Beyond the Barricades

Women, Civil Society, and Participation After Democratization in Latin America

Tracy Fitzsimmons

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781136798917
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

First published in 2000. Beyond the Barricades explores how a transition to democracy affects civil society by tracing the levels and arenas of organized participation both before and after democratization. The group hardest hit by this transition to democracy is women who are often surprise to discover that democracies do not necessarily yield more gender equality or more opportunities for participation than dictatorships.

CHAPTER ONE
Theoretical Paradoxes of Participation During and After Democratization

It is difficult to find (volunteer) members.
No one does anything.
Now under democracy, no one works for free.¹
If he (Pinochet) couldn't stop
us (from organizing),
why should democracy stop us?²

Participation in organizations is about knowledge, skills, identity, and power. Beginning at a very young age — be it through a soccer club, a church, or scouts — we learn that organizations may impart skills, create friendships, respond to our needs, or prompt debate. Whether positive or negative, such participation heavily influences us and changes the way in which we interact with the world around us. Likewise, participation plays an influential role with citizens and their political system, training individuals to be leaders and providing citizens with the opportunity to affect policy decisions. This is especially true in democratic polities which emphasize the importance of "the people."

Yet contemporary theorists, in the tradition of liberal democracy, tend to leave "the people" aside and instead emphasize elites and elections. Democracy, according to Joseph Schumpeter's widely accepted definition, is "a political method...that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will" (1943: 250). Dahl (1972) and Tourraine (1988) also posit definitions of democracy that center upon competition for people's votes-, their focus is almost exclusively on elite actors vying for office.

Other theorists acknowledge that democracy is much more than elections and elites. Many suggest that democracy also entails a political system where rulers are held accountable to the ruled (Schmitter, 1986), the military is held under civilian rule (Karl, 1990), the interests of the people are represented and protected (Bentham, 1882), and there exists political equality among citizens (Rousseau, 1762). Proponents of participatory democracy, such as Carole Pateman, take the definition one step further, arguing that every individual living in a democratic society should have the opportunity to participate directly in all spheres of political life (1970: 105-6). Such definitions extend the concept of democracy from the elites to the masses, and by inference, from the national to the local level.

Despite the contestation over appropriate definitions for democracy, there is general agreement that civil society matters for democracy.³ Conventional wisdom established by Alexis de Toqueville (1832/1956) posits that the "thickness" of civil society is essential to the establishment of durable democracies. In other words, the development of civil and political associations, and the relationships among and between them, are crucial to the livelihood of democracy. Such associations are said to serve as a system of checks and balances on government, protect the rights and interests of the citizens, and counterbalance the will of the majority. Citizens must be permitted to associate with each other through organizations so that they can attend to the small matters which governments do not have the interest nor the time to handle. De Toqueville argues that freedom of association may need to be limited in order to assure that organized groups do not overcome the authority of the government, but the potential dangers raised by the existence of associations are preferable to their absence. Were associations to be prohibited, the tyranny of the majority would be assured, and the concept of personal liberty would be destroyed. Associations also help to avoid revolutions, because through them citizens become involved in pursuits that necessitate a relatively stable environment; when given the opportunity to choose, citizens will opt to maintain that tranquillity instead of revolting. De Toqueville considers the right of association to be akin to the right of individual liberty.⁴

Citizens have the opportunity to participate in most stable or consolidated democracies far beyond voting, and their role has been described by theorists as anywhere from life-sustaining to life-threatening for democratic regimes. Yet notwithstanding the extensive work on the role of organized groups and interest associations in advanced industrialized countries, there is very little scholarship on the role of civil society in new democracies or countries returning to democracy (re-democratization).⁵ Issues of participation are key for understanding the prospects for democracy in the developing world, and for identifying the quality, type and durability of the emerging democratic polities.

DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY

It appears that the world may be reaching the end of the fourth wave of democratization.⁶ The first wave of countries making a transition to democratic rule occurred in 1848, the second after World War I, and the third following World War II. Notably, this fourth wave is the first to have a worldwide impact, and also the first not to result from an international war or conflict. The current wave of transitions to democracy began with Portugal in 1974 and subsequently swept over first Southern Europe, then South America and East Asia, and finally Central America and Eastern Europe. Although reverses have been evident, there is still much optimism that this fourth wave will yield a multitude of resilient democratic regimes (Karl and Schmitter, 1992).⁷

Yet the undertow of authoritarianism has historically proven too strong for many countries which have undulated between democratic and repressive regimes. This has been particularly true in Latin America where countries such as Chile, Argentina and Brazil have experienced pendular shifts between democratic and authoritarian regimes. These cases and many others are making a return visit to democracy in this contemporary wave; many wonder if democracy will "stick" this time.

Such speculation is especially important in those developing countries where political instability has aggravated levels of underdevelopment, leading to less economic investment, higher levels of unemployment, greater opportunities for governmental corruption and fewer channels for participation. Poverty levels throughout the developing world continue to be staggering, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean where, according to the World Bank's 1997 World Development Indicators, the poorest quintile of the population receives 4.5 % of the national income, lower than any other region in the world.⁸ Indeed, regional 1997 GDP growth per capita was a mere 3.6% — and just 1.8% between 1991 and 1997. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean found 39 percent of the region's population is poor, and 17 percent essentially destitute. These inequalities translate into: 74 million people being without health care, 92 million without safe drinking water, 147 million lacking sanitation facilities, 47 million adults unable to read and 5.58 million malnourished children under the age of 5.⁹ Democracy brings the hope that political stability combined with more open rule will usher in a host of goods to developing countries that may alleviate their problems, such goods may be an influx of foreign investment, debt assistance, challenges to dominant political and class powers, alternative strategies for alleviating poverty, and greater representation of the needs and interests of the people. While democracy may not fulfill such expectations, if nothing else, a transition to democracy nowadays means that a country becomes eligible for a variety of bilateral and transnational loans, grants, and in-kind donations, most of which are earmarked solely for democratic societies. Therefore, a failure of democracy in these countries not only affects their political system, but also has repercussions for their development levels as well.

What factors lead to a more stable democratic regime that may at least be able to address such expectations? When and how do citizens begin to view democracy as the most desirable form of governance? Can and do citizens participate under their new democracies? These questions are vital to identifying whether the new democracies will be more resilient and enduring than those in the past. Each, in part, can be answered by returning to de Toqueville's argument about the importance of civil society in America and examining it in the context of the developing countries currently undergoing a transition to democracy. A closer look at civil society after a transition may reveal much about the durability and future prospects for democracies that emerge from this fourth wave.

More specifically, a study of civil society in the developing world may indicate what types of democracy will take hold. Will the new democracies be inclusive or exclusive, representative or direct, centralized or decentralized? A study of civil society can pinpoint whether and which actors are represented, at what levels they participate, how they articulate demands, and through which channels the government responds. A study of this sort may also indicate whether the government is the only watchdog, or if civil society also acts as a system of checks and balances on the state and on elected leaders.

Civil society may also influence the resilience or stability of democracy. In the past, ethnic or other group or class-based conflict and economic crisis have posed strong challenges to democratic regimes. Today, in the context of structural adjustment programs that often have adverse distributive effects, do organizations exist that can meet needs or respond to emergencies, thereby alleviating pressure on the state? Are actors and organizations rigid or flexible in the face of change, whether it be an economic crisis or the rise of an opposing political party? Such questions probe whether organized groups will challenge the regime to deepen its democracy, or whether they will push too hard and force its collapse.

