根据 Aline Helg 的演讲改编^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Languages

第一次世界大战后，民粹主义在拉丁美洲兴起，其根源在于复杂的社会和经济动态。民主体制薄弱，无力满足公民日益增长的需求，贫困现象普遍，不平等现象严重，这些都为民粹主义思想的滋生提供了肥沃的土壤。1929 年经济大萧条的破坏性影响加剧了原有的紧张局势，使该地区陷入前所未有的政治暴力和社会动荡时代。

在哥伦比亚，豪尔赫-埃利塞-盖坦（Jorge Eliécer Gaitán）的史诗般的故事是这一动荡时期的缩影。在民众支持浪潮的推动下，盖坦和他的运动俘获了弱势群体的想象力，承诺实现正义和平等。他在 1948 年惨遭暗杀，引发了 "暴力"--一段血腥而持久的内部冲突。

古巴也不甘示弱。20 世纪 30 年代，另一位自称捍卫工人阶级利益的魅力型领导人富尔亨西奥-巴蒂斯塔（Fulgencio Batista）横空出世。然而，腐败和专制侵蚀了他统治的合法性，为菲德尔-卡斯特罗 1959 年的革命铺平了道路。

在巴西，1930 年热图利奥-瓦加斯（Getúlio Vargas）的上台似乎预示着彻底的变革。瓦加斯以工人阶级和边缘化人群的福祉为中心，发起了渐进式改革。然而，其政府的专制倾向玷污了他的遗产，最终导致他于 1945 年被推翻。

在全球动荡的政治和经济背景下，本文旨在剖析民粹主义在拉美兴起背后的根本原因。本文通过对哥伦比亚、古巴和巴西的深入案例研究，对大萧条对该地区的影响进行了细致的分析，揭示了民粹主义的细微差别和各国的具体特点。

二十世纪二十年代拉丁美洲历史的转折点

20 世纪 20 年代，拉丁美洲在瞬息万变的经济、政治和社会动态的推动下经历了一场变革。第一次世界大战结束后，该地区经济显著增长，通常被称为 "繁荣 "时期。这一时期的繁荣一直持续到本十年末，其主要原因是在全球经济复苏和工业扩张的刺激下，国际社会对南美产品的需求不断增长。对橡胶、铜和大豆等原材料的需求大幅增加，推动拉美经济步入增长轨道。在重建和扩张过程中，国际市场以前所未有的速度吸收了这些产品。因此，外资涌入，国内产业扩张，城市化进程加快，改变了该地区的社会和经济面貌。经济繁荣也带来了重大的社会政治变革。中产阶级的崛起和城市人口的增长为民主和社会改革创造了动力。公民们现在更加知情和参与，开始要求更多的政治参与和更公平的国家财富分配。然而，表面的繁荣掩盖了结构性的弱点。对世界市场和原材料的过度依赖使拉丁美洲对国际经济波动尤为敏感。1929 年的大萧条残酷地暴露了这些弱点，导致严重的经济萎缩、失业以及社会和政治动荡。

20 世纪 20 年代是拉丁美洲的黄金时代，常被称为 "百万人的舞蹈"，这是一个空前繁荣的时代，其特点是经济飞速增长和乐观情绪感染力极强。国民生产总值的指数式增长和主要来自美国的外国投资者的热情，将该地区变成了商机和创新的沃土。这一繁荣时代是全球和地区经济因素偶然结合的产物。第一次世界大战后，欧洲和其他地区的重建刺激了对拉丁美洲自然资源和农业资源的需求。该地区各国拥有丰富的原材料，其出口额激增，带来了国家经济的扩张和繁荣。百万人的舞蹈 "不仅仅是一种经济现象。它渗透到了该地区的社会和文化精神中，给人们带来了乐观和愉悦的感觉。大都市百花齐放，艺术和文化蓬勃发展，人们明显感觉到拉丁美洲即将实现其尚未开发的潜力。然而，这种狂舞也带有模糊性。繁荣并不是平均分配的，社会和经济不平等持续存在，甚至有所恶化。外国资本的大量涌入也引发了对经济依赖性和外国干涉的担忧。世界市场的动荡和商品价格的波动使经济复苏变得脆弱。

百万人的舞蹈 "是拉丁美洲经济史上的一个标志性事件，说明了以外资涌入和经济多样化萌芽为特征的转型。虽然该地区传统上以农产品和矿产品为主的出口经济为基础，但全球形势为其重大调整打开了一扇机会之窗。第一次世界大战迫使欧洲减少出口，造成了一个真空地带，拉丁美洲新兴工业急于填补。拉美大陆自然资源丰富，但以前受限于工业能力低下，因此开始加速工业化进程。纺织业、食品业和建筑业取得了显著增长，标志着向更加自给自足和多元化的经济转型。外资的涌入，加上国内工业的增长，也带动了城市化的快速发展。城市不断发展壮大，城市中产阶级随之崛起，改变了该地区的社会和政治格局。这一新动态为经济注入了活力和多样性，但也凸显了结构性挑战和持续存在的不平等。尽管经济欣欣向荣，但对商品出口的持续依赖使该地区容易受到外部冲击的影响。繁荣建立在不稳定的平衡之上，"百万人的舞蹈 "既是对增长的庆祝，也预示着未来经济的脆弱性。

第一次世界大战后，美帝国主义在拉丁美洲崛起。当欧洲列强，尤其是英国忙于战后重建时，美国抓住机会扩大了对其南部邻国的控制。这种优势并非偶然，而是深思熟虑的战略结果。19 世纪初宣布的门罗主义在这一背景下找到了新的现实意义，其基本原则 "美国人的美国 "成为美国扩张的意识形态基础。帝国主义入侵的形式多种多样。在政治上，美国参与了政权更迭工程，扶植意识形态上与华盛顿一致、经济上从属于华盛顿的政府。直接军事干预、支持政变和其他形式的政治干预司空见惯。在经济上，美国公司在该地区如雨后春笋般涌现。它们的影响力不仅限于开采自然资源和农业资源，还扩展到支配当地和地区市场。香蕉种植园 "的概念已成为这个时代的象征，联合果品公司等公司在这里拥有相当大的影响力。在文化方面，拉丁美洲经历了强烈的美国化。美国人的生活方式、价值观和民主理想得到了推广，这往往损害了当地的传统和特性。美国在拉丁美洲的霸权影响深远。它建立了新的地区秩序，重新定义了未来几十年的美洲关系。虽然这种影响在某些领域带来了现代化和发展，但也产生了抵触、怨恨和政治不稳定。美国影响的双重性--既是发展的催化剂，又是制约的根源--继续占据着拉丁美洲的政治和文化想象。那个时代遗留下来的影响今天仍然清晰可见，证明了美帝国主义在该地区的复杂性和模糊性。

在 "百万人的舞蹈 "时期，拉丁美洲的社会结构因重大的经济和政治动荡而被重塑和重新定义。这种变革不仅体现在经济增长数字或外国投资率上，也体现在普通公民的日常生活中，席卷整个大陆的变革潮流改变了他们的生活。经济结构的变化在社会中产生了深刻的反响。曾经是经济支柱的农业实现了机械化，减少了对大量劳动力的需求，加剧了小农的衰落。大型庄园和商业性农业企业成为主导者，将许多小农和佃农赶出了祖祖辈辈生活的土地。农村人口外流，即从农村向城市大规模移民的现象，是这些经济转型的一个明显症状。昔日宁静、易于管理的城镇变成了繁华的大都市，人口增长带来了就业、住房和公共服务方面的复杂挑战。本已令人担忧的贫困和不平等现象更加严重，在繁荣的城市中心外围出现了棚户区和贫困街区。大量的欧洲移民，尤其是移民到阿根廷和巴西的欧洲移民，给这一酝酿已久的社会组合增添了另一层复杂性。它刺激了人口和经济增长，但也加剧了对工作和资源的竞争，并扩大了社会和文化矛盾。在这种快速且往往破坏稳定的变化背景下，为民粹主义意识形态的出现提供了肥沃的土壤。民粹主义领导人的言论以社会正义、经济公平和政治改革为重点，在心怀不满的群众中引起了特别的共鸣。对于那些流离失所、被边缘化、对经济繁荣的承诺无法兑现而感到失望的人来说，民粹主义不仅提供了答案，还提供了归属感和尊严。

工业化和城市化的加速使拉丁美洲的人口结构迅速变化，这体现了一场重大变革，从许多方面重新定义了该地区。人口从农村向城市中心的大规模转移不仅是一种物质迁移，也是一种文化、社会和经济转型。在阿根廷、秘鲁和中美洲等国，生活在农村地区的人口比例迅速下降，凸显了人口迁移的规模。城市已成为经济增长的主要引擎，工业扩张带来的就业和机会承诺吸引了大量农村移民。然而，这种快速增长也扩大了现有的问题，并带来了新的问题。城市基础设施对如此大量的人口涌入毫无准备，往往不堪重负。住房短缺、医疗和教育服务不足以及失业率上升成为长期存在的问题。城市是机遇的象征，但同时也存在着明显的不平等和城市贫困。对于传统精英来说，人口结构的动荡带来了复杂的挑战。面对快速增长、多样化且经常不满的城市人口，旧有的治理和维护社会秩序的方法已显得力不从心。我们需要新的社会、政治和经济管理机制来应对不断变化的现实。向城市社会的转变也产生了深远的政治影响。城市新移民的独特关切和需求改变了政治格局。能够表达和回应这些新需求的政党和运动变得越来越重要。正是在这种背景下，民粹主义凭借其对大众的直接号召力以及对社会和经济改革的承诺，逐渐占据了上风。这种快速转型的影响至今仍清晰可见。拉美城市是充满活力的文化、经济和政治中心，但也面临着贫困、不平等和治理等长期挑战。从农村向城市的移民是 "百万人之舞 "的一个决定性因素，它继续影响着拉丁美洲的发展轨迹，证明了这个多样化和快速发展地区的复杂性和动态性。

千百万人的舞蹈 "不仅是经济和人口的蜕变，也是思想和意识形态的激荡。贸易和通信网络的发展不仅密切了城市和地区之间的联系，也密切了国家和大陆之间的联系。拉丁美洲已成为一个思想和意识形态相互交融的大熔炉，为社会和政治创新以及抗议活动提供了肥沃的土壤。处于革命阵痛中的墨西哥成为进步和民族主义思想的输出国。与此同时，欧洲社会主义和法西斯主义以及布尔什维克俄国的影响也渗透进来，引入了挑战现有范式的概念和方法。每种思潮都有自己的追随者和批评者，为丰富该地区的政治话语做出了贡献。移民，尤其是逃离欧洲迫害的犹太移民的到来，为这一文化和思想马赛克增添了另一个维度。他们不仅带来了不同的技能和才能，还带来了独特的意识形态和文化观点，丰富了社会和政治话语。传统精英的地位岌岌可危。他们曾经不受挑战的权威，现在正受到日益多样化、受教育程度越来越高、参与度越来越高的人口的挑战。城市作为创新和竞争的中心，成为关于身份认同、治理和社会正义的激烈辩论的舞台。在此背景下，民粹主义找到了自己的时代和位置。民粹主义领导人善于表达大众的不满情绪，并大胆提出平等和正义的愿景，因此大受欢迎。他们能够在思想和意识形态的汪洋大海中游刃有余，针对贫困、不平等和排斥等紧迫挑战提出具体对策。由此可见，"百万人之舞 "是一个多层面变革的时期。它不仅重新定义了拉丁美洲的经济和人口结构，还开创了一个意识形态多元化和政治动态的时代，并将在今后几代人中继续影响该地区的命运。在这一充满活力的背景下，传统与现代、精英与大众以及不同意识形态之间的紧张关系，形成了我们今天所知的拉丁美洲独特而复杂的特征。

以 "百万人的舞蹈 "为特征的时期是拉丁美洲既有权力结构和社会规范受到深刻挑战的关键时刻。快速工业化、城市化和外国意识形态涌入的综合力量暴露了现有政权基础的裂缝，引发了对社会和政治秩序的重新评估。传统精英阶层和天主教会曾经是权威和影响力不可挑战的支柱，如今却面临着一系列前所未有的挑战。他们的道德和政治权威不仅因思想和信仰的多样化而受到侵蚀，也因他们显然无力缓解因经济快速转型而加剧的贫困和不平等而受到侵蚀。移民浪潮带来的新意识形态，在不断扩大的通信网络的推动下，绕过了传统的信息和知识守门人。社会主义、法西斯主义和布尔什维主义等思想在感到被边缘化和被现有体制遗忘的人群中得到了回应。城市中心的快速发展是变革的另一个催化剂。城市已成为多样性和创新的熔炉，但同时也是贫困和失望的中心。新进城的人们脱离了传统的农村生活结构，面对残酷的城市生活现实，他们乐于接受激进的思想和改革运动。正是在这片沃土上，民粹主义运动发芽并蓬勃发展。民粹主义领导人善于引导民众的不满情绪，表达公平正义的愿景，他们的出现成为传统精英的可行替代方案。他们为当时的紧迫问题提供了答案，尽管是有争议的答案：如何协调经济进步与社会正义？如何将不同的思想和身份整合成一个统一的国家愿景？

