Latin American Government & Politics Final Exam 2016 (II)

Five symptoms of a weak rule of law. (rule of law= prospective laws that apply equally to everyone including leaders; well-known and clear laws; rule of law is not democracy-- weak rule of law is a state problem)

1. People can't rely on the state to guarantee justice and security 2. People can't rely on the state to protect their rights 3. Violence and crime a. by citizens and "state-sponsored violence" b. link between poverty and violence -- minorities; poor and vulnerable are a problem to get rid of? c. impunity for state agents-- no sanction, no punishment 4. Judicial systems that lack independence and impartiality 5. People taking law and justice into their own hands (result of 2 &3), lynching, private guards, vigilante groups 6. Corruption . use of government officials of public funds or public positions for private gain Significance: Undermines democracy people have no faith in its functioning, inefficient outcomes inbuilt difficult to change in future (path dependence), makes states weaker, deter investors, psychological accommodation, breaks social trust.

Two main types of theories to explain transitions to democracy, one example of each

1960s-70s: decades of "democratic breakdown" → "Third wave of democratization" (phrase coined by Huntington): transition from military or civilians to constitutionally elected governments. Latin America is the second region hit by this wave.Theories of democratization can fit into two groups: (I)MACRO-STRUCTURAL APPROACHES to explaining Third Wave of democratization • Point to a myriad factors including • Ex: LIPSET (1959) o His Main Point: Overall people need to support the regime, I.E. the institutions put in place.. NEED to believe democracy is the best regime for the people! Democracy has two crucial prerequisites ♣ Economic development • Democratization coincides with a higher degree of development - Wealth, education, industrialization, urbanization ♣ Legitimacy • People believing in democratic institutions' potential. Hard though because not everyone agrees! (II)More ACTOR - ORIENTED APPROACHES to explaining Third Wave of democratization • To some degree a REACTION to more structural approaches • Emphasize agency • These accounts at the end of the day, are really more a description of how transition proceeds than a full-blown theory of why these countries transitioned to democracy when they did • Dankwart Rustow (1970) o Identifies one necessary background condition for transition to democracy = national unity o Transitions roll out in three phases ♣ Preparatory phase - major battles between established social forces ♣ Decision phase - political elites bargain ♣ Habituation phase - in which politicians and elites retain their commitment to democracy • Guillermo O'Donnell and Philippe Schmitter (1986) o Probably the best-known account of transitions to democracy o For O'Donnell and Schmitter, the transition process involves 3 steps ♣ (a) a SPLIT within the authoritarian incumbents - that is - transitions usually with internal causes • Hard Line: thinks power will stay their way forever • Soft Line: More moderate in ideology, believe in elections and reform ♣ (b) LIBERALIZATION - Loosening up of authoritarian regime; introduction of certain freedoms ♣ (c) leaders of the authoritarian regime BARGAIN with opposition party leaders (who may be moderates or radicals) • Soft liners close to the opposition (they want reform), not good because if there is a crackdown the hardliners will get rid of them o Several factors affect TIMING and TRAJECTORY of transition ♣ Degree of dissent within and self-confidence of the regime ♣ The degree to which military as an institution was running the show (which was generally the case in Lat AM in the 1960s and 1970s)rather than a caudillo ♣ Degree to which it was the military as an institution was engaged in repression o Two possible critiques: ♣ The theory does not give a causal mechanism ♣ Some think the split is the cause, but that's not really sufficient. IT has to be caused by something... Also even if a split happens, does the rest HAVE to follow? Likely not. ♣ Theory made so it would work generally instead of just with one case, so it's vague. ♣ Ex: Brazil, Chile and Argentina. For Argentina: military lost the Falklands war; the military regime was going down economically (inflation, huge level of foreign debt) => policy failures, which leads to general discontent à mobilized opposition, start of the transition. These theories are part of the "transition literature", with the same debates as for transition from democracy to authoritarian regimes (same groups of approaches: structure and agency).

Presidential Impeachment in Brazil (causes, process, potential consequences)

Causes: Dilma Rousseff is accused of violating fiscal laws by using funds from state banks to cover budget shortfalls → bookkeeping tactic (manipulation of government funds to increase spending in her re-election bid in 2014) "crime of responsibility" Seen by her supporters as a coup lead by the opposition, that her predecessors have carried out similar policies → political move Many tie the success of the impeachment process to the president's low ratings and economic crisis Process: 1. Congress debates charges 2. Chamber of Deputies vote 3. Senators will vote on a measure already approved by Brazil's lower house to put Rousseff on trial. With majority vote Dilma will be suspended and substituted by her Vice President- Michel Temer. (CURRENTLY AT THIS STAGE, SENATE VOTES ON THE 11th) 4. Trial begins. The senate will then have 180 days to conduct hearings and a final vote (need two-thirds majority), as a special tribunal to permanently remove the president. If they have majority of votes Temer will serve out the rest of her term through 2018. Consequences: Possible undermining of Brazil's democratic system → facing a serious threat as political uncertainty increases. Government is stagnated, as there is a great tensions between different government factions. [What if she is guilty? **Creates precedent that every time there is an unpopular president, there will be an impeachment process motivated by political goals.] Big divide in the country, between those in favor and against the impeachment. However, as Cunha, the speaker of Brazil's lower house of parliament, was suspended on the 6th, some may argue that Brazil is creating stronger institutions and rule of law.

