I believe that it is incredibly difficult to find a “happy medium” in society, not everyone can be pleased and it is generally impossible for a ruler to humor two different groups in a society, especially when one is capitalistic.
All in all, the readings become more and more fascinating as we continue to acquire knowledge regarding Latin America, being able to make connections and gaining further understanding of this history.
You pose an interesting and also subjective question. I think that on a societal level, it’s hard to consider a caudillos as a positive impact. However, at an individual level, I think that a caudillo had a very positive (or rational) impact. As a poor, hungry individual trying to support a family, in a corrupt and disorganized governmental system, a caudillo is almost like your hero. Maybe not your hero, but definitely your only hope. If you wish to eat today, go to a (your) caudillo – he will secure an immediate and concrete solution. And, all you have to do as a poor peasant is support his political position (for as long as you live!).
I agree with the comment above regarding how caudillos provided certain people with what they needed at the time. I also think that they probably overall did not have a very positive impact because they only provided a temporary system that was driven by the caudillo’s self-interest. Once the caudillo had failed or passed away, it left groups of people on their own to find a new support system.