Suchergebnisse

The coup d'état, so-called, which, on January 6, 1929, brought into being a new form of government and established a new type of constitutional régime in the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, marked the end of exactly a decade of experimentation with the traditional principles of parliamentary government. That this "critical period" had not been an unqualified success is admitted by statesmen, diplomats, and politicians alike; that it was abruptly ended by the personal intervention of King Alexander and the supercession of the Vidov-dan constitution is equally a matter of fact. From Zagreb to Belgrade the passing of the political order which had obtained in the triune kingdom since 1918 has brought general rejoicing; outside the country, however, the queries have been raised: Is the change indicative of the future fate of all democracies, and have not the doctrines of fascism, of military dictatorship, of camarilla government, simply been transplanted to the Yugoslav capital from Rome and Madrid respectively?The situation is not to be understood merely by drawing hasty conclusions as to the prospective demise of democratic or parliamentary government everywhere, nor is it possible to speak, with any scientific accuracy, of the new régime in the Serb-Croat-Slovene state as a Balkan adaptation of the Italian and Iberian dictatorships. The occurrence of this constitutional change in the life of the Yugoslav people has its own distinctive raison d'être and does not flow from mere facile imitation of dictatorial practices in other countries.

Bureaucracy may mean many things. So may dictatorship. Until Sulla, the technique of dictatorial interludes provided the Roman republic with a convenient form of political catharsis to relieve the constitutional framework from the strain of military exigencies. Greek depotism was not the style of Caesar; Richelieu'sgouvernement personnel was not an imperialist versionof Cromwell's Commonwealth. Less compelling still are the parallels between Latin America's "strong man" regimes, Japan's "new structure"à laKonoye, and the one-party systems of National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia. It is the totalitarian formula alone to which we intend to address ourselves —dictatorship built upon the masses.

For the political scientist in America there can scarcely be a more fascinating or more elusive study than the Soviet Union. The first enticement is the menacing importance of Soviet power. Then there is the miracle which in a single generation has changed a defeated and disintegrating agrarian society into one of the two greatest industrial and military States of our day. But these are claims to everybody's attention. The peculiar challenge to the professional student of social phenomena is another matter. For him Russia now is an enormous but dimly lighted laboratory in which doctrine is tested by experience, where the strain between ideology and reality is carried to a pitch never previously attempted, where techniques are developed by which a small elite secures a steady ninety-nine per cent of formal acquiescence from a population of two hundred millions, where political and economic strength is accumulated by processes in which what we consider normal human reactions are choked off by fear or concealed in the trite responses of an authorized litany.

It is now nine years since the outbreak of the Chinese revolution. It is fifteen years since the Manchus attempted to maintain their control by introducing representative institutions into China. The development toward constitutional and representative government under the Manchus was checked in 1911 by the revolutionary movement. When the Chinese Republic was established as the successor to the alien Manchu Empire it was felt that the problem of modernizing China bade fair to be solved, and that in an orderly way her political institutions would be brought into harmony with western standards. Unfortunately that orderly progress has not come. Parliamentary government under the Nanking (provisional) Constitution was replaced by the dictatorship of Yuan Shih-kai under the arrangements of the so-called constitutional compact, which in turn was followed by the attempt to reëstablish the monarchy. The failure of the monarchy movement brought back parliamentary government, but before a permanent constitution could be adopted Parliament was again dissolved, and a government controlled by a military clique set up in its place. Since this military government was unacceptable to the southern provinces, the country became divided. So far it has not been possible for the country to reconcile its differences. Instead of an ordered constitutional progress, has come apparent failure in the effort to establish representative government. The name of a republic has been maintained, it is true, and the forms of constitutional government have been retained, but a permanent national government has not been set up, nor has popular government replaced the paternal despotism of the past.

The important role played by the army in the pol'al life of Latin America is revealed by the history of these nations. To begin with, the military conquistadors were quickly replaced by a civil bureaucracy which was under the complete control of the Spanish crown. The financiers were constantly seeking to sell military titles while the need for a defense against Indians & pirates called for the creation of a militia. The wars of liberation brought the generals to the fore, though Spanish customs had already given the military the benefits of a privileged class. These soldiers now found that they had no outlet for their military prowess because South America was far removed from the area of major conflicts. The generals entered into an alliance with the large landowners to form a pol'al system resembling the Spanish one, a type of caudillism, that is to say a dictatorship depending upon the army. Toward the end of the 19th cent, modifications in the recruitment of soldiers & in the formation of officer corps tended to do away with the influence of the military on pol'al life. It was the crisis that followed WW1 that brought back the influence of the military, but this time in a diff fashion. The officer corps had become much less conservative & had been seriously affected by doctrines inspired by Fascism & Communism. The army also tended to intervene indirectly to support particular pol'al views by allowing the leaders who had the army's support to maintain order. In several states, then, the police, frequently organized with the help of the US, began to play a role formerly held by the army. The Gov's therefore began to depend for their existence on an equilibrium between the army, police, & militia. Frequently, also, the various armed forces were at odds, with the navy & the Air Force generally being more liberal than the Army. Military careers appeared to be instruments of soc promotion & made it possible, in nations where marked diff's in class existed, for individuals to achieve a fair degree of success. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

Intro -- CONTENTS -- FIGURES, MAPS, AND TABLES -- PREFACE -- PART I Introduction -- Chapter 1 Explaining Political Development in Central America -- Chapter 2 The Liberal Reform Period and Its Legacies: A Conceptual Framework -- PART II Antecedent Conditions -- Chapter 3 Liberals and Conservatives before the Reform Period -- Chapter 4 Routes to Liberal Political Dominance -- PART III The Liberal Reform Period -- Chapter 5 Radical Liberalism: Guatemala and El Salvador -- Chapter 6 Reformist Liberalism: Costa Rica -- Chapter 7 Aborted Liberalism: Honduras and Nicaragua -- PART IV Legacies of the Liberal Reform Period -- Chapter 8 Aftermath: Reactions to the Liberal Reform -- Chapter 9 Regime Heritage: Military Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Traditional Dictatorship -- Chapter 10 Conclusion: Path Dependence and Political Change -- NOTES -- SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS ON CENTRAL AMERICAN POLITICS AND HISTORY -- INDEX.

Unsigned report on the reforms to the 1917 Constitution regarding oil matters and arguing that they threaten the American interests. Secret memorandum by James R. Sheffield, American Ambassador in Mexico, in which he informs of a military conspiracy against Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles and the establishment of a dictatorship comprised of Generals Eugenio Martínez, Juan Andrew Almazán, Marcelo Caraveo, Jesús Agustín Castro, Eulalio Gutiérrez, and José Alvarez. / Informe sin firmar en el que se comentan las reformas a la Constitución de 1917 en materia petrolera, aseverando que atentan contra los intereses norteamericanos. Memorándum secreto de James R. Sheffield, Embajador de Estados Unidos en México, en el que informa de un complot militar en contra del Gral. PEC por el cual se instaurará una dictadura militar compuesta por los generales Eugenio Martínez, Juan Andrew Almazán, Marcelo Caraveo, Jesús Agustín Castro, Eulalio Gutiérrez y José Alvarez.