| |
- Klark - Klark claims that between the
years 1660-1832, no nation in the Anglo Saxon world on either
side of the Atlantic existed, though there were steps in
that direction, steps that were furthered by the French
Revolution and the Romantic reaction that followed it. These
initial steps included the establishment of the Anglican
Church that distinguished England from other Protestant
countries, and predominately, though the belief in a unique
English ethnicity was significant too, the role played by
religion and law. Puritans in America had a sense of collective
mission, a belief that developed also in England. The myths
revolving around Protestant residences from the time of
Catholic rule (under Queen Mary) also built England collectivism.
A legend developed that the first Christians were English,
that the first country to accept the Protestant Reformation
was England. Fuchs, who himself did not possess a national
consciousness, called the English in his writings, the "Chosen
Nation." The law also played a role, in that Common
Law established a process of acquiring citizenship according
to a theory that equated a king's relationship with his
subjects to that of God's with his followers and a father's
with his children - a hierarchic relationship. The ruling
established what Parliament refused to establish, that whoever
was born in Scotland after the sixth English king, known
as James I according to his English name (in 1603) would
be considered an English subject as if he was born in England
to English parents. From this, developed the connection
between loyalty and nationalism, a principle that established
the conceptual connection between loyalty and citizenship
- an idea that is at the root of the existence of an English
nation based on loyalty to the English monarch. It was explained
and developed that the connection between a king and his
subjects is similar to that of the soul and the body, and
it necessitates complete faith - an idea based on a religious
conception. English Common Law set apart the English from
the Christians living in the European continent who were
bound to Roman law, and this set them apart also in their
own eyes. All this left little room for the factors of ethnicity
and language, factors that played a role, but a less significant
one. Regarding North America - severance of the connection
to the English king in the year 1776 and to the French king
in the year 1789 necessitated a new self identity, one that
was formed slowly and with great hardship on the basis of
common language and culture, and to some extent - common
ethnic origin. Loyalty to the State was an abstract concept.
After winning their independence, Americans required new
immigrants to make a declaration of their loyalty to the
American flag, a kind of secular contract that was a substitute
for the idea of loyalty to the king. The idea evolved of
a human right to choose to be loyal to a new country, upon
which the idea of the connection of loyalty and territory
and love of the land developed. This also helped form a
loyal American nationalism. American nationalism translated
Biblical concepts of nationhood to its own terms. American
nationalism developed on the foundation of a consciousness
of freedom that evolved in England over the course of the
revolts that took place from the 17th century on. In 1776,
there was no concrete difference between English and American
ideology and culture, and thus the American revolt did not
create a new nation in America. Benjamin Franklin wrote
in 1760, that a unification of the colonies against Britain
was impossible since each of the 14 colonies had its own
distinct laws, interests, religions, customs, and forms
of government. Yet when they did revolt, successfully, a
new spirit overtook them and the concept of 'America' took
hold. Klark compares the situation in America to the situation
in France, which in his opinion was similar in several ways.
The French focused on common religion and customs, and disregarded
differences of ethnicity and language. The French even emphasized
that the French king was considered the most Catholic king,
a distinguishing fact. Klark's descriptions reflect the
difficulties that were inherent in forming a nation both
in England and the US, where the ethnic aspect played no
real role and other factors were weak, and yet still there
was a desire to form a nation. One of the signs of the nearly
desperate attempt to form an English nation was a song that
British soldiers sang which were meant primarily to emphasize
the division between the Protestant British and Protestant
Germans, a division that wasn't so easily drawn. Michael
Lind - According to Lind, American nationalism is fundamentally
insecure since it lacks any real defining character other
than recurring crises and the ideological goals it adopts
after ever crisis. He names three past revolutions - (1)
The Revolutionary War in 1776 (2)The Civil War that concluded
in 1961 (3)A Revolution for Human Rights that ended in 1972.
He anticipates a fourth revolution, one of a union of races
and classes that will take place in the beginning of the
21st century. Lind questions whether Americans are a nation,
or whether they are a nation of nations, a home to many
diverse distinct nations. Its strong Latin American constituency
makes it very different from other Western Protestant cultures.
