Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The instruction manual for autocratic governing was written just south of here

The instruction manual for autocratic governing was written just south of here

President Hugo Chavez waving a Venezuelan flag during a march to support his government in Caracas in 2002.

Oscar Sabetta/Getty Images

Botsford spent most of his professional career in Latin America, providing strategic advice to more than a dozen Fortune 500 companies doing business in the region.

Having lived and worked for more than 30 years in countries including Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia — all places with authoritarian regimes elected democratically — I have watched plenty of times as democratic institutions were systematically weakened and corruption allowed to flourish.

The comparisons between these countries and the United States today should be alarming to all of us, as the similarities are striking. An instruction manual exists on how to destroy the rule of law.

The United States is in the process of becoming authoritarian. No need to look any further than our hemispheric neighbors in Central and South America. Authoritarianism, as a result of military dictatorships, has become engraved into their societies and honed to perfection. Generals became strongmen, preferred by a society dependent on paternalistic leaders -- conservative or liberal, but always nationalist. Think Panama's Manuel Noriega or Argentina's Juan Peron on the right, or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Bolivia's Evo Morales on the left.

Why are many countries that were colonized by Spain, Portugal or France more corrupt in nature than countries colonized by England?

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It's cultural and began with the Rule of Law. Napoleonic law governs much of Latin America, while English Common Law governs much of North America. So, depending on where you live in the hemisphere, private property can become fungible.

Political corruption was rare in the United States from the 1960s until the election of Donald Trump. Down south something close to the opposite is true: Vibrant postcolonial democracies mirrored on the U.S. Constitution were the norm until the 1920s, but since then their democratic institutions have been systematically dismantled.

The pattern has been consistent: A leader has been elected along with a loyal legislative branch, then he's set about to systematically corrupt the Rule of Law, hold power with a divide-and-conquer strategy and use his office for enriching himself and his family.

In order to succeed, these demagogues have dominated their nations' institutions of power:

  • The legislature. (Just this month, the Venezuelan Congress was effectively taken over by its president.)
  • The judiciary. (Ecuador's Supreme Court always obeys the president.)
  • The media. (Brazil's president has suppressed its once free press.)
  • Corporations. (Bolivia's president nationalized the private sector.)
  • The spies. (The Argentinian president gutted the intelligence community.)
  • The treasury. (The Peruvian president outright stole from government coffers.)
  • Voting. (Nicaragua's president controlled the conduct of elections.)

Moreover, clientelism has been the currency of these authoritarian regimes. Webster's defines this as "a social order that depends upon relations of patronage; in particular, a political approach that emphasizes or exploits such relations."

Finally, these leaders have focused on cultivating a political base from a portion of the population that feels aggrieved — economically, socially or because of race. Their form of indoctrination builds slowly, starting with small innocuous changes. The analogy is to the frog who never realizes it's been boiled alive. The victim has been democracy itself, with the rule of law decapitated across a continent in favor of the leaders' rules and laws.

These demagogues have needed lots of cash, or the ability for great accumulation once in office, to spread around to their allies. Campaign fundraising kick-started these efforts, inauguration festivities accelerated them exponentially and then re-election campaign financing kept up the pace.

Kickbacks derived from government contracts became common practice. So too the notion of the national treasury as the leader's personal bank account.

The national legislature then readily becomes the dictator's rubber stamp, ushering his judicial picks onto the courts and keeping unwanted legislation stymied. Along the way, members of the opposition party have been systematically bullied into submission — or opted for early retirement.

Quickly installing a corrupt general prosecutor or attorney general has proved essential to demagogic success, followed by the selection of nothing but compliant judges and prosecutors.

While their work has commenced, the leaders' have labeled the press as the enemy of the people — corrupt media partners serving as echo chambers and drowning out balanced coverage. Opposition media has been stifled through economic pressure, allowing leaders to go unquestioned when they tell their people that what they see and hear elsewhere is not the truth — and that the executive is knowledge and wisdom's one true source.

Willing corporate allies have been rewarded with lucrative government contracts, while perceived enemies in the business community have been starved by the treasury until they submitted to the leader's will.

Corrupt foreign allies have also routinely been enlisted — to attack opponents or bring in investments, national security be damned, and even if it requires a hollowing out of the government's own intelligence-gathering community.

