Violence as a Power Factor in Latin-American Politics

• Date: 01 September 1952
• Published date: 01 September 1952
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295200500307
• Author: William S. Stokes
• Subject Matter: Articles

VIOLENCE AS A POWER FACTOR IN LATIN-
AMERICAN POLITICS*
WILLIAM S. STOKES
University of Wisconsin
INTRODUCTION
IOLENCE
seems to be institutionalized in the organization, main-
tenance, and changing of governments in Latin America. The
’
methodology of force is found in advanced and in backward coun-
tries, in Indian, mestizo, and white republics, in the large states and in the
small ones, in urban and in rural areas, in agricultural and in industrial
organization, in the beginning of the twentieth century, in the present
period, and in the early, middle, and late nineteenth century-in a word,
wherever and whenever Hispanic culture is to be found in the Western
Hemisphere. The governments of the following states were changed by
force in the recent past: Argentina, June, 1943; Haiti, January, 1946;
Bolivia, July, 1946, and April, 1952; Nicaragua, May, 1947; Ecuador,
August, 1947; Costa Rica, March, 1948; Paraguay, June, 1948; Peru,
October, 1948; Venezuela, November, 1948; Panama, November, 1948;
El Salvador, December, 1948; and Cuba, March, 1952.
Force is a unifying factor in Latin-American political culture, yet the
fact of geographical and ethnic differences and of varying rates of social
and economic development leads to the logical inference that the mobiliza-
tion of violence for political purposes is not likely to revolve around one
simple formula. This is, however, exactly what is done when the general
term &dquo;revolution&dquo; is employed to describe all use of force in Latin-Amer-
ican politics. Violence is, instead, a highly developed technique for ob-
taining power. Direct action procedures include machetismo, cuartelazo,
golpe de estado, and revolution. The monopolization of the power factors
of the state by a single political leader, a group, or a class sometimes
renders unnecessary the direct employment of violence, and in such cases
the methods of imposici6n, candidato único, continuismo and election (in
the Anglo-American sense) may be selected. These are, of course, out-
wardly peaceful methods of obtaining and maintaining power, but they
rest upon a foundation of force.
The study of the nature of political power and the methods of achieving
authority in the state constitutes a fundamental part of comparative gov-
ernment. In addition, such study has a direct relevancy to inter-American
relations. American policy in the Western Hemisphere seems to be
*Research on this study has been supported in part by the Research Committee of the Graduate School
of the University of Wisconsin from special funds voted by the State Legislature.
445

---

446
predicated on the assumption that we cannot realize our objectives unless
there is political kinship among the countries, at least in respect to the
mobilization and organization of power. Indeed, there has long existed
an aggressive desire to consider the Latin-American countries democracies
in the political sense, equipped by tradition and experience to organize
governments, appoint personnel, formulate policies and administer the
functions of the state in response to mechanized formulae for measuring
opinion, such as elections.
Dr. Alberto Lleras Camargo, Secretary General of the Organization of
American States, declared in 1950:
in
...
spite of certain contrary practices in the internal politics of some American
states, not a single one of them has in all its history repudiated the juridical concept
of representative democracy.’
The &dquo;revolutionary&dquo; phenomenon to which Dr. Lleras refers by in-
direction is usually described as an accidental and temporary deviation
from normal processes in politics. Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge
Long underlined this rationale in 1941, when he proclaimed:
The American peoples are fortunate that a solid foundation for this common
defense exists in their mutual adherence to the Pan-American ideal. That ideal is the
natural product of similarities of origin, of parallel development, of geographic proximity,
and of mutual interest in the preservation of their democratic tradition and their in-
dependent existence.’
As recently as December 21, 1948, the Department of State took this
stand:
In the view of the government of the United States, the use of force as an instru-
ment of political change is not only deplorable, but it is usually inconsistent with the
acknowledged ideals of the American republics and increasingly a danger to all the
countries of this hemisphere.’
It is well known that much of the Good Neighbor Policy was based on
the assumption of kinship with the Latin-American countries, including
the area of politics and government. And Article 5 (d) of the Charter of
the Organization of American States reads, &dquo;The solidarity of the Amer-
ican States and the high aims which are sought through it require the
political organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise
of representative democracy.&dquo;
Although these points of view should be considered seriously, there
are grounds for wondering whether they do not represent dangerous
delusion, based more upon hope and aspiration than upon evidence and
understanding. At the very least the research scholar and the practitioner
in international relations alike should attempt to reconcile the fact of force
1
Pan-American Union, Annual Report of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States
for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1950 (Washington, D.C.: Pan-American Union, 1950), p. 3.
2 Department of State Bulletin (April 19, 1941). Italics supplied.
3
Havana Post, December 22, 1948, p. 10.

