Foundations of Political Contrast Costa Rica and Nicaragua
| Date | 01 September 1958 |
| Author | James L. Busey |
| Published date | 01 September 1958 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591295801100313 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
627
FOUNDATIONS
OF
POLITICAL
CONTRAST
COSTA
RICA
AND
NICARAGUA*
JAMES
L.
BUSEY
University
of
Colorado
URING
THE
PAST
FEW
YEARS
the
scholarship
performed
in
the
field
of
comparative
government
and
politics
has
come
in
for
JL-~
its
fair
share
of
criticism.
It
has
been
contended
by
academic
critics
that
comparative
government
is
often
not
comparative
at
all
-
that
it
is
full
of
dry,
nonsignificant
description,
without
meaningful
comparison
or
con-
clusion.
It
is
argued
that
many
of
its
materials
are
simply
massive
data,
or
quantitative
research.
It
is
contended,
furthermore,
that
much
so-called
comparative
govern-
ment
study
is
too
formalized,
with
a
stress
on
constitutional
phraseology
rather
than
on
political
reality.
Comparative
government
scholarship
has
also
been
criticized
for
its
failure
to
examine
causality,
to
at
least hypothe-
size
concerning
basic
reasons
for
the
rather
persistent
presence
or
absence
of
various
types
of
political
phenomena -
democracy
or
dictatorship,
single-
party
or
multi-party
systems
order
or
chaos,
monarchism
or
republicanism,
and
so
forth
-
in
various
parts
of
the
world.
Finally,
the
study
of
comparative
government
has
been
charged
with
extreme
parochialism,
in
that
-
in
contrast
to
studies
by
historians,
anthro-
pologists,
economists,
humanists,
and
so
forth
-
it
stresses
a
few
European
governments
and
little
else.’
On
the
matter
of
parochialism,
it
may
be
charged
with
some
validity
that
much
comparative
government
study
not
only
confines
itself
to
Europe
alone,
but
within
Europe
stresses
only
those
few
countries
which
happen
to
be
journalistically
prominent.
These
are
generally
Great
Britain,
France,
Germany,
and
the
Soviet
Union.
In
this
case,
it
is
the
squeaky
wheel
that
gets
the
academic
grease.2
* Presented
as
a
paper,
Rocky
Mountain
Council
for
Latin
American
studies,
Provo,
Utah,
April
12,
1958.
1
For
elaboration
on
these
and
other
criticisms
of
the
present
condition
of
comparative
government,
see
C.
B.
Macpherson,
"World
Trends
in
Political
Science
Research,"
American
Political
Science
Review,
XLVIII
(June, 1954),
427
ff.;
"Research
in
Com-
parative
Politics,"
American
Political
Science
Review,
XLVII
(September,
1953),
641
ff.;
George
T.
McT.
Kahin
et
al.,
"Research
in
Comparative
Politics,"
American
Political
Science
Review,
XLIX
(December,
1955),
1024
ff.;
and
Roy
C.
Macridis,
The
Study
of
Comparative
Government
(New
York:
Random
House
Short
Studies
in
Political
Science,
1955).
2
On
this
see
any
standard
textbook,
e.g.,
Gwendolen
M.
Carter
et
al.,
Major
Foreign
Powers
(3rd
ed.;
New
York:
Harcourt,
Brace,
1957);
Herman
Finer,
Governments
of
Greater
European
Powers
(New
York:
Holt,
1956);
Normal
L.
Hill
et
al.,
The
Back-
ground
of
European
Governments
(3rd
ed.;
New
York:
Rinehart,
1951);
Lionel
Laing
et
al.,
Source
Book
in
European
Government
(New
York:
Sloane,
1950);
Robert
G.
Neumann,
European
and
Comparative
Government
(New
York:
McGraw-Hill,
1955);
James
T.
Shotwell
et
al.,
The
Governments
of
Continental
Europe
(rev.
ed.;
628
It
would
be
foolhardy
indeed
to
contend
that
nothing
of
academic
im-
portance
is
to
be
learned
about
government
or
politics
from
such
rarely
studied
European
countries
as
Norway,
Portugal,
Spain,
Belgium,
Switzer-
land,
Finland,
or
even
Andorra.
