A caudillo ( , ; , from Latin , diminutive of caput "head") is a type of personalist leader wielding military and political power. The term is historically associated with Spain and post-independence Hispanic America. It is often used interchangeably with "military dictator", "warlord", "strongman", and "Generalissimo", but specifically to Spain and Hispanic America.
The roots of caudillismo may be tied to the framework of rule in medieval and early modern Spain during the Reconquista from the Moors., reprinted in Hamil, pp. 72–86. Spanish conquistadors such as Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro exhibit characteristics of the caudillo, being successful military leaders, having mutual reliance on the leader and their supporters, and rewarding them for their loyalty.Hamill, Hugh M. (1996) "Caudillismo, Caudillo" in Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Vol. 2, pp. 38–39. An important characteristic of caudillos is their charisma, which drew in followers who could be used to change the political climate and shape state formation in the postcolonial era. The followers of caudillos, called gauchos, were common people whom the caudillos could charm and persuade into joining their cause. Often, the caudillo would take on the role of the provider as a substitute for the shortcomings of those in the government. It created a type of father-child bond between the caudillo and gaucho that strengthened loyalties and made the caudillos powerful.
During the colonial era, the Spanish crown asserted its power and established a plethora of bureaucratic institutions that prevented personalist rule. Historian John Lynch argues that the rise of caudillos in Spanish America is rooted not in the distant Spanish past, but in the immediate context of the Spanish American wars of independence. The wars overthrew colonial rule and left a power vacuum in the early 19th century. Caudillos were very influential in the history of Spanish America and left a legacy that has influenced political movements in the modern era.Lynch, p. 437. However, the term is also used for the authoritarian regimes of Francisco Franco in Spain and Antonio Salazar in Portugal. The term is often used pejoratively by critics of a regime. Spain's General Francisco Franco (1936–1975), though, proudly took the title as his own"Introduction", pp. 5–6 in Hamil. during and after his military overthrow of the Second Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). Spanish censors during his rule attacked publishers who applied the term to Hispanic-American strongmen.Payne, Stanley G. (1987) The Franco Regime, 1936–1975. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, p. 625. Scholars have applied the term to a variety of Hispanic-American leaders."Hidalgo and Calleja: The Colonial Bases of Caudillismo", pp. 99–114 in Hamil.Grieb, Kenneth J. (1979). Guatemalan Caudillo: The Regime of Jorge Ubico, Guatemala 1931–1944. Athens OH: Ohio University Press.
Spanish American caudillos
Since Spanish American independence in the early nineteenth century, the region has been noted for its number of caudillos and the duration of their rule.Bolívar and the Caudillos. John Lynch; Hispanic American Historical Review 1 February 1983; 63 (1): 3–35. Duke University Press doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182168-63.1.3 The early nineteenth century is sometimes called "The Age of Caudillos", with Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina,Lynch, John (1981) Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas, 1829–1852. and his contemporary in Mexico, Antonio López de Santa Anna,Fowler, Will (2007) Santa Anna of Mexico, esp. Part 2, "The Making of a Caudillo". Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. dominating national politics. Weak nation-states in Spanish America fostered the continuation of caudillismo from the late nineteenth century into the twentieth century. The lack of government attention to the needs of the people allowed for there to be space for caudillos to fill those roles to give aid to peasants.
The formation of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party in 1929 effectively ended caudillismo. Men characterized as caudillos have ruled in Cuba (Gerardo Machado, Fulgencio Batista, Fidel Castro), Panama (Omar Torrijos, Manuel Noriega), the Dominican Republic (Desiderio Arias, Cipriano Bencosme), Paraguay (Alfredo Stroessner), Argentina (Juan Perón and other military strongmen), and Chile (Augusto Pinochet). Caudillos have been the subject of literature in Spanish America.Brushwood, John S. (1980) The Spanish American Novel: A Twentieth-Century Survey. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Hispanic America is not unique in having strong leaders emerge during times of turmoil. The cause of their emergence in Spanish America is generally seen to be in the destruction of the Spanish colonial state structure after the wars of independence, and in the importance of leaders from the independence struggles for providing government in the postindependence period, when nation-states came into being. Historian John Lynch states, "Before 1810, the caudillo was unknown … The caudillo entered history as a local hero whom larger events promoted to a military chieftain."Lynch, pp. 402–03.
In a rural areas that lacked any institutions of the state, and where the environment was one of violence and anarchy, caudillos could impose order, often by using violence to achieve it. Their local control as strongmen needed to be maintained by assuring the loyalty of their followers, so bestowing of material rewards reinforced their own positions. Caudillos could also maintain their position by protecting the interests of regional elites.Lynch, p. 405. Local strongman who built a regional base could aspire to become a national caudillo, taking control of the state.Lynch, p. 406.
