Allende as president combined Marxist assault on the owners of the means of production with populist lavishing of short-term benefits on his working-class followers, and on both counts he stirred violent resentment among upper- and middle-class Chileans as well as attracting the adamant hostility of the United States. In September 1973 he was ousted in favour of General Augusto Pinochet, who proved the most successful exponent of a new style of military dictatorship defined by political scientists as bureaucratic authoritarianism. It was not, of course, a complete novelty. It reflected the 20th-century Latin America-wide phenomenon whereby the leadership of increasingly professionalized armies passed to sons of the middle class who had a commitment to modernizing the infrastructure of their societies. Such earlier dictatorships as that of Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1927–31) during another Chilean relapse from constitutional rule had shown marked developmentalist tendencies. Bureaucratic authoritarianism, however, as practiced in Brazil after the coup of 1964, in Argentina by officers dedicated to keeping the Peronistas from regaining power, or in Chile under Pinochet, was a response to the perceived mismanagement of the economy by populists and other demagogues. It rested on the conviction that no democratically elected regime could afford to take the harsh measures needed to curb inflation, reassure foreign and domestic investors, and thereby quicken economic growth to the point that untrammeled democracy could be safely practiced. While military men kept order with varying degrees of harshness and human rights violations, civilian economists and technocrats would direct most other policy—whence the term “bureaucratic authoritarianism.”
Under Pinochet, the guiding voice in Chilean economic matters was assigned to a group of economists, some of whom had been trained at the University of Chicago and who were strongly influenced by the monetarist school of Milton Friedman, according to which money supply and interest rates rather than governmental fiscal policy primarily determine the business cycle. Political authoritarianism stood in apparent contradiction to the generally free-market, laissez-faire policies prescribed in economic and social affairs; and, though inflation fell sharply, industrial production also dropped with the decline in the level of official protection. A similar combination of approaches arose under the military governments in Argentina in the 1960s and again from 1976 to 1983 and in Uruguay after 1973, again with mixed economic results. In Brazil from 1964 to 1985 military presidents and their technocratic advisers assigned a larger role in economic affairs to the state, while a Peruvian military regime that took power in 1968 undertook a radical program of social and economic reforms, giving way to a more typical bureaucratic-authoritarian regime only after running into serious economic difficulties. In these countries, political repression fell lightly on most of the population, but anyone suspected of engaging in—or simply encouraging—active resistance was liable to arrest, torture, and in extreme cases forced “disappearance”; this was a notable feature of the last Argentine military regime. Moreover, military rule of one sort or another did spread until by 1980 democratically elected civilian governments could be found only in Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and (by stretching the definition just a bit) Mexico. Latin America at the end of the 20th century
The last two decades of the 20th century witnessed a generalized economic crisis in Latin America, triggered in large part by external factors but aggravated by domestic mismanagement; in search of a way out, countries put their trust in neoliberal approaches favouring a free flow of trade and investment and reduction of the role of the state, all as recommended by the International Monetary Fund or other lending and advisory agencies. Even Castro’s Cuba hesitantly embarked on the neoliberal economic path—to the extent of inviting foreign investment and enlarging the scope of permitted private enterprise by Cubans—though Castro did not show equal enthusiasm for the parallel political tendency, which was a turn to democratic procedures. Debt crisis
The ingredient of economic crisis that attracted widest attention was Latin America’s inability to maintain full service on its foreign debt, which had grown to dangerously high levels. Both Mexico and Venezuela, as major petroleum exporters, benefited from rising international oil prices during the 1970s, but, instead of concluding that foreign credit was no longer necessary, they assumed that any amount of indebtedness would be easy to pay back. Brazil’s generals drew a similar conclusion from their country’s better-than-average economic growth. Even where no such circumstances were present, foreign private and institutional lenders had lost their depression-induced caution in lending to Latin America, and they had at their disposal an ever-greater flood of dollars to be placed in world financial markets. Bankers used often aggressive tactics in pressuring Latin American governments to borrow, and the region’s total foreign debt increased from 1970 to 1980 by more than 1,000 percent.
Developments in the world economy soon brought Latin America a rude awakening. Whereas commodity prices were generally favourable in the 1970s, a world recession in the following decade caused them to fall sharply. At the same time, interest rates rose in the United States and western Europe as governments sought to curb inflationary pressures and make other difficult adjustments. Latin America thus faced an increased debt bill, with fewer resources to pay it. Colombia alone managed to avoid default or compulsory rescheduling, and all countries faced severe fiscal problems. Domestic expenditures had to be cut back or financed through unsupported issues of paper money. Most of Latin America experienced slow or negative economic growth, together with inflation; indeed, hyperinflation was the rule in Argentina and Brazil and in some smaller countries. Real wages fell everywhere except Colombia and Chile. Return to democracy
Latin America’s democracies, and quasi-democratic Mexico, were politically less vulnerable to economic hard times than the dictatorships: their governments could be and were changed by regular electoral procedures, whereas dictatorial regimes that encountered similar problems had to be removed by other means. Armed force, however, was seldom necessary, and in Argentina change came from outside, in the form of Great Britain’s embarrassing defeat of the Argentine military government’s 1982 attempt to reoccupy the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands that Britain had seized a century and a half before. That fiasco completed the discrediting of the Argentine regime and forced it to reinstate elective civilian government sooner than intended. A return to overt U.S. intervention assisted in the 1989 overthrow of General Manuel Noriega in Panama, who had run afoul of the new U.S. obsession with curbing drug trafficking. The United States also helped remove the military regime of Haiti in 1994, where the institutions of civil society were particularly weak. Elsewhere, the force of domestic opinion—aided by foreign disapproval, internecine squabbling, and sheer discouragement on the part of ruling military officers—was usually enough to bring about a transition to democracy. Cuba’s Fidel Castro was the longest serving dictatorial ruler in Latin America, and today Cuba remains the only country in the region under dictatorship.
Even democratically elected presidents were sometimes high-handed in their style of ruling, and in three major countries—Peru, Argentina, and Brazil—they pushed through constitutional amendments to allow their immediate reelection, which would otherwise have been illegal. Significantly, in each case the incumbent’s success in taming inflation helped make it possible to win the additional term without recourse to force or fraud. (Peru’s Alberto Fujimori later obtained still another reelection but by slightly more-questionable tactics.) At the turn of the millennium, the most troubled country, politically, was Colombia, where a democratic regime had lost control over much of the national territory to illegal drug traffickers, leftist guerrillas, and counterguerrilla paramilitaries. The most important of the guerrilla organizations was the FARC, or Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, which enjoyed scant popular support but profited greatly from the sale of protection to drug producers and dealers. A shift to neoliberalism