To me, the popularity of the Caudillos seems understandable. In a political landscape as chaotic as post independence Latin America, any sort of leadership that can offer some form of stability, or chance of protection must have been tempting. I do find it funny however, that the independence of the region strengthened the dependence of its people on powerful individuals for survival. Can a nation as a whole really be independent so long as its people are not equal? And yes, you could argue that the Caudillos relied upon their “Clients” for popular support, but the power dynamic was very much unbalanced. Comparing individuals, any one common citizen held nowhere near the power of any Caudillo. Today, certain members of society, be it prime ministers or presidents, have more power than an average citizen, but there is a substantial difference between the two societies- we choose our officials, and with their power comes a certain degree of responsibility- a responsibility to protect the best (or most popular) interests of their people. Caudillos had no such responsibility. They would have protected their own interests at all costs- and citizens would just have had to hope that their well being was included in those! However, when forced to pick between starvation, or having a patron, the details start to become less important. When survival is the goal, all ends justify the means. Other rewards sweeten the deal too. Preferential treatment from the law, or in business are nothing to sniff at, and as long as you are the one benefiting from the system, it is very hard to see the flaws in it. Instead of having a system set up to ensure the prosperity of the masses, Caudillos would believe that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. While it is true that our politics are often less than ideal, at least we set our standard fairly high. To begin with a system like Caudillos seems to me like a good way of inviting some of the worst human tendencies- those of greed, endless ambition, and cold apathy in the face of others suffering. Such a political structure is rife with the possibility of abuse, and those who are the most vulnerable are also those who have the least ability to fight back- the poor and marginalized in society. Throw in the fact that you also have to worry about rival Caudillos ruining your day, and the system seems especially unappealing.
Thanks for reading
Hey! I also think the popularity of Caudillos is very valid since the poor and powerless were also technically gaining from this dependable system. I find your question intriguing about whether or not a nation can genuinely be independent if the people aren’t. In my opinion, even though a nation may technically be independent, I wouldn’t consider it as such unless the citizens were as well. In this case, I believe caudillos prevented true independence.
Hi! I found the comparison between our leaders and the Caudillos to be interesting, we definitely have more choice now in who leads us and our leaders do have more of a reponsibility to the people. I think the Caudillos (while they were still Caudillos and not government officials as some went on to become) they were forced to listen to at least some of the needs of the people because the people essentially supplied them with their power. However, that is not to say that the Caudillos always listened or treated the people well and it’s not like the people had much of a choice of who to follow/support to begin with.
Hi! I believe that looking at things now it is quite evident that the Caudillos were more likely to pursue their own self-interest over those of the people they lead. However, I believe it would have been difficult to make this distinction at that time and under the circumstances–especially since the Caudillos were idolized. Even if they had did identify the Caudillos motives, I believe the benefits they gave the people would have outweighed the risk.