From the beginning of European settlement in Latin America, a highly developed mutually beneficial patronage relationship evolved (patron-client relationship). This relationship was characteristic of societal ties in Latin America. According to Luis Roniger, the patron-client, patronage , relations, existed between landowners and peasants who did not own land, or between both peasants and herdsmen - and - merchants who controlled market practices. They also existed between labor leaders recruiting the support of their followers for political figures - and - those politicians themselves. This relationship was based on the understanding that if the politician was elected, he would channel resources to union members. Patronage relationships were also formed between powerful individuals who controlled positions of power in agrarian societies - and - urban political leaders, a relationship created in order to reap the benefits of ties made in the bureaucratic system, either directly or with the help of an influential intermediary. The common denominator between all these forms of patronage relationships, according to Roniger, is their fundamental dissimilarity to the formal relations that are characteristic of the Western organizational model. Patronage relations, in their basic and essential form, Roniger claims, were not similar to the relations between castes in India, for example, since the relations between the castes were rigid and inflexible. Patronage relations differed also from corporate relations established within families or wider communities. The patronage, essentially and basically, differed from other forms of economic and political relations in its exceptional flexibility and reliance on personal relationships. Roniger explains that contrary to the ancient antiquated view that perceived patronage relations as characteristic only of backward societies that still need to develop ('developing nations'), it became clear to researchers from the 1960's on, that these relations were and are common also in developed modern societies. They should not be viewed as an institution that belongs only in the past, that has no place in the modern world, and that is about to disappear completely. Sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists have realized that the patronage relationship was a bond based on power and influence, which allowed people to wield their power and influence over society based on asymmetric channeling of a society's resources, inequality, and hierarchical relations. According to Roniger's definition, any representative of a person or group before the government or any other organization, political, economic or social, that is based on trust is a patronage. This includes the personal trust that a person has in the lawyer that represents him in court, or in his trade union, or in the workers' committee or candidate that citizens choose for local council or parliament. This relationship existed in feudal society in the vassal-feudal relationship. What distinguishes modern patronages is that they are relatively weaker, lacking in personal connection, and not based on the strong personal trust that characterized patronages in the past. Roniger cites the views of the early sociologists Durkheim, Weber, and Marx, to illustrate that a precondition for the division of labor, in any organized society, is basic trust between the different sectors, including peasants, manufacturers and distributors of various goods. These relations are pre-contract trust-based relations, without which it would be impossible to begin establishing a patronage relationship. This definition underscores the continuing relevance of the institution of patronage. It belongs to a group of institutions that do not deny the reality that human society was never equal and is by nature unequal - a reality that the North Americans (from here on: the Americans) as opposed to the Latin Americans - wish to refute through the power of a liberal-democratic-equality ideology, by which they claim to live. This subject will be expanded upon further on, within the comparison between North America and Latin America regarding the differences in the origins of their ideology, their histories of genocide, and the practices and ideologies established by the Europeans in these two parts of America. Within this discussion, the differences that emerge from this comparison will be evaluated. Alongside the patronage motif, in the broad sense of the word, and that of hierarchy, two motifs that are closely related to and define the Latin American region, is the motif of revolutionism that developed from Latin American distinctiveness, and from the specific conditions and historical developments that produced Latin America's problematic attitude towards democracy and nationalism. Analysis of these motifs will help us better assess the current situation and Latin America's future prospects. This chapter seeks to demonstrate that combined factors of the basic homogeneity of Latin American lifestyle in the different countries in this region, and the existing pressures and problems, as well the current realities in the world and America, are likely to result in the creation of one large Pan Latino nation. This political entity would be composed of 25 countries, all bound by one history of a Spanish - Portuguese occupation. They would be divided administratively and operate by uniform guidelines, within the context of the Spanish imperialistic entity and within the framework