Indeed,
it
will
be
the
burden
of
this
paper
to
show
that
some
quite.
significant
causal
hypotheses
can
be
formulated
by
applying
comparative
method
to
the
examination
of
government
and
politics
in
at
least
two
&dquo;unimportant,&dquo;
even
non-European,
countries.
The
countries
in
this
case
will
be
Nicaragua
and
Costa
Rica.
The
hypotheses
will
have
to
do
with
the
causal
factors
underlying
democracy
or
the
lack
of
it
in
these
two
states.
MEANING
OF
TERMS
We
need
spend
no
time
here
wrestling
over
the
&dquo;true&dquo;
meaning
of
democracy.
As
was
pointed
out
by
an
American
reformer
almost
eighty
years
ago,
&dquo;it
makes
little
difference
what
name
we
give
to
things,
if
when
we
use
the
name
we
always
keep
in
view
the
same
things
and
no
others.&dquo;
3
In
this
paper,
then,
the
following
will
be
the
meaning
of
the
noun
&dquo;democ-
racy&dquo;
or
the
adjective
&dquo;democratic&dquo;:
A
political
condition
where
the
maxi-
mum
possible
numbers
of
people
enjoy
the
maximum
possible
degree
of
f reedom
of
choice,
political
and
social
participation,
and
security
of
the
rule
of
law,
during
the
maximum
possible
time.
It
will
not
be
the
contention
here
that
any
political
condition
can
be
called
fully
&dquo;democratic&dquo;
or
fully
&dquo;undemocratic&dquo;
by
the
above
definition
or
by
any
other.
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
some
few
democratic
elements
are
to
be
found
in
even
the
most
extreme
dictatorship,
as
in
the
Soviet
Union
or
in
the
late
Nazi
Germany;
and
that
some
few
undemocratic
ele-
ments
are
to
be
discovered
in
even
the
most
&dquo;democratic&dquo;
of
political
condi-
tions,
as
in
Sweden,
Switzerland,
or
New
Zealand.
In
this
matter
of
&dquo;democracy&dquo;
or
the
lack
of
it,
it
is
clear
to
almost
all
scholars
that
all
is
a
world
of
shadows,
that
there
are
no
sharp
extremes.
Harry
B.
Murkland
expressed
this
well
when
he
referred
to
distinctions
be-
tween
Costa
Rica
and
her
neighbors:
The
contrast
is
so
striking
that
there
is
a
tendency
to
exaggerate
it.
Costa
Rica
has
fewer
political
disorders
and
at
wider
intervals
than
the
other
Central
American
Repub-
lics.
But
it
still
has
them.
There
are
serious
economic
and
political
problems
to
be
solved.
This
is
not
the
Perfect
State
and
it
is
doing
the
country
no
favor
to
so
regard
it.
Its
real
accomplishments
are
great
enough
without
building
them
up
to
an
inevitable
letdown.4
New
York:
Macmillan,
1952).
Some
slightly
more
exploratory
texts
would
include
William
Bennett
Munro
and
Morley
Ayearst,
The
Governments
of
Europe
(4th
Ed.;
New
York:
Macmillan,
1954),
and
Frederic
A.
Ogg
and
Harold
Zink,
Modern
Foreign
Governments
(2nd
ed.;
New
York:
Macmillan,
1953).
A
book
which
really
gets
around
a
good
part
of
the
world
is
Fritz
Morstein
Marx,
Foreign
Governments
(2d
ed.;
New
York:
Prentice
Hall,
1952).
3
Henry
George,
Progress
and
Poverty
(1879)
(75th
Anniversary
Edition;
New
York:
Schalkenbach,
1955),
p.
37.
4
"Costa
Rica:
Fortunate
Society,"
Current
History,
XXII
(March,
1952),
141.
