Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T08:35:06.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V. Parliamentary Government in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

William S. Stokes
William S. Stokes
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Democratic caesarism,” whether by military caudillo or doctor en filosofía, has discouraged administrative efficiency and contributed to political disorganization in Latin America. Concentration of executive authority without responsibility has given free rein to the worst administrative practices of poor presidents without demanding the best from competent chief executives; and, with minority groups in congress dominated by a rubber-stamp majority—the entire legislature gasping in the shade of strong executive government—active groups have turned to revolution as an outlet for political and administrative expression. Poor organization of power and authority constitutes one of the most important problems of government in the Latin American countries, and a dovetailing of a series of approaches probably is necessary for a complete solution—better preparation of leaders, elimination of caudillismo, reform of codes and laws to conform with the spirit of the democratic constitutions, reorganization of parties along doctrinal lines rather than those of personalismo, and development of public opinion and participation in politics by the masses through education and increasing the standard of living.

Type
Latin America Looks to the Future
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , June 1945 , pp. 522 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 These broad objectives form a meeting ground among thinkers in Latin America concerned with the parliamentary system. Lazcano y Mazón, Andrés María, Constituciones Políticas de América (La Habana, 1942), Vol. I, pp. 18–40Google Scholar; Lazcano y Mazón, , Constitución de Cuba (La Habana, 1941), p. xvGoogle Scholar; República de Cuba, Diario de Sesiones de la Convención Constituyente (La Habana, 1940), Vol. I, Núm. 1, p. 13Google Scholar; Vol. I, Núm. 3, p. 3; Vol. II, Núm. 70, pp. 3–15; Gutiérrez Sánchez, Gustavo, Constitución de la República de Cuba (La Habana, 1941), pp. 32, 42–43, 52–53Google Scholar; Alonso Pujol, Guillermo, El Parlamento (La Habana, 1942), pp. 16–17Google Scholar; Sánchez Ocejo, Alberto, Proyecto de Reforma Constitucional (La Habana, 1939), pp. 73–99Google Scholar; Gutiérrez, Gustavo, Proyecto de Nueva Constitución para la República de Cuba (La Habana, 1940), pp. 22–35Google Scholar; Luciano Martínez, José, Gabriel Terra (Montevideo, 1937), Vol. I, p. 322Google Scholar; Salgado, José, La Constitución Uruguaya de 1934 (Montevideo, 1936), pp. 140–158, 163–164Google Scholar; Blanco Acevedo, Pablo, Estudios Constitucionales (Montevideo, 1939), pp. 107–209Google Scholar; Huneeus, Jorje, La Constitución ante el Congreso (Santiago, 1880), pp. 186–187Google Scholar; Huneeus, , Estudios sobre Derecho Constitucional Comparado (Santiago, 1891), Vol. III, p. 127Google Scholar; Carrasco Albano, Manuel, Comentarios sobre la Constitución Política de 1833 (Santiago, 1874), pp. 132–135.Google Scholar

2 The author has not narrowed the definition of parliamentary government to the British or French model and instead has broadly defined the term as cabinet government and ministerial responsibility. The majority of Latin American scholars accept this definition. See particularly Larrain, Zañartu, Joaquín, J., Derecho Parlamentario Chileno (Santiago, 1896), pp. 420–500Google Scholar; Roldán, Alcibíades, Derecho Constitucional de Chile (Santiago, 1924), pp. 401, 413Google Scholar; Salgado, op. cit., pp. 76–77; República de Cuba, Diario de Sesiones de la Convención Constituyente, “Discurso del Dr. José Manuel Cortina,” Vol. II, Núm. 70, June 5, 1940, p. 3Google Scholar; Sánchez Ocejo, op. cit., p. 78; Lazcano y Mazón, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 17–18. Difference as to definition of the concept of parliamentary government led one American scholar to declare: “… Chile is as a matter of fact a parliamentary country par excellence”; another to assert: “There are no parliamentary governments in South America.” Reinsch, Paul S., “Parliamentary Government in Chile,” Vol. III, p. 509, in this Revíew (Nov., 1909); Burgess, John W., The Reconciliation of Government with Liberty (New York, 1915), p. 332.Google Scholar

3 Constitution of Costa Rica of 1871, Art. 110; Constitution of Chile of 1925, Art. 78; Constitution of Haiti of 1939, Art. 41; Constitution of Mexico of 1917, Art. 93; Constitution of Panama of 1941, Art. 78.

