Purpose
For decades, political scientists and experts on Latin America have sought to create models to explain contemporary developments in the region, often relying on a limited range of theories. Among these, the classic liberal-conservative political dichotomy has dominated the discussion. However, this perspective has significant limitations.
First, framing the analysis around opposing political views neglects the cultural and social roots underlying these developments. Second, reducing complex nuances and contradictions to political clashes oversimplifies reality, forcing it to fit into theoretical frameworks rather than allowing theory to adapt to the complexities of reality. Third, these debates often rely on schools of thought originating outside the region, reflecting a Eurocentric bias that fails to fully engage with Latin America's unique historical and cultural context. Lastly, the widespread use of pendular politics theory - a simplistic notion that political shifts in the region swing predictably between opposing extremes - offers little insight into the deeper societal changes at play. To move beyond these outdated models, a new framework is essential.
This article proposes a cross-sectional approach to understanding Latin America's political movements, developments, and changes. By focusing on the region's history, society, and culture rather than narrowly on political ideologies, this model aims to provide a more comprehensive and accessible toolbox to study its complexities.
Conceptualization
When we refer to Latin America, we specifically mean countries historically colonized by Spain and Portugal. This deliberately excludes France, even though it is common to see French-colonized countries included in broader discussions. The distinction lies in the culturalist nature of our model: it applies only to regions influenced by Spanish and Portuguese social heritage. As we will demonstrate, France played a key role in shaping the Liberal Tradition, while Spain and Portugal were deeply rooted in the Organic Tradition. The Catholic Church is the crucial factor in this divide, as from a historical and cultural perspective, religion's influence is pivotal. France, alongside Great Britain and the Netherlands, was a center of the Reformation, whereas Spain and Portugal were staunch defenders of the Counter-Reformation. This divergence created a culturalist dichotomy that separated their core values. As a result, France's ideological foundations are incompatible with those of its Iberian neighbors, positioning them as conceptual opponents. Including France in the Latin American tradition is contradictory, almost like mixing oil and water, especially when one is holy water.
A brief overview of Latin America’s demographics is essential as population composition plays a key role in cultural differences among countries. These demographics are deeply rooted in the colonial era and its legacy. As we will explore in the next section, countries colonized early, such as Cuba, typically align with the Organic Tradition. Similarly, nations with significant Indigenous populations, like Bolivia, Guatemala, and Ecuador, also fall within this framework. In contrast, countries in more remote areas with a history of European immigration, such as Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, tend to align with the Liberal Tradition, reflecting their Anglo-Saxon influences. Meanwhile, countries like Colombia, Peru, and Mexico show a mixed record due to their mestizo heritage. Although they lean more towards the Organic Tradition, they also exhibit significant impact from the United States’ liberal influence. For first-approaching students to the region, an effective starting point in analyzing Latin America is to examine a country’s demographics and geography. This provides a first step for understanding its cultural and political legacy.
The model - Organic
This new understanding of Latin America centers on the enduring influence of the Church mentality introduced by Iberian colonizers. These principles, brought during the Conquest, became deeply embedded in the region's identity, persisting and reproducing themselves throughout history. Unlike a political framework, culture encompasses a society's inherited and unconscious core values, adapting to different eras and contexts. As a result, analyzing the legacy of la Conquista reveals striking modern relevance. The first step, therefore, is to examine the foundational values of the Organic Tradition.
Since the reign of the Habsburgs in Spain, colonial governance in the Americas was built on a distinctive set of principles. Foremost among them was the centralization of power through the unification of the people under a universal idea, which at the time was the Catholic faith. This fusion of State and Church introduces the first key concept: Unanimism. Societies influenced by the Organic Tradition prioritize unity over fragmentation, fostering inclusivity that theoretically leaves no one behind. A prime example of this is Justicialismo in Argentina under Juan Domingo Perón (1946-1955; 1973).
