WASHINGTON -- Throughout the dawn of civilization, humanity has moved from nomadic tribes which had a simple ruling structure in which the elders told the younger members what to do and how to do it, through more complex city-states where power rested with either a sole proprietor or with a handful of people. Often using religion to legitimate their rule, many city-states drew on that power to their advantage.Today in Latin America, countries still use religion – the church – to help them legitimize their rule in the eyes of the people often leading to autocratic rule as opposed to a more free democratic society. However, not all countries which are considered highly religious tend to see themselves as autocratic or vice-versa. Roman Catholic Latin American countries like Mexico, Peru, Chile, El Salvador practice democratic ideals whereas others, for example, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Cuba are moving are have moved towards a more autocratic state. How can this be explained? This paper will try to answer that question.
Woodrow Wilson wrote in The State:
The probable origin of government is a question of fact, to be settled, not by conjecture, but by history. Some traces we can still discern of the history of primitive societies. As fragments of primitive animals have been kept for us sealed up in the earth's rocks, so fragments of primitive institutions have been preserved, embedded in the rocks of surviving law or custom, mixed up with the rubbish of accumulated tradition, crystallized in the organization of still savage tribes, or kept curiously in the museum of fact and rumor swept together by some ancient historian.
Wilson observed that government was adapting. It adapted to the times as its “primitive institutions” are preserved and codified in laws and customs. This, however, is one aspect of government and does help in solidifying support around the institution, but in order to be legitimate in the eyes of the people, government as represented by a ruler had to be legitimized from above.
As more and more people inhabited the planet, more and more people had to be governed, and governed more efficiently. The rulers of these different city-states or fiefdoms looked towards divinity to guide their hand and legitimize their rule in the eyes of the people. Many saying that their lineage was royal blood, or sangreal, and that their legitimacy came straight from heaven.As John Simmons writes in his book Moral Principles and Political regarding the Doctrine of St. Paul:
The Doctrine of St. Paul was nearly universally accepted by political theorist and layman alike: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities, resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.The ruling authority of kings came straight from God and people could not question their authority unless they questioned God. This was a very powerful tool in granting legitimacy to rulers and the Catholic Church was the culprit for the castration of ideas as well as the lack of questioning of authority.
The Roman Catholic Church played a vital role in the early forms of government in the middle ages as many popes took parts in the coronations of kings in England, France, Spain, Portugal and later the Holy Roman Empire. This close tie between the Church and the State proved to be a very powerful symbiotic relationship.
Today, even though Catholic Church membership is in decline throughout the world, including Latin America, there still remains a strong presence in that region. Half of the world’s 1 billion Catholics consider Latin America their home. In Brazil, for example, a relatively stable – by Latin American standards - democratic country there are 100 million Catholics in a country of 180 million. Mexico, the country with the second -highest number of Catholics at 88 million- is by all contrasts a democracy which was able to withstand widespread riots in its last election.
How has the Catholic Church helped these countries move towards a more democratic society? Leaders of the Church took notice early on that authoritative governments committed atrocities to the poor and their justice systems were nothing more than words on paper. Oscar Romero, the beloved Archbishop of San Salvador, El Salvador, was murdered in cold blood by a right-wing death squad of the government for preaching fairness against the poor in his weekly sermons. He was one of the early casualties of the transformation of El Salvador from an oppressive authoritarian government to a democracy thanks to the Peace Accords of 1992.
When Mexicans went to the polls in 2000 to elect opposition presidential candidate Vicente Fox, they did more than simply change their government. His election ended 70 years of corrupt, single-arty oligarchy of the PRI, and helped Mexico become a more inclusive democracy. The Catholic Church in 1986 played a very important role in fomenting change in gubernatorial elections in the state of Chihuahua. There was fraud and disputed results in that election and the church through Archbishop of Chihuahua ordered all of the Catholic churches to go on strike. He said after the vote, “Someone was robbed last Sunday. That person was robbed on the way to the voting booth, and that person was the Chihuahuan voter.” His homily urged all the priests to shut down the churches in protest. Eventually, the Interior Minister intervened with the Vatican, and the word came down, “Stop messing in politics.” (Dillon, 2005)
Why has the Catholic Church felt the need to get involved in the political process in these countries as opposed to staying out of the matters of the state in the United States? There’s a very important reason at play here: There is a lack of democratic institutions used as springboards for change. Without these institutions, the church has brought it upon itself to move the masses, often advocating for them through their priests and bishops. They have used their legitimate power through divinity to foment change and bring about hope for their “subjects.” This is the reason why some Catholic countries have changed from authoritarian governments to democracies.
It has not been easy, however, as socialist ideals of equality for all lead countries like the United States to stigmatize these movements as “Communist” often leading to direct or indirect involvement.
This has cause two things, (1) to create a sense of anti-Americanism, and (2) to further move these movements toward the left in response. It is this second part that has lead to a cooling of relations between some Latin American countries and created an opportunity to rally behind a more autocratic state. This is the reason why countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador have found it easier to move from democracy to autocracy.
The state has usurped the institution of the church, at least temporarily to gain control of the hearts and minds of the people, to further their political capital. They have used the unquestioned loyalty of the people and turned it upside down for their political gain.
In Venezuela, the clash of these two institutions have created chaos in its society. Sara Miller Llana of the Christian Science Monitor writes:
Many expect the confrontation between church and state to pick up steam. Nikolas Kozloff, author of the "Revolution! South America and The Rise of The New Left," calls it inevitable. Unlike other Latin American countries, the Catholic Church in Venezuela never fully embraced the tenets of liberation theology. Yet today, Catholics and Protestants across the country have signed onto Chávez's message. "If you go to these [social] missions, you see a lot of people supporting Chávez, placing a big emphasis on social work," Mr. Kozloff says. "There is an overlap.
Chavez has not helped matters by verbally insulting church officials and creating a ‘me against them’ attitude which only creates more division. Sometimes, the church has just been a bystander in history and allowed the forces of populism to change their political system. In Bolivia and Ecuador, two charismatic leaders came to power through a wave of change which tapped into their countries cries for a new way of doing things. Evo Morales and Rafael Correa offered a new hope for the oppressed, for the unfairly treated, the oft-stepped on, the peasant, the person that has continually been forgotten by the elites, the indigenous. The same emotion that the Catholic Church used to foment change in countries like El Salvador, was used to bring about a socialist change which some people fear will look more like Venezuela and Cuba in the coming years.
