Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Yeah. Britain was having some trouble with American colonies in this period. British =/= better. Especially in this early period.
A Much Stronger Latin-America
- Thread starter 9 Fanged Hummingbird
- Start date
Yeah. Britain was having some trouble with American colonies in this period. British =/= better. Especially in this early period.
And what, worship of autocracy makes sense? The fact is that Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time, Stalin didn't gird the Soviet Union with steel using his mustache and Mao has almost nothing to do with the success of the modern day PRC. At the same time, the electoral college probably isn't the reason for our success.
I wasn't saying that democracy is some sinecure- and it has failed and does fail. (That is clear) But autocracy isn't any better. Both of them fail about equally given certain situations, because some situations simply do not have any good outcome. I believe that the society underneath has to change before the government can do much of anything- dictatorship or no, that's how it is. Almost all examples of change from above have been abject failures, with terrible consequences.
And the PRC, as it existed and exists, requires a different era of history, and so isn't a valid example for the period.
Now, as to HRE's suggestion, it runs into quite a few issues. Who is to take up the administration of your benevolent autocrat's regime? Many people aren't literate and have no background in administering anything, period. Criollos are basically cast out, taking their wealth and educations with them. There isn't a long-standing civil service tradition among the lower classes.
You have a couple of options- either the Criollos who are radicals and who in OTL pissed off the peasantry with a number of their ideas and policies or the associates of the benevolent dictato, with him as patron. Either one brings up problems of how well he can do anything towards the supposed goal.
I wasn't saying that democracy is some sinecure- and it has failed and does fail. (That is clear) But autocracy isn't any better. Both of them fail about equally given certain situations, because some situations simply do not have any good outcome. I believe that the society underneath has to change before the government can do much of anything- dictatorship or no, that's how it is. Almost all examples of change from above have been abject failures, with terrible consequences.
And the PRC, as it existed and exists, requires a different era of history, and so isn't a valid example for the period.
Now, as to HRE's suggestion, it runs into quite a few issues. Who is to take up the administration of your benevolent autocrat's regime? Many people aren't literate and have no background in administering anything, period. Criollos are basically cast out, taking their wealth and educations with them. There isn't a long-standing civil service tradition among the lower classes.
You have a couple of options- either the Criollos who are radicals and who in OTL pissed off the peasantry with a number of their ideas and policies or the associates of the benevolent dictato, with him as patron. Either one brings up problems of how well he can do anything towards the supposed goal.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Democracy isn't a magic button you can push. It took our society 1,000 years to get there - if you impose it where it hasn't even taken root yet, all you do is upset an established order that could one day have become a democracy in favor of a revolutionary situation that's likely to lead to chaos and/or autocracy, just with new autocrats.
Try being a bit more polite. You will note that AHP's response was only 3 minutes away from your other post, it's likely that he wrote his post while you were posting yours.
Bizarre trolling is worse than "not nice", and one sentence equating absolutism and democracy is neither fanatical nor worship.
All right, I stand corrected about that.
My main problem is how many people always assume that democracy can be applied for any kind of situation and society, and that democracy can always work. It's just exactly like Pasha has just said. There have to be several requirements achieved in order to make democracy workable. Good size of middle class population, a degree of egalitarianism and social uniformity, etc. And, most crucially, the already established of appropriate culture and/or tradition to base a good democracy on. One of all those not present, democracy will not be stable, and will eventually roll on into autocracy again. One more thing that quite as many people has never been able to get an idea about, is that autocracy can result in the requirments for democracy achieved, and thus will shake the said autocracy off to be then be replaced by democracy. Autocracy is just generally a more efficient way to achieve things, really. Especially if used competently. And a ruthless, paranoid control freak can actually be competent !!
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
You need to work on your social skills - I was obviously responding to your earlier post. I agree with what you said in the one above, except you're going to extremes. A dictator doesn't have to be Hitler, he can also be an oligarchic primus inter pares. Most dictators have checks and balances on their power imposed by notables and other power centers, like the Church, etc.
When the Latin American states rebelled, nobody really had much in the way of democracy - even in the US the electorate was pretty limited. A democratic regime on the heels of an absolutist monarchy in a low-literacy population with massive geographic spread is a tall order.
But often times they aren't competent, it is not done well, and they end up making more of a mess of things than anyone else could've.
