1

CAUDILLISMO De Riz, Liliana: Caudillismo En: Bertrand Badie( editor), Dirk Berg-Schlosser (editor), and
Leonardo Morlino, ( editor) Encyclopedia of Political Science. Sage Publications(CA) september 2011

Caudillismo refers to a system of political-social domination which arose after the independence wars in Spanish America. The caudillo (strong man - from the Latin word capitellum, meaning head) was the head of irregular forces grouped on the basis of strong personalism and an informal system of sustained obedience based on paternalistic relations, who ruled a politically distinctive territory. Caudillismo as a concept was first used in Spanish America to describe the characteristics of leaders who challenged the authority of the governments arising from the independence process after 1810, and to refer to the political regimes instated by such leaders. In this limited meaning, the notion of

caudillismo is a heuristic instrument for analyzing a given historical period which started after the wars of independence and concluded with the emergence of the national states in the second half of the 19th century. John Lynch, one of the historians who made the greatest efforts to define the characteristics and attributes of Latin America's caudillos and their political leadership conditions, stated that caudillismo was the image of society and that caudillos were its creatures. This entry is a review of different interpretations of caudillismo, its origins and forms of leadership. Caudillismo and caudillo are terms which continued to be used after the conditions that gave rise to "classical caudillismo had disappeared. The extension of the notion to encompass any kind of personalized leadership that exercises power in an arbitrary manner

2 within a context of fragility or crisis of the political institutions is not that relevant to critical qualitative research. Caudillismo is utilized to designate and also stigmatize the governments of "strong men with no contextual reference.

We will now elaborate on the limited meaning of caudillismo restricted to the framework of the fights to control power which followed independence in Spanish America. In 1845, the book Facundo -written by Domingo Faustino Sarmiento- provided the classical interpretation of caudillismo in Spanish America in the eighteen hundreds. From that standpoint, caudillismo is the expression of political barbarism and the antithesis of a government which ensures security, freedom and ownership rights for a countrys inhabitants. Facundo Quiroga, the Tiger of the Plains", is the portrait of the caudillo in the first half of the 19th century. In Quiroga, Sarmiento believes he sees the incarnation of the antinomy Civilization and Barbarism faced by the peoples of the Americas as a result of their revolutionary experience and geography -the Desert- which had turned violence into a life style. Quiroga in the Pampas and Paz in the Venezuela prairies represent caudillismo as a system of government and type of political leadership. Physical vigour, spontaneous cruelty, the rusticity inherent in the rural world they come from can account for the despotism of the regime they represent. Antonio Lpez de Santa Anna from Mexico appears as the Attila of civilization and Rosas as the "River Plate Caligula. Latin American historiography and the contributions of European and US studies revealed practically unknown facets of the caudillismo phenomenon in the postindependence period, which led to a better understanding of an era obscured by myths and legends. The caudillo figures started to appear with more grey nuances than in the view of

3 their contemporaries and it was noted that their governments, in many cases, adapted traditional legality within the emergence of a new context. The origin of caudillismo has been interpreted differently, encompassing factors such as the militarization of politics as a result of the independence wars, the inexistence of formal rules after the collapse of the colonial order, the ruralization of power, the importance of monarchic tradition, the legacy of authoritarianism and anarchism from the Spaniards or the characteristics of the village societies. In Venezuela and the River Plate area where the war against the royal troops was more radical and the whole of the population took arms, caudillismo developed quicker and in a more pronounced manner. Cattle herders and gauchos, layabouts and bandits joined the montoneras which were truly "informal armies that got supplies by pillaging and acted under the subordination of the boss prestige. The militarization of politics and society which outlived the battles for independence linked caudillismo to military power and political competition with armed struggles. The caudillo was first a warrior, during wars of liberation, civil wars, national wars, the caudillo was the strong man who could recruit troops and protect his people as John Lynch outlined. Studies on Latin American caudillismo in the 1950s considered it a variable of authoritarianism and militarism in response to anarchy. Gamarra, Cuzcos black angel, was seen as a prototype of military leaders that under their different guises, dominated politics in post-independence Spanish America. The militias constituted the core of Gamarrismo. As pointed out by Walker, the militias controlled local society by monitoring any threat of opposition and they also served as veritable military academies and vehicles of social mobility. High-ranking positions in the militias represented important avenues to political and economic gain. In Mexico and Peru, professional military men

