El Salvador civil war

Blog 8

David Jarman

The book defines civil war as: “armed conflict within the boundaries of a sovereign state between two parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities.” I have decided to test this definition on the politics of El Salvador. The historical politics of El Salvador are similar to most of Central and Latin America. El Salvador, along with Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, etc. gained independence from Spain in the early 1800’s.

However, the political sphere remained shaky. Masses of uneducated people made up the vast majority of El Salvador. It was a country that made its money on coffee and indigo plantations mostly. The land was the profit and so since before independence the land was owned by a select few. Land was not bought and sold as is done in the United States; instead it passed through families (the educated and governing class). This economic disparity presented a great rift that continued for decades.

In the early 1900’s communism and socialism became attractive to many because it promised a redistribution of land. By World War II the idea of communism had lulled and put on the back burner. As well the rich families grew stronger and joined coalitions with the military powers. Together the wealthy and the military had complete control of the government killing any hope for socialist notions. Then the Truman doctrine changed the country more.

The cold war brought a new chance for socialist ideals through Soviet aid. However, the U.S. justified supporting the military regime with the Truman Doctrine. Insurgents began organizing as the militaristic regime grew more oppressive. Eventually the two groups fell into civil war. As the war grew more fierce, those that could left the country for sanctuary. The war continued for over a decade as both sides received foreign aid. When the cold war ended so did the foreign aid. The conflict ended soon after with the rebels as victorious.

The war is referred to as a civil war but the definition is similar to a revolution. The book defines revolution as an “armed conflict with a sovereign state between insurgents and the state in which both the insurgents and the states claim the allegiance of a significant portion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgent subsequently bring about wholesale political change.” This definition fits better the civil war in El Salvador in many ways. First of which, the conflict was between the state and insurgents. Secondly, both sides claimed allegieance. Lastly, the insurgents eventually won.

However, what makes it not a revolution is, unlike France, the insurgents did not bring about wholesale political change. The insurgents won but the government system stayed nearly identical. However, more people were represented in the government and there was some land redistribution. In effect, this war was a civil war being motivated by cultural grievances through cultural polarization (ancient hatreds), underlying greed, and an immense amount of individual psychology. As the book points out, “political scientist Elisabeth Jean Wood argues that many individuals joined the insurgents to express moral outrage at existing social, political, and economic relations to derive emotional pleasure by defying resented authorities.” El Salvador is a great example to prove the books definition of the difference between a civil war and a revolution.

Works Cited.

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Pearson Education Inc. Boston. 2013. Print.