You can't assume some ideal of a benevolent dictatorship any more than you can assume an ideal of a perfect, slapped-on liberal democracy.
And AHP, HRE's suggestion would bring all of the same problems a rapid onset of democracy would- and pair them with the problems endemic to autocracies. A French Revolution in Mexico. The worst of both worlds.
You can't assume some ideal of a benevolent dictatorship any more than you can assume an ideal of a perfect, slapped-on liberal democracy.
And AHP, HRE's suggestion would bring all of the same problems a rapid onset of democracy would- and pair them with the problems endemic to autocracies. A French Revolution in Mexico. The worst of both worlds.
One of the most important difference between autocracy and democracy :
- However good the basics, autocracy will principally never give secure confirmation that the future under it will be good.
- In democracy, when the basics are not good enough, the result of democratic application over the said country is guaranteed to be as not good enough.
Actually we're not as much contradictive in our opinions with each other, apparently, since you acknowledge that rapid onset to democracy won't be good. It's basically my point. It's just that it'll be more efficient to have a ruthless authoritarian to unintentionally lay a good enough standing ground for the following democratic regime.
However, I don't think Pasha was saying what you may think he said...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Well, there is a middle ground between autocracy and democracy. An oligarchic state with a limited franchise could have its merits - but a lot of people in this thread are taking ideological positions rather than addressing reality. You're not going to see a full-fledged democracy in Latin America in 1811, nor is anything as simple as Church vs state, democracy vs autocracy, etc. Government is about compromise and negotiation, even for dictators. That's why Saddam Hussein could run Iraq, but we couldn't. He knew all the local players, and had balanced and worked out his relations with them.
The thing is, most of the time, such ruthless autocrats make more problems than they solve AND set up problems for any future democracy. There can be "benign" dictators, who rule by tradition and don't attempt to reshape society, but that is clearly different from what Hre is suggesting here. He's suggesting a "democratization" through autocracy- hence, its the worst of both worlds. Bringing unnecessary but necessarily bloody class conflict and the impatience of poor democracies with all of the structural deficiencies of an autocracy. A French Revolution. A Haitian Revolution.
And what did I misunderstand from AHP?
Except Hre's suggestion is someone who goes out of his way to quash existing power groups and bring, if you will, "power to the people". There are no power structures in place for the lower classes of Mexico, there would only be the State, the Mob and the illiterate caudillos and ward-bosses who rode in on the coat-tails.
Again, see above.
OTL's Mexican Independence didn't see a huge difference in the change of power, and showed the limits of a centralized autocracy over a huge geographical spread. Oh, they tried a veneer of democracy, but it was often an autocracy nonetheless.
And what did I misunderstand from AHP?
Except Hre's suggestion is someone who goes out of his way to quash existing power groups and bring, if you will, "power to the people". There are no power structures in place for the lower classes of Mexico, there would only be the State, the Mob and the illiterate caudillos and ward-bosses who rode in on the coat-tails.
Again, see above.
OTL's Mexican Independence didn't see a huge difference in the change of power, and showed the limits of a centralized autocracy over a huge geographical spread. Oh, they tried a veneer of democracy, but it was often an autocracy nonetheless.
I don't think Hresvlgr is suggesting exactly for democratization through autocracy, just for a good ground suitable for an effectively functioning democracy being laid by ruthless radical autocrat, most likely unintentionally.
Well returning to the OP, I think another chance its a larger, nastier war of independence. IMHO the worst problem they had its that the war was fought by the guys who ruled "in name of ... " and they used to rule by themselves, with no external interference. If some of the loyalist keep fighting, this time for their rights ( they have quite a number of natives and less privileged in their ranks ) ...
If the war keeps for too long they will have to start to need to reach a compromise ( not with the Spanish, who were out by then ), at least in one of the most influential countries, say Mexico or Greater Colombia, if that happens, you can really had a much less convulsed time for this nations ( and in the case of G Colombia, its heirs too ).
If it works , i am sure that the neighbors with people without access to fundamental rights are going to start to ask ( heavily ) for their rights ...
If the war keeps for too long they will have to start to need to reach a compromise ( not with the Spanish, who were out by then ), at least in one of the most influential countries, say Mexico or Greater Colombia, if that happens, you can really had a much less convulsed time for this nations ( and in the case of G Colombia, its heirs too ).
