Complex question. It would have to be divided by categories. But overall, in my opinion the worst has to be Pedro Santana, who betrayed the country and turned it over to Spain, again.
That was not a bad move from Pedro Santana. The reasoning behind this was to gain the support of a bigger nation such as Spain to keep Haiti from taking over the country again, since the new Dominican Republic was not strong enough to fight against Haiti. If at any given point, the Haitians decide to take over the country again, they would have to fight Spain.
I see. I fail to realize how surrendering your sovereignty to a country to avoid surrendering it to another is a good move.
Read the world history. Be it ancient or modern history.
Alliance with one enemy in order to get saved from a bigger enemy has been strategic move of most countries faced by the latter. Often it is the colonial power from which the country liberated itself who come to the rescue. You may not like it, but often it is the best way of surviving. And there are countless tribes, states, and nations who did not call onto help of one enemy from destruction by a bigger enemy, and they are no longer with us.
It is typically the correct move to seek an ally, even if the ally from the ranks of enemies. No, it is not a palatable move. But the alternative is worse.
Keep in mind it was not for free. Juan Pablo Duarte had to exile, some who fought for the independence from Spain were executed by firing squad, including women like Maria Trinidad Sanchez. I imagine those were conditions established by the queen.
Of course that there will be negative consequences. That’s also natural. Why would you expect otherwise?And you have to see how the consequences of that need to be dependent still affects today.
Definitely a coward's move in my book. If a country cannot stand by itself, no matter the thread or difficulties, it does no deserve to exist. Better to die standing than to live on your knees. ...
Purely looking effectively he might have been the best.Trujillo
With that reasoning, you might as well nominate Pinochet and StalinPurely looking effectively he might have been the best.
Trujillo
He was far from the worst. He made DR a modern country. I chose Salvador Blanco, my reasoning being it was his presidency that changed the mindset of the politicians and created the level of corrupt politicians that exists today.
I though it was more Balaguer's fault...
Read the world history. Be it ancient or modern history.
Alliance with one enemy in order to get saved from a bigger enemy has been strategic move of most countries faced by the latter. Often it is the colonial power from which the country liberated itself who come to the rescue. You may not like it, but often it is the best way of surviving. And there are countless tribes, states, and nations who did not call onto help of one enemy from destruction by a bigger enemy, and they are no longer with us.
It is typically the correct move to seek an ally, even if the ally from the ranks of enemies. No, it is not a palatable move. But the alternative is worse.
Let's not forget that the US did kind of the same thing when they obtained their independence from England. Without the French support, there would not be an US today. Yes the FRENCH.