Presidents and Democracy in Latin America

Manuel Alcántara, Jean Blondel, Jean-Louis Thiébault

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138082076
• eBook ISBN: 9781351622707
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This new textbook provides students with a comprehensive and accessible introduction to the presidents and presidential leadership in Latin America. Unlike other texts, Presidents and Democracy in Latin America integrates both political analysis and major theoretical perspectives with extensive country-specific material.

Part One examines the developments in recent years in Latin American presidentialism and identifies different characteristics of society and politics which have influenced Latin American governments. The personalization of political life and of presidential government help to illustrate the character of Latin American politics, specifically on the type of political career of those who occupied the presidential office, the leadership style of these presidents and the type of government which they led.

Part Two studies two presidents in each of six countries in the region which reflect the broad trends in the political and electoral life: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. Each case study first provides the biographical background of the president; it outlines the political career of the president both inside and outside of a party, including at the local level; the popularity of the president at the time of the presidential election is given, as well as the mode of selection of the candidates (selection by party leaders only, by party members or by a primary). The relation of the president with the government or ministers, especially if there is a coalition government, is detailed.

This textbook will be essential reading for all students of Latin American Politics and is highly recommended for those studying executive politics, political leadership, and the state of democratic governance in Latin America.

Part I
Presidentialism and Political Capital in Latin America

Latin American governments have been influenced by two main characteristics of society and politics. They are primarily the result of the important part played by individuals in social and political life. Latin American societies have been markedly affected by inter-personal relationships in the villages and rural communities where substantial practices of patronage and clientelism have long prevailed; with the extension of the right to vote, elections were deeply influenced by these practices. The impact of personalities on the political life of Latin American countries has continued to this day, and remains substantial despite increased urbanization. Latin American voters have continued to choose personalities over party programs. Political culture has been strongly influenced by this personalization of social and political life.

The second main characteristic of Latin American governments has been the adoption of the presidential system. Influenced by the work of the founding fathers of the American republic, Latin American countries set up institutions drawn largely from the US constitutional model. Nonetheless, Latin American presidents represent another type of executive. In the United States, there is a president, but there is no government. Latin America has a large number of presidential regimes characterized by a high degree of consistency and similarity. They constitute a type of intermediary regime comprising many elements of presidential regimes, but also few features of parliamentary systems with coalition government integrated by a sufficient number of parties to ensure a majority in congress. For almost twenty years, Brazil has been considered an extraordinary case of ‘coalition presidentialism’, and Bolivia’s political regime between 1985 and 2005 was defined as ‘parlia mentarized presidentialism.’ This explains why the president’s leadership is important and has an impact on the nature of government. The key feature of the popular election of the president has been the inherent tendency of Latin American countries to emphasize the role of personalities in politics.

The analysis presented here takes into account the specific char acteristics of Latin American polities from the early 1990s. These characteristics are in the first place economic. Latin America experienced a series of economic crises during that period, being one of the most ‘volatile’ parts of the world economically: regional indicators such as the gross domestic product, exchange rates and budget deficits were roughly two or three times more ‘volatile’ than those of developed countries. On the other hand, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the region has experienced marked economic growth and substantial social progress: Asian demands for commodities and for agricultural products, which constitute the main part of Latin American exports, have grown strongly. The income from that trade has greatly stimulated regional economies and helped to strengthen monetary reserves. Economic growth has indeed benefited the poorest citizens of the region. There has been a reduction in poverty and a significant decline of economic and social inequalities. Governments spend more money than previously to help the poor and improve health, education and housing for low-income segments of the population and, as a result, the percentage of the population living above the poverty line has risen sharply: in 2010, a third of Latin Americans belonged to the middle class, compared with 17 percent in 1990. Yet these changes have not prevented Latin America from being markedly affected by violence. A long list of factors accounts for this violence, such as the persistence of inequalities, youth unemployment, organized crime, and weak institutions of justice and security.

There are also aspects specific to Latin American politics. In the 1990s, democracy spread across the region, except in Cuba and Venezuela, while Colombia and Mexico experienced marked political violence, the state being unable to maintain order and public security. The militarization of these countries often led to abuses in terms of human rights without preventing the spread of violence. Democratic development also meant that the number of regularly held free and fair elections increased. The number of political parties and the growing ideological polarization were also a sign of strong political pluralism. Institutional mechanisms have also been used to resolve conflicts, while military coups have ceased to occur and the new democratic regimes have proven able to solve political crises as they occurred.

Yet Latin American democracy still faces problems. First, there persists some degree of ‘illusion’ about what elections can achieve: many countries remain in a hybrid zone, on the road to democratic consolidation, as if the electoral process was sufficient to establish democracy. Second, what has been called ‘delegative democracy’ has tended to spread. Moreover, personalization and concentration of political power have resulted in a degree of ‘turbulence’ in Latin American democracies. The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War also led to difficulties. Meanwhile, the period was marked by the implementation of a ‘Washington Consensus,’ which became central to economic policies in the region, despite some variations among the countries concerned.

Thus, two main characteristics (the personalization of political life and the adoption of presidential government) provide some explanation of the character of Latin American politics, specifically regarding the personality type of those who have occupied the presidential office, the leadership style of those presidents, and the type of government that they led.