If it works , i am sure that the neighbors with people without access to fundamental rights are going to start to ask ( heavily ) for their rights ...
Greater Colombia(Gran Colombia) influential? It was a patchwork state forced by Bolivar onto 4 different states with regional differences, disputes, and other matters. Gran Colombia was far from influential, it was one of the very first skeleton states in Latin America, that, when kicked, smashed to pieces, territorially and politically.
Spain needed a more democratic government
i wondered this same question of why the u.s. turned into a super power while latin america sank. Then the answer came, while Great Britain had a more democratic system in their monarchy ( remember magna carta) it passed this on to it's off spring nations ( the u.s., canada, australia, etc) Spain on the other hand was absolute monarchy so it's colonies did not gain a sense of democracy. This is also why the U.S. was able to keep together while latin america broke off into separate nations.
i wondered this same question of why the u.s. turned into a super power while latin america sank. Then the answer came, while Great Britain had a more democratic system in their monarchy ( remember magna carta) it passed this on to it's off spring nations ( the u.s., canada, australia, etc) Spain on the other hand was absolute monarchy so it's colonies did not gain a sense of democracy. This is also why the U.S. was able to keep together while latin america broke off into separate nations.
Its not really the "democracy", its the other societal traits passed on.
I know its going to sound like "rugged individualism" or "American Exceptionalism" but Britain's relatively hands-off method of colonial administration did have an effect on the success of the American colonies. There's always the counter-examples (Much of Canada, where HM's government had a bit more of an effect), so that can't just be it- but there were clearly a few things wrong with the method of Spanish administration.
Perhaps giving Latin America a little longer before independence where they "stretch their legs" in administration, with loosened up trading restrictions and caste systems? I'm not talking a conscious effort on Spain's part, just something that prevents them from exercising such a heavy hand.
There's also some technological effects to consider- an earlier discovery of quinine's potential could help out plenty of Latin America, some earlier expansion of phosphate fertilizers could help the Southern Cone, and so on.
And there could even be an opposite effect that could help- remove some of the Spanish discoveries of gold and silver. The intensive efforts of mining often brought out the worst of Spanish administration methods and there were of course, the problems of inflation in Spain proper.
I know its going to sound like "rugged individualism" or "American Exceptionalism" but Britain's relatively hands-off method of colonial administration did have an effect on the success of the American colonies. There's always the counter-examples (Much of Canada, where HM's government had a bit more of an effect), so that can't just be it- but there were clearly a few things wrong with the method of Spanish administration.
Perhaps giving Latin America a little longer before independence where they "stretch their legs" in administration, with loosened up trading restrictions and caste systems? I'm not talking a conscious effort on Spain's part, just something that prevents them from exercising such a heavy hand.
There's also some technological effects to consider- an earlier discovery of quinine's potential could help out plenty of Latin America, some earlier expansion of phosphate fertilizers could help the Southern Cone, and so on.
And there could even be an opposite effect that could help- remove some of the Spanish discoveries of gold and silver. The intensive efforts of mining often brought out the worst of Spanish administration methods and there were of course, the problems of inflation in Spain proper.
Oh wow, this thread needs to get back on track and away from this political debate...
Argentine had one of the best economies right up until the Great Depression. Problem is with Argentina, Chile and Brazil was that they were export based economies. But the specific changes to make this happen is beyond me.
More colonization would not be an answer, even if it were 'beneficial' British colonization. Just because a nation was colonized by the British does not give it an advantage. Belize is not better off than Costa Rica. Jamaica is not better off than the Dominican Republic. Every nation is different from every other and has unique events, lands, resources etc that causes different events.
Argentina, mostly beef and other food stuffs, saw prices drop with the economy and floundered. So, the way to fix this, roughly, is to have earlier economic reforms and industrialization, move towards production of some different goods, become more independently sufficient.
Brazil was based on coffee and milk. Coffee was hurt in starting with WWI since it is less essential than food and so Europe, and America, stopped buying that first. Brazil at the time was controlled by plantation owners who were clinging to power in the face of a growing industrial middle class, partly growing due to European immigrants, usually with more liberal slants than the local populations. So perhaps have a greater amount of immigrants somehow that cause earlier progressive reforms before economic downfall?
