Human rights violations, and the concept of justice for those who have been afflicted by coercive violence and other methods of intimidation and exploitation against their autonomy, have a convoluted history in Latin America and the Caribbean throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Even after the dissolution of colonialism and slavery, and the scientific and technological advances that have collectively led humanity toward the cultural constructions of secularity and liberalism in the contemporary era, it is still evident that government regimes, guerrillas and paramilitary groups, and other intra-connected corporate and criminal enterprises have sought to gain and maintain political and economic influence throughout vital regions of Central America and South America. These entities that have emerged throughout the modern age have terrorized Latin American peoples and their communities, and they have significantly impacted the foundation for political autonomy and personal safety in an effort to gain and maintain lucrative economic and political advantages.
However, the concept of justice, and the efforts toward the tangible achievement of that ideal on a feasible level, have a unique historiography in Latin America during the contemporary era. What could be understood in an exercise such as this is that, within the modernized world, one could observe two important factors within a multi-faceted dimension that establish the conditions which potentially ensure a transition towards justice for the people within any given nation, nation-state, national assembly, or group of governing political bodies: secure geographic borders and truth commissions that divulge information to inform the public of their government. The strength of the military is an important component as well to ensure the protection of those conditions, but in examining the socio-political dimensions of these issues involving the restoration of justice for the people it could be suggested that these two factors are significant in establishing a successful democratic platform that idealistically upholds “legitimacy, consent, and the ability to mediate conflicts between domestic groups.”
Political positivism is not unique to Latin America, but the influence of the European ideologies were seemingly significant in the development of a progressive consciousness that was adapted by the elites to fit the individual needs of countries like Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico throughout the 1900s. In his article titled “Assimilation and Transformation of Positivism in Latin America,” Arturo Ardao explained that, “In Argentina, political positivism was powerful for a time, but it did not become a distinctive movement as it had in Brazil, or a political party as it had in Mexico. Contrary to the Brazilians and Mexicans, Argentinian positivists did not use positivism as a cohesive factor or for political proselytism. Its philosophical doctrine did not inspire them to band together under its motto, or to organize themselves into a movement or political entity.” Ardao further examined the most important impact of the application of positivism within Latin American academia, politics, and religion, and stated that, “The struggle led to the gradual secularization of schools and to the separation between Church and State.” Therefore, this positivist perspective was crucial for the establishment of the eventual concept of secularized justice and autonomous decision; it created a transition in justice that moved away from the utilization of the Catholic Church as the most influential political institution within Latin America, and was therefore pivotal in setting the stage for the emergence of current global politics.
Dictatorships and political oppression have irrefutably emerged in many forms throughout Latin America and the Caribbean since the 1900s, but perhaps those experiences and the influence of positivist ideologies promoted within prominent Latin American power circles amalgamated into a unique feature of the Latin American cultural zeitgeist, in that, “Latin American countries were early innovators of human rights trials as well as truth commissions.” It is this concept of a truth commission that can be seen as vital to the construction of a proper democratic platform; one that is about transparency and disclosure for the people. Because of this feature, these forms of interference and the chaos that has resulted from overturning and re-establishing societal order has not stalled the wheels of political progression. The complexities of justice make it difficult to define, and even more difficult theorize and implement for the purposes of establishing the prefects for an effective societal order. Idealistically, political revolutions can lead to more desirable, or perhaps more equitable, outcomes that attempt to truthfully restore the balance of governmental intermediation, and thus bring about an acknowledgment of justice in a period of transition for the time being.