629
Nor
is
it
suggested
here
that
&dquo;democracy&dquo;
is
only
a
&dquo;political
condition.&dquo;
It
is
also
a
social,
economic,
cultural,
and
psychological
condition.
It
is
a
whole
way
of
life.
Confinement
to
the
political
aspects
of
&dquo;democracy&dquo;
results
only
from
an
obvious
need
to
limit
the
subject-matter
of
the
paper
and
to
decently
adhere
to
the
field
of
political
science.
What
will
be
contended
herein
is
that
political
conditions
can
be
ar-
ranged
in
some
sort
of
spectrum,
from
the
most
&dquo;democratic&dquo;
to
the
least
&dquo;democratic&dquo;;
5 that
although
no
political
condition
can
be
put
at
either
far
extreme
of
the
continuum,
many
can
be
placed
somewhere
near
one
end
or
the
other;
that
the
above
definition
can
serve
as
a
convenient
and
not
entirely
inaccurate
device
for
determining
which
is
to
go
where;
that
the
Republic
of
Nicaragua
can
be
placed
somewhere
near
the
&dquo;undemo-
cratic&dquo;
end
of
the
spectrum;
that
Costa
Rica
can
be
located
in
somewhat
closer
proximity
to
the
&dquo;democratic&dquo;
end;
that
it
is
possible
to
hypothesize
as
to
why
these
two
neighbors
are
so
different
from
each
other;
and
that
the
results
of
such
an
examination
can
be
significant,
even
though
the
states
in
question
are
not
major
European
powers.
COSTA
RICA,
NICARAGUA,
AND
THEIR
REPUTATIONS
It
is
understandable
that
no
two
sources
appear
to
agree
exactly
regard-
ing
the
areas
and
populations
of
Costa
Rica
and
Nicaragua.
The
population
of
Costa
Rica
seems
now
to
be
a
bit
less
than
1,000,000;
that
of
Nicaragua
something
over
1,200,000.
The
area
of
Costa
Rica
is
a
little
more
than
19,600
square
miles
-
about
one-and-one-half
times
the
size
of
The
Netherlands;
that
of
Nicaragua,
just
over
57,100
square
miles - a
few
thousand
square
miles
larger
than
Greece
or
Czechoslovakia
6
Both
countries
are
in
Central
America,
and
they
are
adjacent
to
one
another.
Nicaragua
is
joined
on
her
northwestern
boundary
by
Honduras:
Costa
Rica
is
bounded
on
the
southeast
by
Panama.
Both
have
shores
on
the
Pacific
and
on
the
Caribbean;
both
are
mountainous
and
volcanic;
both
possess
hot,
damp,
lowland
areas,
and
in
both
are
highlands
where
relief
from
the
heat
is
available.
Both
are
subject
to
frequent
earthquakes.
In
both,
Spanish
is
the
official
and
widely
spoken
language,
and
both
societies
5
For
more
light
on
the
arrangement
of
governments
according
to
their
"democratic"
or
"undemocratic"
character,
see
Russell
H.
Fitzgibbon,
"A
Statistical
Evaluation
of
Latin
American
Democracy,"
Western
Political
Quarterly,
IX
(September,
1956),
607-19;
and
J.
L.
Busey,
"Political
Terminologies
Revised,"
Social
Studies,
XLVI
(November,
1955),
257-59.
6
Harry
Hansen
(ed.),
The
World
Almanac
and
Book
of
Facts
for
1957
(New
York:
World-Telegram,
1957),
pp.
404
and
430;
Committee
on
Latin
American
Studies,
University
of
California
at
Los
Angeles,
Statistical
Abstract
of
Latin
America
for
1956
(U.C.L.A.,
1957),
p.
4;
and
Walter
H.
Mallory
(ed.),
Political
Handbook
of
the
World
(New
York:
Harper,
for
Council
on
Foreign
Relations,
1957),
pp.
44
and
142.
This
latter
source
indicates
32,000
square
miles
for
the
area
of
Costa
Rica,
which
is
obviously
in
error.
To continue reading
Request your trial