of a European nation The nation would include Brazil, Spain's neighbor, Portugal whose culture, language and religion are not that different from those of Spain and the small insignificant areas near Holland, France and Britain. Latin American countries all achieved national independence within a short span of each other, and they resembled one another quite closely. At the end of the 19th century, after achieving independence, and as was characteristic of "sister countries," all the Latin American countries convened to establish principles - of mutual respect for each other's independence and borders, for settling confrontations peacefully, and of nonintervention in each other's internal matters. They raised the possibility of eventually establishing a joint committee that would deal with political issues and with settling confrontations within the special context of Latin America. Each of the Latin American States sought and still seeks to achieve a distinct national identity. Each country has its own specific circumstances, but they share certain similarities and common denominators. The motifs of patronage, hierarchy, revolutionism and democracy, as well as a fifth motif of nationality all weave together a unique fabric with the distinct characteristics of Latin America. The order of presentation will not be as mentioned above but according to the pedagogic needs that will be outlined later. Discussion of these five motifs will raise questions regarding human nature that will remain outside the realm of the current discussion. North America, especially the U.S., will be examined at length, however, since this discussion will shed light on Latin America. Anglo-American Culture in the US - Louis Hartz discusses the deep-rootedness of democracy in American society. He praises the Americanism of US citizens (North Americans), who besides personifying certain extreme tendencies (individualism, aggressive capitalism, American doctrinarism, the purest form of capitalist democracy), managed to complete a successful stable historical process, in which they fought a civil war without producing an oppressive regime, and through which they developed an enlightened moderate liberal ideology, and adopted an enduring constitution. He adds that North American liberalism existed even in the colonial period, and thus the War of Independence was not in the colonists' perception a revolt against accepted conventions, but rather a pursuit of the values that they had derived from their native country, England. In their opinion, it was the British royal government that had veered astray, and not they. The American democratic system was based on fundamental beliefs and feelings. Thomas Jefferson who was supported even by religious leaders of the American Revolutionary War, such as Jonathan Mayhew from New England, initiated a process towards secularization, an adoption of natural law, which paved the way toward individualism. Individualism is based on a belief in a natural right that is not derived from God. Thus it differed fundamentally from feudalism, a system based on a divine right. This natural right existed both among Canadian Catholics and Latin Americans. The difference between natural and divine rights is at the root of the differences between Latin and North America. North Americans followed the philosophy of Locke, and not Rousseau. Rousseau and other French philosophers represented the break with tradition - a rift North Americans could avoid because of their liberal ideology. The society they built, already during the colonial period, was elastic, diverse, and inclusive of everyone from the governor until the poorest of peasants. The religious diversity and social equality of the Americans contrasted sharply with the French Canadian nobility and Spanish Portuguese aristocracy in Latin America. Protestantism, with its emphasis on the importance of the individual, played a significant role in forming the character of America. The individual stands before his God without the intercession or intervention of a priest. He has direct obligations and responsibilities to his God. This contrasts with Spanish Catholics treatment of Creoles and the general political passivity of French Canadian Catholics. These differences explain why independence produced no change in North American traditions, while in Latin America it caused significant change. Republicanism in Latin America constituted a break with Latin American tradition, and as such was accompanied by acts of violence, such as the slaughter of the Malukans in Mexico. According to Hertz, the strong tradition of liberalism in the US is reflected in the fact that the Constitutional Convention that convened in Philadelphia managed to come to a compromise regarding slavery, an undoubtedly controversial issue. At the time of the Philadelphia Convention (in 1776), slaves were not considered part of American society, a state of affairs that persisted until the American Civil War and the liberation of the slaves in the South in 1861. The Anglo American nation was formed by the American Civil War, both as a result of the terrible shared trauma of a civil war and the liberation of the slaves and their inclusion within American society and the redefinition of the American nation. This process parallels similar developments in Mexico with the Indians, the liberation of the black slaves in Brazil, and the peaceful integration of the Indians in Venezuelan society through the agency of the Church. Apparently, a