Comparative Politics of Latin America

Democracy at Last?

Daniel C. Hellinger

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000220650
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Globale Politik

This new edition brings Daniel C. Hellinger's brilliantly succinct and accessible introduction to Latin America up to date for a new generation of educators. In crisp detail, Hellinger gives a panoramic overview of the continent and offers a unique balance of comparative politics theory and interdisciplinary country-specific context, of a thematic organization and in-depth country case studies, of culture and economics, of scholarship and pedagogy. Insightful historical background in early chapters provides students with ways to think about how the past influences the present. However, while history plays a part in this text, comparative politics is the primary focus, explaining through fully integrated, detailed case studies and carefully paced analysis. Country-specific narratives are integrated with concepts and theories from comparative politics, leading to a richer understanding of both.

Updates to this new edition include:

• Revisiting contemporary populism and the global emergence of right-wing populism.

• The pros and cons of extractivism; the impact of Chinese investment and trade.

• Contemporary crisis in Venezuela; expanded treatment of Colombia and Peru.

• The role of the military; LGBTQ+ issues; corruption; violence; identity issues.

• New sections on social media, artificial intelligence, and big data cyber technologies.

• Examination of post-Castro Cuba; Costa Rica's exceptionalism.

• Broader study of environmental movements; how governments relate to social movements.

• Examination of personalist parties; refugee and asylum rights.

• Interventionist policies of the current U.S. administration.

• Early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparative Politics of Latin America is a thoughtful, ambitious, and thorough introductory textbook for students beginning Latin American Studies at the undergraduate level.

PART I
Comparative Politics, Democratic Theory, and Latin American Area Studies

Source: Manuel Arnoldo Robert Batalla/Contributor

1
Conceptions of Democracy

Focus Questions

• When we speak of a “third wave of democracy,” what do we mean?
• What is “polyarchy” as a model of democracy? How does it compare to other conceptions of democracy?
• Should we consider social and economic equality to be a measure, an outcome, or a precondition of democracy?
• What are some alternative views on liberal democracy and polyarchy in Latin America?

IN THIS CHAPTER we will delve more deeply into some of the themes explored in the Introduction, where I suggested that there are some alternative ways of thinking about democracy, and where I briefly argued for including social and economic equality as well as participation in assessing the democratic condition. I also suggested that Latin Americans might not always share the notion that the only brand of democracy that would work best for them is liberal democracy. First, however, we will review the more orthodox conception of democracy that prevails in the field of comparative politics. You may very well find your own view closer to it than to my own.

One common term that comparativists use to describe a modern liberal democratic state is “polyarchy.” Rarely do you see this term in everyday speech or in the news. But over the last 50 years, “polyarchy” has migrated from academia to the world of policy. In the late 1970s, beginning with the formal commitment of President Jimmy Carter (1977–1980) to the promotion of human rights, and then the creation of a federally funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) by President Ronald Reagan (1981–1988), the United States made defense of democracy the goal of its foreign policy—or at least so it professed. During this same period, most of Latin America was emerging from harsh military dictatorship, and the transition to civilian rule was welcome but still fragile. Then, the years 1989 to 1991 saw the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union. Liberal democracy and capitalism seemed triumphant.

In 1994, at the Summit of the Americas in Miami, all countries in the hemisphere (except Cuba, which was not invited) proclaimed themselves committed to liberal democracy, also commonly called “representative democracy.” The summit’s Statement of Principles (1994; emphasis added) stated,

[R]epresentative democracy…[is] the sole political system which guarantees respect for human rights and the rule of law; it safeguards cultural diversity, pluralism, respect for the rights of minorities, and peace within and among nations. Democracy is based, among other fundamentals, on free and transparent elections and includes the right of all citizens to participate in government.

This political model was tied explicitly to an economic model, capitalism, and more specifically neoliberal capitalism based on a reduced role for government and an expanded role for the market, both nationally and internationally.

A key to prosperity is trade without barriers, without subsidies, without unfair practices, and with an increasing stream of productive investments. Eliminating impediments to market access for goods and services among our countries will foster our economic growth…. Free trade and increased economic integration are key factors for raising standards of living, improving the working conditions of people in the Americas and better protecting the environment.

We, therefore, resolve to begin immediately to construct the “Free Trade Area of the Americas” (FTAA), in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated…. [We] are committed to create strengthened mechanisms that promote and protect the flow of productive investment in the Hemisphere, and to promote the development and progressive integration of capital markets.