从农村向城市的大规模移民引发了一场文化和社会骚动，其影响至今仍在当代拉丁美洲产生共鸣。城市曾经是城市精英和殖民传统的堡垒，如今已成为不同阶层、种族和文化之间互动和融合的活跃场所。在蓬勃发展的城市中，棚户区和工人阶级社区成倍增加，居住着多样化和充满活力的人口。虽然这些地区以贫困和不稳定为特征，但它们也是创新的空间，在这里诞生了新的文化、艺术和音乐表现形式。音乐、艺术、文学甚至美食都在这种传统和影响的融合中发生了变化。每座城市都生动地反映了本国的多样性。在里约热内卢、布宜诺斯艾利斯和墨西哥城，农村地区的声音、风味和色彩已经渗透到城市生活中，形成了具有丰富而复杂特征的大都市。曾经在偏远乡村和农村社区中孤立存在的传统已经融合和演变，形成了独特而鲜明的文化形式。在社会方面，农村移民面临着残酷的城市生活现实。要适应城市环境，不仅需要调整经济和职业方向，还需要转变身份和生活方式。旧有的规范和价值观受到挑战，新移民必须适应不断变化的社会环境。然而，这些挑战也是变革的载体。移民社区一直是社会和文化变革的积极推动者。他们在城市话语中引入了新的规范、新的价值观和新的愿望。争取生存、尊严和认可的斗争为社会和政治运动注入了新的动力，加强了对权利、正义和公平的要求。

新与旧、农村与城市、传统与现代之间的对抗是 "百万人跳舞 "时期拉丁美洲变革的核心。农村移民虽然被边缘化，经常受到城市居民的蔑视，但他们实际上是变革的推动者，是社会和文化复兴的催化剂。移民促进了更深层次的民族融合。尽管存在歧视和困难，移民还是将他们的传统、语言和文化融入了大都市的结构之中。这种对比鲜明、充满活力的马赛克文化促进了互动和交流，逐渐消解了地区和社会壁垒，为更加一致和融合的民族身份奠定了基础。城市化还引发了一场教育革命。文盲现象一度十分普遍，但随着城市人口受教育程度和知识水平的提高，文盲现象开始逐渐减少。教育不再是奢侈品，而是必需品，接受教育为人们打开了通往经济和社会机遇的大门，也培养了积极开明的公民意识。广播和电影的出现标志着这一转变的另一个重要阶段。这些媒体不仅提供娱乐，还成为传播信息和思想的渠道。它们抓住了大众的想象力，建立了一个超越地理和社会界限的受众群体。大众文化曾经是细分的、区域性的，如今已成为全国性的，甚至是国际性的。这些发展侵蚀了传统的分裂，培养了集体认同和民族意识。挑战当然很多，但随之而来的是前所未有的表达、代表和参与机会。随着人口的迁徙，拉丁美洲不仅在物质上，而且在社会和文化上都在前进。以 "百万人的舞蹈 "为标志的岁月是一个充满矛盾的时代。这个时代充满了深刻的不平等和歧视，但同时也充满了创造力和社会活力，为现代拉丁美洲社会奠定了基础。在这个动荡的时代，为地区历史的新篇章奠定了基础，在这个篇章中，身份、文化和民族性将不断被协商、争论和重塑。

1910 年代和 1920 年代新中产阶级的出现是一种变革现象，颠覆了拉丁美洲传统的社会和政治动态。这个新的社会阶层受教育程度更高，经济更加多元化，是传统精英与工人和农村阶级之间的中间力量。这个中产阶级的特点是经济相对独立，受教育机会更多，不太愿意屈从于传统精英和外国资本的权威。它是民主愿望背后的推动力，主张治理和公共生活的透明、公平和参与。经济扩张、城市化和工业化刺激了这一中产阶级的崛起。公共部门、教育和小型企业的就业机会激增。随着经济和社会的发展，一种更强烈的身份认同感和自主意识逐渐扎根。这些人是新的意识形态和观点的传播者。他们寻求政治代表权、受教育机会和社会公正。他们通常受过教育，也是思想和文化的消费者和传播者，将本地和国际影响联系在一起。中产阶级对政治的影响是巨大的。它是民主化、多元化表达和公共辩论的催化剂。他们支持并经常领导改革运动，寻求重新平衡权力、减少腐败并确保资源和机会得到更公平的分配。在文化方面，这一新兴中产阶级是独特民族文化兴起的核心。他们是文学、艺术、音乐和电影的创造者和消费者，反映了各自国家的具体现实、挑战和愿望。

这些年轻大学生的涌入为拉美国家的学术和文化氛围注入了新的活力和激情。这些学生充满好奇心和雄心壮志，对自己在瞬息万变的社会中所扮演的角色有了更深刻的认识，他们往往站在知识创新和社会变革的最前沿。大学成为思想交流、辩论和抗议的沃土。教室和校园是挑战传统观念、探索和塑造新兴模式的场所。治理、民权、国家认同和社会正义等问题经常被讨论和辩论，并重新焕发出激情和活力。当时的学生并不是被动的旁观者，他们积极参与政治和社会活动。许多人受到了各种意识形态的影响，包括社会主义、马克思主义、民族主义和其他在一战后世界中蓬勃发展的思潮。大学成为了理论与实践交汇和融合的活动中心。经济环境在这一转变中也发挥了至关重要的作用。随着中产阶级的崛起，高等教育不再是精英阶层的专利。越来越多的中产阶级家庭渴望为子女提供受教育的机会，从而为他们的美好生活铺平道路，使其具有经济保障和社会流动性。学生群体的多样化也导致了观点和愿望的多样化。学生们渴望积极参与国家建设、确定自己的身份和塑造自己的未来。他们意识到自己作为变革推动者的潜力，决心在社会变革中发挥作用。

1918 年是拉丁美洲学生参与政治的一个重要转折点。在当地和国际动态的双重鼓舞和激励下，他们成为积极的政治参与者，就影响其国家的关键问题大胆发言。学生激进主义的兴起并不局限于传统政治，还包括教育、社会正义和公民权利等问题。大学自治是他们的核心诉求。他们向往不受外部政治和意识形态影响的高等教育机构，在那里，自由思想、创新和批判性辩论能够蓬勃发展。对他们而言，大学是学习和知识探索的圣地，是年轻人可以不受束缚地进行培训、质疑和创新的地方。多样化的意识形态激发了这些年轻人的活力和激情。墨西哥革命对正义、平等和改革的强烈呼吁引起了强烈共鸣。土著主义关注土著人民的权利和尊严，为他们的事业增添了另一层复杂性和紧迫性。社会主义和无政府主义为社会和经济秩序提供了另一种视角。这些学生并不只是被动地接受教育。他们认为自己是积极的伙伴，是变革的催化剂，是更加公正和公平的未来的建设者。他们深信，教育应该成为解放的工具，不仅是他们自己的解放，也是整个社会的解放，尤其是工人阶级和边缘化群体的解放。他们的行动和声音超越了大学的围墙。他们与社会进行了更广泛的对话，激发了公众辩论，影响了政策。他们的要求和行动揭示了对改革的深切渴求，对拆除压迫性结构和建设基于公平、正义和包容的国家的渴望。

二十世纪初，拉丁美洲社会运动蓬勃发展，工人运动尤其得到加强。在快速工业化和社会变革之后，新兴行业的工人发现自己的工作条件往往岌岌可危，因此迫切需要团结和动员起来，改善他们的生活和工作条件。20 世纪 20 年代，工会组织显著增加。在社会主义、无政府主义和共产主义思想的鼓励下，并往往在受到欧洲劳工运动影响的欧洲移民的引导下，拉美工人开始认识到集体行动的价值和力量。他们认识到，通过统一和有组织的组织，可以有效地保护和促进他们的权益。采矿、制造、石油和其他重工业等行业成为工人运动的据点。面对艰苦的工作条件、漫长的工作时间、不足的工资以及很少或根本没有社会保障，这些行业的工人特别容易接受团结和动员的号召。罢工、示威和其他形式的直接行动成为工人表达诉求、挑战剥削和不公正的常见方式。工会不仅是集体谈判和捍卫工人权利的重要平台，也是团结、政治教育和构建阶级认同的空间。这场运动并不是孤立的，它与拉美国家内外更广泛的政治运动有着内在的联系。左翼意识形态帮助塑造了工人的言论和要求，为他们的斗争注入了深刻的政治内涵。这些动态促成了拉丁美洲深刻的社会政治变革。曾经被边缘化和无权无势的工人已成为重要的政治参与者。他们的斗争推动了更具包容性政策的出现、公民权的扩大以及社会和经济权利的进步。

在这一动荡时期，军队不仅成为国防和安全机构，也成为拉丁美洲重要的政治角色。军队成为变革的能动推动者，往往是对被认为无法满足不同人群日益增长的社会和经济需求的政府的反应。军事政变层出不穷，领导政变的往往是雄心勃勃的军官，他们渴望改革，渴望建立秩序和稳定。这些干预措施有时受到因文职领导人腐败、无能和低效而感到沮丧的部分民众的欢迎。然而，它们也带来了新的权力和专制动态，对治理、人权和发展产生了复杂的影响。军队崛起的核心是一种内在的紧张关系。军队往往被视为现代化和进步的推动者，带来坚定的领导和必要的改革。与此同时，军队的崛起也意味着权力的集中以及对公民和政治自由的潜在压制。在墨西哥和巴西等国，军队的影响力是显而易见的。巴西的热图利奥-瓦加斯（Getúlio Vargas）等人体现了这个时代的复杂性。他们推行了重大的经济和社会改革，利用了民众的不满情绪，但同时也通过独裁手段进行统治。军方对政治的入侵与更广泛的经济和社会动态相互关联。1929 年的大萧条加剧了现有的紧张局势，使经济和社会面临考验。民粹主义意识形态大行其道，为复杂的结构性问题提供了简单而诱人的答案。

军队脱离拉丁美洲传统机构的影响和控制可归因于几个关键因素。一方面，社会经济和政治问题日趋复杂，需要一种更强有力的、往往是独裁的方式来维持秩序和稳定。另一方面，对快速现代化和结构改革的渴望促使军队将自己定位为自主和强大的政治行为体。传统政党和天主教会难以满足日益增长和日益城市化的人口不断变化的需求和愿望，这加剧了其影响力的削弱。传统精英和机构的声誉扫地，留下了一个真空地带，而军队则随时准备填补，以秩序、纪律和效率的堡垒自居。政变和军事干预成为调整国家政治进程的常用手段。干预的理由往往是腐败盛行、文官执政无能，以及需要一只强有力的手来引导国家走向现代化和进步。国家安全理论强调国内稳定，打击共产主义和其他 "国内威胁"，在军队政治化的过程中也发挥了核心作用。这种理论往往受到外部影响（尤其是美国）的推波助澜和支持，导致该地区出现了一系列独裁政权和军事独裁。然而，军队成为一支占主导地位的政治力量并非没有后果。虽然许多军事政权最初往往因其改革和秩序的承诺而受到欢迎，但其特点却是镇压、侵犯人权和独裁。稳定和进步的承诺往往与公民和政治自由的减少相抵消。

军队作为一支新的政治力量在拉丁美洲的出现与中产阶级的崛起是共生的。军官通常出身贫寒，他们在社会和政治上的崛起与中产阶级在国家范围内的扩张和肯定是并行不悖的。军队作用的扩大不仅限于治理和政治，还延伸到了经济发展。在军官们看来，军事机构是推动经济快速现代化、打击地方腐败和建立有效治理的有效且纪律严明的机制，而这些特点往往被认为是以前的文职政府所缺乏的。军队的愿景超越了简单的维持秩序和安全。它包含了改造国家、推动工业化、实现基础设施现代化和促进经济平衡发展的雄心壮志。这种观点往往植根于民族主义意识形态，旨在减少对外国势力的依赖，维护国家主权和自主权。在这种格局下，军队被定位为能够超越党派分歧、部门利益和地区竞争的机构。它承诺团结、明确的领导和对共同利益的承诺，这些品质被视为在 20 世纪 20 年代及其后动荡的经济和政治环境中航行的基本要素。然而，这一新动态也对拉丁美洲的民主性质、三权分立和公民权利提出了严峻的问题。军方在政治和经济中的主导地位为专制主义和军国主义的蓬勃发展创造了环境，而这往往会损害政治和公民自由。

军方越来越多地参与拉美政治并不是一种孤立的动态；它是更广泛的社会政治变革的一部分，这种变革对传统的权力结构提出了挑战，并为更广泛的参与开辟了空间。尽管军事干预往往与专制主义联系在一起，但矛盾的是，在某些地区和背景下，军事干预与政治领域的扩大同时发生。这种开放最显著的表现之一就是以前被边缘化的群体逐渐被纳入其中。长期被排除在政治决策之外的工人阶级开始发出自己的声音。工会和工人运动在这一发展中发挥了关键作用，为工人权利、经济公平和社会正义而战。与此同时，妇女也开始争取自己在公共领域的地位。女权运动和女权团体应运而生，它们挑战传统的性别规范，争取性别平等、选举权以及在社会、经济和政治生活各个领域的公平代表权。这些变化受到多种因素的影响。在现代化、教育和全球通信的推动下，民主和平等主义思想越来越自由地传播。国际社会和政治运动也发挥了作用，各种思想和理想超越国界，影响着当地的言论。然而，民主和参与的扩大并不是一成不变的。它往往与专制和保守势力形成紧张关系，并取决于每个国家的具体动态。所取得的成果是有争议的、脆弱的，民主化的轨迹也远非线性的。

电影和广播等新兴技术融入拉美政治的同时，极右翼意识形态也在该地区抬头。这种融合创造了一种动态，使政治信息，尤其是那些与保守和独裁理念相一致的信息，能够以前所未有的方式得到放大和传播。对社会不稳定、经济紧张局势的担忧，以及对被视为对现有社会和经济秩序构成威胁的左翼意识形态的反感，使极右翼获得了影响力。这场运动的政治和军事领导人利用新媒体技术来宣传他们的意识形态，接触和动员支持群体，并影响公众舆论。广播和电影成为塑造政治和社会意识的有力工具。信息的设计和播出方式可以唤起人们的情感、强化集体身份并阐明特定的世界观。有魅力的人物利用这些媒体树立自己的形象，直接与大众沟通，并塑造公共话语。然而，媒体影响力的扩大也引发了有关宣传、操纵和媒体权力集中的批判性问题。特别是极右翼分子，他们往往采取信息操纵、媒体控制和压制不同声音的策略。这些动态对拉丁美洲的民主和公民社会产生了相当大的影响。一方面，信息获取渠道的增加以及广播和电影动员能力的提高在公共领域的民主化方面发挥了作用。另一方面，极右翼势力对这些技术的战略性使用也助长了专制意识形态的巩固和传播。在这种复杂的背景下，拉美的政治和媒体版图已成为一片充满争议的土地。对信息的控制、真理的定义和公众舆论的塑造与该地区的权力、权威和民主问题有着内在的联系。这一新兴传播和意识形态两极分化时代的共鸣至今仍在影响着拉丁美洲的政治和社会动态。