national trauma and the integration of lower classes into the nation are critical steps in the formation of a nation. This same phenomenon is apparent in the experience of the ingathering of all the Jewish exiles since the establishment of the State of Israel, during Israel's War of Independence and immediately following. All Jews from all the exiles were accepted as part of the nation that was now returning to its homeland. The presumption was that all these people were members of one nation, a conception that guaranteed from the outset the national consolidation of the Jewish people into not merely one religion but one nation, despite differences in culture, language and social class. This trend can also be linked to the development of European nationalism and the growth of democracy in this continent. The connection between democracy and nationalism exists also in nations that gained independence in Africa and Asia. The mere cooperation of all the classes and ranks in establishing a democratic government helped form a single nation. The unification of the higher and lower classes turns them into one nation. According to this principle it appears that Argentina's failure stemmed, at least in part, from the absence of different sectors and classes that it would be possible to unite - and thus the lack of a social mission. The question is whether the similarities in the process of forming a nation between the US and Latin America should cause us to view them as one entity in terms of democracy and equality, according to the English liberal version. It will become clear that the answer to that question is negative. Latin America's Estrangement from Democracy - James Malloy surveys the different views on the social and governmental structure that is characteristic of Latin America. He writes that according to Douglas A. Chalmers, the political parties in Latin America struggle to offer legitimate backing for the authority of their country's rulers because the hierarchic, elitist and bureaucratic nature of these parties prevent them from reflecting class struggles and revolutionary changes. They even lack strong connections with the masses. Malloy also cites the opinion of Howard J. Wiarda who claims that the political parties lack any real power in Latin America, and that it is the private corporations and economic elites that wield the real power. Without disputing either of these opinions, Malloy claims that in Latin America there are two hierarchic institutions - corporatism and clientilism (patronage). Latin America, he maintains, differs from Europe, the US, and parts of Asia and Africa in that in Latin America class based unions did not form, but rather corporatism and patronage. The Latin American system eschews free market competition, instead granting monopolies to bodies involved in the single government bureaucracy controlling the country. This stands in stark contrast to the competition that developed between autonomous unions in America and other countries. The corporative method suited the colonial system and it served the central government well, even later, in places like Mexico, Brazil, and Chile, by producing unions of workers that served the government more than the unions themselves. Malloy cites Eric Wolf's opinion regarding the symbiotic relationship between corporatism and patronage, in which the patronage tempers the formal rigidity that typifies corporatism. Corporatism and patronage are two central components in the Latin American political arena, both sources of power and support for elected officials, and as such, substitutes for political parties. Alongside these, stands the institution of the 'statesman', a deep-rooted Latin American institution, from which parties developed. Regarding the power of the corporations, Malloy writes that in Brazil and Mexico the corporations have no power over the government. The government can do as it sees fit, even disbanding parties it disapproves of, though in Brazil there are select brokers who have methods of influencing the government, and businessmen who wield influence either directly or by means of these brokers. In general, in comparison to Latin America, in countries in which a political arena exists, workers' unions attach themselves to parties from the understanding that support for a victorious party will benefit the union. Thus the relationship between workers' unions and the parties resembles a patronage of sorts. Regarding the power of workers' unions, Malloy writes that in Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile, workers' unions managed to stand up to a dictatorial government. In general, he writes, collaboration and partnerships encourage greater political activism, which in turn promotes greater democracy. Based on this, Malloy expresses his hope and belief that democracy will develop in Latin America. The question is how realistic Malloy's optimism in fact is. Democracy is an institution based on the equality of citizens, not on the efforts of the lower ranked individual to curry favor with a higher ranked individual. Democracy is a system in which social forces meet and struggle with each other on a level playing field, where no team has any unfair advantage over the others, other than size. The Latin American playing field isn't level and the rules of the game do not award victory to the will of the majority. Whoever is on top rules, even if he is an insignificant minority, and whoever is on the bottom bows his head in submission, even