The Problem of State-Building and NationBuilding in Latin America

Prof. Francisco E. Gonzlez Johns Hopkins University SAIS Washington, D.C.

Overview
I. What are the problems of state-building and nationbuilding? Discuss question 1 II. War and state-building in Latin America Discuss question 2 III. War and nation-building in Latin America Discuss question 3

I. Defining the Problems

Political units that claim to be independent need to have an agency that: 1) controls internal/external violence; 2) provides and administers public goods: the State. The challenge for the State is to develop strength and cohesion to mitigate all centrifugal forces (domestic and international). The State has developed strength through the extraction-coercion cycle; it has developed cohesion through the creation of a liturgy of common essential identity for those who live under its territorial jurisdiction: nationalism.

How are States Built?

1) Pluralist theory: the state develops as an arena for contestation: a market for politics: social contract. 2) Weber and Marx: the state develops not as an arena but as an actor with its own objectives: former thought objectives were neutral, while latter thought they were biased in favour of dominant class. 3) Dependency theory: the state in postcolonial societies develops as an actor, but its objectives are limited by external economic dependence. 4) Bellicist theory: the state develops as a reaction to geopolitical conflict and competition.

Centenos Thesis
Centeno tests the bellicist theory for the case of the Latin American region. He argues that fiscal system and bureaucratic capacity cannot be built without an alliance between a political institution and a significant social sector. Without this precondition, the state cannot grow no matter how much violence there is around: war in itself does not necessarily lead to state growth. Main hypothesis is that the state in Latin America has been highly despotic, yet infrastructurally weak: this is a comparative historical explanation which relies on the crucial impact of sequencing to explain long term weakness of the state in Latin America.

How Are Nations Built?

1) Essentialist theory (Kedourie, Calhoun): Common national identity derives from sharing ethnic characteristics (language, culture, traditions). 2) Constructivist theory (Hobsbawm, B. Anderson): Nations and the sense of nationality are constructed, they are not primary identities. 3) Capitalist modernity theory (Gellner, B. Anderson): Urbanization, industrialization, rise of mass education and social systems create basis for development of national identity. 4) Bellicist theory (Comaroff and Stern): Sacrifices, shared experiences and aftermath of wars create and nurture the sense of nationality and nationalism.

Centenos Thesis

Nationalism requires: domination by a single political institution over a territory containing a population that believes it shares an essential identity. Key point is that the sense of communality is supported by state-sponsored liturgy (symbols, rituals, shared historical memory): Centeno sides with constructivists. Without state-sponsoring, nationalism is more like patriotism, which does not imply obedience to a collective will or its institutional representative. Patriotism is a faith; nationalism is a church.

Nationalism in Latin America

Compared to Europe, nationalism (like state growth) has been weak in Latin America. Centeno argues that this was the result of three factors: 1) ethnic and racial divisions; 2) absence of clearly identified external others; 3) states have tended not to support mobilization and linking of populations to their political institutions (fear of mobilization from below). Corollary is: without ideological glue of nationalism, state developed with severe limits to its authority.

Discuss question 1

Question 1: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Centenos approach to the study of state and nation building in Latin America.

II. War and State-building in Latin America

1) Types of war and the state in Latin America

2) Starting conditions, war, and weak state building in Latin America

3) Paying for Wars and State-building in Latin America

1) Types of War and the State in Latin America

First main difference between European and Latin American experience is total vs. limited war: former leads to increased extractive capacity, centralization, strong emotional links, rise of citizen. War of Triple Alliance, 1864-70, closest to total war in Latin America. Second main difference is low incidence of international wars and high incidence of civil wars in Latin America vis--vis Europe. Main period of international wars in Latin America, 1820s1880s (Mexico, La Plata basin, Mid-Pacific). Hypothesis: High degree of internal conflict in Latin America is cause and indication of inability of states to fight one another.

Types of civil wars

1) Regional rebellions: center-periphery conflicts (most prevalent in Argentina; also in Andean countries). 2) Ideological battles: liberals vs. conservatives (throughout region). 3) Caudillo wars: conflict over government privilege and positions (Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela). 4) Race/ethnic wars: fear of indigenous populations unites whites and mestizos (Peru, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Guatemala). 5) Revolutions: remaking social and economic order (Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua). Corollary: International peace and domestic strife is explained by state weakeness: enemy defined within, not across borders.

2) Starting conditions, war, and weak state building in Latin America

1) In Europe there was a ruling class, whereas in Latin America only a dominant class (unstable coalitions of caudillos, merchants and landowners). =No united elite has meant that there are too many claims on power, and war is an excuse to maintain or increase power and prerogatives. 2) Military establishment retained institutional autonomy: remained outside society and above the state. =Military autonomy used to pursue group interests at the expense of collective ones.

