The Foreign Service Journal, June 2015

46 JUNE 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL The United States and Latin America: Individuals vs. Institutions Thomas E. McNamara, a retired career Senior Foreign Service officer, served as assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs, ambassador to Colombia and ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, among many other assignments. He also worked on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. An earlier version of this essay was delivered as a lecture at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Understanding the “two paths” in Latin America can lead to effective, long-term policies toward our neighbors. BY THOMAS E . MCNAMARA FEATURE D espite modern communications, increased migration, trade and industrial integration, and technologi- cal advances, the United States and Latin America still do not understand each other as well as we should. This hemisphere is our neighborhood, and unlike citizens who move from one neighborhood to another, a nation’s neighborhood is permanently fixed. With that in mind, I want to highlight an important impetus for change in our neighborhood, which can reduce the misunderstanding if we recognize and encourage it. There are two paths in Latin American politics which most Americans do not know. To maintain political order, one path relies on personalism (personalismo); i.e., individual leaders. The second relies on democratic institutionalism; i.e., civil insti- tutions. The Western Hemisphere will be affected by which path dominates Latin America’s future. To be sure, this theory does not explain all of Latin American politics or regional relations because history is more complicated. But the struggle outlined here has been fundamental for 200 years, and must be understood. Caudillismo in Latin America Personalismo (the cult of personality), and its variant, caudi- llismo (control by a dictatorial leader), are deeply rooted in Latin American, Spanish and Portuguese history. They have dominated Latin American politics since the conquistadors (Cortez, Pissarro, etc.) and were the entrenched political culture during the inde- pendence struggles of Bolívar, San Martín, O’Higgins and others. Of course, the phenomenon is not unique to Latin America— think of Stalin, Hitler and lesser examples of tyrants like Mobutu, Qaddafi and Sukarno, “the divine right of kings” and imperial rulers. But in modern industrial democracies, personalismo is a plague on society. This approach elevates a caudillo (leader) to supreme leader- ship, often with demigod status. Policies, programs and ideologies are named for him (e.g., Peronismo, Fidelismo, Sandinismo). In such a culture the leader turns institutions into personal tools of power. Any that resist are subverted, exiled or destroyed; a few are