According to universalists, the US is not a nation at all,
but only a conceptual State, lacking in nationality, which
is based on a liberal broad democratic philosophy. Others
fear the Balkanization of the US and the eruption of conflicts
between the mix of races, cultures, and nations that have
made the US their home. Others counter that a nation can
comprise various races, cultures, ethnic groups, ideologies,
and national goals. It is difficult to establish a nation
on an idea, all the more so an idea that is not unique to
that nation, but that is shared by many nations. It is also
problematic founding a nation on a mission. A nation may
devote itself to a particular mission, but this mission
cannot define it. While many Americans would certainly claim
that they are a nation, their position may only reflect
a fear that an answer to the contrary would lead to the
conclusion that the US has been fractured by the multitude
of cultures living in its midst. For more details about
Michael Lind and his investigation, see at part 4 of this
book, chapter 1. Avihu Zakai - Zakai describes in both his
articles the role religion plays in reformation in general,
and in particular in relation to Puritan Protestantism in
England and America. He discusses the connection between
these processes and historical consciousness and study,
and especially to national consciousness and formation.
In England, study of history through a Christian according
to reformation perspective became popular after 1530, after
the crowning of Queen Elizabeth in 1558, and over the course
of the Puritan revolution. Protestants exiled from England
to Protestant cities in Europe after religious persecutions
allied themselves with Protestants already living there.
The Protestants reasoned that since the words of the prophets
ultimately come true, knowledge of history could help them
to better comprehend the prophecies. They drew comparisons
between historical events and prophetic descriptions, associating
the invasion of Rome with the fall of Babylon, the Turkish
invasion with the War of Gog and Magog, and the Pope with
the antichrist. They concluded, as a result of this study,
that Protestantism is the period of time that immediately
precedes 'the End of days', thus linking the Protestant
reformation to the prophecies about the End of days. Zakai's
second article, about the religion and revolution of the
Puritans, continues the basic explanation of "The Chosen
People theory" as developed by the Puritans of New
England - the people chosen by God and delivered to his
Promised Land with a sacred mission to the New World. Zakai,
in the footsteps of other researchers, reveals the central
role the Puritans and their special brand of Protestantism
played in the American Revolution. Zakai even mentions the
U.S.'s uniqueness as a largely religious country, with a
religious circle on the rise, as opposed to the opposite
process in other countries. Also mentioned are the recent
survey showing that 96% of Americans believe in God, and
Robert Bellah's opinion (from his book Civilian Religion)
that within the framework of the many symbols and values
spanning the scope of all religions, churches and institutions
in the U.S., there persists the belief that the Americans
are the Chosen People and that America is the Promised Land.
This Civilian Religion, in both Bellah's and Zakai's opinions
has its own theology, ethics, holy days and places and system
of symbols and rituals. Among the more obvious of its manifestations
are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in schools,
the singing of the Star Spangled Banner at sporting events,
and a list of national holidays, such as The Fourth of July
(day of independence) and Presidents Day (celebrating the
birthdates of presidents Washington and Lincoln) side by
side with purely religious holydays, such as Easter. One
other element of the civilian religion [of Puritan origin,
as arises from Zakai's words - Y.C.] is a Messianic grasp
of politics and history. Zakai explains that Puritans accept
the principals of Devine arbitrary sovereignty over the
world, the corruption of man, and an ancient selection between
the righteous and the wicked embedded with Devine Justice.