Starting Conditions contd.

3) Ideological context of wars of independence was characterized by the rise and diffusion of classic liberalism, and colonial societies were prejudiced against state growth given the late Bourbon attempts to create a Leviathan. =Creole elites dominant ideas were against the creation of an intrusive state. 4) Regionalism and racism added up to the previous factors. These two factors reinforced centrifugal forces that militated against state cohesion and strength. =New countries face dozens of armed groups competing for power, at the same time that they exclude ethnic minorities from national institutions for fear of a takeover.

3) Paying for Wars and State-building in Latin America

Post-independence states had very weak capacity to collect and protect rents (relied mainly on customs taxes): low state penetration of society. When wars erupted, state paid for them through foreign borrowing and printing money: first meant that state did not alter social status quo (i.e. taxing rich sectors) and second meant inflationary tax (i.e. regressive). After wars, states did not expand fiscal capacity (unlike Europe and USA).

Paying for Wars contd.

For war and everyday admin., states depend and in time deepen their dependence on the global economy. Main sources of finance: foreign debt, sale of commodities, custom taxes, licensing exploitation of raw resources. State growth linked to development of capital and trade rather than to military exploits. Corollary: dependence on external conditions, which are changing and uncertain, has translated into erratic, unstable, and unpredictable state capacity.

Discuss question 2

Question 2: Which conditions explain better the incapacity of war to further state growth in Latin America: types of war, initial conditions or fiscal weakness? Provide historical examples.

III. Wars and Nation-building in Latin America

1) Latin Americas independence and its impact on nationalism

2) Presence/absence of others to define nationalism

3) National myths: who, what, and why are they included/excluded

1) Latin Americas independence and its impact on nationalism

Collapse of Spanish empire produces fragmentation in a context characterized by high ethnic, geographic, socioeconomic and cultural variation (although cf. Brasil: no state collapse, but deep cleavages). Wars of independence produced fragments of empire, rather than new states. Dominant creoles in these fragments did not have strong sense of belonging to a nation (cf. J. Lynch analysis). Slow construction of new states preceded the construction of nations: given elite fears of popular forces state leaders promote passive acquiescence rather than active mobilization (cf. countries whose national identity was based on war: most: Paraguay, Bolivia; medium: Peru, Chile; early 1800s Argentina.

Latin American Independence and Nationalism contd.

Nationalism that liberators tried to develop was based on the French Revolution model: Its challenge was therefore to define and agree on rights/duties of new citizens (rather than on ethnic or cultural elements). In such heterogeneous societies as Latin Americas, definitions of these rights/duties and inclusion/exclusion issues become the main point of conflict (liberals vs. conservatives) in XIX century. Therefore, struggles to define the nation produced wars between and across social cleavages within countries, rather than wars between countries.

2) Presence/absence of others to define nationalism

When imperial powers left Americas, the enemy oppressor disappeared: young countries were left facing each other: weak impetus to develop nationalism. Moreover, Latin American countries shared the bloody process of independence (except Brasil), so they identified with each other. However: A) As a result of conflict several countries did define their nationalism partly against enemies (Bolivia/Chile/Peru; Colombia/Venezuela; Paraguay/Argentina/Uruguay). B) Some countries faced a challenging other early on: Mexico/USA; Argentina/Brasil.

3) National myths: who, what, and why are they included/excluded

In Europe and USA political figures and military enterprises dominate monuments and street names. In Latin America the themes that dominate are artists and scientists; developmental themes (industry and signs of progress). There is also a general absence of origin myths (?) Iconography tends to be cosmopolitan. Women and minorities are under-represented.

National myths contd.

Only Mexico (during Porfiriato and since 1920s) and Peru (more recently since 1968) have incorporated their indigenous past into nationalist discourse. In the Southern Cone the gaucho, the pampas, and the figure of the immigrant figure in the body of nationalism. In Venezuela, there is a big dominance of Simn Bolvar as the rock of the nation. Mexico is an exception in the use of its civil wars (Reforma, Maximilian empire, Revolution) for nation-building purposes. Many countries are part of the same iconographic family: Bolvar is venerated in eleven countries.

Discuss question 3

Question 3: Assess Centenos proposition that weak nationalism reflected the needs of [Latin American] states (ps. According to Centeno such needs reflected few war threats, few needs to integrate, no need for citizens)

Questions that have to be answered next session

Question 1: What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of the main approaches to the study of regime change in Latin America? Question 2: Is any approach or a combination of approaches well suited to account for the high incidence of regime changes observed in countries such as Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru? Question 3: Why have countries as diverse as Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Uruguay experienced few regime changes?