Chapter 2 examines the conditions in which presidential leadership takes place in Latin America. That leadership is strongly influenced by the institutional context resulting from the presidential form of government. Additionally, there are three other strong sources of influence over presidents: their personal skills, the social and political relations that they hold and their personal reputation.

Chapter 3 examines the nature of presidential government in Latin America. Its differences from presidential government in the United States are highlighted, where, instead of a cabinet, the ministers (the ‘secretaries’), are individually and separately dependent on the president. In Latin American presidential government, there is a range, from governments wholly dominated by the president to governments which are coalitions and are at least partly collegial.

Chapter 4 seeks to identify trends, patterns and differences in terms of profiles based on the levels of education and family backgrounds of Latin American presidents from 1978 to 2015, including those who were popularly elected and those who replaced popularly elected presidents who had died or resigned. The political careers of these presidents, both before they came to office and after leaving it, are also examined. During the period under consideration, only three women were elected presidents. Presidents tend to be drawn from an urban context, except in Brazil. In the case of most, family members had previously held political office. Presidents tend to have had a university education, mainly in law. They also had pursued a long political career before becoming president.

1
Politics in Latin America in the Past Third of a Century (1978–2015)

Manuel Alcántara

Latin America’s transition to democracy, a period that stretches from the 1978 elections in the Dominican Republic to those held in El Salvador in 1994, has been followed by the full consolidation of electoral democracy, with leaders elected competitively, freely and, for the most part, without corruption. This period is unprecedented in the region’s history, not only due to its length but also because, despite the very different models of political development adopted by individual countries, its key features are common to the vast majority of Latin American nations (Alcántara, 2008 and 2013).

The advent of democracy and its subsequent development were a consequence of different causes: on the one hand, a clear effort to redesign institutions in order to guarantee new political regimes after transitions and, on the other hand, the existence of new leadership. The end of dictatorships and military governments allowed the emergence of new elites, and presidents became fundamental pieces of the political system. Presidentialism along with old phenomena like ‘caudillismo’ and populism reinforced the role of the presidency.

Although each country’s transition was crucially influenced by its particular history, the Venezuelan presidential elections of 1998, from the per spective of hindsight and given the events that have since occurred, should probably be considered a key dividing point from the late 1970s to the middle of the second decade of the twenty-first century.

From 1998 onwards, not only did Latin American countries gradually begin to form two blocs, with some espousing the form of political action referred to as ‘Bolivarian,’ but elements that, albeit not necessarily new, were important in defining the nature of the political struggle were also more explicitly incorp orated into the Latin American political agenda. Understanding these processes and explaining the political struggle requires paying attention to who holds power. In that sense, Latin American politics offers wide heterogeneity of leaderships: professional politicians, outsiders and populists are just a sign.

This chapter examines the different periods into which Latin American politics between 1978 and 2015 can be divided. It is based on matters of a political-institutional nature, and of political economy combined with different kinds of leadership. The chapter concludes that there are sufficient grounds for thinking that 2016 may have marked the start of a new political cycle which, despite institutional consolidation, raises questions about the advance of democratic representation.

Recovery of Democracy and Neoliberal Victory in the 1990s

The Third Wave: Democratization Arrives in Latin America

Latin America’s processes of democratization in the 1980s were unprecedented both in their intensity and reach. They were intense in that, despite the constraints discussed below, countries that took the democratic road did not abandon it and, in an historic milestone, distanced themselves from a return to authoritarianism. Moreover, democratization affected the vast majority of the countries of the region, except Cuba: there was no precedent when almost the whole of Latin America had embraced democracy at the same time. Although democracy was restored in the Dominican Republic and Ecuador in the second half of the 1970s, it was not until the 1980s that it became generalized. In the 1990s, however, the optimism that had prevailed at the beginning of that decade began to be widely questioned. A bitter-sweet sensation predominated in analyses of a situation that permitted very divergent appraisals of the results, with a positive view (which was not groundless) pitted against a negative view backed by equally solid and verifiable results (Diamond et al., 1999).

The positive interpretation of democracy’s performance drew on arguments of four kinds. The first cited a generally positive mood in the region, given the advances achieved by all countries, except Colombia,¹ Venezuela,² Peru³ (at least in 1992–2000), and Guatemala.⁴ The second argument points to the indisputable fact of the number of elections that took place, mostly in a clean manner, with respect for the rules and with a quite high level of competition.⁵ Turnout was also more than acceptable, with a regional average of over 60 percent.⁶ Thirdly, it is important to note the existence of clear and free competition between the political parties that serve as the channels for political representation. Both the level of ideological polarization and the number of parties, with a regional average of around 3.6, clearly testify to pluralism, with an ideological spectrum including parties that had historically been excluded from the system (Alcántara, 2004). The fourth set of arguments points out that, throughout this period, institutional mechanisms (rather than force or discretional decisions by a single group, as had historically been the case) were used to handle conflicts and to advance direct political participation. One key example of this was the way in which the region handled the economic crisis it suffered in the 1980s due to the exhaustion of the state-centric matrix and its replacement by a neoliberal model.⁷ The new democratic regimes also demonstrated their ability to deal with different political crises correctly.⁸ Further evidence to this effect is provided by the processes of political refo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• PART I Presidentialism and Political Capital in Latin America
• PART II Personal Power and Institutional Constraints: Case Studies
• Index