if he is the majority. Thus, there can be no talk of replicating the democratic system from the British parliament in Latin America, as long as it doesn't divest itself of its culture predicated on hierarchy, an unlikely possibility, and not even necessarily a desirable one. Democracy in Latin America can be compared to a man dressing in a bear-skin or a bear wearing a dinner jacket - it depends on one's perspective. The same can be said for the adoption of the principles of faith and reliance on one another that characterize Latin America by their North American neighbors. While this could take place on the official formal level, these attitudes are unlikely to be imbued by the average citizen. Americans do not possess a deep faith in man's fundamental goodness and honesty. Their constitution, in fact, was based on an underlying distrust of man's fundamental nature, and therefore incorporated a system of checks and balances. American Fundamental Values and Their Influence on American Government - The Indians and the Blacks: A Comparison of the US and Latin America - The Indians in the US - According to Hertz's description, Anglo-Americans slaughtered the Indians as a matter of policy, stole their land, sometimes through legal sophistry. The 1987 Dawes Severalty Act, for example, professed to be an agricultural reform, whose goal was to distribute small plots of land to individual Indians at the expense of the general tribe's land, but in light of Indian apparent apathy, in actuality allowed the theft of Indian land and its distribution to white farmers. The European immigrant was not accustomed to problems of discrimination in his native country, while the British immigrant had learned about equality and about treating everyone equitably. European immigrants-colonists of other continents did not, as a matter of policy, engage in racial genocide. Yet in America, in contrast to other settled countries, and certainly as opposed to Latin America, a policy of appropriation of land through slaughter of the Indians was adopted. Even those who were not killed were isolated in closed reserves - all so as not to include the Indians within the egalitarian white society. It was a hypocritical racist hierarchic policy. Hertz claims that European ideologies do not deal with races, but immigrants from a feudal world needed to confront the issue of a non-Western mother, the different classes of Indians and Blacks. The Anglo American solution during the period of slavery was to exclude Blacks from the human race, thus allowing the existence of 'liberal slavery'. Hertz doesn't explain, however, why this was the Anglo American solution to the Indian 'problem, while in Latin America, the attitudes and policies towards Indians that developed were entirely different. He doesn't offer reasons; he simply describes the facts. He writes that while many Indians were in fact killed in Brazil, that was a function of a religious mission to eradicate idol worshipers, rather than an act of racial discrimination. Indians who were not exterminated in Brazil and other Latin American countries integrated into the societies there and partially assimilated. Though the immigrants-settlers related to them according to the hierarchic system that was typical of their culture, they - ultimately - admitted the Indians into the general society. Indians and Blacks in Latin America - In contrast to the liberal hypocrisy reflected in North America's liberal society's refusal to accept certain groups within its midst, it emerges from the discussion until this point that Latin American society admitted all Christians and everyone who adopted Latin culture and joined it, without distinctions of race or ethnicity - through a process of wars and upheavals. The question is why Latin-Catholics accepted within their midst whoever embraced their principals (cultural and/or religious) while the Protestant Anglo-Americans (the founders and those who came after them) adopted a different path, including many who were not true Anglo-American Protestants, even Jews - but only as long as they were of white European ancestry. All these who were assimilated into this culture adopted the political culture of the Anglo-American Protestant founders, and for the purposes of this discussion, they too will be called Anglo-Americans. Even if they were not Protestant, they accepted political principles that were derived in part from the Protestant religion, such as individualism, human liberties and rights including every person's right to a democratic republican government that represents him and his interests. This Anglo-American society sought to create a single Anglo-American nation. Latin American society, in contrast, strove to create numerous national identities, according to the number of Latin American countries. The question is what fundamental difference between Protestant Anglo-American society and Latin American society resulted in the North American annihilation of the Indians and the isolation of the ones that remained in remote reserves, on one hand, and Latin American assimilation of the Indians in every Latin American country, and their tolerant, sometimes even positive attitude toward intermarriage? The lack of political equality between North American Indians living on reserves and other US citizens starkly manifests itself in the limitation of their right to vote to presidential, and not congressional elections. The Indians remain outsiders in the Anglo-American political society.