The dictatorial regime of Jorge Ubico silenced virtually all internal sociopolitical opposition in Guatemala during the interwar period (1931–44). To circumvent this restrictive political terrain, journalists Luz Valle and Gloria Menéndez Mina created literary journals ostensibly published with advice on home making and personal style which furtively cultivated an intellectual space that reflected transnational antifascist conversations. These journals served as incubators for antifascist, democratic ideals during a period of intense intellectual repression, ideals that revolutionary reformers translated directly into social and political democracy created by the October Revolution in 1944. Within a deeply patriarchal society, the journals’ gender analysis also expanded revolutionary vision of justice to include the political and social inclusion of women. Therefore, the extent to which the Guatemalan Revolution embraced antifascist ideals can be traced in part to the ideas published in Nosotras and Azul.

This chapter situates the emerging antifascism of Diego Rivera and other Mexican artists within the broader contexts of post-revolutionary Mexico, the rise of global fascism, and shifts of the global left. Their antifascism emerged slowly in the 1920s, subordinate to their sharp anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism, but moved to the forefront from the mid-30s with the rise of Hitler, the Spanish Civil War, and as part of Popular Front strategies across the progressive left. Rivera’s antifascism, shaped by his Communist dissidence during the 1930s, most fully emerged in his US murals. His Portrait of America (1933) denounces US capitalism and imperialism, while addressing the urgency of proletarian unity against fascism. Pan American Unity (1940) reflects Rivera’s disgust with the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. It proposes a cultural and political alliance between Latin America and the once-imperial US as the only way to defeat the alliance of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianisms.

Chapter 5 shows how the development of strong parties and professional militaries contributed to the emergence of enduring democracies in Chile and Uruguay. Both countries developed strong parties during the late nineteenth century thanks in part to the geographic concentration of the population and the existence of relatively balanced cleavages. During the nineteenth century, these parties at times sought power via armed revolts, but once the military professionalized, the opposition began to focus exclusively on the electoral route to power. This occurred in the late nineteenth century in Chile, but not until the early twentieth century in Uruguay. In both countries, opposition parties pushed for democratic reforms to enfranchise their supporters and level the electoral playing field. It was not until the ruling party split, however, that the opposition managed to enact major reforms, which occurred in Chile in 1890 and Uruguay in 1917. In both countries, strong opposition parties played a central role not only in the enactment of the reforms but also in their enforcement.

Chapter 1 lays out the central theoretical arguments of the book. It argues that three factors played a key role in the emergence of democracy in region: the professionalization of the military, the rise of strong opposition parties, and splits within the ruling party. It analyzes what led to the professionalization of the military and the rise of strong opposition parties and it shows how they led to varying regime outcomes in different South American countries. This chapter also discusses why existing theories of democratization cannot fully explain the emergence of democracy in the region

This chapter explores a riot that erupted in 1782 against a permanent garrison of Spanish troops from the Savoy regiment, marking the Chuquisaca’s first popular revolt since its founding. Although violence was primarily executed by the lower classes, particularly militia members, it stemmed from tensions affecting the entire population and therefore garnered strong support from the patriciate through the cabildo. Sparked by the death of a patrician in a brawl with a soldier, the underlying cause of the unrest was the troops’ sexual misconduct and other acts of violence in the urban space. The advances made on the wives, sisters, and daughters of patricians and plebeians alike raised the question of whether European soldiers of low social status were deemed superior to noble creoles, and it placed the vindication of the masculine reputation of patricians and plebeians on the same footing. The assaults on the local population’s claims to honor thus undermined the self-representation of urban society as courtly society divided into Hispanic and non-Hispanic sectors. Without losing their distinctive group identities, the residents began to conceive of themselves as members of the same polity defined in opposition to metropolitan policies and their agents. They saw themselves as part of a full-fledged colonial society.

This chapter analyzes the general uprising of Chuquisaca. On May 25, 1809, a coalition of audiencia ministers, town council officials, the university senate, and residents in general, backed by the mobilization of popular sectors that engaged in bloody clashes with the military garrison and then organized themselves into standing militia units, seized power after deposing the intendant of Charcas and forcing the archbishop to flee the city. The chapter maintains that these events represented a drastic break with all established Hispanic traditions of governance, both Bourbon and Habsburg. It possessed deep revolutionary overtones. While generic allegiance to the Crown may still have been solid, the political foundations of that allegiance came under widespread criticism, threatening the viability of the entire system. On the other hand, this rupture was the outcome of a cumulative erosion of the structures of command and obedience stretching back to the late 1770s. Notwithstanding its momentous impact, the French invasion served as a catalyst rather than as a causal factor in the demise of colonial rule. For it was those discrete historical experiences that equipped local actors with a guide for action, a sense of collective belonging, and a horizon of political intelligibility.

This chapter focuses on a key occurrence leading up to the general uprising of Chuquisaca on May 25, 1809. In January 1809, the University of Charcas’s academic senate publicly and forcefully condemned Princess Carlota Joaquina’s claim to Spain’s regency during her brother Ferdinand VII’s captivity. This momentous political event, known as the “Acta de los Doctores,” has often been interpreted as a forthright expression of royalism and evidence that the movement was more anti-Portuguese than anti Spanish. A close reading of the text reveals that the faculty had a more cunning political aim in disparaging the Portuguese maneuvers: to vilify the Spanish magistrates who had allowed the Carlota papers to be disseminated. Often misinterpreted as a mere pro-Spanish manifesto, the “Acta de los Doctores” crowned and epitomized a by then ingrained culture of political dissension. The last section examines another clash between the university and the audiencia that served as a direct prelude to the May 25 uprising. In this case, it was a clash over the rector’s right to use a cushion during a mass attended by the ministers. At a time when all power hierarchies were being challenged, struggles over ceremonial prominence took on a highly consequential resonance.