Chile was nitrates through and through. British blockade of Germany spurred the demand for alternate ways of creating explosives synthetically, making Chile's monopoly on natural deposits worthless.
Couple other benefits could be attained from avoiding wars. War of the Triple Alliance comes to mind which destroyed Paraguay for decades upon decades, and Brazil ran up a huge debt which took decades to pay off which severely hurt their potential for growth.
The War of the Pacific also did severe damage. Bolivia was cut-off from the sea by Chile and their relations still haven't thawed since this war. In Chile, British control of the nitrates market increased noticeably. Peru was seriously damaged by the war as well.
Colombia's problem has been civil war and strife that it cannot escape many reasons, many of which seem to economic and class based, but I do not want to start a different political argument.
The Caribbean was obviously affected by constant US intervention to protect their own economic interests and domination, at the cost of the local populations. This was taken even further during the Cold War because of their 'containment' policy.
Basically, South America was hurt by their own internal bickering. Rather than cooperation, their conflicts over resources and land led to all being weaker for it. A parallel can be drawn from South American history to this thread - the bickering that has so far been the dominating current of this thread has severely hurt its potential.
Argentine had one of the best economies right up until the Great Depression. Problem is with Argentina, Chile and Brazil was that they were export based economies. But the specific changes to make this happen is beyond me.
More colonization would not be an answer, even if it were 'beneficial' British colonization. Just because a nation was colonized by the British does not give it an advantage. Belize is not better off than Costa Rica. Jamaica is not better off than the Dominican Republic. Every nation is different from every other and has unique events, lands, resources etc that causes different events.
Argentina, mostly beef and other food stuffs, saw prices drop with the economy and floundered. So, the way to fix this, roughly, is to have earlier economic reforms and industrialization, move towards production of some different goods, become more independently sufficient.
Brazil was based on coffee and milk. Coffee was hurt in starting with WWI since it is less essential than food and so Europe, and America, stopped buying that first. Brazil at the time was controlled by plantation owners who were clinging to power in the face of a growing industrial middle class, partly growing due to European immigrants, usually with more liberal slants than the local populations. So perhaps have a greater amount of immigrants somehow that cause earlier progressive reforms before economic downfall?
Chile was nitrates through and through. British blockade of Germany spurred the demand for alternate ways of creating explosives synthetically, making Chile's monopoly on natural deposits worthless.
Couple other benefits could be attained from avoiding wars. War of the Triple Alliance comes to mind which destroyed Paraguay for decades upon decades, and Brazil ran up a huge debt which took decades to pay off which severely hurt their potential for growth.
The War of the Pacific also did severe damage. Bolivia was cut-off from the sea by Chile and their relations still haven't thawed since this war. In Chile, British control of the nitrates market increased noticeably. Peru was seriously damaged by the war as well.
Colombia's problem has been civil war and strife that it cannot escape many reasons, many of which seem to economic and class based, but I do not want to start a different political argument.
The Caribbean was obviously affected by constant US intervention to protect their own economic interests and domination, at the cost of the local populations. This was taken even further during the Cold War because of their 'containment' policy.
Basically, South America was hurt by their own internal bickering. Rather than cooperation, their conflicts over resources and land led to all being weaker for it. A parallel can be drawn from South American history to this thread - the bickering that has so far been the dominating current of this thread has severely hurt its potential.
Last edited:
Actually ironically the idea of having the Spanish Government take a more hands off approach to Latin America and having a less pervasive caste system were historically at odds with each other. The Spanish King and Church were often very sympathetic to the Indians plight and would intervene to protect the Indians from the profit driven Spanish colonists. This was even true of the African slaves that the Spanish colonists brought in to all of their colonies.
I do think that technological inventions could have helped Latin America alot more. What if some crazy governor of Mexico, way back in the 1600's decided to build a Technical School instead of more seminaries. I know this is unlikely but if the Technical School stays on and continues to get printings from Europe, it could do some real good.
Definitely. There is also the problem of education. Superior education was practically worthless until the 19th Century (theology and laws) and basic education was postponed by internal strifes. Getting more people educated, at all levels, in useful things earlier and developing as much as a middle class as possible would end up with a lot of benefitial butterflies.
Then again, the question is how.