3 Types of transition to democracy and one country that underwent, one example of each

Chile → controlled transition (1973-1990) • Allende ousted, fear of marxist style regime • 1980 new constitution written by Pinochet, who comes in through a US backed coup. Set up what the democratic regime would look like in the future. • At the same time, outlined what his role would be in the post-transition • 1989 Plebiscite vote on yes or no for Pinochet. The people vote "no!" Pinochet steps down. • 1990 new president elected but Pinochet is still commander in chief, there are some senators for life, new binomial electoral system favors right Argentina → transition through defeat • "El Proceso" rules 1976-1983; one of the most brutal in Latin America's history • Madres de la plaza de mayo: weekly silent protests in main square protesting for the disappeared (starts in '77) • '82→ economy going to hell. Argentina tries to distract with Falkland Islands war. Defeated. (transition through defeat) o Badly underestimated the British response • Transition to democracy, military generals are put on trial and convicted... sent to jail Brazil → pacted transition • Refers to split within regime à la O'Donnell and Schmitter • Starts in 1974 but doesn't transition until 1985 • Tancredo Neves wins indirect election and is widely popular! But... he dies the day before inauguration. Who's supposed to replace him? • Replaced by the elected VP Sarney. Had been in line with military before so he had their support. Context: Following military regimes, so-called "Third Wave of democracy" hits Latin America. Reasons → see democratic transition theories by Lipset, O'Donnell and Schmitter, Rustow (ID Number 25!) Significance: Pacted transitions supposedly supposed to play out the best, but path to transition can be diverse.

Contestatory left vs. Moderate left

Contestatory left vs. moderate left "Moderate Left" (Weyland) • UNASUR • Chile, Brazil (Lula, Rousseff), Uruguay (Vasquez, Mujica) Characteristics: • Roots in communism but interested in democratic institutions • Use neoliberal policies, with chagrin • Social policy (like Bolsa Familia) "Contestatory Left" (Weyland) • ALBA Characteristics: • Neo-populists (Chavez, Morales) • Ideologically similar to older populists • Fight neoliberal reform • Rewrite constitutions to consolidate their power Context: Why did leftists spring up? o Economic reaction to neoliberalism o Fall of the USSR → US less focused on preventing left from taking power o When you add democracy to the dynamics of inequality in Latin America, you see an opening of political space for leftist interests Why did we get two lefts? o Moderate left had internalized constraints, thought they had to operate within certain constraints to be a legitimate political party ♣ Institutionalized framework, consistent policy regime, etc o Moderates also tended to emerge in countries with few natural resources o Contestatory left says: screw the constraints! ♣ Jettison constraints and institutions ♣ Easier to do when you have lots of resources o Resource wealth also plays role ♣ More resource wealth allows it to not have to consider constraints o Radical parties emerge where there are less institutionalized parties Significance: Return of populism, ideological shift among leaders in Latin America and impact on regional/global organizations and alliances, debt accumulation and hyperinflation in certain countries as result of leftist policies, continuity of poverty and inequality display that ideological change in executive government is not enough to confront the challenges that have lasted in the region for centuries

Participatory governance, including one clear example

Definition: • Governing councils, generally at municipal level, in which half the seats are allocated to representatives of civil society and half are elected officials. Deliberate on social policy relevant to the community Context: • Ex. Created by Brazil's 1988 constitution. One council in particular created later in Brazil dealt specifically with housing . This one focused on the particular communities in which it was implemented. Allocate funding for housing. Significance: • Research shows that they have positive effects on provision of social programs. • Helped to give access to government officials • Municipal councils adopted a broad range of beneficial policies • Research also showed that a strong civil society is not necessarily a prerequisite for success. These actually build a strong civil society by implementing the public into important decisions

Conditional Cash Transfers

Definition: • Redistributive policies aimed at pulling individuals out of poverty and mitigating inequality • Government gives regular cash payments to households (typically to the mothers) living in poverty on the condition that they fulfill certain requirements. Households must utilize medical resources, and kids must regularly attend school. In order to encourage families to send kids to school instead of having them work, CCTs are designed to cover the cost that families bear by sending kids to school. • Enforcing regulations is sometimes difficult Context: • Example: Bolsa Familia • Talked about CCTs in the context of lecture on poverty and inequality, and then again in lecture on incorporation. They are tools for mitigating poverty and inequality, but can also act as mechanisms of incorporation Significance: • Has not proven to be particularly effective in turns of improving educational outcomes. Makes kids goes to school, but doesn't really improve the schools themselves • Helps mitigate the intensity of poverty, and does bring people out of poverty short-term. But doesn't necessarily solve property long-term • Can foster dependency • Research is not very positive in terms of incorporation: On one hand, encourages activity in the community and integrating in local decision-making. But on the other hand creates tensions in the community (for example between those who receive CCTs and those who don't)

