Political Polarization In The 1940s-70s: A Case Study

Sofia Ruales (slr445) April 26, 2016
Part A: Political polarization in the 1940s-70s that led to different regimes in each country.
The political polarization in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile began with the economic crisis experienced in the 1930s, which led to political tension resulting in the emergence of populism and the inclusion of previously excluded population into the political system. The region abandoned export-based policies and it focused on a new model of development called Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Under ISI the state had a more active role in the development process by applying protectionist policies and owning enterprise. The initial stage of ISI was labor intensive and it had a strong domestic emphasis
On the other hand, ISI led to the development of an urban and working class who experience great inequality under an oligarchic political system. These factors cause increasing political tensions. Under this economic and political context, populism and incorporation became prominent in these countries. Populist were middle class people, who came to power by mobilizing the excluded masses, speaking against the oligarchy, implementing economic policies aligned with the initial stages of ISI, and advocating policies for the poor (Malloy, 12 and 13). Meanwhile, incorporation was the method in which populist leaders provided political representation to the excluded masses. Finally, it should explain that corporatism is the vertical hierarchy (top to bottom) approach that permits the state to organize and manage
Thus, these nations entered a second stage of ISI, which requires foreign capital investment. To accomplish this economic goal, Argentina and Chile became dependent on the investment of core nations, as described by the dependency theory. Given the economic context, the elites, who felt threatened by the radical demands of the working class, wanted to apply more orthodox economic policies to bring foreign capital investment. Additionally, the middle class became more dissatisfied with populist leaders because of the economic downturn. Ultimately, this lead to the coalition of the elites, middle class, and orthodox economist (bureaucrats) who through coups attempted to protect their interests by putting under control the social unrest and implement liberal policies. The combination of these two factions in Argentina and Chile, resulted in the bureaucratic authoritarianism regimes described by O’Donnell. In a sense, these new regimes were bureaucratic because they used the economic techniques of the technocrats, and they were authoritarian because the military was in charge of maintaining a stable society. The main objective of these bureaucratic authoritarian regimes was to change their society by weakening the left and strengthening the right. However, the execution of these aims differs