Organic regimes reject individualism, emphasizing collective power as the essence of the people - a hallmark of classic populism. Unity among the people also extends to faith, whether religious or political. Following the model established by the Spanish colonizers, one religion implied one king. This perspective helps explain why Fidel Castro, after the Cuban Revolution, delayed the creation of a political party until 1975, considering himself the embodiment of unity, described by historian Loris Zanatta as “the last Christian king”[1]. From an Organic standpoint, power is indivisible, and pluralism - a defining feature of the Liberal Tradition - is viewed as fragmentation and division. For instance, Hugo Chávez (1999–2013) systematically dismantled democratic and pluralistic institutions in Venezuela, adhering to the logic that Unanimism leaves no room for debate, shared power, or pluralism. This holistic view of society envisions it as a human body, where the political vanguard functions as the brain, and each citizen plays a specific role in maintaining the system. Similar Unanimist tendencies can be observed in Bolivia under Evo Morales (2006–2019) and in Ecuador under Rafael Correa (2007–2017). The second defining feature of the Organic Tradition is Hierarchy. This structure reflects the pyramidal organization of the Catholic Church and the administrative systems of the Spanish Virreinados. Society is vertically organized, with political leaders at the top, but the inclusivity of the model leaves no room for outsiders.
While inclusivity might appear virtuous, it subsumes the individual into the collective, which leads to the third characteristic: Corporatism. In the Organic Tradition, society is organized into “corps” (fueros), each playing a role in ensuring the “body” functions harmoniously. Consequently, no one exists outside this framework, whether it be religious, political, or social. Children join youth associations, labor unions are consolidated at the national level, and these groups have direct access to the highest levels of leadership (the brain). Such a system demands a high degree of conformity, where any “antisocial” behavior is harshly punished, as seen after the Cuban Revolution. Corporatism’s rigid structure shares significant similarities with totalitarianism, as both prioritize collective harmony over individual freedom. Perón’s Comunidad Organizada [2] in Argentina exemplifies this corporatist approach, as he sought to redesign society, creating enduring institutions that persist even today [3]. Other notable instances of the Organic Tradition’s influence in Latin America include Lázaro Cárdenas’s presidency in Mexico (1934-1940) and the administrations of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina (2003-2015).
The final element of the Organic Tradition is the concept of the Ethical State, where the resources of a country are seen as tools in the hands of those in power. In contrast to the Liberal belief that the State is a “neutral field” that should outlast any specific political party in power, the Organic view sees the State as an instrument serving the collective good and maintaining social order. This perspective is rooted in the historic Catholic tradition, where the State was considered the property of the Church, forming a unified entity. As a result, Organic leaders feel empowered to shape and create state institutions to suit their needs, using national resources to further their agendas. Although this may seem outdated and in clear violation of democratic principles, from an Organic standpoint, the State belongs to the governing authorities, and there is no issue with reshaping its structure. A clear example of this can be seen in Hugo Chávez's profound reordering of Venezuela, which included changing the national flag, anthem, and customs, as well as rehabilitating the figure of Simón Bolívar. Additionally, Chávez's extensive (and often illegal) use of national resources for political or redistributive purposes, alongside the increasing centralization of control over public and private institutions, further exemplifies this approach. Similar examples can be found in Juan Perón’s Justicialist Doctrine, which sought to radically transform Argentine society, or the ambitious direct payments made by Néstor Kirchner during his presidency (2003-2007). From a Liberal perspective, these actions demonstrate a complete disregard for democratic institutions. However, “democracy” in the Organic tradition is understood as social justice and redistribution (substantial democracy), not merely adherence to established customs or respecting institutions (formal democracy). This is why Castro curiously considered Cuba one of the “most democratic” countries in the world, despite its lack of pluralist institutions or political representation.