4 Constitution of Argentina of 1853, Art. 63; Constitution of Bolivia of 1938, Arts. 80–82, 96, 100; Constitution of Ecuador of 1906 (to be changed shortly), Arts., 56, 92, 95; Constitution of Guatemala of 1935, Art. 75 (The new Guatemalan constitution, signed Mar. 11, 1945, embraces a system of ministerial responsibility in Arts. 145–148 very similar to that of Cuba); Constitution of Honduras of 1936, Art. 127; Constitution of Nicaragua of 1939, Art. 228; Constitution of El Salvador of 1939, Art. 103; Constitution of Venezuela of 1936, Arts. 58, 110.

5 Shaw, Paul Vanorden, The Early Constitutions of Chile, 1810–1833 (New York, 1931), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar

6 Roldán y Álvarez, Alcibíades, Las Primeras Asambleas Nacionales, Años de 1811 a 1814 (Santiago, 1890), p. 79.Google Scholar

7 “En ellos (Arts. 75–92 of constitution of 1833) establece terminantemente el sistema generalmente conocido con el nombre de Gobierno Parlamentario o de Gabinete, según el cual el Jefe de Estado nada puede por si solo, y debe ejercer el Gobierno por medio de ministros responsables,…” Huneeus, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 127. “From the first, under the constitution of 1833, the parliamentary system had been instituted, inasmuch as ministers were permitted to be members of parliament, and speak therein even if not members.” Reinsch, op. cit., p. 512.

8 Huneeus, , La Constitución ante el Congreso (Santiago, 1880), p. 187.Google Scholar See also, Larrain, Z., Constitución Vigente y Constituciones Anteriores de Chile (Santiago, 1892), p. 184.Google Scholar

9 Salas Edwards, Ricardo, Balmaceda y el Parlamentarismo en Chile (Santiago, 1916), Vol. I, p. 26.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., pp. 26–29; see also, Rodríguez Bravo, Joaquín, Estudios Constitucionales (Santiago, 1888), p. 171.Google Scholar

11 Salas, Edwards, op. cit., pp. 73–75.

12 Huneeus, op. cit. For the complete documentary account of the censure of a minister, see Larrain Zafiartu, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 322–325.

13 Salas Edwards, op. cit., pp. 389 ff.

14 Reinsch, op. cit., p. 516.

15 Excepting partial changes in ministries, the following members of cabinets were forced to resign: Balmaceda (1886–1891), 14; Jorje Montt (1891–1896), 8; Errázuriz Echaurren (1896–1901), 12; Riesco (1901–1906), 17; Pedro Montt (1906–1910), 11; Barros Luco (1910–1915), 15; Sanfuentes (1915–1920), 17. Roldán, Alcibíades, op. cit., p. 430.

16 See Reinsch, op. cit., pp. 530–552.

17 Manoel de Oliveira Lima, however, regards the Brazilian form as the only parliamentary system in the New World. “New Constitutional Tendencies in Hispanic America,” Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 5, p. 25 (Feb., 1922).

18 This view is not shared by ProfessorCleven, N. A. N., who wrote in 1940: “The executive power of Bolivia is … as definitely under the control of the legislative power as is the British Ministry.” The Political Organization of Bolivia, p. 113.Google Scholar

19 The Inter-American (Oct., 1943), p. 6.

20 Montague, Ludwell Lee, Haiti and the United States, 1714–1938 (Durham, 1940), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

21 República de Honduras, Boletín del Congreso Nacional Legislativo (Serie 1, No. 3, 9 de enero de 1925), pp. 25–32.Google Scholar

22 El Cronista (Tegucigalpa, 30 de diciembre de 1925), p. 2.

23 República de Honduras, op. cit. (Serie 1, No. 39, 9 de abril de 1925), pp. 390–392, 404, 427.

24 Ibid., Decreto No. 72, p. 289; Decreto No. 124, p. 372.

25 República de Honduras, Decretos del Congreso Nacional Legislativo, Sesiones Ordinarias y Extraordinarias de 1927, Decreto No. 85, p. 106.Google Scholar

26 “El Cambio de Ministros,” Tegucigalpa (19 de abril de 1931), p. 1.

