Costa Rica: Civil War or Revolution?

According to David J. Samuels in his book Comparative Politics, there are four main definitions for political violence that he outlines. Political science has had difficulty with defining such things but Samuels takes a stab at it when describing civil wars, revolutions, terrorism, and genocide. To examine the accuracy of his definitions, lets take a loser look at the “worse incidence of political violence Costa Rica has ever experienced” (Stanley).

It was 1948, the year of Costa Rican elections and it was a major turning point in politics. The National Republicans, the party that had held most of the country’s political power for ages, was finally ousted from the presidency. Such a shift in power was unacceptable and they sought to delegitimize the election. Their influence in the Legislative Assembly was used to “annul the… election of rival candidate Otilio Ulate of the Social Democratic Party” (Lorenz). What came after can only be described as “all hell breaking loose”; Jose Figueres took matters in to his own hands and sought to organize the Second Republic of Costa Rica through military action. He spear headed this new National Liberation Army and he and his followers traveled north up Costa Rica, capturing cities and ports as they went.

According to Samuels, this instance so far, does fall between his constructed definitions. Specifically, this instance of violence in Costa Rica supports his definition for Civil War. Civil War is, first of all, armed combat. The use of Figueres’ military power to overtake the cities is evidence that perhaps this instance really does support Samuel’s definition. However, let’s not neglect the other factors.

            Second, the violence in Costa Rica was within the boundaries of the sovereign state. During the course of this uprising, the Nicaraguan President sent forces to occupy certain points in Costa Rica, but only to protect the Nicaraguan borders and ensure that the violence would be contained. The fight was within Costa Rica even though the United States also hinted at involvement; the US was merely concerned about the Communist influences that had been confirmed in Costa Rica and never actually got involved.

Thirdly, the violence was between two parties that were subject to common authority before the start of hostilities, as Samuel’s definition suggests. Before Figueres’ raised up an army, he was under the jurisdiction of the Costa Rican government. He only raised an army to protest the injustices of the Legislative Assembly.

This violence in Costa Rica fits Samuel’s definition for Civil War, but is that the only definition it fits? According to Samuel’s, a revolution is a civil war in which one party is the state, the insurgents win with a lot of popular support, and the insurgents implement “wholesale political change”. After he conquered many cities and ports, Figueres turned his sights to the capital, San Jose. President Picado, with the threat of US involvement looming, signed The Pact of the Mexican Embassy and officially ended the revolt granting Figueres 18 months of power.

Lasting only 6 weeks and killing 2000 people, Figueres used his power to bring about much more lasting effects on Costa Rica. While in office he “banned the communist party, gave women the right to vote, granted black immigrants full citizenship, and established a presidential term limit” (Stanley). In addition, he abolished the standing army of Costa Rica and created a constitutional ban which would prevent successors from gaining political power through the military. Isn’t that some of the “wholesale change” that this revolution would have brought about? So was it a civil war or was it a revolution? What these definitions do not address is that the junta was in place and all of these changes occurred, but after the 18 months were up, Figueres succeeded to the rightfully elected President and politics continued on the way they had before.

Ultimately, Samuel’s definitions provide adequate descriptions of the types of political violence that occurs internationally and they especially provide for an accurate description of the violence that occurred in Costa Rica in 1948. Although, there was change brought about by the uprising, the change was temporary and there was not major upheaval in the way that the government was run after the junta was dissolved, and so this instance becomes the Costa Rican Civil War.

Works Cited

Lorenz, Christopher M. "Costa Rica and the 1948 Revolution." El Espíritu Del 48. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.elespiritudel48.org/docu/h_i01.htm>.

Samuels, David. "Political Violence." Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013. 257-84. Print.

Stanley, April. "Project Costa Rica." Project Costa Rica. Chart Reporter, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www2.mssu.edu/international/mccaleb/CostaRica/army.htm>.