The Path of Dictatorship': The Erosion of Democracy and Capitalism in Late Nineteenth-Century Mexico and Colombia - Núm. 74, Octubre 2020 - Revista de Estudios Sociales - Libros y Revistas - VLEX 851690377

The Path of Dictatorship': The Erosion of Democracy and Capitalism in Late Nineteenth-Century Mexico and Colombia

AutorJames E. Sanders
CargoPh.D. in History, University of Pittsburgh, United States
Páginas23-40
23
“The Path of Dictatorship”: The Erosion of Democracy and Capitalism
in Late Nineteenth-Century Mexico and Colombia *
James E. Sanders **
Received: March 27, 2020 · Accepted: June 23, 2020 · Modied: July 17, 2020
https://doi.org/10.7440/res74.2020.03
How to cite: Sanders, James E. 2020. “‘The Path of Dictatorship’: The Erosion of Democracy and Capitalism in Late Nineteenth-
Century Mexico and Colombia”. Revista de Estudios Sociales 74: 23-40. https://doi.org/10.7440/res74.2020.03
ABSTRACT | The rst erosion of democracy in Latin America did not occur in the twentieth-century, but, rather,
the nineteenth. I will argue that in Mexico and Colombia a vibrant, democratic political culture had emerged by the
1850s; however, by the 1870s, a political movement that united Liberals and Conservatives began to suspect that
the democratic politics they had once regarded as making them modern was instead hindering their societies’
progress. Democracy was not promoting, but, rather, hindering economic progress. This essay will explore the
historic relation between capitalism (as Latin America entered into a period of export-oriented capitalist growth)
and democracy (in a nineteenth century in which most of the world’s republics were in Latin America).
KEYWORDS | Capitalism; Colombia; democracy; Mexico; nineteenth century; political culture; republicanism
“El camino de la dictadura”: erosión de la democracia y capitalismo a finales del siglo XIX en México y Colombia
RESUMEN | La primera erosión de la democracia en Latinoamérica no ocurrió en el siglo XX; ocurrió en el siglo
XIX. Argumentaré que, para la década de 1850, había surgido una cultura política vibrante y democrática en
México y Colombia. Sin embargo, en la década de 1870, un movimiento político que unía a liberales y conser-
vadores empezó a sospechar que las políticas democráticas que antes consideraban modernas estaban, en
realidad, entorpeciendo el progreso de la sociedad. La democracia no estaba promoviendo, sino, por el contrario,
obstaculizando el progreso económico. Este ensayo explorará la relación histórica entre capitalismo (a medida
que Latinoamérica entraba en un periodo de crecimiento capitalista orientado a la exportación) y democracia
(en un siglo XIX en el que la mayoría de las repúblicas del mundo estaban en Latinoamérica).
PALABRAS CLAVE | Capitalismo; Colombia; cultura política; democracia; México; republicanismo; siglo XIX
“O caminho da ditadura”: o declínio da democracia e o capitalismo no final do século XIX no México e na Colômbia
RESUMO | O primeiro declínio da democracia na América Latina não ocorreu no século XX, mas sim no XIX.
Nesse sentido, argumento que, em 1850, uma cultura política vibrante e democrática surgiu no México e na
Colômbia; contudo, na década de 1870, um movimento político que unia liberais e conservadores começou
a suspeitar que as políticas democráticas que antes eram consideradas modernas na realidade estavam
impedindo o progresso da sociedade. A democracia não estava promovendo, mas sim o contrário, obstacu-
lizando o progresso econômico. Este ensaio explora a relação histórica entre o capitalismo (à medida que a
América Latina entrou em um período de crescimento capitalista orientado à exportação) e a democracia (em
um século XIX em que a maioria das repúblicas do mundo estava nessa região).
PALAVRAS-CHAVE | Capitalismo; Colômbia; cultura política; democracia; México; republicanismo; século XIX
* This is part of a long research project about the nature of nineteenth-century political culture, that has been funded by Utah State
University and the Kluge Center of the Library of Congress.
** Ph.D. in History, University of Pittsburgh, United States. Professor in the Department of History at Utah State University, United
States. Latest publications: “Decolonizing Europe.” In The First Wave of Decolonization, edited by Mark Thurner, 95-117. New York:
Routledge, 2019; The Vanguard of the Atlantic World: Creating Modernity, Nation, and Democracy in Nineteenth-Century Latin
America. Durham: Duke University Press, 2014. * james.sanders@usu.edu
24 DOSSIER
rev.estud.soc. No. 74 • octubre-diciembre • Pp. 23-40 • ISSN 0123-885X • e-ISSN 1900-5180 · https://doi.org/10.7440/res74.2020.03
In turn-of-the-century Mexico, the editors of La Gaceta
Comercial surveyed the accomplishments of the
decades-long project of national regeneration called
the Porriato. Dismissing criticisms that President
Porrio Díaz’ long rule was undemocratic, they instead
applauded the regime’s obtainment of order, thus allow-
ing material progress: “Men of experience care little or
nothing if governments are republican or monarchical;
what is important is that, under one name or the oth-
er, in this or that form, that they realize the ends of the
State—security and justice, progress through order.1 In