And if all this has not assured these leaders' indefinite hold on power, bureaucrats have been lined up to rig elections — timing them for the boss's maximum advantage, suppressing the opposition's path to the polls and stuffing ballot boxes for good measure.

All this has allowed these demagogues to hold power even when their red meat rhetoric has succeeded at herding only a third of the people into their blindly loyal base. In regional political jargon, it's known as controlling the street.

It's worked time and again for leaders who stage frequent political rallies, portraying themselves as men of the people who share many of the public's grievances. Scapegoating immigrants, accusing them of taking jobs from the natives, has proved a winning part of this formula. And portraying themselves as empathetic victims has had the added benefit of keeping the majority silent, out of fear of severe retribution from the riled up base.

Education across the continent is now all about indoctrination. To dominate the people requires starving them intellectually and stuffing them ideologically, their leaders have concluded, so writing critical of the government is often banished. "Shoes yes, books no" has been the demagogue's slogan across Central and South America since the 1940s.

Obfuscation, self-dealing, lies and corruption have been normalized for these leaders to succeed. It is very difficult to turn the clock back in the region. And it is impossible to avoid noticing parallels in our own country now.

Read More

Rep. Gus Bilirakis and Rep. Ayanna Pressley

Rep. Gus Bilirakis and Rep. Ayanna Pressley won the Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Award for Constituent Accountability and Accessibility.

Official portraits

Some leaders don’t want to be held accountable. These two expect it.

Fitch is president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

There is probably no more important concept in the compact between elected officials and those who elect them than accountability. One of the founding principles of American democracy is that members of Congress are ultimately accountable to their constituents, both politically and morally. Most members of Congress get this, but how they demonstrate and implement that concept varies. The two winners of the Congressional Management Foundation’s Democracy Award for Constituent Accountability and Accessibility clearly understand and excel at this concept.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman speaking at a microphone

Rep. Lucy McBath is the first lawmaker from Georgia to win a Democracy Awarrd.

Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Surprise: Some great public servants are actually members of Congress

Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

TheCongressional Management Foundation today announced the winners of the seventh annual Democracy Awards, CMF’s program recognizing non-legislative achievement and performance in congressional offices and by members of Congress. Two members of Congress, one Democrat and one Republican, are recognized in four categories related to their work in Congress.

Americans usually only hear about Congress when something goes wrong. The Democracy Awards shines a light on Congress when it does something right. These members of Congress and their staff deserve recognition for their work to improve accountability in government, modernize their work environments and serve their constituents.

Keep ReadingShow less

Can George Washington inspire Biden to greatness?

Clancy is co-founder of Citizen Connect and board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Citizen Connect is an initiative of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which also operates The Fulcrum.

King George III reputedly said George Washington was the greatest man in the world for voluntarily relinquishing power. The indisputable fact is that Washington’s action remains remarkable in human history. And he actually did it at least two times.

On Dec. 23, 1783, Washington resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army and returned to Mount Vernon. He did it again when he declined to run for a third term as president by publishing his Farewell Address on Sept. 19, 1796. In June 1799 Washington was yet again urged to run for president and declined.

His reasoning on each occasion was a complex mix of the personal and political, but the bedrock was an unwavering commitment to put the good of the nation above personal gain and the factions that would ultimately become our toxic party system.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joe Biden at the debate

After his disastrous peformance at the debate, President Biden needs to exit the race, writes Breslin.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Getting into the highest offices is hard. Getting out is harder.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Getting into America’s highest political offices is hard. Getting out is harder.

President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance has intensified calls for him to step aside. Not even 24 hours after his poor showing, The New York Times took the extraordinary and unprecedented position that the sitting president should immediately pass the torch to a more energetic and electable candidate. “The greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform,” the editorial board declared, “is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump on stage at the debate

Donald Trump's emphasis on the power of negative information gave him an advantage at Thursday's debate.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

How harnessing the power of bad helped Trump win the debate

Assari is an associate professor of public health and Internal Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. He is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

On Thursday, we witnessed a debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. What captured most of the audience's attention were Biden's occasional stumbles and Trump's numerous statements inaccuracies. Biden appeared humble and policy-focused, while Trump was loud, assertive and well-spoken.

However, another significant aspect was Trump's rhetoric, which was often filled with threats, fear and loss, especially on topics like immigration and crime. In contrast, Biden's points were primarily centered around policies and statistics aimed at benefiting Americans overall, with a particular focus on the vulnerable.

Keep ReadingShow less