拉丁美洲民粹主义

20 世纪 20 年代至 50 年代的拉美民粹主义是一种复杂的现象，它将不同的群众团结在有魅力的人物周围，这些人物承诺进行彻底变革并满足人民的需求。由于社会经济不平等、不公正和大部分人口被边缘化的现象日益加剧，人们普遍感到不满，因此这些民众运动便应运而生。巴西的热图利奥-瓦加斯、阿根廷的胡安-庇隆和墨西哥的拉萨罗-卡德纳斯等民粹主义领导人利用了这些不满情绪。他们往往绕过传统机构和精英，与选民建立直接联系，并引入了以领袖为中心的治理风格。他们的言论充满了社会正义、民族主义和经济再分配的主题。20 世纪 30 年代至 50 年代这一时期尤为动荡。民粹主义运动遭到保守势力和军方的激烈反对。政变屡见不鲜，这表明了民众力量与传统专制社会之间的紧张关系。然而，民粹主义留下了不可磨灭的遗产。首先，它扩大了政治参与。以前被排除在政治进程之外的部分人口被动员起来，融入国家政治。其次，它将社会和经济正义的主题融入政治话语。虽然民粹主义领导人的方法和政策受到了挑战，但他们强调的公平、包容和权利问题将继续在拉美政治中产生共鸣。第三，它有助于围绕民族主义和主权形成一种政治认同。为了应对外国影响和经济失衡，民粹主义者提出了国家发展和尊严的愿景。然而，此时的拉美民粹主义也面临着相当大的挑战。对领袖的崇拜和权力的集中往往限制了健全的民主体制的发展。此外，尽管这些运动传递着包容的信息，但有时也会在社会内部造成两极分化和深刻冲突。民粹主义仍然是拉美政治的一个主要特征。民粹主义的形式、参与者和言论都在不断演变，但其提出的正义、包容和民族主义等基本主题仍在影响着政治格局，并在该地区的当代辩论和冲突中产生共鸣。

胡安-多明戈-贝隆是拉丁美洲民粹主义的代表人物之一，尽管他并不是民粹主义的发起者。20 世纪 40 年代贝隆在阿根廷上台执政时，民粹主义已成为拉丁美洲的一股主要政治力量，其特点是人物魅力十足、以社会和经济正义为导向，并在工人阶级中拥有庞大的支持基础。贝隆利用了这一现有运动，并根据阿根廷的特殊国情对其进行了调整。他的上台可归因于多种因素，包括他在现有军政府中的角色、他的个人魅力以及他围绕其政治纲领动员广泛社会群体的能力。贝隆主义或 "正义主义 "结合了社会主义、民族主义和资本主义的元素，创造了一种独特而鲜明的 "第三条道路"。贝隆促进了工人的福利，并推行了实质性的社会和经济改革。他的政策旨在平衡工人权利、社会公正和经济生产力。第一夫人伊娃-贝隆（或称 "艾薇塔"）也在贝隆民粹主义中发挥了核心作用。她是一位备受爱戴的人物，巩固了民众对庇隆政权的支持。埃维塔以其对穷人的奉献精神和在促进妇女权利（包括阿根廷妇女的选举权）方面的作用而闻名。因此，虽然贝隆乘着拉丁美洲已经存在的民粹主义浪潮，但他也留下了自己不可磨灭的印记。贝隆主义几十年来一直影响着阿根廷的政治，反映了该地区民粹主义与精英力量、社会包容与经济稳定、民族主义与国际主义之间持续存在的紧张关系。贝隆的遗产表明了拉丁美洲民粹主义的复杂性。它是一种根植于特定历史、社会和经济背景的现象，能够随着地区政治和社会动态的变化而自我调整和转变。

20 世纪二三十年代在拉丁美洲出现的民粹主义试图在维护现有社会和政治结构的同时，将工人阶级团结在一面政治旗帜之下。这场运动试图弥合不同的社会阶层，为工人、农村移民和小资产阶级提供发言权，同时避免对社会秩序进行彻底变革。在这种民粹主义中，国家扮演着中间人的核心角色。国家作为中间人，协调不同社会群体往往相互冲突的利益。民粹主义政府被公认为有能力推行社会和经济计划，以回应群众的切身利益。通过这种方式，他们寻求建立和加强自身的合法性，赢得民众的支持。魅力型领导是这一时期民粹主义的另一个显著特点。民粹主义领导人往往具有非凡的个人魅力，能够与群众建立直接联系。他们往往绕过传统的政治渠道，以人民的真正代表自居，他们的支持者也往往这样认为。然而，尽管在民众动员和政治参与方面取得了这些进步，这一时期的民粹主义并不寻求从根本上推翻现有的社会秩序。权力结构虽然受到争论和修改，但在很大程度上依然存在。民粹主义领导人进行了重大变革，但他们也谨慎行事，避免出现可能导致重大不稳定的激进断裂。民粹主义在拉丁美洲的演变是社会包容的必要性与根深蒂固的社会和政治秩序现实之间紧张关系的产物。该地区的每个国家虽然都有民粹主义的共同特征，但其表现方式反映了其具体的挑战、矛盾和机遇。

拉丁美洲的城市发展以城市人口的快速增长和工人阶级和中产阶级的日益动员为标志，被视为对传统社会秩序的威胁。新的城市群体有着与众不同的关切和愿望，有可能变得激进，挑战精英的霸权，对既有秩序构成重大挑战。在这种情况下，民粹主义应运而生，成为一种既能缓解这些威胁，又能实现一定程度的社会流动和融合的策略。民粹主义领导人没有选择阶级斗争这种可能导致重大社会和政治分裂的方式，而是采用了民族团结和国家统一的言论。他们主张建立一个企业主义国家，在这个国家中，社会的每一个部门、每一个 "企业 "都在精心策划的社会和谐中扮演着特定的角色。在这种模式中，国家扮演着家长式的核心角色，通过分级管理来指导和管理 "民族大家庭"。纵向赞助联盟对于保证不同群体的忠诚与合作至关重要，从而确保社会秩序保持平衡，即使是动态平衡。因此，这种民粹主义在满足城市大众某些愿望的同时，其最终目的是在一个经过调整但仍能维持的社会秩序中控制和引导他们的能量。变革是必要的，但必须谨慎管理，以避免社会革命。这种做法有助于政治稳定，但也限制了激进的社会变革和对结构性不平等的深刻挑战。这是在包容与控制、改革与维护之间的微妙舞蹈，是当时拉丁美洲政治格局的特点。

拉斐尔-莫利纳-特鲁希略

拉丁美洲的民粹主义往往体现在一位魅力十足的领导人身上，他以能够与群众建立深厚而强大的情感纽带而脱颖而出。这些领导人不仅仅是政治家，他们还是人民愿望和渴望的生动象征。他们的魅力不仅在于他们的口才或风采，还在于他们能够与工人阶级的日常经历和挑战产生共鸣。男性气质和力量是这些民粹主义人物的显著特征。他们体现了一种大男子主义，他们的活力和决心不仅具有吸引力，而且还能让那些在动荡时代寻求方向和稳定的受众感到安心。在这种情况下，专制主义并不被视为负面的，而是一种决心和能力的象征，能够为了人民的利益做出艰难的决定。这些富有魅力的领导人巧妙地将自己定位为人民意志的化身。他们以准救世主的形象出现，是弱势群体的拥护者，是无声者的代言人。他们超越传统政治，超越体制分歧，直接与人民对话，建立起一种直接的、近乎亲密的关系。在这种环境下，领导人与群众之间建立的情感纽带至关重要。这不是基于详细的政治纲领或僵化的意识形态，而是基于情感和象征性的炼金术。领导者被视为他们中的一员，深刻理解他们的需求、痛苦和希望。

在拉丁美洲，民粹主义领导人的形象在仁慈与专制的复杂组合中展开，这种双重性决定了他的治理方法以及他与人民的关系。民粹主义领导人被视为保护性的父亲，体现了家长式的形象，通过明显了解群众的需求和愿望，并承诺提供保护和监护，赢得了群众的信任和爱戴。然而，这种仁慈与公开的专制并存。反对和异议往往几乎不被容忍。领导人将自己和他人视为人民意志的化身，认为任何反对意见都不是民主的对立面，而是对人民意志的背叛。这种领导方式在温柔与强硬、包容与镇压之间摇摆不定。大众传媒的使用对于巩固这些民粹主义领导人的权力具有战略意义。广播、报纸以及后来的电视成为塑造领导人形象、建立和强化其个人品牌、巩固其对公众情感控制的有力工具。他们是传播艺术的大师，利用媒体直接与人民对话，绕过中间人，并灌输一种个人联系感。在意识形态上，拉美民粹主义往往没有复杂或深刻的理论。相反，它以民族主义、发展和社会正义等广泛的动员主题为基础。意识形态的精确性被牺牲以换取动员性的叙事，而领袖本人则作为这些事业不屈不挠的捍卫者站在中心。这种融合了个人魅力、媒体叙事和独裁但仁慈的方法的混合体，决定了拉丁美洲民粹主义的本质。领袖就是运动，运动就是领袖。这与其说是政治和意识形态，不如说是情感和符号的微妙舞蹈，在魅力型领导人与寻求认同、安全和认可的人民之间的亲密拥抱中，权力和受欢迎程度得以塑造。

国家干预主义是拉美民粹主义的一个特征，是民粹主义领导人致力于直接满足群众需求、建立符合民众愿望的社会和经济秩序的具体体现。在领导人的魅力领导下，国家不仅仅是进行管理，而是进行干预、承诺和变革。社会计划、经济举措和基础设施项目成为将个人魅力转化为具体可见行动的工具。然而，国内的社会和经济挑战往往错综复杂、根深蒂固，需要细致入微的长期解决方案。因此，对于民粹主义领导人来说，将人们的注意力从国内挑战转移到外部问题上，特别是通过确定共同的外国敌人，就变得很有诱惑力，有时甚至是必要的。由于民粹主义叙事以明确划分 "我们 "和 "他们 "为基础，因此民族主义与某种仇外心理交织在一起。无论是经常因其有害影响而受到谴责的美帝国主义，还是因其明显差异而成为攻击目标的不同移民群体，拉丁美洲的民粹主义叙事都将民众的不满和挫败感引向外部目标。在这种情况下，民族团结得到了加强，但代价往往是 "他人"，即那些被视为民族共同体之外的人被边缘化和污名化。这种策略虽然能成功地动员群众并巩固领导人的权力，但可能会掩盖，有时甚至会加剧潜在的紧张关系和挑战。内部社会冲突、经济不平等和政治分歧依然存在，虽然常常被掩盖，但始终存在。因此，拉美民粹主义以其华丽的外表和魅力，在肯定民族身份和处理内部紧张局势之间，在对繁荣未来的承诺和阻碍实现这一承诺的根深蒂固的现实挑战之间，跳着微妙的舞蹈。这是一个关于希望与挑战、团结与分裂的故事，揭示了该地区政治和社会经历的复杂性和丰富性。

拉斐尔-特鲁希略（Rafael Trujillo）在多米尼加共和国的独裁统治从 1930 年到 1961 年持续了 31 年，是拉丁美洲民粹主义的一个极端案例。特鲁希略是一名由美国海军陆战队训练出来的军官，他是一个主导性人物，体现了强烈的独裁主义与民粹主义魅力的混合。1937 年，特鲁希略下令对 1.5 万至 2 万海地人进行大屠杀，这是拉丁美洲历史上最黑暗的事件之一。这一暴行揭示了其政权无法估量的残暴，加剧了仇外心理。尽管犯下了这一危害人类罪，特鲁希略仍设法在多米尼加的某些群体中维持了重要的支持基础。对大众传媒的战略性使用，再加上精心策划的个人崇拜，使这位暴君摇身一变，成为人们心目中强大和具有保护作用的领袖。这位领导人掌握了传播艺术，并因此成功塑造了另一种现实，在这种现实中，他被视为多米尼加民族抵御外部威胁的不屈不挠的保护者，尽管他的记录令人毛骨悚然。特鲁希略的故事凸显了拉丁美洲民粹主义复杂而又往往相互矛盾的细微差别。特鲁希略统治多米尼加长达三十多年，专制主义和民粹主义的魅力交织在一起，助长了他的权力，他的遗产以一场造成数千人丧生的暴行为标志，但由于有效的媒体策略，他仍然是一个有影响力的民粹主义人物。

大萧条对拉丁美洲的影响

经济后果

始于 1929 年的大萧条给全球带来了巨大冲击，拉丁美洲也未能幸免。该地区的国家，尤其是那些以出口经济为根基的国家，受到了沉重打击。与美国和欧洲市场的高度相互依存扩大了金融危机对拉丁美洲经济的影响。对出口产品的需求骤减导致经济迅速严重萎缩。作为该地区许多经济体基石的原材料价格暴跌。经济衰退阻碍了增长，增加了失业，降低了生活水平。数百万人陷入贫困，加剧了现有的社会和经济不平等。大萧条的持久影响远远超出了 20 世纪 30 年代的十年。大萧条不仅扰乱了经济，还引发了政治和社会不满情绪。在这种经济不稳定的背景下，政治意识形态变得激进，为民粹主义和独裁运动的出现创造了条件。富有魅力的领导人利用公众的绝望情绪，许诺改革和经济复苏。拉美经济衰退后的特点是对自由经济模式越来越不信任，更加倾向于国内和保护主义经济政策。各国政府采取措施加强国内经济，有时甚至损害国际贸易关系。