Finally, what occurs with and within civil society directly reflects upon the quality and type of the new regime by affecting how deeply the democracy penetrates. In this manner, organizations may challenge the dominant notions of citizenship by encouraging citizens to demand greater rights for individuals and groups under democracy. Among citizens, does the sense of responsibility for the political system reach beyond that of the right to vote? Does democracy reside only in the government, or does it extend into the community, schools and households? As 1 will discuss below, the question of the quality of democracy attempts to go beyond the liberal notion of democracy which emphasizes elections and elites, to also include the perspective of the theorists of participatory democracy who emphasize the role of the masses. Civil society can affect the quality of the regime by widening and deepening the democracy. Organizations have the capacity to encompass more citizens, including the most frequently disenfranchised — women, ethnic minorities, and the economically marginalized. Organizations may provide outlets for the articulation of unrepresented demands and may stimulate participation in politics or community life. Yet it is important to keep in mind that organizations under democracy are not necessarily democratic. Depending on their internal mechanisms and goals, organizations can either serve as training grounds for democratic principles or as nurseries for authoritarian tendencies.

DE-MOBILIZATION OR PARTICIPATION UNDER DEMOCRACY?

As we can see, what happens to the levels and types of citizens' participation has implications for the resilience, type and quality of democracy. Nonetheless, there has been little attention given to, and less consensus about, the effect that a transition to democracy has on the organizations of civil society. Indeed, rival hypotheses exist concerning what is desirable and what actually occurs in civil society following a transition to democracy, as well as that which occurs with the relationship between citizens' organizations and political parties.

First, some scholars such as Huntington (1968) argue that certain levels of socio-economic development serve as a stimulus for political participation. They further argue that levels of economic development are directly related to political instability; modernization brings many things, including democratization, urbanization, and industrialization. These may spur increases in socio-economic levels which often lead to higher aspirations for social and political mobility. Such aspirations combined with democratization can enhance participation within civil society and may even lead to a dramatic increase in the levels of organizing as frustrated citizens join forces to make demands on the government.¹⁰ Whereas authoritarian regimes are explicitly designed to close channels of political participation and to suppress political mobilization, democratization opens new opportunities for the articulation of such demands. Therefore, there will be a boom in citizen participation.

For Huntington, participation is something to be feared if it occurs too swiftly without (or outside) proper channels of institutionalization. Participation can be de-stabilizing to democracy because it may exert too much pressure on the state and raise unrealistic expectations among the citizenry. Such high levels of participation may be perceived as dangerous when they exceed institutional capabilities; therefore, participation must be channeled through political parties or quelled until effective channels are created. Huntington asserts that parties have the ability to extinguish revolutionary tendencies, stabilize participation levels, and control the arenas of participation of other components of civil society.¹¹ He thus considers participation to be desirable only when harnessed and channeled by political parties.

Other theorists concur that participation may be dangerous for democracy under certain circumstances. Lipset and Dahl believe that those in the lower socio-economic levels possess authoritarian tendencies. Therefore, an increase in the participation levels among this group can lead to conflict and instability within a democratic society. Increased participation can also de-stabilize democracy by encouraging particularisms among citizens and distorting the public agenda in favor of specific groups. Both Dahl and Berelson view disinterest and apathy on the part of citizens as being natural and advantageous; limited participation helps to stabilize democracy "by cushioning the shock of disagreement, adjustment and change."¹² Going one step further, Sartori (1962) contends that active participation of the citizenry will likely lead to a de-stabilization of democracy, and perhaps, totalitarianism.

A second position paradoxical...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Original Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• Figures and Tables
• Acronyms
• Chapter One Theoretical Paradoxes of Participation During and After Democratization
• Chapter Two Organizing the Past: Participation and Civil Society in Chile
• Chapter Three Mobilization or De-mobilization? Participation Levels and Democratization
• Chapter Four Organizational Transformation: Taking Politics Out of Democracy
• Chapter Five Organizational Transformation: Recycling for the Environment
• Chapter Six Barren Streets and Empty Households: What Went Awry With Women's Organizing?
• Chapter Seven Surfing the Democratization Wave: A View of Post-Transition Civil Society
• Appendices
• Select Bibliography
• Index