Puritans emphasize the internal and personal religious experience
or the change of heart, proving openly the redeeming mercy
of God, and the uncompromising demand that all aspects of
life be based in Devine laws and commandments. Puritans
believe in the concept of The Covenant, according to which,
those who have managed to lead a life of extreme piety will
be rewarded in the afterlife. By the same Covenant, the
Puritans are the Chosen People. The Puritans have denied
the Divinity of the Anglican Church, and therefore the validity
of the clergy. For this belief were their movements were
restrained within England, and so the Puritans emigrated
to America and settled in New Haven, Connecticut, Rohde
Island and Massachusetts. Due to their devoutness and religious
reading of the Bible, no society of the 17th century rivaled
New Englanders in literacy. The Puritans had established
the universities of Harvard (1636), Yale (1702) and Princeton
(1746), and had ordained 1600 clerics through these universities
by the American Revolution. Indeed, during the Revolution,
about 600 of these clerics had worked toward American Independence
by spreading the spirit of rebellion against the British,
and the ideals of freedom. The same priests were instrumental
earlier, during the Seven Year War (between Britain and
Prussia on the one side, and France, Austria and Russia
on the other), in rallying the Americans to the aid of the
failing British campaign in North America, as they saw any
war on the Catholic French as a Holy War, and indeed, aided
by the settlers, the British had won, and conquered Canada.
With the end of the conflict, the heavy taxes imposed by
the British had caused the American Revolution, where, once
more, the Puritan zeal played a central part through the
widely circulated sermons of its clerics. The victory of
the American War of Independence was considered and portrayed
in New England as a victory of Providence, as seen by the
Puritan faith. more details about Avihu Zakai and his investigation,
see at part 4 of this book, chapter 1. Michael Waltzer -
Weltzer, a Jewish American, says that Americans do not refer
to their country as their 'Homeland', and that for many
an American, the concept of 'mutual commitment' usually
applies to blood-relations and members of the nation from
which they immigrated to the U.S., and which they still
see as their provenance. What matters more to the American
than their state is their ethnic group, race and (Devine)
religion. An American who inwardly chooses to forfeit his
pre-American origin is welcome to do so, but this will merely
make them ethnically anonymous, and in no way a better American.
It has been said of Americans and their ethnic origins,
that try as one may, no American can replace their Grandfather.
For the American, ties to an ethnic past are not supposed
to disrupt or hinder one's loyalty to the United States
or her ideals. There was, however, in the 1850's a movement
of opposition to the catholic immigration, especially the
Irish immigration, a movement called "know nothing",
whose New England center also opposed slavery. This movement
fought the teaching of the immigrant's native languages
with community funds, as well as the teaching of their religion,
in an effort to homogenize American society. For more details
about Avihu Zakai and his investigation, see at part 4 of
this book, chapter 1. Waltzer speaks of the Jews of France,
who had to give up their rights as a group, in order to
gain rights as citizens, following the French Revolution.
The price of emancipation for Jews in France, was assimilation,
as per Rousseau's strong national approach toward the United
States. In the U.S., the situation was completely different.
Despite the Republican current, which demanded assimilation,
there is a tolerance in the U.S. of groupings, ethnic and
otherwise, and dual loyalties are possible. Understanding
the essence of American citizenship is diverse, and many
different approaches are legitimate. Weltzer describes the
conflicting trends in America, concerning ethnic grouping,
and says that "America is still a radically unfinished
society". He says that the U.S. has a political center
alongside a decentralized government, in which the center
does nothing to curb the diffusion of governmental authority,
nor does it oppose the ethnic grouping, or even question
the legitimacy of the phenomenon. In fact, it seems that
American politics is pluralistic by nature, and could use
a little clarifying. For more details about Michael Waltzer
and his investigation, see at part 4 of this book, chapter
1.