以美国金融危机为根源的大萧条波及全球，拉丁美洲也不例外。美国消费下降对拉美国家造成了沉重打击，因为这些国家的经济严重依赖对北美巨头的出口。对这些出口品需求的减少导致收入下降，对经济造成巨大冲击。拉丁美洲的经济本已岌岌可危，而且主要依赖原材料出口，因此受到重创。商品价格暴跌，加剧了需求减少的影响。出口收入锐减，外国投资枯竭。这种毁灭性的组合导致经济迅速萎缩，动摇了该地区的经济基础。在上一个繁荣时期不断提高的生活水平急剧下降。失业率和贫困率上升，造成了社会紧张，加剧了不平等。人们对金融和政治机构的信心减弱，为不稳定和动荡敞开了大门。这种经济不稳定的回响远远超出了危机年代。政治和社会动荡加剧，经济挑战助长了民众的不满情绪，并引发了激进的改革运动。该地区的政治制度受到考验，在许多情况下，现有政府无法有效应对危机。最终，大萧条给拉丁美洲留下了不可磨灭的印记，重塑了其经济、政治和社会格局。这段动荡时期的后果影响了该地区的历史进程，决定了其对未来危机的反应，并改变了其经济和社会发展的进程。

社会影响

大萧条标志着拉丁美洲进入了一个经济困难和社会动荡的时期。全球经济危机的影响在日常生活中清晰可见，特别是在该地区的农村地区，大量失业严重影响了这些地区的生活。作为农村经济支柱的农业和采矿业正在衰退。商品价格的下跌和国际需求的减少重创了这些部门，导致成千上万的工人失业。失业浪潮引发了向城市地区的大规模迁移。绝望和焦虑的农村工人涌入城市，希望找到工作和经济庇护所。然而，本身就深陷危机的城市根本没有准备好接纳如此大量的移民。过度拥挤、贫困和就业不足已成为地方病。城市基础设施不足以应对人口的快速增长。棚户区开始在大城市的郊区发展起来，体现了当时的艰苦和贫困。家庭和社区受到沉重打击。大范围的失业破坏了家庭结构的稳定，加剧了日常的生存挑战。生活水平的下降不仅是经济现实，也是社会危机。经济困境加深了收入差距，加剧了不平等，播下了社会动荡的种子。因此，大萧条是巨大社会变革的催化剂。它不仅引发了经济衰退，还带来了深刻的社会变革。这一时期的挑战和斗争在拉丁美洲的社会和经济史上留下了不可磨灭的印记，塑造了此后几十年的社会和政治动态。

大萧条使拉丁美洲陷入了经济和社会的深渊，但这场危机在各国的表现形式却大相径庭。该地区的经济结构、发展水平和社会条件各不相同，因此对危机的经历和反应也多种多样。在贫困程度已经很高的拉丁美洲国家，大萧条的影响加剧了现有的状况。失业和苦难增加了，但在不稳定已经成为常态的情况下，危机带来的社会经济变革可能不像在更繁荣的国家那样突然或明显。相比之下，危机给美国带来了严重而突然的冲击。美国从以快速工业化和经济扩张为标志的空前繁荣时期进入了一个充满苦难、大规模失业和绝望的时代。这种突然的转变使危机更加明显，使大萧条对经济和社会的破坏成为日常生活中无处不在的一部分。在拉丁美洲，面对经济逆境的韧性和对不稳定性的熟悉可能减轻了人们对危机的看法，但并没有减少危机的破坏性影响。经济萎缩、贫困和失业加剧以及社会动荡对该地区产生了深远的影响。每个国家都有其自身的经济和社会特点，在经济萧条的动荡中采取了不同的生存策略，从而形成了一种复杂的拼凑经验和对前所未有的全球危机的反应。

政治后果

大萧条在拉丁美洲造成了经济危机加剧和社会绝望的气氛，为相当严重的政治不稳定奠定了基础。随着贫困和失业率达到令人震惊的程度，人们对现有政治体制的信心受到侵蚀，为彻底改变治理方式铺平了道路。1930 年至 1935 年间，该地区发生了一系列推翻政府的事件，在和平过渡与暴力政变之间摇摆不定。出口价格的急剧下降和外国投资的萎缩加剧了灾难性的经济状况，激起了广泛的不满情绪。面对饥饿、失业和日益恶化的生活条件，人民群众成为激进和独裁政治运动的沃土。在这种动荡的背景下，威权政治人物应运而生，他们利用民众的混乱情绪，许诺秩序、稳定和经济复苏。这些承诺深深地打动了渴望变革和摆脱日常苦难的民众。民主体制本已脆弱，且往往带有精英主义和腐败的烙印，在危机的重压下屈服了。专制政权和军事政权以力量和决心为幌子，成为颇具吸引力的替代选择。这些政治过渡不仅塑造了大萧条时期拉丁美洲的政治格局，而且还开创了先例，形成了将持续数十年的动力。独裁政权的盛行导致民主准则和人权逐渐受到侵蚀，在该地区未来多年的政治发展中都能看到这个动荡时代的影子。归根结底，大萧条不仅仅是一场经济危机，它还引发了拉丁美洲深刻而持久的政治变革，说明了经济、社会和政治领域之间的深刻联系。

大萧条深刻地改变了美国与拉丁美洲之间的动态关系。由于深陷毁灭性的经济危机，美国再也无法像以前那样施加影响，也无法向拉美国家提供同等水平的财政支持。美国影响力的下降是在 "睦邻 "政策的背景下发生的，"睦邻 "政策是一项外交战略，主张在该地区减少干预。然而，就在美国努力应对其国内挑战的同时，拉丁美洲也被其自身的经济和社会危机旋风所席卷。大规模失业、经济萎缩和社会不安全加剧了本已脆弱的政治结构。在此背景下，缺乏美国的实质性支持加剧了该地区的政治脆弱性。独裁领导人利用公众的不安全感以及民众对稳定和强有力领导的需求，抓住机会上台执政。这些政权往往在美国缺乏重要存在的情况下茁壮成长，"睦邻 "政策虽然在理论上深受喜爱，但在这一关键时期却无力稳定或建设性地影响拉丁美洲的政治轨迹。

哥伦比亚的情况：咖啡种植者承受的危机

经济因素

The Great Depression put intense pressure on the Colombian economy, particularly on the coffee industry that was its mainstay. The country's dependence on coffee exports to the United States increased Colombia's economic vulnerability when US demand collapsed. Much of the economic impact was felt by the coffee growers themselves. They have had to navigate a difficult economic landscape, marked by plummeting prices and falling demand. However, despite this economic instability, Colombia managed to avoid the overthrows of government and violent revolutions that shook other Latin American nations during this period. It is possible that the country's political and social structure offered some resilience to external shocks, although this did not mitigate the scale of the economic crisis at an individual level, particularly for farmers and workers in the coffee sector. Colombia's coffee-growing regions have been hard hit. A combination of reduced incomes, economic instability and increased poverty has tested rural communities. This is likely to have had an impact on the long-term social and economic dynamics in these regions, possibly altering employment patterns, farming practices and social mobility. Colombia's ability to avoid a sudden shift in power during the Great Depression does not mean that the country was not profoundly affected. The economic, social and political challenges generated by this period left lasting scars and helped shape the country's economic and political landscape in the decades that followed. The country's political resilience during this period can be attributed to a complex mix of factors, including government structure, political responses to crises and social dynamics that may have offered some stability in an era of widespread uncertainty.

The Great Depression impacted Colombia as it did the rest of the world, but the country managed to navigate through this period with relative stability. The fall in the world price of coffee had a direct impact on the Colombian economy. The reduction in income for coffee growers, who were the driving force behind the economy, was a severe blow. However, Colombia has shown remarkable resilience. The fall in prices led to an economic contraction, but on a smaller scale than that seen in other countries in the region. The 13% fall in export volumes and 2.4% fall in GNP, while significant, did not lead to the political and social instability that characterised other Latin American nations during this period. Colombia's relative stability can be attributed to several factors. One could be the structure of its political and economic system, which has allowed a degree of flexibility and adaptation to external shocks. Another key factor was the historic transfer of power from the conservative to the liberal party in 1930. This transition took place in a context where the Liberal Party had been marginalised, with the Conservative Party dominating the Colombian political scene for more than half a century. The division within the conservative party paved the way for the election of a liberal president. This political change, while significant, was not the result of a coup or revolution, but rather of an electoral process. This illustrates Colombia's ability to maintain a degree of political stability despite the significant economic challenges of the time. This stability does not mean that Colombia has been spared economic hardship. Coffee growers, workers and the economy in general felt the impact of the depression. However, the way in which the country managed this crisis, avoiding major political instability and implementing political transitions via electoral processes, reflects the robustness of its institutions and its ability to absorb and adapt to economic and social shocks.

Historical experiences, such as those of Colombia during the Great Depression, are invaluable resources for understanding the potential dynamics at play during economic and political crises. These historical case studies offer valuable insights into resilience mechanisms, structural vulnerabilities, and how political, economic and social factors interact in times of crisis. Colombia, for example, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to maintain political stability during a period of intense economic turbulence. Understanding the factors that contributed to this resilience - be they the structure of the political system, economic flexibility, social cohesion or other elements - can provide valuable lessons for other countries facing similar challenges. In the current context of economic globalisation and potential volatility, the lessons learned from the Great Depression can inform responses to future crises. For example, they can help identify strategies that can strengthen economic and political resilience, understand the risks associated with dependence on exports or foreign markets, and assess the impact of political transitions in an uncertain economic environment. By analysing specific examples such as Colombia in depth, policymakers, economists and researchers can develop models and scenarios to anticipate future challenges and opportunities. They can also work to create adaptive policies and strategies to navigate effectively through economic crises, minimising the social impact and preserving political stability.

The transition of the Colombian economy during the Great Depression illustrates the importance of economic diversification and decentralisation. Spreading risk and having a multiplicity of economic players can mitigate the impact of global economic shocks. In the case of Colombia, the shift to small-scale coffee production has redistributed the risks associated with falling commodity prices and fluctuations in world markets. Instead of being concentrated in the hands of large landowners and companies, the risk has been shared among many smallholders. This decentralisation allowed a degree of flexibility. Smallholders could quickly adjust their production practices in response to market changes, a flexibility often less present in large-scale farming structures. It also favoured a more balanced distribution of income and resources, mitigating the economic inequalities that can exacerbate the social impact of economic crises. This scenario highlights the importance of adaptability and diversity in the economic structure. An economy that is not overly dependent on a particular sector, or mode of production, is often better equipped to withstand economic turbulence. This lesson is particularly relevant in the current context, where the world's economies are interconnected and susceptible to a variety of shocks, from financial crises to pandemics and climate change. An economy's ability to adapt, diversify and evolve in response to emerging challenges is a key factor in its long-term resilience. Studying historical responses to crisis, such as Colombia's during the Great Depression, can provide valuable insights for building global and local economic resilience in the uncertain future ahead.

The analysis of the situation of small coffee producers in Colombia during the Great Depression highlights a painful reality that remains relevant today: in times of economic crisis, vulnerable communities and small producers are often the hardest hit. Their lack of financial resources and dependence on a single source of income make them particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in world markets. In the specific case of Colombia, the crisis has revealed a clear dichotomy. The former large landowners, who had diversified their sources of income and were now involved in buying and exporting coffee, had financial leeway to absorb the shock of falling prices. They were not directly linked to production and could therefore navigate the crisis more easily. However, for small coffee producers, the fall in coffee prices meant a direct reduction in their income, with no margin to absorb the shock. They were forced to continue producing, often at a loss, in a market where production costs were higher than the income generated by the sale of coffee. These dynamics have exacerbated the economic insecurity of small farmers, plunging them deeper into poverty and debt. This reality exposes a critical issue that transcends time and region: the need for a robust system of protection for small producers and vulnerable communities in times of crisis. Mechanisms such as social safety nets, access to credit on favourable terms, and agricultural policies that stabilise prices can be crucial instruments for mitigating the impact of economic crises on the most vulnerable communities. The lesson learned from Colombia during the Great Depression reinforces the idea that the strength and resilience of an economy is measured not only by its overall growth or the wealth of its elites, but also by the protection and resilience of its most vulnerable members in the face of economic shocks and crises. Building an equitable and sustainable society requires careful attention to how economic benefits are distributed, particularly in times of crisis.

The adoption of semi-autarchic strategies, such as that observed among small coffee growers in Colombia during the Great Depression, highlights the resilience and adaptability of communities in the face of adverse economic conditions. The ability to produce some of their own food via kitchen gardens acted as a buffer against volatile market fluctuations, providing a form of food insurance in the face of uncertainty. This example highlights an old and widespread practice: in times of crisis, households often return to more self-sufficient modes of production to ensure their survival. This not only reduces their dependence on markets, which are often unstable, but also brings a degree of stability to the daily lives of households. Self-production also has the advantage of reducing the pressure on limited financial resources, by enabling families to save what they would have spent on food. However, this solution is not without its challenges. While it offers a degree of resilience in the short term, semi-autarchy is often not sustainable in the long term. It cannot fully compensate for the loss of income due to the fall in prices of export products such as coffee. What's more, it does not address structural challenges such as inequality, land concentration or trade barriers. The lesson here is twofold. Firstly, it recognises the importance of local support systems and resilience within communities. These mechanisms often provide a first line of defence against economic crises. But, on the other hand, it also highlights the need for broader, systemic solutions. While households can adapt their behaviour to cope with temporary shocks, broader interventions, such as price stabilisation policies, access to credit and income support programmes, are needed to address the root causes of economic instability and provide lasting security.

