Stabil country in latin america

Tibi088

So one of my prejudices is that when I hear Latin America the first things to come to my mind are political instability and chaos - constant changes of governments and coups, military juntas and criminal organizations more powerful that the state - followed by poverty and corruption.

My knowledge of the area is very limited which might be both reason and consequence of this prejudice - these are not things I want to deal with.

So partly as an attempt to correct myself: Can someone tell me of a Latin American country without a coup (even failed) for... lets say at least 50 years - the longer the better, preferably without being infamous for corruption or some kind of criminal activity?

And if not what do you think the reason for this instability might be?
 

Arkenfolm

No coups in Mexico, just solid political dominance of the PRI until they were defeated in democratic elections. Granted, Mexico's corruption and issues with criminal groups is internationally infamous (although there's many countries more corrupt than Mexico).

Tibi088 said:
And if not what do you think the reason for this instability might be?
Click to expand...

In large part the United States and American corporations (infamously the United Fruit Company aka Chiquita Brands), constantly funding covert activities in Latin America. See Operation Condor. Historically however, Latin American countries were often most stable when ruled by a dictator who suppressed dissent (as seen in some Central American countries, Venezuela, etc.). Of course, these dictators tended toward corruption and screwing their people over in favour of themselves, their political allies, and foreign companies.

It seems noteworthy that in the late 19th century until the Great Depression, the region was a lot more stable overall, with some exceptions (obviously Mexico with the Mexican Revolution, but also some instability in Chile). But again, there was widespread corruption, since bribing the legislatures of countries like Chile or Peru was known to be pretty easy.
 

Expat

Costa Rica is the usual example. They had a civil war in the late 40s that lasted a couple months, and nothing since. The winning junta transitioned quickly to democracy, famously abolished the military, and the country's been relatively stable ever since.

I've heard analysis that the lack of US intervention was a calculated political move, similar to the Soviets allowing democracy in Finland. So it's possible stability was only the result of complex Cold War calculus. If that's the case, then you could potentially work on PODs to change the calculus for other Latin countries.
 

Escape Zeppelin

metalinvader665 said:
In large part the United States and American corporations (infamously the United Fruit Company aka Chiquita Brands), constantly funding covert activities in Latin America. See Operation Condor. Historically however, Latin American countries were often most stable when ruled by a dictator who suppressed dissent (as seen in some Central American countries, Venezuela, etc.). Of course, these dictators tended toward corruption and screwing their people over in favour of themselves, their political allies, and foreign companies.

It seems noteworthy that in the late 19th century until the Great Depression, the region was a lot more stable overall, with some exceptions (obviously Mexico with the Mexican Revolution, but also some instability in Chile). But again, there was widespread corruption, since bribing the legislatures of countries like Chile or Peru was known to be pretty easy.
Click to expand...

I think you hit on some of the deeper underlying reason such as poverty, corruption, and the wealth disparity between the poor and entrenched rich. Low wages makes those countries attractive for international investment which helps funnel money to the wealthy classes but does little to improve the lives of workers, fermenting dissent. To maintain their status on top the ruling class uses bribery and increasingly authoritarian methods of control while the populace becomes increasingly radical. The US then becomes involved because of their fight against international socialism and communism. Basically, people are poor and because of Latin American governments' (both left and right) tendency toward authoritarianism and terrible economic policies, a portion of the populace see revolt as the best solution.
 

Arkenfolm

Argentina might be the best chance for a stable country in Latin America, if your POD is the early 20th century. Although once President Yrigoyen was overthrown, the country had decades of instability which hindered economic growth and led to the Argentina we see nowadays. Uruguay also might be an option, since in the early 20th century it was also pretty stable. The biggest problem is Uruguay doesn't have a lot of ways to diversify its economy unlike Argentina (both were very dependent on agricultural exports, but Argentina has more chances to diversify). Both countries could potentially have a GDP per capita equivalent to Mediterranean nations like Italy or Spain (curiously the two most important cultures in the creation of modern Argentina and Uruguay). And modern Spain (post-Franco) and Italy are more or less stable countries.
 

Lalli

Costa Rica is ibndeed stable, democratic and prosperous compared many other Latin American nations. Mexico too was long time quiet stable nation altough it has been decades ruled by one party and there has been serious corruption problem. Cuba is too quiet stable altough it is one-party dictatorship.

But you could get Argentina and Brazil quiet easily as stable and prosperous democracies. You just would need some POD of end of 19th century or early 20th century. Chile could too have more stable development. Perhaps Venezuela could be in better condition without Chávez and Maduro.
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

^ Venezuela is somewhat easy - avoid the Yom Kippur War, or at least mitigate the effects of the oil boom in '73. 1973 got many Venezuelans looking at getting the high life with smacked lips and that was when the then-stable petrostate model shattered. Of course it would also help if Venezuela had a more diversified economy than OTL (and even avoid the 1948 military coup by Pérez Jiménez), but if the oil boom was deflated early on in Venezuela then that could help considerably with stability and in trying to return to the earlier equilibrium.
 

kernals12

Banned
Tibi088 said:
So one of my prejudices is that when I hear Latin America the first things to come to my mind are political instability and chaos - constant changes of governments and coups, military juntas and criminal organizations more powerful that the state - followed by poverty and corruption.

My knowledge of the area is very limited which might be both reason and consequence of this prejudice - these are not things I want to deal with.

So partly as an attempt to correct myself: Can someone tell me of a Latin American country without a coup (even failed) for... lets say at least 50 years - the longer the better, preferably without being infamous for corruption or some kind of criminal activity?

And if not what do you think the reason for this instability might be?
Click to expand...
Mexico has had no coups, revolutions, or civil wars since the 1930s.
 

David T

Believe it or not, the Dominican Republic has not had any coups since the US invasion in 1965. Some very questionable elections, yes--but no actual coups. (There was an attempted coup when it was clear Balaguer was losing in 1978, but the Army backed down "amid protests at home and strong pressure from abroad." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic_general_election,_1978)

(The basic rule for Dominican politics in the last four decades of the twentieth century: Balaguer almost always wins. Bosch--except very briefly in 1963--always loses.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top