Week 5: Cuadillos vs. the Nation State
I found it quite intriguing how initially, there were such different views for the future of Latin America held by opposing parties. on part due to the fragmentation of the homeland and destruction of previous governing ideas. Caudillos had a very narrow, immediate outlook on solutions to their problems with very localized thinking. I don’t necessarily know if id agree with their thinking. Liberals at the time, on the other hand had more abstract ways of thinking. As for the time, institutionalized forms of government weren’t as prominent as they are today and thats exactly how they foresaw the future of Latin America.
A caudillo was a ruler of a politically distinct territory who governed forces through an informal system of sustained obedience, based on a paternalistic relationship between the subordinates and the leader, who attained his position as a result of his forceful personality charisma. I learned that a Caudillos image is vital for maintaining his power and that people didn’t necessarily follow any abstract concept associated with the Caudillo, however followed the individual himself.
Trying to form a liberal based government directly after conflict for independence was bound to fail, hence why caudilloism took foot hold across Latin America. Liberalistic ideas wouldn’t have been able to satisfy the needs of the infant society of the time. life under a Caudillo was all they could conceive, with action and rewards coming immedietly
I believe there is a solid agreement of the faults associated with this type of government and I guess my question would be (probably along with others) how long can this system last.
Hey! I agree with you that Caudillos provided a very narrow and immediate satisfaction which is why I think it worked so well in post-independent Latin America. I wonder however if liberalism would’ve taken hold in Latin American countries had they become independent later in history.
I agree with both of you that Caudillos provided the quickest answer to Latin America’s post-colonial political issues. They were similar enough to having a king/emperor to make for an easier transition. For me, I don’t think that liberalism would’ve taken hold in Latin Americca if they had become independent later in history because I believe the main reason why there were a lot of caudillos was because there weren’t any proper governmentalinsitutions in place after independence and the countires had to start from scratch. They also didn’t have a central leadership nor did everyone have the same views on how to progress. This is why I think that caudillos were so popular, because they quickly helped bring some sense of structure.