LEC 8 HIST 286 - LEC 8 Getulio Vargas and Brazil's...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 7 pages.

LEC 8: Getulio Vargas and Brazil's Corporatist "New State" Getulio Vargas and the Estado Novo in Brazil, 1930-1945 - In MEXICO; impulse for social change and implementation of political changes took form of revolution  followed by insitutionlization of one party state - Uruguay: *Baja* took form of top down state led program of labour reforms and social insurance provisions that came from top down to cement and extend power of one of 2 of uruguay’s political parties, appealing to immigrants and their children. To win and solidify political support - Argentina: 1912 signs pania electoral reform  allow radical party (dedicated to political reform). Radicals weren’t a threat to the economic order of argentina but were perceived as a threat by the elite that the traditional elite supported the overthrow of the prez (idagoyen in 1930) - In each 3 cases, some form of democratization was taking place. Signs pania brought more voters and made elections more competitive. Mexica revolution: had corruption, but brought more groups into the political equation. - Brazil***: PARADOX  1930 jatulia varagas  implemented significant reforms e.g. influence of workers and labour. Key point: vargas did so while creating a govt that was unapologetically undemocratic, and was proud of it. Even as it was reformist. How & why?  need to understand the intellectual climate in 1920’s and need to know history of brazil’s experience with democracy until that time. - Brazil 1920: 5% met literacy and other requirements to be voters, 2.5% voted, 2.5% voted in a way that followed the lead of local power brokers  idea that you have an important figure that mobilizes the people to vote for the person he says you have to vote for = normal way votes were mobilized. - Democratic politics generally = compromises and backroom deals made by limited # of ppl then ratified by voters who were very small in # and were told what to do - Political parties = cliques, not organizes by principles and ideas, but more on loyalty to a specific person. - Brazilians became cynical about this kind of democracy and began to look for ways to reform the system. Some advocated widening electoral participation, getting rid of fraud, doing the same thing as argentina w the signs pania law - Others looked at corrupt limited democracy and concluded that expanding the vote was not a solution  charged that it wouldn’t solve political problems but would not lead to an
improved democracy. No matter how broad the suffrage, elections would only end up putting corrupt ppl in power, and these ppl would be incapable of representing the ppl bc their interest was personal gain. Argument made = you can extend the vote to more ppl but these ppl will only vote in the flawed, controlled way and that modern politicians aren’t much more than caudillos in nice suits.  instead: solution = not extend the vote, but find a new way to administer the country that doesn’t rely on elections, political parties & politicians. Not unique argument in brazil  equally in Europe. Idea = have

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture