Editing Caudillo (section)

==Spanish American ''caudillos''==
{{see also|List of Hispanic American caudillos}}

[[File:Oleo Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.PNG|thumb|[[Antonio López de Santa Anna]], who dominated Mexican politics in the first half of the nineteenth century]]
Since Spanish American independence in the early nineteenth century, the region has been noted for its number of ''caudillos'' and the duration of their rule.<ref>[https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/63/1/3/148308/Bolivar-and-the-Caudillos Bolívar and the Caudillos]. John Lynch; Hispanic American Historical Review 1 February 1983; 63 (1): 3–35. Duke University Press doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182168-63.1.3</ref> The early nineteenth century is sometimes called "The Age of Caudillos",<ref name=h38 /> with [[Juan Manuel de Rosas]], dictator of Argentina,<ref>Lynch, John (1981) ''Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas, 1829–1852''.</ref> and his contemporary in Mexico, [[Antonio López de Santa Anna]],<ref>Fowler, Will (2007) ''Santa Anna of Mexico'', esp. Part 2, "The Making of a Caudillo". Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.</ref> dominating national politics. Weak nation-states in Spanish America fostered the continuation of ''caudillismo'' from the late nineteenth century into the twentieth century. The lack of government attention to the needs of the people, allowed for there to be space for caudillos to fill those roles to give aid to peasants.<ref name=":2" /> 

The formation of Mexico's [[Institutional Revolutionary Party]] in 1929 effectively ended ''caudillismo''. Men characterized as ''caudillos'' have ruled in Cuba ([[Gerardo Machado]], [[Fulgencio Batista]], [[Fidel Castro]]), Panama ([[Omar Torrijos]], [[Manuel Noriega]]), the Dominican Republic ([[Desiderio Arias]], Cipriano Bencosme), Paraguay ([[Alfredo Stroessner]]), Argentina ([[Juan Perón]] and other military strongmen), and Chile ([[Augusto Pinochet]]).<ref name=h38 /> ''Caudillos'' have been the subject of literature in Spanish America.<ref name=brush>Brushwood, John S. (1980) ''The Spanish American Novel: A Twentieth-Century Survey''. Austin: University of Texas Press.</ref><ref name=dict>{{cite journal|jstor=2503126|last1=Castellanos|first1= Jorge|last2= Martínez|first2= Miguel A. |title=El Dictador hispanoamericano como personaje literario|journal=Latin American Research Review|volume=16|issue=2|year=1981|pages=79–105|doi=10.1017/S0023879100028326 |s2cid=253152375 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Hispanic America is not unique in having strong leaders emerge during times of turmoil. The cause of their emergence in Spanish America is generally seen to be in the destruction of the Spanish colonial state structure after the wars of independence, and in the importance of leaders from the independence struggles for providing government in the post-independence period, when nation-states came into being. Historian [[John Lynch (historian)|John Lynch]] states that "Before 1810 the caudillo was unknown. … The caudillo entered history as a local hero whom larger events promoted to a military chieftain."<ref>[[#Lynch|Lynch]], pp. 402–03.</ref> 

In a rural area that lacked any institutions of the state, and where the environment was one of violence and anarchy, a ''caudillo'' could impose order, often by using violence himself to achieve it. His local control as a strongman needed to be maintained by assuring the loyalty of his followers, so his bestowing of material rewards reinforced his own position. ''Caudillos'' could also maintain their position by protecting the interests of regional elites.<ref>[[#Lynch|Lynch]], p. 405.</ref> A local strongman who built a regional base could aspire to become a national ''caudillo'', taking control of the state.<ref>[[#Lynch|Lynch]], p. 406.</ref> 

In this situation, ''caudillos'' could bestow [[patronage]] on a large retinue of clients, who in turn gave him their loyalty. In general, ''caudillos''{{'}} power benefited elites. But these strongmen were also mediators between elites and the popular classes, recruiting them into the power base, but also restraining them from achieving power themselves. For example, Federalist caudillos in the Argentinian provinces were able to build relationships with the rural poor; namely the gauchos and monteneros. As the war of the Triple Alliance spread, ideological language shifts occurred in Buenos Aires by the ruling Unitarians, who began referring to rural caudillos as barbarians and enemies of civilization. Unitarians tried to criminalize the federalists, Illegitimizing their political position.<ref name=":1" />

Caudillos were not leading partisan bands, according to the Unitarians, but rather war lords leading bandits. The resulting placement of national guard troops being stationed in the provinces, who would be tasked with law enforcement and specifically separation from the caudillos.&nbsp; As a next step political strategy, the Unitarians would also construct schools, providing compulsory education, emphasizing pro-unitarian political thought. Caudillos were effectively estranged by the effort and soon became a historical footnote in the process.<ref name=":1" />

There were a few strongmen who either rose from a humble background to protect the interests of indigenous groups or other rural marginalized groups, or strongly identified with those groups. Historian E. Bradford Burns referred to them as "folk ''caudillos'',". In his analysis, they contrasted with Europeanized elites who viewed the lower orders with contempt. He gives examples of [[Juan Facundo Quiroga]], Martín Güemes, and other Argentine ''caudillos'', most importantly Juan Manuel de Rosas, who were popular and [[populist]] ''caudillos''. Burns attributes the urban elites' bafflement and their contempt for followers of these folk ''caudillos'' for much of the negative role assigned to ''caudillos''.<ref>"Folk Caudillos", pp. 115–30 in [[#Hamil|Hamil]], excerpts from E. Bradford Burns, ''Poverty of Progress: Latin America in the Nineteenth Century''. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press 1980, pp. 86–94, 96–103, 105–06.</ref>

National ''caudillos'' often sought to legitimize their rule by holding titles of authority such as "President of the Republic". If the constitution put formal limits on presidential power and term limits, ''caudillos'' could bend or break the rules to maintain power, a practice dubbed {{lang|es|[[continuismo]]}}.<ref>"Continuismo: The Search for Political Longevity" in [[#Hamil|Hamil]], republished from {{cite journal|title='Continuismo' in Central America and the Caribbean|journal=The Inter-American Quarterly|volume=2 |year=1940|pages=56–74}}</ref>

Caudillo politics were not monolithic, they tended to follow the politics that would serve them best by keeping them in power and allowing them to retain their following.<ref name=":2" /> Ideologically, ''caudillos'' could be either [[Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America|liberal or conservative]].  Liberalism had an advantage in the post-independence period, drawing on the ideas of the liberators and creating the institutional frameworks of the new nation-states via written constitutions. Free trade as an economic policy created market-oriented economies. The model that these nation-states often adopted was [[federalism]], keeping power in the component regions. Federalism, however, tended toward centrifugalism{{Clarify|reason=Some explanation as to what centrifugalism is appreciated as there doesn't seem to be an article on it|date=May 2024}} and fragmentation and was characterized by weak central governments.<ref>[[#Lynch|Lynch]], pp. 409–10.</ref> Conservative ''caudillos'' also emerged around 1830. New nation-states often rejected the institutions of the colonial era as legacies to be rejected, but the [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]] and traditional values remained strong in many regions, supported by elites seeking to maintain their power in the new order. Conservative ''caudillos'', supported by the Church and elites, moved to the creation of strong, central governments.<ref>[[#Lynch|Lynch]], pp. 410–11.</ref>