Transition from Revolution to Democracy in Brazil and ArgentinaBrazil:
According to Linz and Stephan's description, the military
government in Brazil that was established on March 31, 1064
collapsed. The military generals were simply incapable of
running a country, certainly a mammoth country of millions
of inhabitants and vast territories such as Brazil. In 1974,
General Ernesto Geisel was ceremoniously chosen to be president
of Brazil. He declared his intent to find partners for his
government from within the civilian population in his country,
a goal, which he then implemented while checking any excessive
assumptions of freedom. Yet once democracy saw a crack,
there was no stopping it, and presidentialelections were
held. On March 15, 1990 (a symbolic date for democracy,
the day the Emperor Julius was murdered in Rome for the
sake of democratic rule), President Fernando Kolor De-Melo
entered office. Six years prior to this democratic election,
civilian parties, which had organized under the platform
of 'Direct Elections Now' were engaged in political debate
with the united hierarchic military regime. The military
agreed to a gradual transfer of power but adamantly insisted
that direct elections not be held. Thus indirect elections
were held in 1983 and in 1985, when the elected president
quit before entering office. The vice president, who was
a member of the party that supported the military, and had
been the compromise candidate, became president, though
75% of Brazilians wanted him to leave office. Six cabinet
ministers were military officers so in essence the military
ruled together with the president. An anti-government strike
was held, and the military considered sending military forces
to break the strike. Under pressure from the military, the
relevant committee ratified a constitution that preserved
the military's autonomy and established the branches of
government in such a way that that the president was dependent
on parliament, similar to the French constitution in the
French Fifth Republic. Kolor, elected through the new system,
received only 5% of the votes in Parliament, yet he sought
to govern against their will, thus creating an impasse in
the government. When Kolor was found guilty of various criminal
offenses, the Parliament ousted him, and his vice president,
Itamar Franco, considered an uninspiring personality, replaced
him until the 1994 elections in which Cardozo was elected.
Cardozo was more successful in working together with the
Parliament. Considering this background, it is no wonder
that in 1992 only 42% of Brazilians preferred democratic
rule, while 46% either preferred military rule or were impartial.
Linz and Stepan blame Brazil's failure to emend its constitution
on the interests of small parties, which dominate in the
Parliament. They don't examine the Brazilian people's apathy
in this matter, which starkly contrasts to their efforts
to abolish slavery over 100 years ago. This inaction seems
to stem from a lack of national unity and confidence. Abolition
of slavery was a much simpler feat since it was consistent
with the interests of most Brazilians. Brazilians were inspired
by America's abolition of slavery and also were able to
realize their own desire to free themselves from oligarchic
rule by freeing the slaves. Now that democracy has officially
been established in Brazil, there is no longer anyone against
whom to revolt and Brazilians feel insufficient impetus
to collectively work towards extracting themselves from
the political mess that small interest groups, like the
military, have entangled them in. Brazilian political torpor
has been so great that Brazilians even failed to free themselves
from military rule and instead waited for a decision by
the military. Their continued apathy even after they became
a formally democratic country should be viewed as a general
internal national weakness that is linked to weaknesses
in their democratic education, an educational system that
lacks any great appeal. It is reasonable to posit that Latin
Americans, as they are represented by Brazil, are more interested
in their practical personal lives than in the political
arena - in sharp distinction from their Anglo-American cousins.
Latin Americans may perhaps be described as people who miss
the forest for the trees while elitist Anglo Americans may
be depicted as people who miss the trees for the forest.
Argentina: According to Linz and Stephan's portrayal, a
military regime ruled in Argentina between 1976-1983, which
engaged in terror against its own citizens, in order to
keep them in line and was ultimately also bankrupt from
an economic viewpoint. Many people disappeared - in reality
were secretly murdered. The military forbade the existence
of any political parties and of course did not hold elections.
It made no attempt to transfer control of the government
to civilians, as was done in Brazil. Instead of engaging
in any form of economic or political reform, the army sought
to stir national Argentinean pride through a military operation
in the Faulkland Islands. Their military operation, however,
instead enabled British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
to send in a British army that defeated the Argentinean
army. The Argentinean general resigned as a result, and
his replacement, General Dimos became president until elections
were held a year and a half later and a civilian president
was elected. The military was tried for their many criminal
acts. Between April 1987 and January 1990, four military
coupes were attempted by middle ranked officers who did
not want to accept the humiliation to the military institution.
President-elect Alfonsin, in an attempt to focus on rebuilding
the economy and nation, agreed to certain concessions that
raised the military's morale. Alfonsin, who already suffered
serious opposition from the Peronists who were very connected
to the workers' unions, lost even more political power as
a result of these concessions. In 1987, Alfonsin lost the
majority that he had held in Parliament. In June 1988, only
12% of the population continued to support Alfonsin, while
49% advocated restoration of the military regime. In June
1989, Alfonsin resigned at a time of 'hyper-inflation' in
Argentina, though by June 1992, economic analysts declared
that Argentina was finally emerging from a 60-year economic
recession. The newly elected president, Menem, began his
term in office with a general pardon of the entire military.