27 Art. 133. See also Arts. 127, 129, 130, and 132. For the best summary in English of the fourteen constitutions through the document of 1920, see Stuart, Graham H., The Governmental System of Peru (Washington, D. C., Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1925), pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

28 Op. cit., p. 32.

29 Salgado, José, La Constitución Uruguaya de 1934 (Montevideo, 1936), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

30 Bauzá, Francisco, Estudios Constitucionales (Montevideo, 1887), p. 51.Google Scholar

31 Blanco Acevedo, op. cit., p. 132.

32 Ibid., pp. 128–129.

33 Bauzá, op. cit., pp. 274–277, 306–336; Blanco Acevedo, op. cit., pp. 123, 133.

34 Blanco Acevedo, op. cit., pp. 34, 127.

35 Ibid., pp. 34–38, 40–45, 140–145, 201.

36 Salgado, op. cit., p. 9.

37 Legnani, Mateo, Memorandum de la Dictadura Uruguaya (Montevideo, 1933), pp. 84–85.Google Scholar

38 See his speech in the Chamber August 10, 1923. Luciano Martínez, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 635–636.

39 Blanco Acevedo, op. cit., p. 47.

40 Luciano Martinez, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 332; Vol. II, pp. 71–83, 178–182.

41 Salgado, op. cit., pp. 138–140, 158.

42 Arts. 131, pt. 25, 226.

43 Barreras, Antonio, Textos de las Constituciones de Cuba, 1812–1940 (La Habana, 1940), p. 255.Google Scholar

44 Infiesta, Ramón, Historia Constitucional de Cuba (La Habana, 1942), p. 255.Google Scholar

45 Gutiérrez Sánchez, op. cit., p. 32.

46 Aramburo, Mariano, “Qué es eso del régimen semi-parlamentario?,” Diario de la Marina (17 de marzo de 1940), p. 4.Google Scholar

47 Sánchez Ocejo, op. cit., p. 99.

48 More y Benítez, Juan Bautista, Leyes Complementarias de la Constitución (La Habana, 1941), p. 83Google Scholar; see also Dr. Cortina's brilliant speech in the Senate on the occasion of the first interpellation in May, 1942. Diario de la Marina (27 de mayo de 1942), p. 2.

49 Barreras, op. cit., Arts. 101–107, pp. 444–446.

50 Gutiérrez, op. cit., Arts. 74, 88, 103, pp. 22–23, 29, 35.

51 Sánchez Ocejo, op. cit., Arts. 48, 51–52, 62, pp. 73–87.

52 Conferencias de Orientación Ciudadana, Los Partidos Políticos y la Asamblea Constituyente (La Habana, 1939), pp. 161, 308.Google Scholar

53 Gutiérrez Sánchez, op. cit., p. 66.

54 See articles for 1940 in Cuba Económica y Financiera, Ultra, Habana, Industria y Comercio, and Revista de la Habana.

55 República de Cuba, Diario de Sesiones de la Convención Constituyente (La Habana, 1940), Vol. I, Núm. 1, 9 de febrero de 1940, p. 13Google Scholar; Núm. 3, 14 de febrero de 1940, p. 3; Vol. II, Núm. 70, 5 de junio de 1940, pp. 2–15.

56 Lazcano y Mazón, , Constitución de Cuba (La Habana, 1941), Vol. III, pp. 110–112.Google Scholar

57 Diario de la Marina (10 de octubre de 1940), p. 1.

58 Ibid. (6 de febrero de 1941), p. 1.

59 Ibid. (5 de agosto de 1941), p. 1.

60 República de Cuba, Diario de Sesiones del Senado (1941).Google Scholar

61 Diario de la Marina (3 de octubre de 1941), p. 4.

62 Ibid. (21 de noviembre de 1941), p. 2.

63 Ibid. (23 de mayo de 1942), p. 1.

64 Ibid. (24 de mayo de 1942), p. 1.

65 Ibid. (30 de mayo de 1942), p. 1.

66 Ibid. (20 de junio de 1942), p. 1.

67 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, “La Constitución Inoperante,” Ultra (Aug., 1944), pp. 112–115Google Scholar; Cluba Económica y Financiera (Feb., 1944), pp. 5–6.