Political dynamics

Alfonso López Pumarejo, President of the Republic of Colombia from 1934 to 1938, then from 1942 to 1946.

Colombia's relative political stability during the Great Depression, despite substantial economic challenges, is remarkable and merits in-depth analysis. The peaceful transfer of power from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party in 1930 indicates a level of maturity and flexibility in the Colombian political system at the time. The Conservatives' internal division opened the door to political change, but the transition itself was not marked by the kind of violence or instability often associated with periods of economic crisis. This suggests the presence of institutional and social mechanisms that enabled a degree of adaptability in the face of internal and external pressures. One crucial factor was probably the absence of large-scale military unrest or revolts. While other Latin American nations were rocked by coups and political conflicts during this period, Colombia navigated through the crisis with relative political continuity. This could be attributed to a variety of factors, including perhaps more robust institutions, a less militaristic political culture, or less pronounced social and political divisions. The case of Colombia during the Great Depression provides an instructive example of how different nations can respond in different ways to global economic crises, influenced by their unique political, social and institutional contexts. Further study of this particular case could offer valuable insights into understanding political resilience in times of economic stress.

Alfonso López Pumarejo, as President of Colombia in the 1930s and 1940s, played a significant role in the country's political and social transition during and after the Great Depression. At a time when the country was facing enormous economic and social challenges, López's reforms were crucial in stabilising and reshaping Colombian society. Under López's presidency, Colombia saw the introduction of the "Revolution on the Move", a set of progressive reforms aimed at transforming the country's socio-economic structure. At the heart of this programme was a strategy to reduce the social inequalities exacerbated by the Great Depression. López sought to modernise the Colombian economy, extend civil rights and improve education. The introduction of universal suffrage for men was a major step towards democratising Colombian politics. By extending the right to vote, López not only strengthened the legitimacy of the political system, but also gave a voice to previously marginalised segments of the population. The education programmes introduced under his presidency were also a key element in tackling the country's socio-economic problems. By investing in education, López aimed to improve social mobility and create a more skilled workforce, essential for economic modernisation. Similarly, unionisation and recognition of indigenous communities have helped to reduce inequality and promote social and economic rights. Trade unions have provided a mechanism for workers to collectively bargain for fairer wages and working conditions, while recognition of the rights of indigenous communities has helped to correct historical injustices.

The election of Alfonso López Pumarejo in 1934 ushered in an era of significant transformation in Colombia, characterised by the introduction of a series of progressive reforms encapsulated in the programme known as "Revolución en Marcha". Inspired by the Mexican revolution, this programme reflected a growing desire for social justice and economic recovery in the wake of the challenges exacerbated by the Great Depression. The constitutional reform that López initiated was not radical in itself, but it laid the foundations for a greater commitment to social inclusion and economic equity. He implemented constitutional changes to make Colombia's political and social system more inclusive and responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, moving away from the rigid structures that had previously characterised the country's governance. The introduction of universal suffrage for men was a decisive step. It marked a transition to a more participatory democracy, in which political rights were extended to include wider segments of the population. This reform has encouraged more diverse political representation and helped to boost public debate and citizen participation. Reforms in education and unionisation were also central. Lopez understood that education was a crucial vector for social and economic improvement. Initiatives to widen access to education were designed to equip the population with the skills and knowledge needed to participate fully in the modern economy. At the same time, unionisation was promoted to give workers a means of defending their rights and improving their working and living conditions. Lopez did not neglect the indigenous communities, an often marginalised segment of Colombian society. Although modest, the measures taken to recognise and respect their rights signalled a desire to include these communities in the country's wider social and economic fabric.

The "Revolution on the Move" under López's leadership was a major response to the profound economic and social challenges triggered by the Great Depression in Colombia. At a time of deepening poverty, inequality and unemployment, López's efforts to transform society and the economy were a bold attempt to turn the country around. López's reforms, while considered limited, symbolise a tectonic shift in Colombia's political and social approach. They embody a drive towards a more humanised political and social space geared towards the well-being of the masses. The persistent challenges of poverty and inequality were brought to the fore, triggering a process of transformation which, although gradual, marked a remarkable departure from previous policies. The introduction of universal suffrage for men, the promotion of education and unionisation, and the increased recognition of indigenous communities are tangible manifestations of this progressive change. Each initiative, each reform, was a thread in the fabric of a nation seeking to reimagine and rebuild itself in a rapidly changing and unpredictable world. Lopez sought to build a country where opportunities were not restricted to an elite, but were accessible to the greatest number. Economic disparities, social disparities and barriers to progress were not just physical barriers but psychological barriers, barriers to a sense of national belonging and collective identity. The "Revolution in Progress", in all its ambition, was not just a series of policies and reforms. It was an awakening, a call to action that still resonates in the history of Colombia. It is proof of the nation's resilience in the face of adversity and a testament to the never-ending aspirations for a just, balanced and equitable society. As the Great Depression revealed the cracks in the country's economic and social structure, Lopez's response, albeit limited, provided a glimmer of hope. It affirmed that progress was possible, that change was attainable, and that the nation, despite its challenges and uncertainties, was capable of adapting, transforming and renewing itself in its relentless quest for justice and equity.

In 1938, the momentum of transformation and hope established by Lopez was brutally interrupted. A military coup, like an impromptu storm, wiped out the promising horizon that the "Revolution in Progress" had begun to sketch out. Lopez was ousted from power, and with him went a vision of the country in which reforms and the aspiration to social and economic progress were at the heart of the national agenda. The rise to power of the far-right military regime marked a return to the shadows of repression and authoritarianism. Opposition voices were muzzled, aspirations for change stifled, and the trade unions, those bastions of workers' solidarity and social progress, were forced into silence and impotence. The regime erects walls of intolerance and repression, relentlessly reversing and erasing the gains made under Lopez. This abrupt turn towards authoritarianism extinguished the flame of progressive reform and plunged Colombia into an era of dark repression. The "Revolution on the Move", once a source of hope and transformation, became a distant memory, a shooting star in the Colombian political sky, eclipsed by the dark glow of military dictatorship. It's a time when hope is dying and fear and intimidation reign. Social and political progress was not only halted but reversed, like a ship that was once bold but is now bogged down, unable to free itself from the shackles of authoritarianism that are holding it back. Colombia's history, at this point, becomes a tale of lost opportunities and unfulfilled dreams. The echoes of the "Revolution on the march" still ring out, a poignant reminder of what could have been, but was violently interrupted by military intervention. This episode in Colombian history illustrates the fragility of progress and the precariousness of democracy in a world prey to volatile and unpredictable political forces.

The reign of Alfonso Lopez is an ambiguous chapter in Colombian history. On the one hand, his liberal policies attracted the support of urban dwellers and the working class, marking an era of optimism and progressive reform. However, on the other hand, a critical flaw in his governance was his neglect of rural areas, where small-scale coffee growers lived, forgotten and marginalised. Their existence was shaped by relentless self-exploitation and toil, which unfortunately did not translate into an improvement in their living conditions. The Lopez era, although illuminated by the light of reform in the cities, left the countryside in the dark, an omission that was to have tragic consequences. Violencia" emerged not from a vacuum, but from an accumulation of frustration, misery and neglect. As the Second World War shook the globe, Colombia was dragged into its own internal storm, a brutal and devastating conflict. More than 250,000 peasants lost their lives, a human tragedy exacerbated by a massive rural exodus. Colombia's cities, once bastions of progress under Lopez, are now the scene of a massive influx of rural refugees, each with a story of loss and suffering. The duality of the Lopez era is revealed in full light - a period when hope and neglect coexisted, sowing the seeds of a conflict that would profoundly mark Colombian history. Violencia" is a reflection of these untreated seeds of despair and injustice, a stark reminder that prosperity and reform in urban centres cannot mask the abandonment and distress of rural areas. It is a painful chapter, where ignored voices rise up in an explosion of violence, and Colombia is forced to confront the omitted shadows of the liberal era, a confrontation that reveals the devastating human costs of inattention and neglect.

The case of Cuba: Revolution and military coup

Over the course of the 20th century, Cuba underwent a remarkable political, economic and social transformation. The Caribbean island, bathed in the wealth of its sugar production, found its economy and, by extension, its political destiny, inextricably linked to the power of the North, the United States. During this period, more than 80% of Cuban sugar was shipped to American shores. This economic dependence mirrored a reality of dichotomies - an opulent elite, bathed in the luxuriance of wealth, and a majority, the workers, who reaped the bitterness of poverty and inequality. 1959 will go down in Cuban history as the dawn of a revolutionary renaissance. Fidel Castro, a name that will resonate through the ages, emerged as the face of a successful insurrection against the regime of Fulgencio Batista, a man whose governance bore the imprint of American interests. Under Castro's reign, a socialist revolution took root. The vast expanses of sugar plantations, once symbols of American economic hegemony, were nationalised. A far-reaching agrarian reform unfolded, a breath of fresh air for the exhausted and marginalised rural workers. However, the revolution was not without international consequences. Relations with the United States cooled, plunging into an abyss of mistrust and hostility. The trade embargo was erected, an economic wall that would leave lasting scars. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, a failed attempt by the United States to overthrow Castro, marked the boiling point of geopolitical tensions. And yet, despite the political and economic storms, the Cuban revolution has been a beacon of social improvement. Education, healthcare and social equality are rising, shining stars in a sky once darkened by inequality and oppression. Over the decades, Cuba has remained a bastion of socialism. A country where the echoes of the 1959 revolution still resonate, a testament to the resilience and transformation of a nation that has struggled between the shackles of economic dependence and the yearning for sovereignty and equality.

The deep inequality and poverty that had sunk their claws into Cuban soil provoked social and political convulsions, testifying to the restlessness of a population yearning for justice and fairness. The dark reality of oppression and injustice was illuminated in 1933 when Fulgencio Batista, at the head of a military insurrection, orchestrated a coup d'état that swept away the government in power. Batista's dictatorship ushered in an era of control and authoritarianism, a reign that lasted until the emblematic revolution of 1959. The revolution, carried by the winds of change and the aspiration for freedom, saw Fidel Castro and the 26 July Movement rise up as the faces of an insurrection that would resonate throughout the annals of history. Batista, the central figure of the dictatorship, was overthrown, marking the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The advent of the socialist state in Cuba under the banner of Castro was a turning point in the nation's political and economic landscape. It was a revolution that did more than simply depose a dictator; it was a revolution that bore the seeds of social and economic transformation. The echoes of the revolution reverberated through the corridors of power and the streets of Cuba. American companies, once the titans of the Cuban economy, were nationalised. A wave of social and economic reforms swept the country, a rising tide aimed at eradicating deep-rooted inequalities and raising the living standards of the Cuban people. In the wake of the revolution, a transformed nation has emerged. Inequality and oppression, while still present, were now being challenged by the winds of change, and a new era in Cuban history was taking shape, marked by socialism, the aspiration for equity and the relentless pursuit of social justice.

The Cuban sugar industry, once prosperous and abundant, was plunged into chaos and desolation between 1929 and 1933, an unsuspecting victim of the great economic calamity known as the Great Depression. Sugar, sweet in taste but bitter in its economic repercussions, saw its prices plummet by more than 60%, a precipitous descent that sounded the death knell for past prosperity. Exports, once the backbone of the Cuban economy, have declined dramatically, plunging by more than 80% and taking with them the hopes and aspirations of an entire nation. In the plantations and sugar cane fields, the large landowners, once dominant figures of prosperity, have been reduced to desperate measures. Faced with a market that was deteriorating by the day, they cut production and lowered farm wages by 75%. It was an act of desperation and necessity that resonated in every nook and cranny of the island. Seasonal workers from Haiti and Jamaica, once essential to the smooth running of the sugar industry, were sacked en masse. An enforced exodus of those who had once found a place under the Cuban sun. Hundreds of small factories and shops, once bastions of the local economy, have been declared bankrupt, their doors closed, their hopes dashed. The ripple effect was devastating. In 1933, a quarter of the working population was plunged into the abyss of unemployment, a bleak and desolate reality. A population faced with economic desolation, where 60% lived below the subsistence minimum, confronted every day with the harsh reality of an existence marked by poverty and deprivation. Cuba, an island once bathed in sunshine and prosperity, was now a nation plunged into the dark embrace of economic desolation, an unwitting victim of the Great Depression that swept the world, taking with it the hopes, dreams and aspirations of a once prosperous nation.

As his presidency progressed, Machado was transformed into an authoritarian ruler. As the Great Depression exerted its cruel grip on the Cuban economy, exacerbating social and economic tensions, Machado's style of government became increasingly oppressive. As the sugar industry, the backbone of the Cuban economy, withered under the weight of falling prices and demand, Machado found himself facing growing opposition. The popularity he enjoyed as he inaugurated infrastructure projects and launched reforms evaporated, replaced by discontent and protest. Machado, once celebrated for his nationalist and liberal policies, responded to this protest with repression. Civil liberties were eroded, political opposition muzzled, and political violence became commonplace. Machado's tenure, which had begun with the promise of an era of progress and modernisation, was overshadowed by authoritarianism and repression. The infrastructure projects that were once the hallmark of his leadership faded into the shadows of social and political injustice. The Cuban nation, initially full of hope and optimism under his leadership, found itself plunged into a period of despair and repression. Machado's transition to authoritarian rule was also facilitated by the global economic crisis. With the economic recession and falling state revenues, his efforts to strengthen executive power were accelerated. His government became notorious for corruption, press censorship and the use of military force to suppress demonstrations and opposition movements. Gerardo Machado's presidency became synonymous with authoritarian rule and repressive governance, marked by a dramatic decline in civil and political liberties. His tenure, once marked by hope and promise, descended into oppression and tyranny, underlining the fragility of fledgling democracies in the face of economic and social crises. Machado, once a symbol of progress, became a sombre warning of the perils of authoritarianism, marking a dark chapter in Cuba's political and social history.

