Uruguay

Uruguay’s political and development history, from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present, has been nothing less than one steeped with highs and lows; including: early democratization and modernization, periods of prosperity and growth, a guerilla movement, a military dictatorship, a return to democracy, economic crises, and a myriad of other events that have shaped the social andpolitical identity of the nation. The position of privilege that Uruguay presently enjoys (based on indicators relating to political culture gathered by several different qualifying institutes) among Latin American countries is due in large part to their long-standing tradition of democracy, with relatively few setbacks along the way. While their recent advancements as a nation have been praisedinternationally, according to sources such as Freedom House and Latinobarómetro, it has not been achieved without much struggle nor has it been a change that has taken place over night. Rather it has been a gradual progression with its inception dating almost as far back as independence, at which time many historians believe that the first origins of today’s “partidos tradicionales”, the PartidoColorado and the Partido Blanco or Nacional, were first established (Buquet and Chasquetti 2004, 222-223).

In 1811 Uruguay originally fought for independence from the Spanish Crown only to later be invaded by Portuguese troops from Brasil and soon after annexed by then Portuguese Brasil around 1820. In 1825, in response to the annexation, Uruguay declared independence from the Brazilian Empire(which had just become independent from Portugal in 1822) and with the help of Argentina and the United Kingdom achieved independence in 1828. By 1830 Uruguay had written and adopted its first constitution. Shortly thereafter, however, divisions arose and in 1836 the first military conflict ensued between the two aforementioned political parties, the conservative Blancos and the liberal Colorados,in the “Batalla de Carpintería”. This would set the stage for the dominate two-party system that is seen today, however future key concessions and the peculiar co-participation institutes designed by the two parties throughout the political history of the nation would give way to what is known today as a “partidocracia de consenso” (a consensus-based “partycratic” system) (Buquet and Chasquetti2004, 221, 223).

The periods of pacific co-existence between the two dominant political parties during the nineteenth century were far and few between. Despite divisions that still existed among the two parties in the early parts of the twentieth century, the true early stages of democratization and modernization were able to take form. During this time reforms were instituted such as awelfare program, greater government participation in the economy, and also a plural executive. In 1907, however, they realized that there needed to be a unity of sorts, if only in purpose, in order for the nation to reach its full democratic potential. Because the original constitution was not written with the formation and/or co-existence of political parties in mind there was not much guidance asto how to achieve a peaceful relationship between the two parties. Change was seen as the only solution and in the coming years the political agenda of the parties would be greatly determined by the constitutional reforms made during that period.

In 1918 a new constitution was formed that gave concessions to both parties, necessary for their maintaining a peaceable relationship, and inmany ways paved the way for a democracy that would survive, virtually unchanged, to the present day. There were only two instances where there were slight “interruptions” in the democracy of Uruguay; during the periods of 1933-1942 and 1973-1985. The first was a golpe de estado by then president Gabriel Terra in part in response to the tense social climate and the general lack of jobs created by...