In late 2001, the governments (again, not including Cuba) of the hemisphere formally adopted the Inter-American Democratic Charter, stating, “Essential elements of representative democracy are the holding of free and fair elections as an expression of popular sovereignty, access to power through constitutional means, a pluralist system of political parties and organizations, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Take note of “pluralist,” a term closely connected to polyarchy. Most importantly, the charter states, “any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state’s government in the Summits of the Americas process.” It went on to note the agreement of all signing governments to develop

a mechanism for collective action in the case of a sudden or irregular interruption of the democratic political institutional process or of the legitimate exercise of power by the democratically-elected government in any of the Organization’s member states, thereby fulfilling a long-standing aspiration of the Hemisphere to be able to respond rapidly and collectively in defense of democracy.

Many Latin Americans have questioned the “Washington Consensus,” as these agreements came to be known. Even as the ink was drying on the Democratic Charter, social movements, some having grown out of demands for an end to military rule, were already challenging its emphasis on representative democracy and free-market capitalism. They began to stress vesting decision-making not just in the institutions of government but also in many other places—communities, the workplace, ethnic groupings, and so forth. Latin America did experience economic growth, but this growth accentuated inequality and failed to alleviate poverty sufficiently. After 1990, a bottom-up process had begun to press for a democracy of greater participation, social equality, and inclusion. Social movements sought to transfer more power and control over decisions to women, people living in poverty, Indigenous and Afro-descendent peoples, and others who benefited little from economic growth. Buoyed by social movements, the region experienced an electoral swing toward the left—the Pink Tide, first evident in the election of President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela in 1998.

Social movements and Pink Tide leaders questioned not only the adequacy of liberal democracy, but also the type of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union. The Latin American left remained supportive of Cuba’s defense of its sovereignty; the collapse of Eastern European communism and the island’s struggles to maintain the social and economic accomplishments of the 1959 revolution also encouraged this rethinking about socialism.

Liberal Democracy in the Real World of Latin America

In the United States, we often associate the term “liberal” with politicians who favor government regulation of the economy and welfare rights, but in its original form liberalism refers to a political ideology that sees individual choice as the essence of freedom. Liberal democracies assume the following:

• The individual takes priority over the community and the state; the foundation of society and the state is a decision taken by individuals to form associations. As far back as ancient Greece, other political philosophers have questioned this kind of individualism and contended that an individual is a product of human society—of the family and group-life that naturally make up a political community.
• The market is preferred over government planning or other forms of allocating economic resources and resolving economic conflicts. Government action is reserved for exceptional circumstances—severe economic crisis, megaprojects that only the state can afford, threats to national security, and key areas of human welfare (such as education and health). Most modern-day liberals have come to advocate government regulation and welfare to ameliorate market shortcomings, but they continue to regard such political action as an artificial interference of the “invisible” hand of the market. Market life is natural to humans; political life was created by artificial convention.
• The right to private property is a “natural right”; that is, property, including wealth, is accumulated mostly as a result of some combination of hard work, creativity, and risk on the part of individuals. Property rights are seen as individual human rights.
• Liberals seek to limit the power of the state through constitutions that (1) keep many social and economic questions off-limits to government and (2) divide the powers of government into branches that compete against one another—“checks and balances.”

Is it possible for a government to be “liberal” without being democratic? The Canadian political philosopher C. B. MacPherson (1972) pointed out the historical fact that liberal democracies established limited government, individual property rights, and a market economy before all citizens had obtained the right to vote or enjoyed equal rights before the law. For example, Jefferson, Washington, and other founders were Liberals but tolerated slavery, barred women from voting, and limited the vote to landowners in some states until the 1830s. In Europe, liberalism and capitalism existed well before workers achieved the right to vote. In Latin America, economic policies were imposed by factions of landowning elites who created “liberal” parties (see chapter 4). Nearly 100 years later, some of the region’s fiercest dictatorships (e.g., in Chile between 1973 and 1989) adopted liberal (market-oriented) economic policies.

This latter-day emphasis on laissez-faire capitalism came to be known as neoliberalism, “neo” meaning “new form of.” Instead of monarchs and blue-blooded aristocrats, the target of neoliberal plans in Latin America was a shift away from active state policies to promote economic development by protecting and subsidizing industrialization and toward reliance of the private sector, foreign investment, and free-trade policies as the main forces for economic development (see chapter 6).

For Review

What does the term “liberal” signify in “liberal democracy”? What does “neoliberal” signify?

Liberalism, Pluralism, and Polyarchy

Perhaps the political scien...