An insightful article on the importance of the utilization of truth commissions was published by Kathryn Sikkink and Carrie Booth Walling in the Journal of Peace Research. Their research highlights upon the concept of justice through an examination of human rights trials in Latin America. An important point to consider from their research is that, “Historically, government officials who abused the human rights of their populations were able to do so with impunity. Even after authoritarian regimes transitioned toward democracy, the architects of state-led atrocities typically did not face judicial proceedings for their crimes. Instead, for the sake of stability or reconciliation, transitional leaders preferred to offer amnesties to the human rights abusers of previous regimes. Since the 1980s, however, states are increasingly using multiple transitional justice mechanisms, including trials, truth commissions, reparations, lustration, museums and other ‘memory sites’, archives, and oral history projects, to address past human rights violations.” Sikkink and Booth Walling also concluded that, “While amnesties are still common, there has been a dramatic new trend: democratizing states throughout the world are beginning to hold individuals, including heads of state, accountable for past human rights violations, especially through the use of trials.” Perhaps another conclusion can be added to the concept of justice in that personal accountability is an important component for the transition towards the restoration of justice for the people when criminality and victimization occur at the hands of those in power. Sikkink and Booth Walling concluded that the “dataset of trials and truth commissions from countries in transitions to democracy reveals a rapid shift toward new norms and practices providing more accountability for human rights violations,” and “…reveal an unprecedented spike in state efforts to address past human rights abuses both domestically and internationally since the mid-1980s. This represents a significant increase in the judicialization of world politics.”
However, Eric Hobsbawm highlights upon the fallacies of realistic democracy and the implementation of the democratic model from theory to practice in an article published in the academic journal Foreign Policy, which is titled “Spreading Democracy”. Hobsbawm does not believe that democracy can realistically succeed during this period of globalization, and points out that, “the logic and methods of state action are not those of universal rights. All established states put their own interests first.” Hobsbawm also points out that, “A growing part of human life now occurs beyond the influence of voters – in transnational public and private entities that have no electorates, or at least no democratic ones.” Ultimately, Hobsbawm raises a position that claims, “electoral democracy cannot function effectively outside political units such as nation-states. The powerful states are therefore trying to spread a system that even they fine inadequate to meet today’s challenges.” Perhaps this is a result of globalization and the erosion of geographic boundaries, and Hobsbawm suggests that, “The relapse into bloodshed and anarchy that has occurred so visibly in much of the world has also made the idea of spreading a new order attractive.”
Every developed nation in the 21st century has been influenced by the political and economic forces that embrace the ideological platform of globalism and the effort to unify world government and economic regulation. Latin America is no different, and it is important to consider why external forces have contributed to internal instabilities and the erosion of political autonomy. Perhaps it is also important to question why Latin America holds such worth to vested parties. Latin America contains an abundance of important natural resources that effect international markets, commerce, and land value. These resources establish a substantial sense of economic and political value to the formal and informal bodies that control access within the geographic borders or beyond. Maintaining or expanding these borders provide these formal and informal bodies with strategic geographical positioning and accessibility. Latin America also includes marginalized populations of people that are eager for legitimate employment opportunities and a greater degree socioeconomic mobility due to the political turmoil and economic uncertainty they face from corruption and the periods of transitional justice that follow. These resources and sources of labor are being exploited, and solidifying national boundaries and geographic borders is the only way to ensure justice for the people and the stability of every nation-state.
Ultimately, the truth matters, and so does understanding the big picture. Humanity shares in the human experience regardless of ethno-cultural identity, and the most successful countries throughout the contemporary era have implemented and adapted to democratic models; albeit some seemingly veer towards socialism. It would be fair to suggest that justice cannot work in this capacity because human nature will not allow for it; selfishness and corruption will not allow for it, unfortunately. Equality cannot truly exist within the social constructs that bound nature and modernized society. Justice in this manner could possibly be seen as a system that provides access and equitable treatment. Nevertheless, the insulation that the United States of America has bestowed upon its citizens, with liberties and Constitutional protections that have expanded for all Americans (and even non-Americans) during the trials and tribulations of transitional justice, leaves many Americans oblivious and perhaps in denial of the human rights violations that continue to exist in the globalized world. We are not, however, immune to threats against national sovereignty and political autonomy, and perhaps our country is in need of a truth commission and a period of transition towards the restoration of justice for the people as well.