The model - Liberal
Opposing the endogenous Organic Tradition, the Liberal Tradition in Latin America originated far from the continent itself. While the Organic vision took root locally through Spanish and Portuguese colonizers closely tied to the Catholic Church, the Liberal Tradition emerged in Europe during the 16th-century Reformation. The ideas of thinkers like John Stuart Mill, Locke, and Montesquieu, born in European hubs like Paris and London, gradually reached Latin America via trade and the influence of liberal elites. Unsurprisingly, port cities such as Buenos Aires and Caracas became epicenters of revolutionary thought, fueling the Wars of Independence. Liberal ideas, rooted in European concepts like the separation of powers and constitutional governance, spread as a minority ideology led by elite circles. However, this exogenous nature made the Liberal Tradition historically weaker than the Organic one, which was deeply entrenched in the region’s culture. While Europe underwent the Reformation, Latin America experienced the Counter-Reformation, where the Catholic Church - facing the rise of secularization globally - strengthened its control and influence in the region. This divergence explains why democracy and liberal ideals have struggled to take root in Latin America: the region never experienced a Reformation akin to Europe’s, and Spanish and Portuguese colonization solidified Catholic dominance. Despite these challenges, the Liberal Tradition has played a significant role in shaping the region's history, influencing revolutions and ideas that persist in some countries today.
This tradition offers a contrasting framework to the Organic vision, beginning with its emphasis on Pluralism. Pluralism rejects Unanimism, absolutism and populism, typical of the Organic Tradition. Enlightenment principles shifted the foundation of authority from a divinely ordained natural order to a rational one, emphasizing human fallibility. This introduced concepts like the separation of powers and institutionalized conflict through legislative chambers, as opposed to the harmony and unity promoted by the Organic model. Secularism and checks and balances completed the Liberal framework. Another key pillar is the Universality of Rights, which guarantees individuals equal protection under the law, eliminating privileges based on social or institutional rank. Social mobility, a cornerstone of this view, contrasts sharply with the corporatist structure of the Organic Tradition. Here, the individual takes precedence, and the principle of “one person, one vote” replaces the collective voting mechanisms assigned to societal groups in the Organic view. Finally, the liberal concept of the State stands in direct opposition to the Organic Ethical State. In the Liberal Tradition, the State is a neutral arbiter, a “referee” in the social sphere tasked with upholding the law. No one, not even the government, is above the law. Historically, this neutral role has faced resistance from the Organic Tradition, at times forcing Liberal regimes to adopt authoritarian measures to assert themselves. Examples of the Liberal Tradition in Latin America include Benito Juárez’s revolutionary ideas in Mexico, opposing the Church during the War of Independence (1861-1863, 1867-1872); the political developments in Argentina between the Saenz Peña Law of 1912 and Yrigoyen’s second presidency (1928–1930); the Northern influences on the Mexican Revolution, embodied by Francisco Madero and Venustiano Carranza (1917-1920); and the military dictatorships in Brazil (1964-1985), Chile (1973-1990), and Argentina (1976-1983).
Caveats & Limitations
As extensively discussed, this model aims to provide a cross-sectional approach to understanding Latin America, avoiding the constraints of political ideologies. One significant outcome of this perspective is the removal of the rigid "left vs. right" dichotomy, allowing for a more flexible conceptualization of ideologies.
For example, it is crucial to recognize that the Organic Tradition is not always tied to “left-leaning” governments, just as the Liberal Tradition is not exclusively associated with the “right”. A case in point is the Argentine Juntas, which, despite being perceived as authoritarian and right-wing, displayed many characteristics of the Liberal Tradition and were far from aligning with the Organic view. Conversely, while Lula’s first presidency (2003–2011) initially raised expectations of being rooted in the Organic Tradition, it ultimately leaned heavily into the Liberal framework, despite the rhetoric used in his discourse. These examples underscore the importance of maintaining analytical flexibility and prioritizing a culturalist approach over-simplistic political labels when examining different regimes.
