McNamara 1

Bryan McNamara
Maria Pazo and Gastn Wright
Contemporary LA Politics
26 May 2014
Mobilizing the Masses: Argentina and Venezuela
For many decades, the political realm throughout Latin America relied solely on
the authority of the upper elite. It has always been the government who have instituted
different laws, policies, and structural changes. During the late 19th through the early 20th
centuries, many Latin American countries suffered from various political and economic
woes. With the inherent instability limiting the growth of many of these countries, it
became necessary for new leaders to emerge. With the election of Juan Domingo Peron in
1946, a new movement of class-focused politics and development, also known as
Peronism, began to alter the course of Argentinas history. Similarly, the election of Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela in 1999 brought a period of replenishment and a brighter outlook on
the future of the country. Although different approaches were taken, Peron and Chavez
brought fundamental change to their countries by opening political and social
participation to previously excluded sectors of society through the process of
mobilization.
The term mobilization can often take on many different meanings depending on
the context or topic of discussion. The term most commonly associated with the type of
political and social mobilization in the emergence of Peronism and Chavism is
participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is commonly referred to as the use
of mass participation in political decision making to complement or (in the most radical

McNamara 2
versions) replace the traditional institutions of elections and lobbying associated with
representative democracy (Hawkins 32). In other words, this form of mobilization
involves the interaction and participation of the masses, including all levels of society.
Therefore, mobilization, or participatory democracy, requires a large group of people
coming together under a single vision or a common goal. Although they may be divided
in terms of economic or social stature, the importance of mobilization is that regardless of
differences all levels of society are able to come together in a single-minded manner in
order to create change. Although a reoccurring theme throughout the discussion of
political mobilization seems to be focused on the masses, the inevitable truth is that the
process would never have occurred without the initiative of certain individuals.
Juan Domingo Peron and Hugo Chavez were two of the Latin American
presidents who began to institute mobilization as a process of change within their
countries. Yet, during the decades preceding their elections, political turmoil ran rampant
throughout both Venezuela and Argentina. During the 19th century, political power was
used quite differently than today. According to Alves, Coercion and capital in Latin
America were used unevenlyfor coercion was brutal but inefficient, and scarcity of
capital remained most often the rule (Alves 20). Fortunately, this statement no longer
applies to many Latin American countries, such as Venezuela and Argentina. Although
the balance between coercion and capital are still used as a means of attaining power
centralization, particular government officials in both countries, such as Peron and
Chavez, have continued to expand the power to the people. Strict, authoritarian regimes
have begun their transformations into participatory democracies.

McNamara 3
Historically, certain groups of individuals have been excluded in the political
world. For example, lower class citizens were kept excluded from political participation
due to the weakness of the state. Yet, during the early years of war many Latin American
citizens took important roles through grassroots organizations and rebellion groups.
Cardoso states, Whenever it is possible, the masses make their dissent known to the
regime: voting against it, rioting, or just keeping to themselves (Cardoso 51). In these
early stages, their only chance at participation in this authoritarian regime was protest,
which oftentimes resulted in punishment by their distinctive governments. Although
violence and backlash can still result from protest today, Latin American citizens now
have more of a voice and right to speak out in their countries. Yet, the overall
empowerment of the lower class within the state was a slow, ongoing process.
Juan Perons work focused on two central items on the agenda: involvement by all
and economic reform. During Perons first term as President, he instituted an instant
reorganization of the structure of political access. The labor unions became a valuable
part of the development of society and many organizations were managed through these
unions, such as health care and recreational amenities. With his help, union membership
increased five times to 2.3 million people by 1984 (McComb 158). As for economic
reforms, one of Perons first main initiatives as President was to create a Five Year Plan
in order to end the economic pendulum that had persisted in Argentina for many years.
The overall goals of this plan included increasing employment rates and wages, as well as
improving their working conditions. Although many of these reforms seemed to work, no
political movement can be considered flawless. Not all of the Peronist policies created a
sustainable outcome. In Argentina, public enterprise prices increased after those in the

McNamara 4
rest of the economy; their costs rose more rapidly than their receipts (McComb 158).
Hence, the already deepening public deficit continued to grow. His presidency did not
come without strict scrutiny among many scholars who later studied the successes and
failures of this movement in Argentina.
In the three decades preceding the election of Peron, a new wave of political
parties began to form in Argentina. After his election in 1946, the country was seemingly
divided between two main political parties: the Radical party and the Peronists. The
Radical party consisted of middle and upper-middle class citizens, while the Peronist
party consisted of the working class and lower-middle class citizens. As president, some
believe that Peron was known for his ability to mobilize mass protests and to gain the
support of the rural poor (Lupu 61). Yet, on the contrary, there are many scholars who
believe that Peron focused his attention not only on the rural poor, but all sectors of
society. Many believe that Peronist support is by no means limited to the lower class,
nor are the Radical voters uniformly from the middle classes (Lupu 67). Regardless on
ones individual opinion on the effectiveness of Perons tactics, it cannot be denied that
he mobilized a large group of Argentinians in order to help a suffering country. Although
the impact of Juan Perons role in the development of a suffering country cannot be
diminished, there was one more person who also had a major impact: his wife, Eva.
With the marriage of Juan and Eva Peron in 1945, the Peronist party instantly
became an even stronger force in Argentina. The two shared a singular vision for their
community and sought to bring social justice and economic control to all citizens. While
Eva Peron might not have held an independent voice within Peronismher participation
was fundamental in increasing the effectiveness of Perons strategy (Patroni 154). With