Machado's transformation into an authoritarian leader coincided with the deterioration of economic conditions in Cuba, exacerbated by the Great Depression. Public frustrations, already exacerbated by rampant corruption and concentration of power, intensified in response to worsening poverty, unemployment and economic instability. In this tense context, Machado opted for an iron fist, exacerbating popular mistrust and discontent. Demonstrations against his regime multiplied, and the government's brutal response created a cycle of protest and repression. Machado's repressive actions, in turn, galvanised the opposition and led to an increasing radicalisation of protest groups. The erosion of civil liberties and human rights under Machado isolated his regime not only domestically, but also internationally. His actions have attracted the attention and criticism of foreign governments, international organisations and the global media, exacerbating the ongoing political crisis. The atmosphere of mistrust, fear and repression has led to an escalation of violence and instability, with devastating consequences for Cuban society. The country, once promising under Machado's initial reforms, was now caught up in a whirlwind of protests, repression and political crisis.

Machado's resignation in 1933 was hailed by large sections of the Cuban population as a victory against authoritarianism and repression. However, the initial relief quickly dissipated in the face of persistent challenges and political turbulence. The power vacuum left by Machado led to a period of instability, with various political and military actors fighting for control of the country. The economic situation remained precarious. The Great Depression had left deep scars, and the population faced unemployment, poverty and economic uncertainty. Despite Machado's departure, the structural challenges facing the Cuban economy, which was largely dependent on sugar and vulnerable to fluctuations in the world market, remained unresolved. Against this tumultuous backdrop, public expectations for radical change and improved living conditions came up against the harsh reality of economic and political constraints. Reforms were urgent, but implementation was hampered by political polarisation, conflicting interests and foreign interference. The United States, in particular, continued to play an influential role in Cuban politics. Although it was criticised for its support for Machado, its economic and political influence remained a determining factor. Cuba's dependence on US investment and the US market complicated efforts to achieve independent and sovereign reform. Machado's legacy was therefore a complex one. Although he initiated modernisation and development projects, his turn towards authoritarianism and repression led to a breakdown in trust with the Cuban people. His departure ushered in a new political era, but the structural, social and economic problems of the Machado era continued, echoing the challenges and tensions that would continue to characterise Cuban politics and society in the decades that followed.

Popular discontent with Machado's presidency was amplified by the economic misery resulting from the Great Depression. As sugar prices collapsed and unemployment rose, Machado's response was perceived as inadequate, even oppressive. His repression of demonstrations, increased control over the media and imposition of censorship exacerbated the situation, fuelling popular frustration and mistrust. The climate of mistrust and antagonism was fertile ground for the growth of radical movements. Communists, socialists and anarchists gained ground, galvanising general discontent to advance their respective ideologies. Their actions, often characterised by radicalism and sometimes violence, have added a layer of complexity to Cuba's turbulent political landscape. These movements, each with its own ideologies and tactics, were united by a common opposition to Machado's authoritarianism. They called for far-reaching political, economic and social reforms to improve the lives of the working and marginalised classes. These calls were particularly resonant in the context of exacerbated economic inequality and social distress resulting from the Depression. Growing social discontent led to an escalation of oppositional actions. Strikes multiplied, paralysing key sectors of the economy. Demonstrations intensified, growing in scale and intensity. Acts of sabotage and violence became increasingly common tactics for expressing opposition and challenging Machado's authority. Against this backdrop, Machado's position became more fragile. His inability to appease public discontent, carry out meaningful reforms and respond adequately to the economic crisis has eroded his legitimacy. Repression and authoritarian measures only succeeded in galvanising the opposition, turning his regime into a hotbed of instability and conflict. The Machado era is a clear example of the complex dynamic between authoritarianism, economic crisis and political radicalisation. It set the stage for a tumultuous period in Cuba's history, characterised by power struggles, instability and the ongoing search for a balance between authority, freedom and social justice.

This spiral of oppression and rebellion marked a dark chapter in Cuban history. Machado's regime, mired in an economic crisis exacerbated by the Great Depression and faced with growing opposition, resorted to brutal repression to retain power. State violence and violations of civil and political rights were commonplace. Each act of repression helped to fuel an atmosphere of mistrust and indignation among citizens, exacerbating instability. Fundamental human rights were often flouted. Political opponents, activists and even ordinary citizens were exposed to violence, arbitrary detention and other forms of intimidation and repression. Freedom of expression, assembly and other civil liberties were severely restricted, reinforcing a climate of fear and mistrust. At the same time, the opposition has become more organised and determined. Activist groups and resistance movements have grown in strength and popular support, building on widespread outrage at the regime's brutality and continuing economic hardship. Clashes between police and demonstrators were frequent and often violent, turning parts of the country into conflict zones. Cuba's international relations were also affected. Machado's actions attracted international attention and criticism. Neighbouring countries, international organisations and world powers watched developments with concern, aware of the potential implications for regional stability and international relations. The Machado era has become synonymous with repression, human rights abuses and instability. It is a cautionary reminder of the complexity and challenges inherent in managing deep economic and political crises, and of the potential dangers of unchecked authoritarian rule. The echoes of that period resonate in the challenges and questions that continue to shape Cuba and the region to this day.

Machado's exile marked a dramatic and intense turning point in Cuba's political crisis. His departure, however, did not calm popular unrest or resolve the deep-seated structural problems that animated the rebellion. The Cuban people, tired of authoritarianism and repression, were deeply engaged in a struggle for social justice, democracy and economic reform. The general strike that led to Machado's exile reflected the potential power of popular collective action. It was a manifestation of deep and widespread discontent, and a response to the years of oppression, corruption and mismanagement that had characterised his regime. The Cuban people had reached a breaking point, and the general strike was a concrete expression of this. The American intervention, although unsuccessful, underlines the impact and influence of the United States in the region, particularly in Cuba. The complex and often conflictual relationship between Cuba and the United States has been shaped by decades of intervention, support for authoritarian regimes and geopolitical manoeuvring. Machado's exile, far from resolving the crisis, left a power vacuum and deep uncertainty. The question of Cuba's political and economic future remained unanswered. Who would fill the vacuum left by Machado's fall? What reforms would be needed to meet the profound social and economic demands of the Cuban people? And how would relations with the United States evolve in the light of this political upheaval? The days and weeks following Machado's exile were characterised by continued uncertainty and instability. Power struggles, unmet social and political demands and foreign intervention would continue to shape the Cuban landscape in the years to come, ultimately leading to the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and the rise of Fidel Castro. This tumultuous period in Cuban history offers valuable insight into the complex dynamics of power, resistance and international intervention in a nation in crisis.

The fall of an authoritarian regime can often leave a vacuum of power and governance, leading to instability and sometimes chaos. This is what happened in Cuba after Machado's exile in 1933. A heterogeneous coalition made up of various political and civil society groups emerged in an attempt to fill this vacuum and govern the country. However, without strong leadership or a unified political vision, the coalition struggled to establish a stable order or to satisfy the diverse and complex aspirations of the Cuban people. The ensuing anarchy is testament to the challenges faced by a nation trying to rebuild itself after years of authoritarian rule. The old power structures have been discredited, but the new ones are not yet in place. Political factions, interest groups and ordinary citizens are all engaged in a struggle to define the country's future. In Cuba, this struggle has manifested itself in increased violence and instability. Militias and armed groups have taken to the streets, fighting for control and influence in an increasingly fragmented political landscape. The ruling coalition, although representing a broad cross-section of Cuban society, has failed to restore order or present a clear and coherent vision for the country's future. The political and social instability of this period has had a lasting impact on Cuba. It highlighted the challenges inherent in the transition from authoritarian rule to more democratic and inclusive governance. It also paved the way for the emergence of new forms of leadership and governance, and helped shape the Cuban political landscape for decades to come. Against this backdrop of crisis and uncertainty, the resilience, adaptability and ability of Cubans to navigate extremely difficult conditions have become apparent. These attributes will be crucial in the years ahead, as the country continues to transform and adapt to new challenges and opportunities. The complexity of this transition is a powerful reminder of the challenges inherent in any major political transformation, and of the need for a clear and coherent vision to guide a country towards a more stable and prosperous future.

Fulgencio Batista in Washington, D.C. in 1938.

This post-Machado period in Cuban history is often described as a time of chaos, confusion and radical transformation. Machado's departure, while a relief for many, did not instantly resolve the country's deep political, economic and social divisions. On the contrary, it opened the door to an explosion of restrained forces, conflicting ideologies and long-suppressed demands for justice and equity. The collapse of the Machado regime gave way to a period of relative anarchy. Accumulated anger and frustration erupted in the form of riots, strikes and other public expressions of discontent. The power vacuum created a space where various groups, from socialists to nationalists and other political factions, tried to impose their vision for Cuba's future. Among these groups, the sugar plantation workers play a crucial role. Entangled for years in precarious working conditions and faced with exploitation, they are rising up to take control of the plantations. This was less an organised adoption of socialism or Bolshevism than a spontaneous and desperate response to years of oppression. These workers, many of whom were informed and inspired by socialist and communist ideologies, sought to establish socialist-style collectives. They aim to end capitalist exploitation and create systems where workers control production and share the profits fairly. This revolution within the sugar industry reflects wider tensions in Cuban society and highlights the deep economic and social inequality that persists. As Cuba struggles to rebuild itself after Machado's reign, the country faces fundamental challenges. How can the divergent demands for justice, equity and freedom be reconciled? How to transform an economy and a society long defined by authoritarianism, exploitation and inequality? These questions will define post-Machado Cuba and set the stage for future struggles for the heart and soul of the nation. Against this tumultuous backdrop, the portrait of a country in search of its identity and its future begins to emerge.

The military unrest led by Sergeant Fulgencio Batista in 1933 was another key element in Cuba's spiralling instability. At a time when the country was already overwhelmed by social and economic conflicts, Batista's intervention injected a new dimension of complexity and violence into the political landscape. The mutiny, which added to the existing social unrest, helped to shape an increasingly unpredictable and tumultuous environment. The rise of Batista was swift and decisive. This relatively unknown sergeant suddenly catapulted himself to the centre of the Cuban political arena. His rise illustrates the fragmented and volatile state of Cuban politics at the time. In a country marked by deep divisions and a lack of stable leadership, bold and opportunistic figures like Batista were able to capitalise on the chaos. Batista skilfully wielded military power and influence to establish his pre-eminence. His coup d'état in 1952 was a manifestation of the deepening Cuban political crisis. It was not an isolated event, but rather the result of years of accumulated tensions, discontent and the absence of stable and reliable political institutions. Under Batista's rule, Cuba entered a new phase in its tumultuous history. Batista's dictatorship was characterised by repression, corruption and close alignment with American interests. Although he succeeded in imposing a measure of stability, it was achieved at the cost of civil liberty and social justice. This chapter in Cuban history highlights the complexity and volatility of political transitions. Batista, once a mutinous sergeant, became the dictator who, in many ways, laid the foundations for the Cuban revolution of 1959.

The coup initiated by Batista, and bolstered by significant civilian support, marked a period of intense turbulence and change for Cuba. The uprising, although military in origin, was widely embraced by a dissatisfied civilian population. They saw it as an opportunity for far-reaching social and political transformation, reflecting the high level of discontent and aspiration for change. The 100-day government that followed the coup was a period of rapid and often radical change. Guided by the ideology of "returning Cuba to Cuba", this short government sought to dismantle inherited power structures and introduce far-reaching reforms. The public witnessed a determined effort to free Cuba from foreign influence and tackle deep-rooted structural problems. The reforms envisaged were ambitious, focusing on issues such as social inequality, poverty and political repression. This historic moment highlighted the deep thirst for change among the Cuban people, exacerbated by decades of authoritarian rule and economic exploitation. Despite its progressive intentions, the 100-day government was framed by inherent instability. The process of radical transformation faced both internal and external challenges, demonstrating the complexity of political reform in a context of social and political turmoil. This period in Cuban history offers a fascinating insight into the dynamics of revolutionary change. Although brief, the 100-day government posed fundamental questions about sovereignty, justice and democracy that would continue to shape Cuba's destiny in the decades to come. It proved to be a precursor and catalyst for a longer period of revolutionary transformation that culminated in the rise of Fidel Castro and the final overthrow of the Batista regime in 1959.

Cuba's short-lived revolutionary government found itself under siege from all sides. As it attempted to introduce far-reaching reforms, it came up against stubborn resistance from powerful interest groups. The army, in particular, became a formidable adversary, marking the continuity of its influence and power in Cuban politics. The attempt to radically transform the nation was halted, and a military dictatorship once again took the reins of power. This transition marked a return to authoritarianism, the suppression of political freedoms and the centralisation of power. The revolutionary aspirations of the Cuban people faded in the face of the reality of a regime that seemed determined to maintain the status quo. This prolonged political instability and the violence that accompanied it became endemic features of the era. The Cuban people, having tasted the hope of political and social transformation, found themselves confronted with the harsh reality of inflexible and authoritarian military rule. Dreams of social justice, equality and democracy were put on hold, waiting for another opportunity to materialise. However, the desire for change, though suppressed, was not eradicated. Revolutionary energy and aspiration lay dormant beneath the surface, ready to re-emerge. The structural problems of inequality, repression and injustice continued under the military dictatorship, fuelling an underlying discontent that would eventually erupt decades later. The key lesson of this tumultuous period in Cuban history lies in the persistence of the revolutionary spirit. Though constrained and repressed, the desire for political and social transformation remains alive and powerful, a testament to the resilience and determination of the Cuban people. The political and social saga that unfolded during these years was the premise of a broader historical turning point that would ultimately manifest itself in the Cuban Revolution of 1959 under the leadership of Fidel Castro.