Caudillos could bestow patronage on a large retinue of clients, who in turn gave them their loyalty. In general, caudillos power benefited elites, but these strongmen were also mediators between elites and the popular classes, recruiting them into the power base, but also restraining them from achieving power themselves. For example, Federalist caudillos in the Argentinian provinces were able to build relationships with the rural poor, namely the gauchos and monteneros. As the war of the Triple Alliance spread, ideological language shifts occurred in Buenos Aires by the ruling Unitarians, who began referring to rural caudillos as barbarians and enemies of civilization. Unitarians tried to criminalize the federalists, illegitimizing their political position.
Caudillos were not leading partisan bands, according to the Unitarians, but rather warlords leading bandits. The resulting placement of national guard troops being stationed in the provinces, who would be given law enforcement tasks and specifically separation from the caudillos. As a next step political strategy, the Unitarians would also construct schools, providing compulsory education, emphasizing pro-unitarian political thought. Caudillos were effectively estranged by the effort and soon became a historical footnote in the process.
A few strongmen either rose from a humble background to protect the interests of indigenous groups or other rural marginalized groups or strongly identified with those groups. Historian E. Bradford Burns referred to them as "folk caudillos". In his analysis, they contrasted with Europeanized elites who viewed the lower orders with contempt. He gives examples of Juan Facundo Quiroga, Martín Güemes, and other Argentine caudillos, most importantly Juan Manuel de Rosas, who were popular and populist caudillos. Burns attributes the urban elites' bafflement and their contempt for followers of these folk caudillos for much of the negative role assigned to caudillos."Folk Caudillos", pp. 115–30 in Hamil, excerpts from E. Bradford Burns, Poverty of Progress: Latin America in the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press 1980, pp. 86–94, 96–103, 105–06.
National caudillos often sought to legitimize their rule by holding titles of authority such as "President of the Republic". If the constitution put formal limits on presidential power and term limits, caudillos could bend or break the rules to maintain power, a practice dubbed ."Continuismo: The Search for Political Longevity" in Hamil, republished from
Caudillo politics were not monolithic, tending to follow the politics that would serve them best by keeping them in power and allowing them to retain their following. Ideologically, caudillos could be either liberal or conservative. Liberalism had an advantage in the postindependence period, drawing on the ideas of the liberators and creating the institutional frameworks of the new nation-states via written constitutions. Free trade as an economic policy created market-oriented economies. The model that these nation-states often adopted was federalism, keeping power in the component regions. Federalism, however, tended toward centrifugalism and fragmentation and was characterized by weak central governments.Lynch, pp. 409–10. Conservative caudillos also emerged around 1830. New nation-states often rejected the institutions of the colonial era as legacies to be rejected, but the Roman Catholic Church and traditional values remained strong in many regions, supported by elites seeking to maintain their power in the new order. Conservative caudillos, supported by the Church and elites, moved to the creation of strong, central governments.Lynch, pp. 410–11.
Independence era Although the hope existed of some Spanish American leaders of independence that the political contours of regions would reconstitute the former viceroyalties, but with local autonomy. The Roman Catholic Church as an institution remained strong and the militaries won victories against royalist forces. The state as an institution in most areas was weak. Conflicts over the form the new governments should take were rampant, and veterans of the wars of independence saw themselves as the leaders of the nation-states they had helped bring into being.Henderson, p. 110.
These caudillos were able to maintain their power through their connection with their gauchos. Unlike their traditional elite counterparts, caudillos sought to keep the relationships with their supporters strong. They often lived near or amongst the "common people", so they were able to develop personal connections and experience problems first hand that otherwise might have been ignored by the elites. Gauchos would influence the political opinion of the common people, or peasants, through oral culture. They would tell stories and write songs and poems that shed their caudillos and their ideals in a positive light. Their influence on the political climate allowed the common people to be a driving force of nation-building rather than just elite leaders.
In the wake of the violence and political disruption, new nations were faced with widespread property destruction, the disappearance of trade, and states that lacked political authority. The first few decades after independence saw the rise of strongmen with roots in the military. Spanish America had known no other type of regime than monarchy, and Mexico established one under a royalist general-turned-insurgent Agustín de Iturbide. In Spanish America, new sovereign states grappled with the question of balancing a central authority, usually in the hands of the traditional elites, with some kind of representation of the new "citizenry" of the republics. Constitutions were written laying out the division of powers, but the rule of personalist strongmen, caudillos, dominated. Dictatorial powers were granted to some caudillos, nominally ruling as presidents under a constitution, as "constitutional dictators".Smith, Peter H. (2005) Democracy in Latin America: Political Change in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 20–22.