Tag Archives: Caudillos

Research Assignment Caudillos Group

Leave a reply

During the Week 5 readings about caudillos we examined how they were able to come to power and how the appeal of immediate and concrete rewards in exchange for military or political support from followers outweighed the abstract appeal of liberalism or citizenship. I was left wondering more about the socio-political structure of caudillismo and how it compared to the strict social stratification and order of colonial times. The essay, “Reconstruction of the Socio-Political Order After Independence in Latin America: A Reconsideration of Caudillo Politics in the River Plate”, by Valentina Ayrolo and Eduardo Miguez further explains these caudillismo dynamics.
Although, independence brought about many changes, the social hierarchies that existed during colonialism were largely the same with creoles being at or near the top. Creoles, wealthy landowners and those who had won military prestige became the new ruling class – the caudillos. What was different was the way in which social power was defined and achieved. One was no longer able to gain or hold power through class alone but now power was dictated by one’s ability to connect with rural people. In this sense, power was “ruralized”. The lower class peasants that made up the caudillos following included vagrants, farmers, former military men who had either deserted or lost another battle and freed slaves.
I wondered why rural, lower class people were so inclined to follow an elite leader with whom they had little in common and in some cases may have contributed to their oppression. According to their essay, the bond formed between caudillos and their followers was based on three main elements: the charisma of the leader, distribution of goods gained from pillage and the administration of justice. The charisma of the caudillo was ingrained in his ability to mobilize and garner the respect of the rural people through displays of courage, wisdom, cruelty to enemies and benevolence to allies. Caudillos had to tactfully distribute the bounty of their raids so to quell insurgencies and reward loyalty. The used mercy and justice as tools to demonstrate the return of having close ties with the caudillo. In this way, a strong patron-client relationship was established.
Furthermore, caudillismo was not specific to one political ideology as presented in our readings, there were Unitarian caudillos as well. The Federalist caudillos were more powerful and prominent as quintessential caudillo examples because the federalist ideology they pushed was so hyper-local that they and their followers saw even the neighbouring regions as being complete foreigners. I can see how this would forestall the generation of a national identity and government as we discussed in class. However, caudillismo did create a sort of social order in a time where anarchy was constantly on the brink.
The essay, “Reconstruction of the Socio-Political Order After Independence in Latin America: A Reconsideration of Caudillo Politics in the River Plate”, by Valentina Ayrolo and Eduardo Miguez illuminates the soci-political dynamics of caudillo rule in terms of the patron-client relationship, they background of caudillos and their followers and how caudilloism prevented national government.

Reference:
Ayrolo, Valentina, and Eduardo Miguez. Reconstruction. “Reconstruction of the Socio-Political Order After Independence in Latin America: A Reconsideration of Caudillo Politics in the River Plate”. Jahrbuch fur Geschichte Lateinamerikas, vol. 49, no. 1, 2013, pp. 107-131.

Research Assignment Caudillos Group

Leave a reply

During week 5, we learned about the era of caudillos in Latin America and how their reign forestalled the implementation of national government, democracy and modernization. We discussed the impact of the vacuum left by independence in creating this political phenomenon that became a corner stone in Latin American political history. However, there were many additional and key factors that contributed to the setting of caudillismo and to the rise of local strongmen. The essay, “Caudillismo: Identity Landmark of Hispanic American Authoritarian Political Culture” by Alina Titei outlines these additional factors.
The setting of caudiillismo was largely borne out of the chaos created by independence. Prior to independence, some historians theorize that the oppressive colonial rule and the legacy of conquistadors contributed to caudillismo. The Spanish monarch ruled with absolute power, encouraging and allowing conquistadors to rampage and pillage in the Americas. This effectively transferred these ideals to the New World, paving the way for this style of leadership and patron-client relations to later establish itself. Later on, during the independence movement, the violent uprisings and revolts by lower class indigenous and slaves as well as by creole elites seeking sovereign power from the Spanish “penninsulares” resulted in a breakdown of social order. Along with this, these wars for independence resulted in economic downturn leaving many in worse situations of poverty and/or without means to make a living. Finally, post-independence brought about a political and social vacuum in Latin American nations that had no historical political system of their own to draw on. Attempts to fill the void by adopting models of liberal constitutions from European nations largely failed and violence and wars ensued throughout Latin America. Altogether, these factors set the stage for the local strongman to take the lead.
Caudillos could not be just anybody, but again were characterized by specific factors and traits that led to their power. Caudillos were successful in rising to leadership roles if they were militarily successful, were able to connect with the local people through popularity and charisma, and were cruel to those who threatened their power. Caudillos had to be able to manage and provide the two most valuable resources at the time: land and protection. Often, caudillos came from wealthier families with a good portion of land and/or were very successful in battle and appointed to lead over the lower-class peoples by other creoles. With these factors and characteristics, local strongmen became successful caudillos.
Thus, in addition to the elements creating caudillajae and leading to the success of caudillos that we learned about in the readings and discussion of week 5, there were many other key factors involved outlined in the essay.

Reference:
Titei, Alina. “Caudillismo: Identity Landmark of Hispanic American Authoritarian Political Culture.” Philobiblon, vol. 18, no. 2, 2013, pp. 283-296.

 

Week 5 – Caudillos

1 Reply

I found this week’s discussion of the caudillos really interesting because I saw so many parallels between caudillos and clientelism with today’s political figures and government. Like many political fanatics, I have been trying to understand how Donald Trump won the presidency in the US last year, and after watching how he appeals to his base’s emotions of fear of immigrants and dislike of government or intellectual elites I have come to understand the power of emotional appeal in politics. So, when learning of how the caudillos quickly seized on the vacuum of social disorder created after independence I think I am more fully able to understand their appeal to the lower-class such as the Afro-Argentines or the Indians. Caudillos were charismatic leaders who garnered support by seemingly caring about the interests of those at the bottom in order to use them as military pons. Although it was not all bad for their followers, who did gain some protection, land and social order, when state structure became established caudillos who held power cast their follower’s because they were no longer need as militia. I feel this mirrors what often happens today. With Trump for example, who was elected as populist leader claiming to connect with the struggles of working-class white Americans, then once in power he hasn’t really enacted any policy that would help his base. Not only did caudillos seem to often exploit their followers, but they are also a primary reason that Latin American nations did not establish “proper” governments. Again, similarities with today’s populist leaders who tend to hold back progress in favour of traditional ways that they benefit from – the essence of the “make america great again” slogan.

On the other side of politics and culture in Latin America were those like Esteban Echeverria who yearned for Latin American nations to gain a stable federal government and follow European enlightenment. However, as our professor, Dr. Beasley-Murray so aptly put it, liberalism is very idilic and often hard to achieve in practice. For example, today in Canada or really anywhere in the world there are instances of inequality with minority groups like racial profiling or gender wage gaps despite the fact that equality is enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So even if a federal government and constitution could have been implemented they likely wouldn’t have been perfect in practice.

My question this week is about the liberal elites and how they felt about class and racial hierarchies. I am a little confused because I remember reading about how they partly disliked the caudillos e.g. de Rosas who embraced Afro-Argentines precisely because they were deeply racist but then at the same time wanted to establish government. To do this they promised Indians and other lower-classmen equal treatment under future law if they would side with them. So my question is, were the liberal elites racist and classist or did they want equality/constitution accompanying federally-structured social order?