When shortly afterward, in October 1989, middle ranked military
officers attempted to revolt, Menem joined forces with the
army general, and together they suppressed the rebellion
and tried the insurgents both for military insubordination
and for treason. Menem was elected with 49% of the vote,
yet during his first three years he enjoyed the support
of the Peronists and workers' unions who refrained entirely
from striking, after holding 13 general strikes during Alfonsin's
term in office. At the beginning of Menem's term, 72% of
Argentineans were hopeful about the recovery of the Argentinean
economy, and only 15% advocated returning to military rule
(in contrast to Brazil where the percentage was much higher).
Menem also enjoyed the support of wealthy businessmen, and
he attempted to introduce a new economic plan that was not
to the liking of the professional unions who had been among
his strongest initial supporters since it reduced their
profits. Timing worked in Menem's interest - Menem took
office just as the global economic crisis was ending and
were searching for new horizons and investments. Menem dealt
with the workers' unions in classic Latin American style,
and as was particularly common in Brazil and Mexico. He
used his presidential powers to determine which professional
unions would be legal and which illegal, to break up unions
that insisted on continuing to strike, and even to control
and oversee union funds. Yet, even though Menem faced only
weak opposition from the unions, his economic plan was not
much more successful than his predecessor's. In February
1991, fearing a second epidemic of hyper-inflation in his
country, Menem chose a new financial minister whom he sent
to Parliament to enlist its aid and the support of all the
public and agricultural sectors in Argentina in the war
against inflation. The Peronists held the majority in Parliament
at the time, but public support for the government's economic
policies rose from 16% to 68% in the capital city of Buenos
Aires. In 1992, public optimism regarding the effectiveness
of the Argentinean government also increased. Linz and Stepan
cite the opinion of Guillermo O'Donell who describes the
political battle in the years 1955-1966 as an impossible
battle, since the Peronists who were the majority received
no political power once in government, while the radicals
who lost the elections enlisted and received the backing
of the military. This political trend came to an end when
Alfonsin, a radical, won the elections, and Menem, the Peronist,
demonstrated that he was not acting in the narrow interests
of the workers' unions who had voted for him, but in the
general interest. The military's strength was undermined
by the events in the Faulklands. The workers' unions ceased
supporting the president they had voted into office because
of his disregard for their interests. The time had come
for democratic politics that were not based on the Latin
American system of unions and loyalties. The age of democracy
had finally arrived. crisis of 2002 demonstrated that contrary
to Linz and Stepan's claim, Argentina could not completely
sever itself from the Latin-American way, and adopt the
Anglo-American approach. Argentina cannot deny its Latin
American heritage, and personal relationships, and trust
will always be more important to Latin Americans than economic
success and advantage. Thus the 'unadulterated' democracy
that Linz and Stepan propose doesn't seem compatible with
Latin American culture. Linz and Stepan present various
examples in which President Menem circumvented both the
law and the constitution. He took advantage of his expanded
executive powers during a state of emergency to legislate
various laws, which he was required to subsequently submit
to Parliament for their ratification, but which he generally
did not. He packed the Supreme Court with judges who shared
his views. He turned a blind eye to the corrupt practices
of close advisors. He established a new court with jurisdiction
over all criminal activities of government officials including
himself, and rewarded loyal friends with lifetime appointments
to the court. The media didn't dare express much criticism
of Menem, and the culture of fear that had existed during
Alfonsin and ended in the beginning of Menem's term again
ruled over the media. Though the Argentinean constitution
prohibited electing a president to a second term, Menem
convinced a Parliament in which he didn't have a majority
to amend the constitution through covert means that included
convincing his opponent to drop out of the race. Linz and
Stepan's description is a disheartening one that only seems
confirmed by the economic crisis of 2002 that followed Menem's
presidential terms. The question that remains to be answered
is what future is to be anticipated for Latin America, and
is it possible for each of the Latin American countries
to develop independently, both economically and democratically.
|
|