This chapter discusses Caribbean antifascism’s roots and its connection to the Comintern’s regional radical network, tracing the evolution of the movement from its anti-imperialist origins as early as 1924. The discussion provides specific examples as to how visions of fascism and antifascism were created for and/or adapted to the local and regional realities through an anti-imperialist prism. The study also maps the transnational and transatlantic journey of an antifascist discursive formula from its origins as a Caribbean hologram equating fascism with imperialism, to its official incorporation to the Communist internationalist lexicon as Comintern policy in 1935, and finally to its application as a propaganda formula during the Spanish Civil War. In the long run, while Caribbean antifascism’s anti-imperialist sensibilities may have been lost in translation in the mayhem of theoretical battles and iron-fist, Stalinist policies, the gist of the messages survived the turmoil, and perhaps still lingers on in our culture even to this day.

The Introduction presents a historiographical discussion of the main topics analyzed throughout the book. It begins by offering a summary of the history of the city of Chuquisaca during the period under study (1777–1809). Then, it examines the crisis of the Spanish-American order in historical perspective. It is argued that, taken together, the study provides an alternative narrative to a growing historiographical consensus that American territories were kingdoms ‒ like the European ones ‒ rather than colonies; that “imperial collapse” (the French invasion of Spain), not “revolution”, was the starting point of independence; and that in their opposition to Bourbon absolutism, the creole elite looked backward, seeking to restore an ancient Hispanic monarchical order. It is my contention that absolutism and colonialism were indistinguishable, that the demise of Spanish rule in the Andes was rooted in a longstanding historical process, and that the traditional language of monarchical legitimism couched modern, utterly subversive, concepts of representative government, free speech, elections, public opinion, and sovereignty. In addition, the Introduction focuses on two large historical themes: the conformation of a culture of dissent and the place of Chuquisaca in the age of Andean insurrection in terms of issues of race, honor, and coloniality.

During the 1930s and early 1940s, numerous groups in Uruguay coalesced to oppose fascism. This chapter examines the antifascist efforts organized by ethnic societies, labor unions, women’s groups, Afro-Uruguayans, students, intellectuals, and artists, among others. The emergent antifascist movements in Uruguay served as nodes in the broader transnational struggle for democracy and against totalitarianism. While some Uruguayans traveled to Spain to directly take part in the Spanish Civil War, others sought to marshal support at home to combat the influence of European fascism. The ideological struggles in Europe were also pressing at home, as President Gabriel Terra initiated a dictatorship in the 1930s that revealed his supporters’ fascist leanings. Likewise, an engrained sense of national exceptionalism tied to Uruguay’s decades-long democratic tradition, augmented the need to resist Terra’s dictatorship (1933–38) and later to repudiate any remnants of its legacy.

This chapter reveals how Caribbean Basin democracy and international antifascism came together during the 1944 Masacre Sampedrana. For over a decade, Honduran, Nicaraguan, and Dominican exiles protested against the respective dictatorships of Tiburcio Carías, Anastasio Somoza, and Rafael Trujillo. With World War II, exiles tapped into the international struggle against fascism to invigorate their local anti-dictatorial efforts. They blended the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter, and other antifascist symbols with their longstanding democratic ideals while networking with likeminded allies. Their struggle culminated in July 1944 as teachers, workers, and students utilized antifascist symbols when women spearheaded protests against Carías’ dictatorship. After the regime violently responded, anti-dictatorial individuals and groups throughout the greater Caribbean continued to blend antifascism and Latin American democracy to denounce the horrific Masacre Sampedrana and direct regional and international attention on the Honduran dictatorship.

Chapter 8 examines the failed struggle for democracy in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In contrast to the other South American countries, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay made relatively little progress in professionalizing their armies in the early twentieth century and were not able to establish a monopoly on violence. As a result, the opposition, especially in Paraguay and Ecuador, continued to seek power via armed revolt, which undermined constitutional rule and encouraged state repression. The weakness of parties in Bolivia and Ecuador also enabled presidents to manipulate elections, resist democratic reforms, and run roughshod over the opposition.

Chapter 6 examines how parties and the military shaped democracy in Argentina and Colombia. Both countries were ruled by authoritarian regimes in the nineteenth century that manipulated elections to remain in power. A strong opposition party, the Radical Civic Union, arose in Argentina in the 1890s and this party initially sought power through armed revolts as well as elections, but the professionalization of the military at the end of the nineteenth century made armed struggle futile. The Radicals pushed for democratic reforms but could not achieve them until a split within the ruling party led dissidents to come to power. After passage of the reforms in 1912, the Radicals won the presidency, but Argentina then lacked a strong opposition party, which undermined democracy in the long run. In Colombia, two strong parties arose during the nineteenth century and whichever party was in the opposition sought power at times via armed revolt. Colombia professionalized its armed forces in the early twentieth century, however, which forced the opposition to abandon the armed struggle. The opposition began to focus on the electoral path to power, but was only able to enact democratic reforms thanks to a split within the ruling party. In the wake of these reforms, Colombian elections became relatively free and fair, but the country's military was not strong enough to contain increasing regional violence, which undermined the country's democracy.