Alternate Forms of Government (Regarding Latin America)

Parliamentarianism vs Presidentialism

This would not be a silver bullet by any chance, but perhaps if the various original Constitutions of the various republics based their government on a strong-legislative/weak-executive idea, with the prime minister appointed by the parliament.

Most countries outside the Western Hemisphere, especially in Europe, are of this type. It doesn't erase the problem of caudilloism, but perhaps makes it a bit more difficult for the strongmen to take over.

As a side note, the Constitutions (and lots of governments elsewhere OTL) would be a bit more stable if there was an entrenched minimum length of time before a parliament could be dissolved. Even one year minimum would help, though I'd suggest two.
 

Skokie

Banned
It is here, and generally everyone I know that knows politics and such uses Left-Right to mean economics.

Here, where? I'm also American. I don't find that to be true. On the right and especially far-right you have many "Paleocons" and populists who are not at all smitten with neoliberal "market wisdom." They're protectionist when it comes to trade and populist when it comes to wealth distribution.
 
Some have tried communism others have tried fascism (some both).

I don't think so. Cuba has been the only Communist state in the hemisphere. I doubt you'd call Batista a fascist except as hyperbole.

(Please, no silly claims that Nicaragua was ever Commie. It was a semi-socialist democracy run for awhile, and run by an extremely broad coalition that only included a fraction of semi-Marxists, until Reagan and Bush killed that. The Sandinistas voluntarily gave up power in elections.)

Outside of Dominican Republic under Trujillo, Paraguay under Stroessner, Bolivia under fascist-narco state, and of course (kinda) Peron, were there really other fascist states? Maybe Brazil under its junta or Chile under Pinochet...

It's kind of amusing to watch the thread get sidetracked like some others have by free market fundamentalists trying desperately to avoid admitting that fascism is simply a more extreme form of capitalism.

Basically capitalism - democracy = fascism. The whole idea of fascism is to maintain capitalism using violence and repression.

But free market worshippers can't admit that, even though the "free market" depends on it being upheld using state coercion, eg Chile under Pinochet.
 
Well, they've certainly never tried anarchism, though no one has in modern times besides Barcelona and the Paris Commune, and they got stomped hard for their trouble. Of course, if any country tried anarchism, then afterward it wouldn't really be a country per se, since getting rid of the state is one of the tenets of anarchism. That would certainly be a radically different Latin America.

Anyway, wanking a stable Latin American democracy isn't hard, you'd just have to figure out a way to keep the American and British corporations out. Some kind of stronger Monroe Doctrine, perhaps, where Latin America is turned into neutral ground? It would also have to keep out exploitative corporations from other countries, of course...

There was an anarchist uprising in Baja during the Mexican Revolution. Held the state less than a year. For that matter, a failed effort halted in advance in South Texas during the same time period...

There have been more than a few threads imagining victories by the Aztecs or Incans vs the Spaniards, or by Tupac Amaru II, or by Hidalgo or Vicente Guerrero in Mexico. Outside of an Incan victory, any of those likely would've produced a democracy. The Incans would've produced an authoritarian state.
 
It's kind of amusing to watch the thread get sidetracked like some others have by free market fundamentalists trying desperately to avoid admitting that fascism is simply a more extreme form of capitalism.

Basically capitalism - democracy = fascism. The whole idea of fascism is to maintain capitalism using violence and repression.

But free market worshippers can't admit that, even though the "free market" depends on it being upheld using state coercion, eg Chile under Pinochet.

Fascism is'nt capitlaism without Democracy, Fascism is inherently against traditional capitalism since capitalism is heavily individualistic while Fascism is generally against individualism.
 

Skokie

Banned
Fascism is'nt capitlaism without Democracy, Fascism is inherently against traditional capitalism since capitalism is heavily individualistic while Fascism is generally against individualism.

Nope. Fascism is all about individualism--for the right individuals (self-conceived "heroic," free, individualistic, manly men of action, of the "correct" nationality or skin color).

It arises as a political force precisely because capitalism alienates people and denies them their individuality and sense of power over their surroundings.
 
Well, like it or not, capitalist dictatorships exist. Name them the way you like.

This would not be a silver bullet by any chance, but perhaps if the various original Constitutions of the various republics based their government on a strong-legislative/weak-executive idea, with the prime minister appointed by the parliament.

Most countries outside the Western Hemisphere, especially in Europe, are of this type. It doesn't erase the problem of caudilloism, but perhaps makes it a bit more difficult for the strongmen to take over.
The issue is that said constitutions were made in political climates dominated by said caudillos, so it might not be easy to get a reasonable POD. A constitution modified after the downfall of some caudillo might be designed that way. Other than that, here in Argentina ex-presidents Raul Alfonsin and Eduardo Duhalde both liked parlamentarism, but they didn't officially proposed it nor pushed for it, at least so far.
 