Cuba's 100-day revolutionary government was marked by an energetic effort to introduce radical social and economic reforms. Their commitment to addressing the country's deep inequalities was demonstrated through measures that, although briefly implemented, had a lasting impact on Cuba's social structure. One of the most notable initiatives was the granting of universal suffrage to women. This emblematic reform marked a decisive stage in the evolution of civil rights in Cuba. For the first time, women were able to participate actively in the political process, in recognition of their equal status in society. This was more than a symbolic step forward; it represented a substantial overhaul of the norms and values that had long dominated Cuban politics. The participation of women in public life promised to enrich democratic discourse and foster a more inclusive and balanced environment. Despite its short existence, the revolutionary government instilled a momentum for change. The inclusion of women in the electoral process was an important milestone, demonstrating the nation's capacity to evolve and transform, even in the face of instability and turmoil. Although the future still held challenges and obstacles, and the spectre of authoritarianism and repression had not been totally eradicated, the legacy of those 100 days of revolutionary government would remain engraved in the collective memory. It was irrefutable proof of the possibility of reform and renewal, a reminder of Cuba's inherent potential to reinvent itself and move towards a more just and equitable society. The right to vote for women, although introduced against a backdrop of political turbulence, symbolises a victory against oppression and inequality. It demonstrates the persistence of the aspiration for social justice through the tumultuous ages of Cuban history. It is a chapter that, though brief, makes an indelible contribution to the nation's rich and complex tapestry.

Cuba's 100-day revolutionary government not only marked a significant advance in civil rights, but also initiated substantial reforms in crucial sectors such as education and labour. It was a period when the desire for structural change was transformed into concrete action, and long-suppressed aspirations found space to flourish, despite the brevity of this revolutionary era. In the field of education, the autonomy granted to universities was revolutionary. This change not only reaffirmed academic independence, but also stimulated an intellectual and cultural efflorescence. Education became more accessible, less constrained by the shackles of authoritarianism and bureaucracy, and was thus able to evolve into a crucible of innovative ideas and social progress. In addition, the extension of workers' rights, particularly to those who worked in difficult conditions such as sugar cane cutters, symbolised an attempt to rectify deep-rooted injustices. The introduction of the minimum wage, paid holidays and improved working conditions were not mere concessions; they were a recognition of the vital role and dignity of workers in the country's economic and social structure. These reforms, although initiated in a context of intense turbulence, illuminated the possibilities for social and economic transformation. They have served as a testament to the country's ability to overcome its historical challenges and strive to achieve ideals of justice and equity. Every step taken, from empowering educational institutions to guaranteeing workers' rights, reinforced the spirit of renewal. Although the revolutionary government was short-lived, the momentum of these reforms instilled an energy that continued to resonate in the years that followed, a persistent echo of the possibility of progress and transformation in a nation searching for its identity and its path to justice and prosperity.

The agrarian reform initiated by the revolutionary government was a bold attempt to rebalance the distribution of resources in a nation where land disparities were profound. In a Cuba marked by economic inequalities and concentrations of power, this reform symbolised a hope for justice and equity for rural farmers, who were often marginalised and under-represented. The central challenge of agrarian reform was to dismantle inequitable land structures and usher in an era of accessibility and shared ownership. Every hectare redistributed, every parcel of land made accessible to farmers who had previously been excluded, held out the promise of a future where wealth and opportunity were not the preserve of a narrow elite. However, the complexity inherent in implementing such ambitious reforms in an unstable political climate cannot be underestimated. Every step forward has been met with obstacles, every radical change has been resisted by entrenched interests, and political volatility has often compromised the continuity and delivery of the reforms. So, while these reforms have instilled a sense of hope and optimism, they have been short-lived. The years of instability that followed eroded much of the progress made, highlighting the precariousness of reforms in the absence of political and institutional stability. These reforms, while imperfect and temporary, nevertheless left an indelible legacy. They served as a poignant reminder of the nation's potential to aspire to fairness and justice, while highlighting the persistent challenges that stand in the way of achieving these lofty aspirations.

The 100-day revolutionary government was in a delicate situation. Its reforms were a necessary effort to tackle the systemic inequalities that plagued Cuban society. However, by introducing changes considered radical by one section of the population and insufficient by another, it found itself trapped between conflicting expectations and political pressure. Right-wing and extreme right-wing groups saw these reforms as a threat to their established interests. Land reform, universal suffrage for women and improved working conditions were seen as direct challenges to the consolidated power structure and wealth. For them, each progressive change symbolised a withdrawal of their grip on economic and social power, provoking fierce resistance. For the Marxist left, on the other hand, reforms were an insufficient response to deep-rooted inequality and social injustice. Poverty, inequality and political repression demanded bold and substantial measures. The Left called for a more profound transformation of the economic and political system - an overhaul that would go beyond the reforms introduced, tackling the very roots of social and economic disparities.

External opposition from the US government exacerbated the already tense situation in Cuba. The United States, as a major world power and Cuba's immediate neighbour, had considerable economic and strategic interests in the country and the region. The reforms initiated by the Cuban revolutionary government, although intended to remedy internal inequalities and promote social justice, were viewed with suspicion in Washington. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States was committed to the policy of "good neighbourliness", which advocated respect for the sovereignty of Latin American nations. In practice, however, Washington was often inclined to intervene in the affairs of the region's nations to protect its economic and political interests. Fears of a rise in left-wing and socialist ideologies, and their implementation through substantial reforms, were viewed with deep suspicion. As a result, the Cuban revolutionary government found itself in a precarious position. At home, it was besieged by opposition from various sectors of society. Abroad, it faced opposition and mistrust from the United States, a power that had the power to influence events in Cuba considerably. The fall of the revolutionary government and the return to military dictatorship can be understood in the context of these combined pressures. The ambitious reforms failed to win sufficient support, both nationally and internationally, to ensure their implementation and sustainability. Cuba then found itself in another period of authoritarianism, illustrating the complexity and volatility of the political landscape at the time and the difficulty of achieving progressive change in an environment of conflicting interests and geopolitical pressures.

The United States played an influential, if less direct, role in Cuban political events at the time. Its intervention was not military, but took the form of diplomacy and political manipulation that facilitated Fulgencio Batista's rise to power. Fulgencio Batista, an army officer who had been involved in the overthrow of Gerardo Machado, was a political ally favourable to the United States. The United States, concerned about its economic and political interests in Cuba, saw Batista as a potential ally who could stabilise the country's political situation and protect its interests. Batista came to power against a backdrop of civil unrest and political transformation, and established an authoritarian regime that repressed opposition and consolidated power. The United States supported Batista, even though he was a dictator, because it saw him as a bulwark against instability and communism. This highlights the complexities of US relations with Latin America, where geopolitical and economic concerns have often taken precedence over democratic principles and human rights. American support for Batista had long-lasting implications, ultimately leading to the Cuban revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro, and to a marked deterioration in relations between Cuba and the United States in the decades that followed.

Batista's reign was characterised by political repression, censorship and corruption. US support was crucial in keeping Batista in power, due to US economic and strategic interests in Cuba. However, his authoritarian rule and endemic corruption fuelled widespread discontent among the Cuban people. It was against this backdrop of discontent that Fidel Castro and his revolutionary movement gained popularity. Castro, along with other notable revolutionary figures such as Che Guevara, orchestrated a well-organised guerrilla war against the Batista regime. After several years of struggle, the revolutionaries succeeded in overthrowing Batista on 1 January 1959. Castro's victory marked the beginning of a radical transformation of Cuban society. Major economic and social reforms, including the nationalisation of companies and land reform, were put in place. However, these changes led to a definitive break with the United States, which imposed a trade embargo on Cuba in response to the nationalisation of American property. Under Castro's leadership, Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union, marking a significant departure from its previous alignment with the United States. This geopolitical reality contributed to the tension of the Cold War, particularly during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. So the Cuban revolution was not only significant for Cuba, it had major international repercussions, changing the geopolitical dynamics of the Cold War and influencing US policy in Latin America for years to come.

The case of Brazil: military coup and fascist regime

Brazil's recent political history has been marked by alternations between authoritarian regimes and democratic periods. A look at the chronology of events gives a clear picture of these transitions and their impact on the country.

The Estado Novo period began in 1937 when Getúlio Vargas, who had already been in power since the 1930 revolution, established an authoritarian regime. This regime was characterised by the centralisation of power, severe repression of opponents and the introduction of censorship. Paradoxically, Vargas also managed to implement substantial reforms that helped modernise the economy and improve conditions for Brazilian workers. The end of the Estado Novo in 1945 paved the way for a democratic era in Brazil. Several presidents were elected during this period, including Vargas himself, who returned to power in 1951 in a democratic election. His term of office ended tragically with his suicide in 1954, marking another tumultuous chapter in the country's political history.

Brazilian democracy suffered a brutal blow in 1964 when a military coup ousted President João Goulart from power. What followed was a two-decade military dictatorship characterised by political repression, censorship and flagrant human rights abuses. Despite the oppressive climate, this period also saw a rapid economic boom, albeit accompanied by rising debt and inequality. The country returned to democracy in 1985, marking the end of the military dictatorship. Brazil adopted a new constitution in 1988, laying the foundations for a renewed and more inclusive democracy. However, the country continues to face persistent challenges such as corruption, social and economic inequality and other structural problems.

Brazil's political evolution over the 20th century is a tale of sharp contrasts, mixing authoritarianism and democracy, progress and repression. Each period has left an indelible mark on the social, political and economic fabric of the country, contributing to the complexity and richness of Brazilian history.

Economic context

The Brazilian economy is both robust and diversified, characterised by a thriving agricultural sector, particularly coffee production, and expanding industrial and service sectors. Coffee plantations, mainly controlled by an elite of landowners, have long been the mainstay of Brazilian exports. However, the concentration of wealth and power has left agricultural workers, including immigrants and internal migrants, in a precarious situation. Despite these inequalities, Brazil has gradually diversified its economy. Industrialisation and the development of the service sector have positioned the country as a key emerging economy, while resource extraction, particularly oil, has consolidated its stature on the world stage. However, inequalities persist, rooted in the unbalanced distribution of wealth and resources. A large part of the population remains on the margins, especially coffee workers, who are often denied access to education, health and other essential services. The challenge for Brazil is to transform these structural inequalities into a more balanced and inclusive economy. Reforms in agriculture, education and the redistribution of wealth are crucial to changing this.

In 1930, Brazil was in the grip of the First Republic, a government which, despite its stated aspiration for order and progress, was mired in political instability and economic distress. The republican ideals that had once inspired optimism were now eclipsed by the reality of a nation in crisis, struggling to maintain cohesion and prosperity. The electoral system, to which only a small fraction of the population had access, was a particular source of tension. The exclusion of the majority of the population from the decision-making process fuelled a deep sense of discontent and exclusion. Each election was a stinging reminder of the inequalities and divisions that characterised Brazilian society at the time. Against this backdrop, the presidential crisis of 1930 was not just a political confrontation, but also a manifestation of growing frustration and disillusionment. The disputed election results crystallised collective bitterness, transforming a political quarrel into a decisive turning point for the nation. It was in this electric atmosphere that the military coup of 1930 took root, sweeping away the First Republic and ushering in the era of the Estado Novo. A regime which, under the cloak of fascism, promised order but hindered freedom, evoked progress but imposed repression. A living paradox, the reflection of a

Three of Brazil's 17 states refused to accept the results of the presidential election, leading to uprisings and unrest. In response, the military staged a coup and overthrew the civilian government, handing power to Getúlio Vargas, a cattle farmer and governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul. This event marked the beginning of the Estado Novo regime and an era of authoritarian rule in Brazil. By 1930, Brazil's political fabric was torn by deep tensions. The discord was catalysed by controversial presidential elections, the results of which were rejected by three of the country's seventeen states. This rebellion against central authority was not simply a political quarrel; it reflected deep-seated mistrust and fractures within Brazilian society. The dissident states were in turmoil, their refusal to accept the election results having turned into palpable uprisings. The streets were the scene of popular frustration, and tension was mounting, threatening to erupt into open conflict. It was against this stormy backdrop that the military, presenting themselves as the guardians of order and stability, orchestrated a coup d'état. They dismantled the civilian government, echoing the frustrations and demands of a population that felt betrayed by its leaders. Getúlio Vargas, then governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul and a cattle farmer by profession, was installed in power. His ascension marked the tumultuous end of the First Republic and the sinister beginning of the Estado Novo. Vargas was a complex figure, embodying both the population's aspirations for change and the oppressive characteristics of the authoritarian regime that was taking hold. The Estado Novo, with Vargas at its head, carried within it a contradiction - promising the restoration of order while repressing freedom, proposing to embody progress while muzzling dissent. Brazil had entered a new era, where power was centralised and authority unchallenged. A country torn between its tumultuous past and an uncertain future, guided by a leader who embodied the nation's deepest tensions.

Political landscape

Brazil, with its rich geographical and cultural diversity, has always been the scene of constantly changing political dynamics, influenced by shifts in regional economic power. In the early post-colonial days, the sugar economy predominated, and the north-east of Brazil, as the heart of this industry, was the seat of power. The sugar barons, endowed with wealth and influence, shaped national policies according to their interests. However, like all evolving nations, Brazil did not remain fixed in this configuration. The economic topography evolved, influencing and being influenced by patterns of migration, investment and technological innovation. As the century progressed, a new economic powerhouse emerged in the south - centred around Rio de Janeiro. Coffee and livestock became the mainstays of the south's rise to power. The region became a crossroads of economic opportunity, attracting investment, talent and, inevitably, political power. It was no longer the north-east, but the south that dictated the tone of national politics. In this shifting mosaic of economic and political power, figures like Getúlio Vargas emerged. Vargas was the product and reflection of this transition - a man whose rise to power was as much down to his own political skill as to the shifting winds of the Brazilian economy. The political stability of the South, anchored in its economic rise, also marked a change in the political texture of Brazil. The struggles and conflicts that had marked the nation's early days subsided, replaced by a more consolidated and centralised form of governance.