4 played an important role in the political process as pressure groups. In other countries, the military organization of the end of the colonial period was swept away by the wars of independence, although with different outcomes. Nonetheless, some military heads were prevailing figures as, for instance, Santander in Nueva Granada, Flores in Ecuador, Paz in Venezuela and Santa Cruz in Bolivia. As Walter notes, the analysis of caudillismo needs to shift its attention from the battlefield and reconsider the State, as middling officials such as sub-prefects and militia leaders proved more important for Gamarra than military officers and guerrillas. Distinctive institutional legacies of colonialism, geographical and ethnic composition differences among countries where the indigenous population prevails and is only partly assimilated into Spanish culture, and countries with Creole population mainly integrated into Spanish culture lead to being cautious when the time comes to make general remarks on Spanish America's politics throughout the half of a century following independence. The Church and the army were two big corporations during colonial times, with an institutional and economic preponderance in Mexico which cannot be compared with other regions. This was an important source of divergence between Catholics and anti-clericals in Mexico. Conflicts between rural and urban areas, between federalism and centralism and between rival trends in trade policies protectionism and liberalism- all hindered the consolidation of a stable national policy. The duration and pace of the transition to post-colonial order varied between countries and so did the role of the regional or national caudillos. In all cases, however, the constant feature is loyalty to caudillos, most of whom had no defined ideologies and fluctuated between contradictory positions, whether unitary or federal, conservative or liberal, favouring protectionism or free trade.

5 Tulio Halpern Donghi explored the relationship between militarization and democratization which is at the heart of the promotion of the caudillo power. Social promotion opportunities arose after the rupture of colonial order. Iturbide, the

constitutional emperor of Mexico belonged to a poor family; Gamarra and Castilla, both from Peru, were Creoles. They all reached positions that would have before been

inaccessible to them but this relative democratization was an instrument to impede the excessive dissemination of popular participation within a context in which power legitimacy was always questioned. In the middle of the seventies Wolf and Hansen defined caudillismo as a subcategory of clientelism. These authors believe that caudillismo refers to the quest for and violent conquest in an essentially unstable manner- of power and wealth which establishes a protector-protected link in a society which lacks institutional channels for this competition. John Lynch also states that the patron-client relationship was the essential link that finally built into the State and became the model of caudillismo. Alan Knights more recent view underlines the relevance of traditional authority in village societies, combined with elements of charisma, to understand the command-obedience relationship inherent in caudillismo. The notion of caudillismo encompasses different leadership sub-categories, for instance, the "sword caudillos, the war lords who dominated during a period of great instability when popular support and force were decisive. Pacification and progressive institutionalization of power relations were carried out by new leader profiles, the "tame caudillos" who were deemed to be the arbitrators capable of achieving national unification. Rosas government (1829-1852) is an example of a new modality. Sarmiento believed that was the end of caudillismo since it combined elements of barbarism with elements of

6 civilization: cruelty became more sophisticated, the press and the Legislature replaced barbarian passion, and strong personalism allowed exerting influence on the political orientation of other River Plate provinces although Rosas' powers were not included in a constitutional system. Benito Jurez, a lawyer born into a poor family, used the 1857 Constitution to take on emergency powers and govern in an authoritarian manner, constitutional but cruel. Diego Portales' constitutional authoritarianism sought support as he himself defined in "the weight of night", in the acquiescence of the masses, passive and ignorant. Portales was a prevailing political figure in Chile in the 1830s. He was a trader and omnipotent minister but never took office as President. From Sarmiento's viewpoint, Portales was an example of an illustrated caudillo. The use of the term caudillo was extended to encompass authoritarian leaders such as Jurez or Portales who governed within the framework of Constitutions. According to Lynch, the impenetrable

dictatorship" of Dr. Francia in Paraguay combined despotism and isolation for three decades in which he ensured the basic needs of a Creole society. The notion of caudillismo helps to a better understanding of the political processes that took place during that period since interpretation of the past cannot ignore the categories used by their contemporaries.

Liliana De Riz

See also: anarchy, charisma, clientelism, regionalism, state formation

7 FURTHER READINGS Halpern Donghi, Tulio (1993). The Contemporary History of Latin America. Durham. Duke University Press. Knight, Alan (1980). Peasant and Caudillo in revolutionary Mexico 1910-1917 In David A. Brading (ed.) Caudillo and Peasant in the Mexican Revolution. Cambridge University Press, 17-58 Lynch, John (1992). Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800-1850. Oxford. Clarendon Press Walker, Charles F. (1999). Smoldering ashes: Cuzco and the creation of Republican Peru 1780-1840. Durham. Duke University Press. Wolf, Eric R. & Hansen Edgard C (1967). Caudillo Politics: A Structural Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 9, 168-179.