---

447
with such idealized interpretations of Latin-American politics. The primary
objective of this paper is to describe the anatomy of violence in Latin-
American politics. In addition, the implications of such violence in inter-
national relations must be subjected to some examination.
&dquo;MACHETISMO&dquo;
Machetismo is a crude, primitive method of mobilizing violence pri-
marily in local, rural politics but occasionally in national, urban areas as
well. The term emanates from the word &dquo;machete,&dquo; the general utility
knife employed widely throughout Latin-America. In an extractive, agri-
cultural economy guaranteeing little more than subsistence to the majority
of the people, poverty is seldom or ever so great as to deny the rural
resident his machete. It is a major implement in the construction of
habitation, the production of foodstuffs, and in the establishment of politi-
cal power. To survive, the rural inhabitant must develop proficiency in
its use, and the process of becoming expert begins as a child. Whoever
can command the authority represented by the machete in rural areas
possesses political power of an important nature and automatically con-
stitutes a factor to be reckoned with in the affairs of government.
If it could be demonstrated that no political leader has exercised
sufficient discipline over the rural masses to employ their collective strength
in direct action, then it might be possible to argue that machetismo no
longer characterizes Latin-American rural politics. However, leadership
of a highly personal nature can readily be observed in Latin America.
The matters that vitally concern the rural resident include distribution of
government patronage, rights to water holes and grazing areas, military
service to the central government, road building in lieu of payment of
taxes, and adjudication of social disputes. In many instances, the leader
who exercises authority and issues judgments on such issues is the alcalde,
jefe de operaciones militares, comandante de armas, or official in the
church hierarchy. But on the other hand the political leader might very
well possess no official position at all. That his power exists there is no
denying; his authority is so well known that almost anyone in the area of
his jurisdiction can identify him as el que manda (the one who com-
mands). This kind of absolutist personal leadership is local, rural caudil-
lismo.
Many writers, Latin-Americans included, have associated caudillismo
with the violent struggle for leadership among the generals in the early
independence period, and hence terms such as the &dquo;Age of the Caudillos,&dquo;
and &dquo;Men on Horseback&dquo; are common in historical literature. It is correct
to define caudillismo as a principle of personal leadership in politics, but
it cannot be restricted to any one age or period in Latin-American history.

---

448
Indeed, its origins are to be traced in part at least to the feudal institutions
of Spain and Portugal and to the nature of government in the colonial
period. Caudillismo as personal authority, as a substitute for direction
and control by institutional means, such as law, is to be found in all
periods of Latin-American development, including the present. Nor is it
accurate to think of the caudillo solely as a man on horseback, for he may
be a civilian, such as Carlos Antonio L6pez of Paraguay, Garcia Moreno of
Ecuador, Estrada Cabrera of Guatemala, and Fulgencio Batista of Cuba
(who although a sergeant in the army did not even learn to ride a horse
until after he had first achieved powerl).
The determinants of leadership in Latin-American politics have never
been investigated with sufficient objectivity and scholarship to permit
definitive generalizations. How are personal qualities, education and pro-
fessional training, religious and other social beliefs, location in a rural or
urban area, and affiliation with organizations and institutions related to...