each other in hopes of becoming the next Bolfvar. As Cockcroft notes,
. . .some features do appear to be common to the area's history, particularly the traditions of centralized colonial authority and postcolonial economic dependence, regional bossism (caudillismo), personal leadership with exaggerated influence (personalismo), patriarchal male chauvinism (machismo), urbanization, 'new politics,' and military rule or control over the affairs of state versus 'civilismo' -- civilian resistance to military rule (362).
The late 1800's gave rise to many professions that opened doors of opportunity and advancement to Latin America's middle class families. Among these were civil and hydraulic engineering, architecture, medicine, law, and the military. But it was military training that offered free and fast passage to greater social mobility.
Military officers, sworn to the defense of their country and its constitution, had limited opportunity to test their courage and leadership against foreign armies. Instead, they felt a responsibility to develop these traits in battle with what they perceived as internal threats. "The army's acceptance of these special responsibilities provided a rationale for political action and, on occasion, direct involvement in governing the nation" (Beezley 29).
And so it continued into the 20th century, where revolution after revolution began -- and always seemed to end -- with the personal agendas of military officers, who often came to rule together as the "junta." The names -- Peron, Batista, Somoza, Pinochet, Trujillo, Castro, Velasco, Torrijos, Noriega -- will not be forgotten.
In the 1960s and 1970s the heads of
...