McNamara 5
the creation of the Eva Peron Foundation in 1948, Eva was able to further add the
previous work of her husband in assisting thousands in Buenos Aires. By creating
schools, providing homes, and donating various items, Eva continued to carry out and
expand the Peronist movement in interacting directly with the working class. Although
Argentina was able to utilize the process of mobilization in the middle of the 20th century,
many other countries did not have such success until many years later.
Immediately after his election as President of Venezuela in 1999, Hugo Chavez
took his first initiative toward reform and mass mobilization by instituting a new
constitution. By having this written, the Venezuela took a crucial step toward greater
equality among all sectors of society. The Constitution states that all citizens have the
right to participate freely in public matters and the participation of the people in the
creation, execution, and control of public affairs is the required means to achieve
protagonism that guarantees their complete development, both as individuals and as a
collective (Hawkins 35). Therefore, citizens are finally given the right to become
protagonists in their own countrys political future. This addition to the Constitution is
important because rather than simply being an abstract idea, circling the table of
discussion, participatory democracy became a written law that could be taken more
seriously by all constituents. Both government officials as well as citizens, both wealthy
and poor, could feel the importance of their citizenry in the country and furthermore have
the opportunity to take part in its development.
Apart from formal introduction into society by the laws of the Constitution,
citizens from all parts of the community came together under many of the social
programs created by Chavez. One of the main programs was Bolivarian Circles, which

McNamara 6
was a large network of voluntary associations that comprised of 2.2 million Venezuelans
united under a single goal to defend the constitution, be faithful to the ideals of Simn
Bolvar, and serve the interests of their community (Hawkins 36). Similar to the labor
unions under Peron in Argentina, these various circles came together in order to seek vital
change within the areas that had previously been strictly controlled by the government.
Yet, without a leader at the head of the process, progress would not have been made.
Many scholars point to Chavezs charismatic authority as an omnipresent source of
identity and motivation among participants as an important part of the countrys success
(Hawkins 37). Therefore, Chavez was able to inspire others through his own
determination and commitment, which was directly reciprocated through the creation of
these various social programs.
Under the umbrella of the Bolivarian Circles, numerous programs were created to
address particular issues. Many of these areas, such as poverty, health, and education, saw
vast improvements during Chavezs reign. Overall, the massive decrease in poverty level
has been the most drastic change due to these programs. According to research, The
poverty rate has been cut in half from its peak of 55.1 percent in 2003 to 27.5 percent in
the first half of 2007 (Weisbrot 4). With such a drastic drop, the once poverty-stricken
country of Venezuela immediately began to change its course of development. Chavez
was able to pull together a suffering country by bringing them together and assisting them
through the installment of many of these new programs.
One of the other most significant changes during Chavezs rule came in the health
care industry. Several Health Committees, or Comits de Salud, were created as
voluntary clinics that helped to administer health consultations for the community.

McNamara 7
According to Weisbrot, In 1998 there were 1,628 primary care physicians for a
population of 23.4 million. Today, there are 19,571 for a population of 27 million
(Weisbrot 10). With such a great increase in the number of health services available, the
poor were more easily able to receive what they needed. Although statistics have shown
slight improvements, education is still one of the sectors that has not been seriously
addressed. In particular, low levels of participation in educational missions have been
noted because while food and health care are more basicremedial or higher education
is required by only a small subset, particularly because most educational needs are
already met by regular public and private education (Hawkins 46). Therefore, Chavez
has done a lot to bring his country and its citizens out of a difficult period, yet there are
still improvements that need to require further assistance.
The key players of both Peronism in Argentina and Chavism in Venezuela have
left a profound impact on their countrys development, especially through the process of
mobilization. Although happening nearly a half a century apart, both Juan Peron and
Hugo Chavez realized the political calamities within their countries and sought to end the
hierarchal rule of the elite. By realizing the fundamental right to participation of all
citizens, both presidents initiated different reforms and programs in order to improve the
current state of society. While Peron focused on direct economic development and the
involvement of labor unions, Chavez created social programs to assist those in need.
Overall, both Peron and Chavez led their countries through a period of initial sustainable
progress, which can further be improved and developed by future presidents and leaders.

McNamara 8
Works Cited
Lopez Alves, State Formation and Democracy in Latin America, 1810-1900
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, On the Characterization of Authoritarian Regimes in Latin
America
Robert McComb and Carlos E.J.M. Zarazaga, The Political Economy of Latin America
in the Postwar Period: Argentina
Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval, Update: The Venezuelan Economy in the Chvez
Years
Kirk A. Hawkins, Who Mobilizes? Participatory Democracy in Chvezs Bolivarian
Revolution
Noam Lupu and Susan C. Stokes, The Social Bases of Political Parties in Argentina,
1912-2003
E. Spencer Wellhofer, Peronism in Argentina: The Social Base of the First Regime,
1946-1955
Viviana Patroni, A Discourse of Love and Hate: Eva Peron and the Labour Movement
(1940s-1950s)