It is crucial to recognize the limitations inherent in this model. By narrowing the focus to Iberian influence, the interpretation may overlook a broader and more complex set of factors that shape the region today. Excluding the French influence also omits a significant historical and cultural contributor to Latin America. Additionally, while the model seeks to reduce the overemphasis on political aspects, it risks overcompensating by placing excessive weight on the roles of religion and culture. Another limitation is its continued emphasis on Europe’s historical influence, which may prevent the development of a truly indigenous framework that better reflects the unique characteristics of Latin America. Consequently, the model underscores the need for further research and the creation of theories that integrate diverse perspectives and methodologies, balancing various influences while still aligning with the overarching framework. Ultimately, the goal of this model is to provide students with essential tools to analyze and understand the region’s complexities. Its flexible nature is a key strength, but the responsibility for applying these tools wisely rests with the analyst.
In conclusion, the question arises: what can be achieved by applying this model? Put differently, what does one gain from understanding the Organic or Liberal elements in the region's political and cultural landscape? The answer lies in addressing a common misconception about models - they are not quick-fix solutions or recipes for action. Instead, this model provides students of Latin America with a robust analytical toolbox, enabling them to grasp the underlying dynamics, connect the dots between past and present, and better understand what might unfold in the future. The next steps are left to the individual, but this framework equips them with the foundation needed to navigate the complexities of the region.
To facilitate the understanding of the previous model, a more accessible scheme is provided as a toolbox:
Organic Tradition
Unanimism → organism; holistic; union; harmony; one people; no individuals.
Hierarchy → vertical organization; the head rules; complete inclusion.
Corporativism → division in corps; parts of the machine; no one outside the corps.
Ethical State → resources and institutions as tools to govern; no neutral State.
Liberal Tradition
Pluralism → division of powers; institutionalized conflict; secular and rational.
Rights → protection for individuals; formal equality; no discrimination.
Individuals → primacy of the individual; rights and duties; equal political power.
Neutral State → opposing to the Ethical one; neutral institutions; enforcing Law.
Main examples of Organic Tradition:
Porfirio Díaz (1876-1911) in Mexico;
Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-1940) in Mexico;
Getulio Vargas (1934-1954) in Brazil;
Yrigoyen in Argentina (1928-30) in Argentina;
Golpe de Estado 1943 in Argentina;
Cuban Regime (1959-);
Alvarado (1968-1975) in Perù;
Evo Morales (2006-2019) in Bolivia;
Rafael Correa (2007-2017) in Ecuador;
The Kirchners (2003-2015) in Argentina;
Daniel Ortega (2007-) in Nicaragua;
Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018-2024) in Mexico;
Main examples of Liberal Tradition:
Benito Juárez (1861-1863; 1867-1872) in Mexico;
Plutarco Elia Calles (1924-1928) in Mexico;
Golpe de Estado 1930 in Argentina;
Brazilian dictatorship (1964-1985);
Chilean dictatorship (1973-1990);
Argentinian dictatorship (1976-1983);
Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2003) in Brazil;
Government of Eduardo Frei (1964-1970) in Chile;
Michelle Bachelet (2006-2010; 2014-2018) in Chile;
Frente Amplio (2010-2015) in Uruguay;
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2011) in Brazil;
Main sources
Zanatta, L. (2017). Storia dell’America Latina contemporanea. Gius.Laterza & Figli Spa.
Marcos Novaro y Vicente Palermo, La Dictadura Militar 1976/1983: Del golpe de Estado a la restauración democrática. Editorial Paidós. Buenos Aires, 2003
References
1- Zanatta, L. (2018). Fidel Castro, l'ultimo re cattolico. Laterza.
2- Biblioteca del Congreso de la Nación (Argentina) Perón : la comunidad organizada (1949). Incluye la Reforma Constitucional sancionada por la Convención Nacional Constituyente en 1949. 2.a ed. / director: Prof. Oscar Castellucci. – Buenos Aires : Biblioteca del Congreso de la Nación, 2016. 273 p. 22 cm. + 1 disco compacto 12 cm – (JDP, los trabajos y los días; Tomo 10, vol. 1)
3- Most notably, the Peronist Workers Unions remain one of the most powerful groups in Argentina today.
Comments