Blogs

I think the author does an excellent job in explaining that the Caudillos were “critical figures in societies torn by conflict, nations where citizens could not turn to civic institutions or processes to defend their interests” because that is a great description of Latin America back then but, more importantly, of modern Latin America. My impressionContinue reading "Week 5 – Caudillos vs the Nation State" read full post >>

In connection to last week’s post about the Latin American struggle for independence this week’s post is centred around the challenges for nation states that came with the new independence.This week’s reading and lecture were particularly interesting because they aimed to explain why during the19th century liberal ideas flourished in Europe but not in LatinContinue reading "Week 5: Caudillos Versus the Nation State" read full post >>

My blog post is an examination of the term caudillo. Admittedly, I had little knowledge of the term, so here is my investigation.

While there is no universal definition that fits every caudillo under all circumstances, scholars generally agree on a cluster of attributes that most caudillos shared and that together provide a viable working definition of the caudillo phenomenon. In general, a caudillo was a political-military strongman who wielded political authority and exercised political and military power by virtue of personal charisma, control of resources such as land and property, the personal loyalty of his followers and clients, reliance on extensive clientage networks, the capacity to dispense patronage and resources to clients, and personal control of the means of organized violence. The keyword is personal: a caudillo was a type of leader, marked by his style of leadership, and most defined by the personal nature of his rule. Constitutions, state bureaucracies, representative assemblies, periodic elections—these and other institutional constraints on individual and personal power, commonly associated with modern state forms, all were antithetical to the caudillo style of rule, while also often coexisting in tension with it. Ideology mattered little.

A good example of a caudillo is Rosas. Scion of an elite porteño (Buenos Aires) Creole family, Rosas left the port city as a young man to become a cattle rancher. Rosas was opposed to the liberal, unitarian, modernizing regime of Bernardino Rivadavia, whose policies were designed to make Buenos Aire's equal with the other provinces of the Río de la Plata. His opposition to Rivadavia was not rooted in ideology but in the belief that Buenos Aires should retain its superior power. With his base of support secure, Rosas allied with the federalists who overthrew Rivadavia. Soon after, he became the governor of Buenos Aires and then absolute dictator. His style of leadership was profoundly personal: All power and authority flowed directly from him.

There is no scholarly consensus on when the caudillo phenomenon ended, or even if it has ended. Some point to the first half of the 19th century as the heyday of caudillos and caudillismo; others argue that the phenomenon continued into the 20th century and after, transmuting into various forms of populism and dictatorship, and manifest in the likes of Juan Perón of Argentina, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Despite vigorous debates over definitions, origins, periodization, and other aspects, however, few disagree that understanding the phenomenon of the caudillo and caudillismo is essential to understanding the political evolution of post-independence Latin America. read full post >>

My blog post is an examination of the term caudillo. Admittedly, I had little knowledge of the term, so here is my investigation.

While there is no universal definition that fits every caudillo under all circumstances, scholars generally agree on a cluster of attributes that most caudillos shared and that together provide a viable working definition of the caudillo phenomenon. In general, a caudillo was a political-military strongman who wielded political authority and exercised political and military power by virtue of personal charisma, control of resources such as land and property, the personal loyalty of his followers and clients, reliance on extensive clientage networks, the capacity to dispense patronage and resources to clients, and personal control of the means of organized violence. The keyword is personal: a caudillo was a type of leader, marked by his style of leadership, and most defined by the personal nature of his rule. Constitutions, state bureaucracies, representative assemblies, periodic elections—these and other institutional constraints on individual and personal power, commonly associated with modern state forms, all were antithetical to the caudillo style of rule, while also often coexisting in tension with it. Ideology mattered little.

A good example of a caudillo is Rosas. Scion of an elite porteño (Buenos Aires) Creole family, Rosas left the port city as a young man to become a cattle rancher. Rosas was opposed to the liberal, unitarian, modernizing regime of Bernardino Rivadavia, whose policies were designed to make Buenos Aire's equal with the other provinces of the Río de la Plata. His opposition to Rivadavia was not rooted in ideology but in the belief that Buenos Aires should retain its superior power. With his base of support secure, Rosas allied with the federalists who overthrew Rivadavia. Soon after, he became the governor of Buenos Aires and then absolute dictator. His style of leadership was profoundly personal: All power and authority flowed directly from him.

There is no scholarly consensus on when the caudillo phenomenon ended, or even if it has ended. Some point to the first half of the 19th century as the heyday of caudillos and caudillismo; others argue that the phenomenon continued into the 20th century and after, transmuting into various forms of populism and dictatorship, and manifest in the likes of Juan Perón of Argentina, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Despite vigorous debates over definitions, origins, periodization, and other aspects, however, few disagree that understanding the phenomenon of the caudillo and caudillismo is essential to understanding the political evolution of post-independence Latin America. read full post >>

My blog post is an examination of the term caudillo. Admittedly, I had little knowledge of the term, so here is my investigation.While there is no universal definition that fits every caudillo under all circumstances, scholars generally agree on a clus... read full post >>

The Caudillos are reminiscent of modern day politicians. Their charismatic influence over their people, along with the retaliation against those... read full post >>

The Caudillos are reminiscent of modern day politicians. Their charismatic influence over their people, along with the retaliation against those... read full post >>

The reading this week certainly was interesting! Echeverría must have been extremely passionate in his criticism of the caudillo system, considering the incessant use of violence and gory imagery in his short story. The Slaughterhouse is told from the perspective of those he aims to criticise. I think the purpose of this was for Echeverría […] read full post >>

Independence of a nation state implies freedom and hope for a more unified future for the people. However in reality it is always more complicated than that. Breaking free from the colonial power, ‘The Spanish Royals’, proved to derail much of the central authority in Latin America. Since it was the Creole elites who leadContinue reading "Week 5: Same Same but Different" read full post >>

Liberalism in Latin America was far from being as popular as it was in North America. Even today, I would say liberalism still makes a good portion of Latin American people look the other way. Much like it was said on the video, Latin America has a big a relatively recent history of slavery, and […] read full post >>