both Mexico and Colombia, the last quarter of the nine-
teenth century witnessed projects to restrict vibrant, if
often disorderly, democratic cultures, undertaken with
the goals of promoting capitalist economic develop-
ment. This essay, after briey exploring why we should
consider mid-nineteenth-century Colombia and Mexi-
co as democratic, will focus on what those in control of
the state thought they had to do to secure this capitalist
development. In other words, in the context of already
vibrant democratic experiments, what did the quest for
capitalist development tell us about the historical rela-
tionship between capitalism and democracy around the
world? In both Colombia and Mexico, the correlation
was negative. Both Liberal and Conservative politi-
cal elites determined that too much democracy was
inimical to capitalist development. Thus, both acted
(Mexico successfully, Colombia much less so) to restrict
democracy and promote capitalism (part of a broader
erosion of democratic culture across the hemisphere, I
will suggest). Both Mexico and Colombia provide here-
tofore-unutilized case studies—since Latin America
is a region of the world not much considered in these
scholarly arguments—for a long-running debate, both
scholarly and popular, over the historic relationship
between democracy and capitalism.
The historic relationship between democracy and cap-
italism is the rare debate that ignites both scholarly
(across numerous disciplines) and popular interest.
The philosopher and public intellectual Slavoj Žižek,
in reference to China’s present-day authoritarian cap-
italism, queried, “What if democracy is no longer the
necessary and natural accompaniment of economic
development, but its impediment?” (2009, A21). Fol-
lowing Žižek, most non-scholarly North Americans
and many Western Europeans, especially politicians
and public intellectuals, assume the relationship as
positive, perhaps the two terms are perfect syn-
onyms: capitalism supports democracy and democracy
supports capitalism. Martin Wolf (2016), the chief eco-
nomics commentator for the Financial Times, states,
1 “Gobiernos c aros y gobier nos baratos.” La Gaceta Comercial,
2 March 190 0. Emphasi s in origi nal. A ll tra nslation s mine,
unless note d. I have include d titles and aut hors for newspaper
artic les when avai lable; howev er, many ar ticles in n ineteenth-
centur y newspaper s carrie d neither tit le nor author, reect ing
instead t he general editor ial slant of t he paper.
“A natural connection exists between liberal democ-
racy…and capitalism.”2 Among historians and social
scientists there is less consensus. Many assert, there
exists a strong, positive connection between capital-
ism and democracy (if framed often as unintended
consequences of capitalist development). Others see
no correlation between the two processes or even
argue that the two are historically antagonistic.3 This
project will explore how, in Mexico and Colombia, the
massive expansion of capitalism (or at least the desire
to join an Atlantic capitalist system) led to the erosion,
if not complete destruction, of democracy in those
two societies (and, I will suggest, weakened democrat-
ic culture across the hemisphere).
A new wave of research has reassessed the histo-
ry of democracy in Latin America. An older master
narrative gave Latin America no role in the world his-
tory of democracy, at least in the nineteenth century.
While most Spanish American states were republics,
these were largely seen as anarchic failures, panto-
mimes of true democracies. However, new research
has re-examined nineteenth-century Latin America’s
political and cultural history, recovering a rich, vibrant
experimentation with democracy and republicanism,
promoted especially by popular actors. Whether mea-
sured through voting, constitutional guarantees for
individual rights, daily democratic practices (attending
legislative sessions in the galleries, demonstrations,
political clubs), or Latin Americans’ own sense of their
societies’ success in creating democratic republics,
Spanish America appears at the vanguard of the world
history of democracy, especially compared to the Unit-
ed States (due to racial restrictions) or Europe (due to
class restrictions).
The vindication of democracy’s history, however,
necessitates a reconsideration of the interaction
of capitalism and democracy as well. If Mexico and
Colombia were democratic in the 1860s and 1870s,
these democratic republics collapsed over the next
two decades. Why? This collapse happened at the
same time as the expansion of capitalism through the
region, after decades of economic stagnation. Was
this rise of capitalism and the fall of democracy simply
coincidence or were causal factors at work? Finally,
how do Mexico’s and Colombia’s histories t into the
larger debate on the historical relationship between
capitalism and democracy?
2 Wolf was spea king of this h istoric relations hip; he is much
less sangu ine about cur rent prospects .
3 For both a rev iew of the l iteratu re and one of t he most sophi s-
ticated propo nents of the posit ive link, see Rue schemeyer,
Stephens, a nd Stephens (1992).

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR