A caudillo was a type of personalist leader wielding military and political power. There is no precise definition of caudillo, used interchangeably with "dictator" and "strongman"; the term is associated with Spain, with Spanish America after all of that region won independence in the early nineteenth century. The term is used pejoratively by critics of a regime. However, Spain's General Francisco Franco proudly took the title as his own during and after his military overthrow of the Second Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War, in parallel to the German and Japanese equivalents of the same period: Führer and Tenno. Spanish censors during his rule attacked publishers who applied the term to Hispanic American strongmen. Caudillos' exercise of power is a form considered authoritarian. Most societies have had personalist leaders at times, but Hispanic America has had many more, the majority of whom were not self-described caudillos. However, scholars have applied the term to a variety of Hispanic American leaders.
The roots of caudillismo may be tied to the framework of rule in medieval and early modern Spain during the Reconquest from the Moors. Spanish conquistadors such as Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro exhibit characteristics of the caudillo, being successful military leaders, having mutual reliance of the leader and their supporters, rewarding them for their loyalty. During the colonial era, the Spanish crown asserted its power and established a plethora of bureaucratic institutions that prevented such personalist rule. Historian John Lynch argues that the rise of caudillos in Spanish America is rooted not in the distant Spanish past but in the immediate context of the Spanish American wars of independence; those wars left a power vacuum in the early nineteenth century. Caudillos were influential in the history of Spanish America and have a legacy that has influenced political movements in the modern era. 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.
The early nineteenth century is sometimes called "The Age of Caudillos", with Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina, his contemporary in Mexico, Antonio López de Santa Anna, dominating national politics. Brazil's transition to independence was the establishment of the Brazilian Empire, which kept intact Brazil's geographical integrity and central authority. Weak nation-states in Spanish America fostered the continuation of caudillismo from the late nineteenth century into the twentieth century; the formation of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party in 1929 ended caudillismo there. Men characterized as caudillos have ruled in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay and Chile. Caudillos have been the subject of literature in Spanish America. A caudillo is a military leader or political leader Hispanic America is not unique in having strong leaders emerge during times of turmoil; the cause of their emergence in Spanish America is seen to be in the destruction of the Spanish colonial state structure after the wars of independence, 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 states. … The caudillo entered history as a local hero whom larger events promoted to a military chieftain." He gained in power by his success as a military leader. In a rural area that lacked any institutions of the state, where the environment was one of violence and anarchy, a caudillo could impose order 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 material rewards reinforced his own position. Caudillos could maintain their position by protecting the interests of regional elites. A local strongman who built a regional base could aspire to becoming a national caudillo, taking control of the state. 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 mediators between elites and the popular classes, recruiting them into the power base, but restraining them from achieving power themselves.
There were a few strongmen, whom historian E. Bradford Burns has named "folk caudillos", who either rose from a humble background to protect the interests of indigenous groups or other rural marginalized groups, or identified with those groups. In his analysis, these folk caudillos were in contrast to Europeanized elites who viewed the lower orders with contempt, he gives examples of Juan Facundo Quiroga, Martín Güemes and other Argentine caudillos, most 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. National caudillos sought to legitimate 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 "continuismo". Ideologically, caudillos could be either liberal or conse
President for life
President for life is a title assumed by or granted to some leaders to remove their term limit irrevocably as a way of removing future challenges to their authority and legitimacy. The title sometimes confers on the holder the right to appoint a successor; the usage of the title of "president for life" rather than a traditionally autocratic title, such as that of a monarch, implies the subversion of liberal democracy by the titleholder. Indeed, sometimes a president for life can proceed to establish a self-proclaimed monarchy, such as Jean-Jacques Dessalines and Henry Christophe in Haiti. A president for life may be regarded as a de facto monarch. In fact, other than the title, political scientists face difficulties in differentiating a state ruled by a president for life and a monarchy. In his proposed plan for government at the United States Constitutional Convention Alexander Hamilton proposed that the chief executive be a governor elected to serve for good behavior, acknowledging that such an arrangement might be seen as an elective monarchy.
It was for that reason that the proposal was rejected. Most leaders who have proclaimed themselves president for life have not in fact gone on to serve a life term. Most have been deposed long before their death while others fulfill their title by being assassinated while in office. However, some have managed to rule until their deaths, including as José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia of Paraguay, Alexandre Pétion of Haiti, Rafael Carrera of Guatemala, François Duvalier of Haiti, Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia and Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan. Others made unsuccessful attempts to have themselves named president for life, such as Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko in 1972; some long-serving authoritarian presidents, such as Mobutu, North Korea's Kim Il-sung, Bulgaria's Todor Zhivkov, Romania's Nicolae Ceaușescu, Syria's Hafez al-Assad, Indonesia's Suharto, the Republic of China's Chiang Kai-shek and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, are thought of as examples of Presidents for Life. However, they underwent periodic renewals of mandate that were show elections.
Official results showed the president receiving implausibly high support. One of the most well-known incidents of a republican leader extending his term indefinitely was Roman dictator Julius Caesar, who made himself "Perpetual Dictator" in 45 BC. Traditionally, the office of dictator could only be held for six months, although he was not the first Roman dictator to be given the office with no term limit, it was Caesar's dictatorship that inspired the string of Roman emperors who ruled after his assassination. Caesar's actions would be copied by the French Consul Napoleon Bonaparte, appointed "First Consul for life" in 1802 before elevating himself to the rank of Emperor two years later. Since many dictators have adopted similar titles, either on their own authority or having it granted to them by rubber stamp legislatures. Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg in January. On Hindenburg's death the German Reichstag voted to merge the offices of President and Chancellor, giving Hitler the title of Führer.
The Reichstag voted to allow Hitler to hold the positions of Chancellor and Führer for life. After Kim Il-sung's death in 1994, the North Korean government wrote the presidential office out of the constitution, declaring him "Eternal President" in 1998 in order to honor his memory forever. Since there can be no succession in a system where the President reigns over a nation beyond death, the powers of the president are nominally and split between the president of the Supreme People's Assembly, the prime minister, the chairman of the State Affairs Commission. However, his son and grandson have been in control of the country since his death. Note: the first date listed in each entry is the date of proclamation of his status as President for Life; the President for Life Pandemic: Kenya, Nigeria and Malawi. Bhekithemba Richard Mngomezulu, Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd, 2013 ISBN 9781909112315 The List: Presidents for Life // Foreign Policy, November 5, 2007
Head of state
A head of state is the public persona who represents the national unity and legitimacy of a sovereign state. Depending on the country's form of government and separation of powers, the head of state may be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently the head of government. In a parliamentary system the head of state is the de jure leader of the nation, there is a separate de facto leader with the title of prime minister. In contrast, a semi-presidential system has both heads of state and government as the leaders de facto of the nation. In countries with parliamentary systems, the head of state is a ceremonial figurehead who does not guide day-to-day government activities or is not empowered to exercise any kind of political authority. In countries where the head of state is the head of government, the head of state serves as both a public figurehead and the highest-ranking political leader who oversees the executive branch. Former French president Charles de Gaulle, while developing the current Constitution of France, said that the head of state should embody l'esprit de la nation.
Some academic writers discuss states and governments in terms of "models". An independent nation state has a head of state, determines the extent of its head's executive powers of government or formal representational functions. In protocolary terms, the head of a sovereign, independent state is identified as the person who, according to that state's constitution, is the reigning monarch, in the case of a monarchy, or the president, in the case of a republic. Among the different state constitutions that establish different political systems, four major types of heads of state can be distinguished: The parliamentary system, with three subset models; the non-executive model, in which the head of state has either none or limited executive powers, has a ceremonial and symbolic role. The Parliamentary-Presidential model, or South African Method, where Parliament chooses the President, who acts as both Head of State and Head of Government; some argue this is unfair, becouse citizens dont get a direct say in their executive leadership.
However, this method makes it impossible for a dictator to come to power. The semi-presidential system, in which the head of state shares key executive powers with a head of government or cabinet. In a federal constituent or a dependent territory, the same role is fulfilled by the holder of an office corresponding to that of a head of state. For example, in each Canadian province the role is fulfilled by the Lieutenant Governor, whereas in most British Overseas Territories the powers and duties are performed by the Governor; the same applies to Indian states, etc.. Hong Kong's constitutional document, the Basic Law, for example, specifies the Chief Executive as the head of the special administrative region, in addition to their role as the head of government; these non-sovereign-state heads have limited or no role in diplomatic affairs, depending on the status and the norms and practices of the territories concerned. In parliamentary systems the head of state may be the nominal chief executive officer, heading the executive branch of the state, possessing limited executive power.
In reality, following a process of constitutional evolution, powers are only exercised by direction of a cabinet, presided over by a head of government, answerable to the legislature. This accountability and legitimacy requires that someone be chosen who has a majority support in the legislature, it gives the legislature the right to vote down the head of government and their cabinet, forcing it either to resign or seek a parliamentary dissolution. The executive branch is thus said to be responsible to the legislature, with the head of government and cabinet in turn accepting constitutional responsibility for offering constitutional advice to the head of state. In parliamentary constitutional monarchies, the legitimacy of the unelected head of state derives from the tacit approval of the people via the elected representatives. Accordingly, at the time of the Glorious Revolution, the English parliament acted of its own authority to name a new king and queen. In monarchies with a written constitution, the position of monarch is a creature of the constitution and could quite properly be abolished through a democratic procedure of constitutional amendment, although there are significant procedural hurdles imposed on such a procedure.
In republics with a parliamentary system the head of state is titled president and the principal functions of such presidents are ceremonial and symbolic, as opposed to the presidents in a presidential or semi-presidential system. In reality, numerous variants exist to the position of a head of state within a parliamentary system; the older the cons
Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno was a Panamanian politician and military officer, the de facto ruler of Panama from 1983 to 1989. He had longstanding ties to United States intelligence agencies. S. invasion of Panama. Born in Panama City to a poor mestizo family, Noriega studied at the Chorrillos Military School in Lima and at the School of the Americas, he became an officer in the Panamanian army, rose through the ranks in alliance with Omar Torrijos. In 1968, Torrijos overthrew President Arnulfo Arias in a coup. After Torrijos' death in 1981, Noriega consolidated his power to become Panama's de facto ruler in 1983. From the 1950s until shortly before the U. S. invasion, Noriega worked with U. S. intelligence agencies. Noriega was one of the Central Intelligence Agency's most valued intelligence sources, as well as one of the primary conduits for illicit weapons, military equipment and cash destined for U. S.-backed counter-insurgency forces throughout Latin America. The U. S. regarded Noriega as an ally in its War on Drugs, despite Noriega himself having amassed a personal fortune through drug trafficking operations.
Though his U. S. intelligence handlers were aware of this, it was allowed because of his usefulness to the U. S. Noriega relied upon military nationalism to maintain his support, did not espouse a specific social or economic ideology. In 1988, Noriega was indicted by federal grand juries in Miami and Tampa on charges of racketeering, drug smuggling, money laundering. Following the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, he was captured and flown to the United States, where he was tried on the Miami indictment; the trial, lasting from September 1991 to April 1992, ended with Noriega's conviction on most of the charges. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison, served 17 years after a reduction in his sentence and time off for good behavior. Noriega's U. S. prison sentence ended in September 2007. In 2010, Noriega was extradited to France, where he was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for money laundering. In 2011 France extradited him to Panama, where he was incarcerated for crimes committed during his rule.
Diagnosed with a brain tumor in March 2017, Noriega suffered complications during surgery, died two months later. Described as a military dictatorship, Noriega's rule in Panama was marked by repression of the media, an expansion of the military, the persecution of political opponents controlling the outcomes of any elections, he was known for his complicated relationship with the U. S. being described as being its ally and nemesis at the same time. He has been called one of the best-known dictators of his time, compared to authoritarian rulers such as Muammar Gaddafi and Augusto Pinochet. Noriega was born in Panama City, into a poor mestizo, or mixed-race, family with Native American and Spanish heritage. Noriega's mother has been variously described as a cook or a laundress, while his father, Ricaurte Noriega, was an accountant. Neither had a lengthy presence in his life: his mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child. Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén.
Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was in fact the illegitimate son of his father and his father's domestic worker, whose family name was Moreno. Noriega was educated first at the Escuela República de México, at the Instituto Nacional, a well-regarded high school in Panama City that had produced a number of nationalist political leaders, he was described as an "oddly serious child," a bookish student always neatly dressed by his punctilious godmother. During his time in the Instituto Nacional he met his older brother Luis, a socialist activist and a student at the school: Manuel had not met his siblings. Manuel began living with Luis, who introduced him to politics, including recruiting him into the Socialist Party's youth wing. During his time in the Socialist youth group, Noriega took part in protests and authored articles criticizing the U. S. presence in Panama. He is reported to have begun his association with the U. S. intelligence services at this time, providing information about the activities of his comrades.
He continued to work with the U. S. intelligence services at various points till the 1980s: a $10.70 payment in 1955 was the first of many payments he would receive from the U. S. for his activities. Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor, but was unable to secure a place in the University of Panama's medical school. After graduating from the Instituto Nacional, Noriega won a scholarship to Chorrillos Military School in the Peruvian capital of Lima, with the help of Luis, who had by received a position in the Panamanian embassy in Peru. While in Peru he made the acquaintance of Roberto Díaz Herrera, who became a close ally. Noriega married Felicidad Sieiro de Noriega, whom he had met in the 1960s, the couple had three daughters: Lorena. Siero had been a school teacher, Noriega a member of the National Guard, her family, of Basque heritage, was reported to have been unhappy with the marriage. Noriega was unfaithful to his wife, who at one point expressed a desire for a divorce, though she changed her mind later.
Noriega graduated from Chorrillos in 1962 with a specialization in engineering. He joined the Panama National Guard. Posted to Colón, he was given a commission as a second lieutenant in September 1962, his commanding officer in Colón was Omar Torrijos a Major in the National Guard. Torrijos b
A military dictatorship is a dictatorship wherein the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority. A military dictatorship is different from civilian dictatorship for a number of reasons: their motivations for seizing power, the institutions through which they organize their rule and the ways in which they leave power. Viewing itself as saving the nation from the corrupt or myopic civilian politicians, a military dictatorship justifies its position as "neutral" arbiters on the basis of their membership within the armed forces. For example, many juntas adopt titles such as "Committee of National Restoration", or "National Liberation Committee". Military leaders rule as a junta, selecting one of themselves as a head. Military dictatorship is called khakistocracy; the term is a portmanteau word combining kakistocracy with khaki, the tan-green camouflage colour used in most modern army uniforms. Most military dictatorships are formed. Military dictatorships may restore significant components of civilian government while the senior military commander still maintains executive political power.
In Pakistan, ruling Generals Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf have held referendums to elect themselves President of Pakistan for additional terms forbidden by the constitution. In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". For example the threat of communism and Islamism was used. Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective. One of the universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of martial law or a permanent state of emergency. Algeria Benin Burkina Faso Burundi Central African Republic Chad Ciskei Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo Côte d'Ivoire Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Sierra Leone Somalia Sudan Togo Transkei Uganda Venda Zimbabwe Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela Afghanistan Bangladesh Brunei Burma Khmer Republic Indonesia Iran Iraq Empire of Japan South Korea Kingdom of Laos Maldives Pakistan Philippines Syria Republic of China /Republic of China Thailand South Vietnam North Yemen Kingdom of Bulgaria Cyprus Kingdom of England France German Empire Greece Poland Portugal Kingdom of Romania Russian Empire San Marino Spain Turkey Ukraine Fiji Military rule St
Erdoğanism refers to the political ideals and agenda of Turkish President and former Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who became Prime Minister in 2003 and served until his election to the Presidency in 2014. With support derived from charismatic authority, Erdoğanism has been described as the "strongest phenomenon in Turkey since Kemalism" and enjoys broad support throughout the country. It's ideological roots originate from Turkish conservatism and its most predominant political adherent is the governing Justice and Development Party, a party that Erdoğan himself founded in 2001; as a personified version of conservative democracy, key ideals of Erdoğanism include a religious inspired strong centralised leadership based on electoral consent and less so on the separation of powers and institutional checks and balances. Critics have referred to Erdoğan's political outlook as authoritarian and as an elective dictatorship; the election-centric outlook of Erdoğanism has been described as an illiberal democracy by foreign leaders, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Erdoğanism is strongly influenced by the desire to establish a'New Turkey', departing from the founding Kemalist principles of the Turkish Republic and abolishing key enshrined constitutional ideals that are at odds with Erdoğan's vision, such as secularism. Supporters of Erdoğanism call for a revival of cultural and traditional values from the Ottoman Empire and are critical of the pro-western social reforms and modernisation initiated by the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Grassroots support for Erdoğanism originates from the development of a cult of personality around Erdoğan, as well as the predominance of charismatic authority; the role of Erdoğan personified as an individual agent of Turkish conservative values has manifested itself in the form of prominent campaign slogans for the Turkish Presidential election such as "People's Man", translated in Turkish as "Milletin Adamı". The term'Erdoğanism' first emerged shortly after Erdoğan's 2011 general election victory, where it was predominantly described as the AKP's liberal economic and conservative democratic ideals fused with Erdoğan demagoguery and cult of personality.
