8.3: The Popular Front Comes to the Americas - The Oligarchy Remains

The Chilean Popular Front 

Similar to the USA, the Great Depression brought democratic reformers into power in Chile. By 1930s, more and more of the Chilean middle class believed that the government must step in to promote economic growth and address the poverty and radicalism of the workers. A few months after Roosevelt was elected president, Adolph Hitler began to establish a fascist dictatorship in Germany in large part, because moderate liberals, Social Democrats, and Communists of Germany were unable to unite. As a result, the Communists changed tactics and formed anti-fascist Popular Fronts with liberals and democratic socialists. By the mid 1930s, Popular Front governments were formed in France and Spain. In Chile, the radical Socialist Party and the Communist Party allied themselves with moderates to form a Popular Front which swept the elections in 1938. Similar to the New Deal, this government favored the middle classes and the industrial working classes while ignoring the problems of the agricultural workers, the inquilinos (see chapter 4). The Chilean agricultural workers, just like US farm workers, tended to be non-whites. Many of the governments in Latin America were looking for new solutions to their economic problems. In Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico the governments sought to initiate massive industrialization projects.

During the first year of the Popular Front unions for industrial workers were legalized and membership increased by 40%. The number of unions doubled, and many strikes were settled in favor of the workers. Similar to the USA, the wages of industrial workers increased as well. Additionally, the Popular Front government established a social security system. It created a workers’ fund financed by workers, employers, and the state to provide blue-collar and white-collar workers with retirement pensions, healthcare, and disability insurance, and other social services.  There was also an increase in public expenditures on health, education, and housing. In figure 8.3.1, the statute of Pedro Aguirre Cerda with two children says, “To govern is to educate.” What does that say about the priorities of the Popular Front government of Chile?

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Statue of Pedro Aguirre Cerda by Galvarino Ponce Morel, is licensed under CC BY.

Shortcomings of the Popular Front

In contrast to the New Deal, the Popular Front government sought to economically transform and modernize Chile through a policy of rapid industrialization. High protective tariffs resulted in substantial growth for manufacturing. By the mid 1940s, Chile produced a wide range of goods including cement, tires, electrical motors, household utensils, and drugs. The Popular Front governments promoted the expansion of basic infrastructure which included a major push to provide electricity for the country.  In retrospect, the Popular Front government was largely a failure. There was no industrial revolution and poverty remained high. For the working class, serious problems with housing, health, nutrition, and infant mortality remained.  During the 1930s, Chile switched from being reliant on nitrate exports to being reliant on copper exports. So, the economy remained dependent on exporting only one low-value product.  Instead of importing cars, Chile imported expensive machinery and equipment to manufacture cars. So, the economy was dependent on foreign technology as US companies invested in copper and heavy industry by building factories. Profits were then repatriated back to the USA rather than invested in Chile.  Additionally, large mechanized factories did not need to hire millions of workers.  Furthermore, agriculture was not modernized. A small landed elite owned three-quarters of the land and relied on cheap labor instead of machinery.  In fact, agricultural production fell by 16% during 1932-1952 and Chile had to actually import food.  The failure to modernize agriculture was significant. A prosperous agricultural sector will produce food for workers and purchase manufactured goods, yet neither occurred in Chile. As a consequence, industry was stunted because there were not enough people who could afford to purchase goods such as automobiles. By the 1940s, the economy began to show signs of slowing down.

The state of agriculture was not just an economic problem, but a political one as well. The elites, who controlled Chile since its independence, would not simply hand power over to the Popular Front. They also controlled the military, because the majority of officers came from the Chilean elite. So, the elites could use the military to overthrow the government unless major concessions were made. These elites wanted to maintain their dominance over their mestizo inquilinos. Similar to the New Deal program, the Popular Front government agreed that unionization would not extend to the countryside. However, the elites relied on the inquilinos for more than just cheap labor.  The stability of the Chilean political system during 1938-1958 stemmed from the ability of the landed elites to control the countryside. There was no secret ballot in Chile until 1958. Therefore, the elites determined who their inquilinos voted for. The Chilean government did not distribute a national ballot with all of the candidates’ names listed. Each political party had its own ballot, so the estate owners simply distributed the ballot of their candidate to the inquilinos who were forced to vote for that candidate. This was a practice known as the cohecho and estate owners could dismiss any inquillino who did not vote for his candidate, guaranteeing their veto power in government. As long as elites had power in Congress through their large, controlled block of inquilino voters, they were willing to support this semi-democratic system.

Review Questions

• How were the policies of the Popular Front different and similar to the New Deal?
• Why did the Popular Front policies fail?