MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Chile
Index
The controversial downfall of President José Manuel
Balmaceda
Fernández (1886-91) represented the only occasion when
power was
transferred by force between 1830 and 1924. This event
resulted in
the most important alteration in the constitutional system
between
1833 and 1925. In many respects, the Balmaceda episode was
the
culmination of two trends: the growing strength of
Congress in
relation to the president, and the expanding influence of
foreign
capital in the mining zone. In essence, the rebels opposed
Balmaceda's plans to expand the role of the executive
branch in the
political and economic systems.
Although scholars have debated whether the uprising
against
Balmaceda was mainly a fight over political or economic
privileges,
the bulk of research has supported the primacy of
political over
economic issues. From the 1830s to the 1880s, Congress had
gradually asserted more and more authority over the budget
and over
cabinet ministers. Balmaceda tried to circumvent that
budgetary
power and break the hold of congressmen and local bosses
on
congressional elections.
Complaining about the heavy-handed rule of the
president, and
in particular his interference in congressional elections,
Congress
led a revolt against Balmaceda in 1891. Conservatives
generally
supported the rebels; Liberals and Democrats backed the
president.
Along with some renegade Liberals, the newly emergent
Radical Party
aligned with the so-called congressionalists, not wishing
to see
legislative prerogatives curtailed just as the party was
gaining
clients and strength. Those provincials resentful of the
growing
centralization of political and economic power in and
around
Santiago also backed the rebellion, especially in the
north.
Initially, the navy, the armed service that included the
highest
percentage of aristocrats, sided with the rebels; the army
sided
with the president.
The rebellion also attracted British entrepreneurs
worried by
Balmaceda's threat to encroach on the independence and
revenues of
the foreign-owned nitrate mines. Although not opposed to
foreign
investment, Balmaceda had proposed a greater role for the
state and
higher taxes in the mining sector. Tension mounted because
nitrate
sales were in a slump, a recurring problem because of the
volatility of that commodity's price on international
markets. The
most famous British mine owner was John North, the
"nitrate king,"
who was angry that his nitrate railroad monopoly had been
terminated by Balmaceda. Although not directly involved,
the United
States supported Balmaceda as the legal president.
The insurgents won the bloody but brief Civil War of
1891, when
the army decided not to fight the navy. As a result of the
rebel
victory, Congress became dominant over the chief executive
and the
nitrate mines increasingly fell into British and North
American
hands. Having gained asylum in the Argentine embassy,
Balmaceda
waited until the end of his legal presidential term and
then
committed suicide. As Portales became a legendary hero to
the
right, so Balmaceda was later anointed by the left as an
economic
nationalist who sacrificed his life in the struggle for
Chilean
liberation.
Already tense as a result of the civil war over
Balmaceda,
United States-Chilean relations deteriorated further as a
result of
the Baltimore incident. In late 1891, sailors from
the
U.S.S. Baltimore brawled with Chileans during shore
leave in
Valparaíso. To avert a war with an angry United States,
the Chilean
government apologized and paid reparations.
Data as of March 1994
|
|