Stronger Leaders, Weaker Institutions

Following on El Hidalgo 22’s post on Haiti, which ended with a reflection on the interaction between leaders and institutions, I would like to elaborate on some factors that contribute to strengthen the reliance of Latin American people on leaders instead of institutions.

In this post, I will focus on two sets of interconnected factors that contribute to the emergence of strong leaders who will in turn hinder institution-building processes. The first is the convergence of a historical tradition of caudillos and persistent inequality and exclusion. The second is the decline of traditional mediators between leaders and followers such as political parties and the increasing importance of media for politics.

Historically, Caudillos have played important roles in the social and political evolution of Latin American countries. The tradition of caudillismo that took shape when political institutions were considerably weak or non-existent and it moved forward well into the twentieth century and, it could be argued, nowadays. A quick overview of Latin American History reveals the presence of such strong leaders at any given point. These leaders, either at the national level or more locally, have not contributed to developing institutions given the relationship they establish with their followers. Using Weber’s typology of authority, caudillos are charismatic leaders that present themselves as a messiah that will solve the problems of their followers in order to gain supporters. These leaders will not pursue the strengthening of institutions as that could undermine their power.

However, caudillos would only be able to present themselves as the saviors if there is a problem upon their possible followers, to which they can offer a solution. Here, consistent social exclusion, poverty and inequality come into play. As constant problems in Latin America, the chances for leaders offering solutions to emerge are high.

On the other side, as a more recent trend we have the decline of traditional mediators between leaders and followers such as political parties and labor unions.

The relationship between leaders and followers is a two-way avenue in which the leaders must send across messages to their followers while at the same time, the latter need to express their needs, concerns and opinions to the former. During a significant part of the twentieth century, this role was performed by institutions such as political parties and labor unions, as they channeled back and forth the messages from one side to the other. With the crisis of representation and disenfranchisement of citizens from politics and political parties, these institutions are no longer able to provide mediation. Yet, political leaders have found in the media a more direct link with their followers. This link allows individuals, more so than institutions, to directly address the people, thus hindering the emergence and strengthening of institutions.

These two sets of interactions are definitely the only factors accountable for the constant emergence of caudillo-type leaders in Latin America, however, their share for such emergence is important.