Political science as a discipline is notorious for kneejerk reactions to both intellectual fads and to events of the moment in Latin America. Over the past quarter-century, conceptual approaches have ranged from developmentalism through dependency to authoritarian theories. In the process, the study of parties and political leadership was shunted aside. Now, just as we see a resurgence of elected regimes, Ernest Duff has provided a thoughtful and provocative, if somewhat flawed, treatment. It is a welcome undertaking.
Duff’s central thesis is itself debatable: namely, that “political events of the 1920s and 1930s affected and continue to affect the political process . . . of all Latin American countries” (p. 104). He believes that political institutions were either created or destroyed during this period, leading to the stability or chaos of the 1980s. Furthermore, an understanding of this crucial time requires close examination of those most responsible for national leadership. Duff advocates a linkage of the political leadership variable with environmental variables. To do so, he stresses the relationship of leadership to the origins of political parties.
He properly remarks that the literature on the development of the state is inadequate in explaining the origins of Latin American political parties. This leads to the contention that individual leaders have exerted decisive influence, thereby justifying a series of political biographies. Eight prominent individuals are sketched, from Plutarco Calles and Hipólito Yrigoyen to Rómulo Betancourt and Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. Three are described as successful institution builders while five are failures. It would be neither useful nor valid to quibble unduly over Duff’s selections, although Maximiliano Hernández Martínez does seem notably improbable. What constitutes a more legitimate question is the extent to which all eight figures were legitimately influential during the 1920s and 1930s rather than later.
Each of these concentrated chapters describes the country’s environment, followed by biographical analysis. The latter includes not only political narrative but consideration of leadership personality. This is carried into the concluding chapter, which returns to a more theoretical discussion. Duff draws on James McGregor Burns and Harold Lasswell as sources on leadership and personality. He cites Lasswell’s insistence that “history without biography is a form of taxidermy” (p. 147), and in that sense is convincing. If readers may not be fully persuaded by all of Duff’s major theses, they can nonetheless benefit by exposure to them. In sum, this work is modest in length, ambitious in scope, and intellectually stimulating. As such, it merits serious attention.