Nope. Fascism is all about individualism--for the right individuals (self-conceived "heroic," free, individualistic, manly men of action, of the "correct" nationality or skin color).

It arises as a political force precisely because capitalism alienates people and denies them their individuality and sense of power over their surroundings.

Their have been some Fascist states that have relied on charismatic leaders, however overall it's anti-individualism.

I should add, in case anyones curious, I tend to know alot about Fascism because I actually do know a few people who actually are Fascists (that is they espouse a belief in, and call themselves such).
 
There was an anarchist uprising in Baja during the Mexican Revolution. Held the state less than a year. For that matter, a failed effort halted in advance in South Texas during the same time period...

There have been more than a few threads imagining victories by the Aztecs or Incans vs the Spaniards, or by Tupac Amaru II, or by Hidalgo or Vicente Guerrero in Mexico. Outside of an Incan victory, any of those likely would've produced a democracy. The Incans would've produced an authoritarian state.

Thanks for telling me, I'm not very familiar with Latin American history before the 20th c. Anyway, I'd assumed we were talking about heavily Spanish TLs, it's kind of hard to call an Inca state "Latin American" per the original post.
 
Fascism is'nt capitlaism without Democracy, Fascism is inherently against traditional capitalism since capitalism is heavily individualistic while Fascism is generally against individualism.

I have to agree here, fascism is inherently a mass movement - witness Nazi rallies and mobilizing the blackshirts and brownshirts, plus the general ultranationalist creeds being espoused. After all, you could argue that fascism is simply an even more extreme nationalism, and what is nationalism but an ideology to mobilize the masses to great efforts on behalf of the state? - couched in the language of national camaraderie and communitas, of course.
 
In one mini-TL I had a situation where Bolivar managed to unite New Granada, Peru, and "Bolivia" into a single nation. The federal government was a hereditary monarchy with a parliament, but the constituent states were explicitly republican.
 

Skokie

Banned
Their have been some Fascist states that have relied on charismatic leaders, however overall it's anti-individualism.

Depends on the individual. If you're a Jew, immigrant, or a labor organizer, you're out of luck. If you're a paranoid, half-literate worker in a factory or a disgruntled, small-time business owner, fascism is the height of individualism.

Fascism is the individual will to power against the anomie and homogenization of "bourgeois capitalism." All fascists think of themselves as tortured geniuses and artists, just trying to express the beautiful flower lollipop rainbow unicorns in their souls. Fascism gives them a tremendous sense of freedom....at the cost of the lives and freedom of "undesirables," of course.

I must repeat: Fascism arises as a reaction against the anti-individualism of capitalism, the feeling of being a cog in the wheel. It's a Romantic impulse gone horribly bad, corrupted by racism and militarism.

I should add, in case anyones curious, I tend to know alot about Fascism because I actually do know a few people who actually are Fascists (that is they espouse a belief in, and call themselves such).

Have you tried calling them leftists?
 
Have you tried calling them leftists?

Why would I? As I've said, their's a difference between a Leftist (like say myself) and someone who's economic ideology falls on the Left (like Fascism).

Anyways they're usually the first to admit that Fascism is against capitalism and on a Left-Right economic spectrum falls to the left.
 
Latin America could have gone the way of the French Revolution if somehow Paraguays first President Jose Gaspar de Francia had wanted to spread his form of government.
Both he and Bolivar use to communicate via mail. Gaspar managed to rein in the traditional upper class people keeping Paraguay whole. Bolivar on the other hand could not rein in the traditional upper class especially of Venezuela which in the longrun caused the breakup of Gran Colombia.

Gaspar was
A devotee of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, a keen reader of Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the French Encyclopedists, Francia had the largest library in Asunción
In 1811 Paraguay was the first Independent nation on the continent of South America and some say had the first Socialist type of government in the Americas. Neighboring nations were not too happy with having that type of government next door. Some say this was one reason for the war of the Triple alliance. However, by that time Paraguay was under the control of other Presidents which sort of changed things somewhat to suit the way they did things.

This is a play they did on him. It is in Spanish and some Guarani. It is just a piece not the whole play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S-VbmT61p4&NR=1


Here is written info. on him in english:

http://countrystudies.us/paraguay/7.htm
http://countrystudies.us/paraguay/8.htm
http://countrystudies.us/paraguay/9.htm
 
Last edited:
Top