The usage of the term increased in conjunction with a greater recognition of Erdoğan on the global stage due to his proactive foreign policy ideals based on Neo-Ottomanism, a core factor that Erdoğanism encompasses. The American news publication Foreign Policy has described Erdoğanism as an ideology fundamentally based on a cult of personality forming around Erdoğan, referring to it as a form of populist authoritarianism similar to that of Putinism in Russia. Foreign Policy describes Ottomanism, suspicion of western political intervention in the Middle East, the rejection of Kemalism, confinement of the democratic process and elections as key attributes of Erdoğanism. Though elements of Erdoğanism the political rhetoric used by its supporters, have been inspired from Islamism, the extensive cult of personality surrounding Erdoğan has been argued to have isolated hardline Islamists who are sceptical of his dominance in state policy; the central and overarching authority of Erdoğan, a central theme of Erdoğanism, has been criticised by Islamists who believe that devotion of followers should not be towards a leader, but rather to Allah and the teachings of Islam.
As such, the overarching dominance of Erdoğan has furthered Islamist criticism by Islamist parties such as the Felicity Party, who have claimed that Erdoğanism is not based on Islamism but is instead based on authoritarianism using religious rhetoric to maintain public support amongst conservative supporters. Conservative democracy Conservatism in Turkey Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018
Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to "the people" juxtaposing this group against the "elite". There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time. In Europe, few politicians or political groups describe themselves as "populist" and in political discourse the term is applied to others pejoratively. Within political science and other social sciences, various different definitions of populism have been used, although some scholars propose rejecting the term altogether. A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".
According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology, combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism. Other scholars active in the social sciences have defined the term populism in different ways. According to the popular agency definition used by some historians of United States history, populism refers to popular engagement of the population in political decision making. An approach associated with the scholar Ernesto Laclau presents populism as an emancipatory social force through which marginalised groups challenge dominant power structures; some economists have used the term in reference to governments which engage in substantial public spending financed by foreign loans, resulting in hyperinflation and emergency measures. In popular discourse, the term has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
The term populism came into use in the late 19th century alongside the promotion of democracy. In the United States, it was associated with the People's Party, while in the Russian Empire it was linked to the agrarian socialist Narodnik movement. During the 20th century, various parties emerged in liberal democracies that were described as populist. In the 21st century, the term became popular, used in reference to left-wing groups in the Latin American pink tide and current right-wing conservative wave, right-wing groups in Europe, both right and leftist groups in the U. S. In 2017 "populism" was chosen as the Cambridge Dictionary Word of the Year; the term populism is a vague and contested term, used in reference to a diverse variety of phenomena. The term originated as a term of self-designation, being used by members of the People's Party active in the United States during the late 19th century, while in the Russian Empire during the same period a group referred to itself as the narodniki, translated into English as populists.
The Russian and American movements differed in various respects, the fact that they shared a name was coincidental. Although the term started out as a self-designation, part of the confusion surrounding it stems from the fact that it has been used in this way, with few political figures describing themselves as "populists"; as noted by the political scientist Margaret Canovan, "there has been no self-conscious international populist movement which might have attempted to control or limit the term's reference, as a result those who have used it have been able to attach it a wide variety of meanings." In this it differs from other political terms, like socialism, which have been used as a self-designation by individuals who have presented their own, internal definitions of the word. The term is used against others in a pejorative sense to discredit opponents. In being applied in this way, the term "populism" has been conflated with other concepts like demagoguery and presented as something to be "feared and discredited".
Some of those who have been referred to as "populists" in a pejorative sense have subsequently embraced the term while seeking to shed it of negative connotations. The French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen for instance was accused of populism and responded by stating that "Populism is taking into account the people's opinion. Have people the right, in a democracy, to hold an opinion? If, the case yes, I am a populist."Canovan noted that "if the notion of populism did not exist, no social scientist would deliberately invent it. The confusion surrounding the term has led some scholars to suggest that it should be abandoned by scholarship. In contrast to this view, the political scientists Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser stated that "while the frustration is understandable, the term populism is too central to debates about politics from Europe to the Americas to do away with." Canovan noted that the term "does have comparatively clear and definite meanings in a number of specialist areas" and that it "provides a pointer, however shaky, to an interesting and unexplored area o