Once Getúlio Vargas was installed as President, he wasted no time in deploying an authoritarian regime of notable strength. The rise to power marked by the military coup quickly turned into an administration that tolerated little opposition. Left-wing groups, particularly socialists and communists, were Vargas' first targets. He eradicated their activities, putting an abrupt end to any challenge or criticism from this faction.

Vargas's government was characterised by a firm grip, where censorship and the suppression of opposition were commonplace. However, it was not only the Left that was in his sights. The fascist right, or the Integralists, secretly funded by Mussolini's Italy, soon felt the heat of Vargas's repression. He was determined to consolidate his power and eliminate any potential threat to his regime. Brazil, under Vargas, experienced an era of authoritarianism, where the voice of opposition was stifled and freedom of expression severely curtailed. His regime was not only characterised by its authoritarian nature, but also by the way in which he systematically annihilated his political enemies, thereby guaranteeing his unchallenged grip on the country. This political repression and consolidation of power was not unlike the totalitarian tendencies seen elsewhere in the world at the same time. With an iron fist, Vargas transformed Brazil's political structure, leaving an indelible mark on the country's political landscape.

The establishment of the Estado Novo by Getúlio Vargas in 1937 marked a dark turning point in Brazilian political history. Inspired by the authoritarian regimes of Mussolini in Italy and Salazar in Portugal, Vargas set about reshaping Brazil according to a highly centralised and authoritarian vision. Democracy, already fragile and contested, was swept away, giving way to a state that exercised absolute control over the nation. Political parties, once the diverse and sometimes tumultuous voice of democracy, were banned. Freedom of expression and civil rights, essential foundations of any free society, were severely curtailed. Estado Novo embodied a corporatist state where every aspect of life, from the economy to culture, was subject to strict state regulation and control. Vargas built his regime on the back of the army. The military, with its rigid hierarchy and strict discipline, was a natural ally for a leader whose vision of power was so absolute. Under the Novo State, Brazil was a nation where the government dictated not only policy, but also the daily lives of its citizens. Repression, censorship and surveillance were omnipresent. Dissenting voices were quickly silenced and any opposition was forcefully suppressed. This oppressive atmosphere lasted until 1945. By then, widespread discontent and increased opposition had arisen, fuelled by years of repression and a deep desire for freedom and democracy. The fall of the Estado Novo was not just the end of an authoritarian regime. It also represented an awakening for a nation suffocated by tyranny and control. As Brazil moved towards the restoration of democracy, it would have to embark on a painful process of reconciliation and reconstruction, in which the scars left by years of authoritarianism would have to be healed and the nation would have to find its voice once again.

The Estado Novo dictatorship in Brazil, established by Getúlio Vargas in the 1930s, is one of the darkest chapters in Brazilian political history. Authoritarianism and pervasive state control were the defining characteristics of this era, in stark contrast to the dynamic and diverse nature of Brazilian society. An ardent nationalism permeated the rhetoric and politics of the regime, seeking to forge a unified national identity. Yet it was a narrowly defined nationalism, shaped by the regime's authoritarian vision, far removed from the pluralistic and inclusive ideals that characterise a healthy democracy. The army was revered and elevated to the status of guardian of the nation. In the shadows of barracks and military parades, the army became a pillar of the regime, enforcing its will and repressing any dissent. The economy was not immune to state control. Government control penetrated every sector, every business. Trade unions, once the voice of the workers, were muzzled, transformed into instruments of the state. Private companies operated under the watchful eye of the government, their independence and initiative hampered by rigid regulation and tight control. Censorship and repression were the tools of choice to muzzle any opposition. The press, artists, intellectuals - any dissenting voice was either silenced or stifled by relentless censorship. Prisons filled up with those who dared to speak out, and fear permeated every corner of society. The Estado Novo was not just a political regime; it was an attack on freedom, individuality and diversity. It was a world where the state did not just govern; it invaded every aspect of life, every thought, every dream. In the years of the Estado Novo, Brazil was not a free nation, but a nation enslaved by its own government, waiting for the moment of its liberation.

In the 1930s, Brazil was mired in a deep political and economic crisis, exacerbated by the global instability of the Great Depression. In 1930, Getúlio Vargas seized power in a military coup, ending the country's First Republic. Vargas, who hailed from the south of the country and represented growing agrarian interests, brought about a dynamic change in Brazil's political landscape. In 1937, Vargas established the Estado Novo, an authoritarian regime inspired by the European fascist governments of the time. This regime abolished political parties, introduced censorship and exercised strict control over the country. Vargas used the army to reinforce his rule and eliminate his opponents, while promoting a strong sense of nationalism. State intervention in the economy became more profound under Estado Novo. The state played a central role in regulating industry and agriculture. Despite political repression, Vargas also introduced social and economic reforms aimed at modernising the country and improving living conditions for the working classes. The Novo State came to an end in 1945 under domestic and international pressure for democratisation, particularly after the Second World War, when Brazil found itself on the side of the Allies. Vargas was forced to resign and the country began a transition to democracy. However, Vargas returned to power in 1951, this time by democratic means. His second term was marked by intense political tensions and, faced with insurmountable opposition, he committed suicide in 1954. The Vargas era, including the Estado Novo and his second term, had a profound impact on Brazil. Despite his authoritarianism, the reforms he initiated helped to modernise the country. Brazil subsequently experienced periods of political instability, alternating between democracy and authoritarian regimes, before stabilising as a democracy in the last decades of the 20th century.

Integralist propaganda poster - 1937.
An integralist greeting, "Anauê", of indigenous origin meaning "You are my brother" and an ancient indigenous war cry.
The propaganda of the New State.
Edda Mussolini, daughter of Benito Mussolini, was received by Ademar de Barros during his visit to São Paulo in 1939. The Estado Novo was sympathetic to Nazi fascism.

Understanding Coups d'Etat and Populism in Latin America

The outbreak of the global financial crisis in 1929 was an economic shock that devastated companies and the economy as a whole. American companies, which were heavily invested and operated internationally, were not spared. The effects of the crisis were particularly felt in Latin America, a region where US companies had substantial interests. With the collapse of the stock market and the credit crunch, many companies faced reduced liquidity and lower demand for their products and services. This was exacerbated by the rapid fall in commodity prices, a key component of the economies of many Latin American countries. Foreign investment, particularly from the US, has dried up as US companies and banks struggle to survive. For US companies operating in Latin America, this meant reduced revenues, lower profit margins and, in many cases, unprofitable operations. Capital was difficult to obtain, and without adequate financing, many were unable to maintain normal operations. As a result, many companies downsized, suspended operations or went bankrupt. This period also marked a significant decline in economic relations between the United States and Latin America. Protectionist policies adopted by nations to protect their domestic economies exacerbated the situation, reducing international trade and investment. However, despite the severity of the crisis, it has also served as a catalyst for significant economic and regulatory change. Governments around the world, including those in Latin America, adopted new policies to regulate economic activity, stabilise financial markets and promote economic recovery.

The crisis of 1929 highlighted the vulnerabilities and flaws inherent in the economic liberalism of the time. This model, predominant in the years leading up to the Great Depression, promoted a minimal role for the state in the economy, leaving the market free to evolve without significant government interference. This system of economic liberalism tended to favour landowners, industrialists and the financial sector, encouraging the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of these elites. Mechanisms of regulation and control were weak or non-existent, allowing these groups to prosper often at the expense of the working classes. Workers, on the other hand, were in a precarious position. They faced low wages, poor working conditions and had little or no social security or legal protections. Their rights and freedoms were often neglected, and economic and social inequalities increased. The Great Depression amplified these problems. As markets collapsed, unemployment soared and businesses failed, the structural weaknesses of economic liberalism became undeniable. The state, traditionally a marginal player in the economy, suddenly found itself at the centre of the attempt to resolve the crisis. This marked a turning point in the understanding and practice of economic liberalism. Governments around the world, under pressure from economic and social realities, began to adopt more interventionist policies. The state took on a more active role in regulating the economy, protecting workers and stabilising financial markets.

The crisis of 1929 exposed the structural weaknesses of the economic liberalism model of the time. A particularly striking feature of this model was the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of economic elites, such as hacendados, industrialists and bankers. Workers, on the other hand, often lacked sufficient protection and rights, and suffered the most serious consequences of these inequalities. Against this backdrop of uncertainty and economic insecurity, the population, faced with massive economic distress, often looked for strong leadership to restore stability and order. In several Latin American countries, charismatic figures have emerged, proposing authoritarian or populist alternatives to the liberalism that previously prevailed. In the United States, the response to the crisis was also characterised by increased state intervention. Under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the New Deal marked a significant break with the previous laissez-faire liberalism. The government adopted a series of measures to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and protect the most vulnerable citizens. This involved tighter regulation of financial markets, an expansion of workers' rights and social welfare initiatives. The need to reassure and unify the population in this period of crisis revealed the importance of nationalism. Leaders have turned to nationalist ideas and symbols to bring their nations together and build a sense of solidarity and social cohesion.

Populism is often characterised by its ambivalence. On the one hand, it can offer a voice to people who feel neglected or marginalised by political and economic elites. In this context, populist leaders can mobilise broad popular support by responding to the frustrations and concerns of the masses. They are able to maintain social peace temporarily by presenting themselves as champions of "ordinary people" against corrupt and out-of-touch elites. On the other hand, populism can also be critical. Although populist leaders often promise radical change and the righting of perceived wrongs, they can actually reinforce existing structures of power and inequality. The reforms initiated under populist regimes are often superficial and fail to address the root causes of inequality and injustice. Sometimes these reforms are more focused on consolidating power in the hands of the populist leader than on improving the living conditions of the people they claim to represent. The illusion of change and representation can be maintained by skilful rhetoric and effective communication strategies. However, beneath the surface, structures of power and inequality often remain unchanged. This can lead to subsequent disillusionment among populist supporters, when bold promises of change and justice turn out to be insufficient or unattainable.

These dynamics have been observed in a number of historical and geographical contexts. Small farmers and the working class are often the most vulnerable to the devastating effects of economic crises. Their livelihoods are directly linked to an economy that, in times of crisis, becomes uncertain and precarious. In this context, the promise of populism, with its guarantees of economic recovery and fairness, can appear seductive. Socialist and Communist parties have historically sought to represent these groups. They often propose radical reforms to rebalance economic and political power, with an emphasis on protecting workers and small farmers. However, in times of crisis, these parties and movements can be marginalised or absorbed by more powerful populist forces. Populism, in its various manifestations, often presents a unified vision of the nation and proposes a quick fix to complex economic and social problems. This can lead to the suppression or co-option of smaller, more specialised groups and parties. Populist discourse tends to unite diverse groups under a national banner, setting aside specific demands and identities of class, region or profession.

The shortcomings and flaws of economic liberalism were exposed, and with them the profound inequalities that characterised these societies.

The crisis shook confidence in the existing economic system and highlighted the need for structural reform. Leaders who could articulate a convincing vision of a unified and prosperous nation gained ground. In many cases, they adopted nationalist ideologies, promising to restore dignity, power and prosperity to the nations they led. These ideologies sometimes led to an increase in authoritarianism. Populist leaders, armed with the urgency of the crisis, often consolidated power in their own hands, marginalising competing political forces and establishing regimes which, while popular, were often marked by the restriction of civil liberties and the concentration of power. However, it is also important to recognise that in some contexts, this period of crisis led to substantial and necessary reforms. In the United States, for example, the Roosevelt administration introduced the New Deal, a set of programmes and policies that not only helped to stabilise the economy, but also laid the foundations for a more robust social safety net.

The social unrest that followed the Great Depression created an urgent need for stability and reform. In response, governments oscillated between authoritarianism and populism to maintain control and ensure social peace. Populism, in particular, appeared to be a mechanism for appeasing the masses and avoiding revolution, a strategy illustrated by political developments in Cuba in 1933. The populist movement, however, was not content with rhetoric; it required a certain substantiality in the implementation of policies in order to be effective. This often involved the introduction of social legislation to protect the rights of workers and the poor, a necessary step to alleviate the pervasive social unrest of the time. However, although these measures succeeded in temporarily easing social tensions, they did not eliminate the underlying problems of inequality and injustice. The seeds of discontent remained, latent but alive, and re-emerged with a vengeance after the Second World War. A new era of political and social mobilisation was about to begin. Small peasants in rural areas and socialist and communist parties and unions in urban areas were particularly hard hit by the continuing repercussions of the Great Depression. While the state had managed to suppress or integrate some of these groups into larger, national political structures, the social protection offered was often inadequate. The basic problems of economic inequality, social justice and human rights remained unresolved.

Annexes

References

[1] Aline Helg - UNIGE

[2] Aline Helg - Academia.edu

[3] Aline Helg - Wikipedia

[4] Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com

[5] Aline Helg - Researchgate.net

[6] Aline Helg - Cairn.info

[7] Aline Helg - Google Scholar

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

政变与拉丁美洲的民粹主义

Sommaire

二十世纪二十年代拉丁美洲历史的转折点

拉丁美洲民粹主义

大萧条对拉丁美洲的影响

经济后果

社会影响

政治后果

哥伦比亚的情况：咖啡种植者承受的危机

经济因素

Political dynamics

The case of Cuba: Revolution and military coup

The case of Brazil: military coup and fascist regime

Economic context

Political landscape

Understanding Coups d'Etat and Populism in Latin America

Annexes

References

二十世纪二十年代 拉丁美洲历史的转折点

拉丁美洲民粹主义

大萧条对拉丁美洲的影响

经济后果

社会影响

政治后果

哥伦比亚的情况：咖啡种植者承受的危机

经济因素

Political dynamics

The case of Cuba: Revolution and military coup

The case of Brazil: military coup and fascist regime

Economic context

Political landscape

Understanding Coups d'Etat and Populism in Latin America

Annexes

References

二十世纪二十年代拉丁美洲历史的转折点