"Turn to the right" in Latin America- with examples, and being sure to discuss how convinced you are this is happening

Definition: In recent years, there has appeared to be a turn to the right in Latin America. Starting in the early 2000s, there was a turn to the left. With the election of "moderate leftists" such as Bachelet and "contestatory leftists" such as Morales. However, since 2015 a series of right-wing (or at least moderate conservatives) have been elected around Latin America. These leaders are fiscal conservatives, see the market as the tool for reshaping the economy, drawing back social policies • Examples o Macri replaces Kirchner o PPK or Fujimori will be the next president of Peru • Significance: It is not clear whether there is actually a turn to the right or a turn away from the left (or the current leaders that represent the left). In Latin America, there seems to be a trend of people just wanting something else besides the status quo. Might just be a reaction against the excesses of populism. Regardless of the motivation, it is a very real trend

Hernando De Soto and the Instituto Libertad y Democracia

General Description • De Soto researches the costs and importance of the law for the formal and informal sectors. • Research Question: Why do some people prefer formality and others informality? After talking to informals, their biggest complaint was the law. • Legal context influences individual decisions on whether to operate formally or informally • ILD: decided to conduct a number of field studies and analyses to identify and quantify this influence. • Findings o Formals and Informals alike waste tremendous resources o Costs of formality: these influence the decision to join or remain in formal activity or outside of it ♣ Costs of access: The average person does not make use of legal avenues to formality because the costs are too high. It is a rational decision on part of the individual b/c costs are not worth the benefits of legality. • Costs of access include the costs of access to industry. ILD wanted to see how long it would take to set up a small garment factory in an industrial area on the outskirts of Lima. They decided to stick to two rules: 1) it had to be believable, 2) they wouldn't use go-betweens (bribes) to get their business up and running. A person of modest means would spend 289 days on bureaucratic procedures to fulfill the eleven requirements for setting up a small industry. The cost of compliance was very high, 32x the monthly minimum living wage. -> ABSURD TO CLAIM THAT THE LAW CREATES NO PROBLEMS ♣ Costs of remaining formal: refers both to costs directly imposed by the law (taxes, compliance with bureaucratic procedures, obligations to administer personnel in a certain way...) and indirect costs (instability of the legal system, insecurity of property rights...) De Soto and ILD focus on direct costs -> A company's prosperity depends less on how well it does its work than on the costs imposed on it by the law -> BAD LAW o Costs of informality: the costs of the lack of protection and facilities that arise when one operates outside of legal institutions ♣ Cost of illegality: costs of avoiding penalties, costs of evading taxes and the labor laws ♣ Costs of the absence of a good law: property rights. ♣ Costs of the inefficiency of extracontractual law ID Context Place / Time • Peru • 1980s Consequences / Significance o Importance of the law: ♣ "Good" Law: guarantees and promotes economic efficiency ♣ "Bad" Law: impedes or disrupts economic efficiency o The unnecessary costs of formality derive fundamentally from a bad law; the costs of informality result from the absence of a good law. o Too many bad laws + not enough good laws = impede economic growth -> poverty / inequality -> shape social and political life -> enshrined in institutions -> bad laws (vicious cycle)

Alvaro Medina

General Description: -Judge who was willing to indict Pablo Escobar (notorious and wealthy Colombian Drug Lord / exclusive cocaine trafficker) -No other judges willing to do this until case reached Gustavo Zuluaga. Zuluaga, a justice on Medina's court, mounted a serious investigation. Zuluaga was repeatedly threatened, and on January 18,1984, a man stopped Zuluaga's wife, beat her, stole her car and pushed it off a cliff. -Case: It was this crime—the beating and intimidation of Zuluaga's wife and the destruction of her car—that Medina was investigating.*Remember that justices themselves investigate crimes to determine guilt or innocence* -Received a lot of death threats "plata o plomo," silver or lead, a bribe or a bullet -Ended up being killed along with other members of his family -Other judges had taken bribes or dropped the charges out of fear -Medina wanted to break this vicious cycle and restore the judicial system and restore citizen's trust in the government and rule of law ID Context: Place / time -Medellin, Colombia -Killed April 8, 1985 -Consequences / Significance: (see narco machine) -Shows weak rule of law -Judges paid off -Little evidence, common occurrence -Few arrests, even fewer cases with convictions -Corruption -> Injustice -> Violence -> more breakdowns -> more violence

Inequality, and three negative consequences it produces

Inequality: disparity of income; comparison in a country of rich and poor gap Result of: -Colonialism -Political incentives; ineffective taxation; factor endowments; disparity in health and education; discrimination; economy just cannot grow; weak state; Tenure system Negative Consequences: Vicious cycle Crime Continuing inequality shapes social and political life and can imperil democracy (creates class distinctions and resentment) Produces more opportunities for corruption and bribery Powerful economic and social elites have run roughshed over constitutions, laws and contracts (people with money have a much louder voice than the poor. The wealthy usually end up in office and can control and maintain the cycle) Huge social distance Evidence that inequality is REALLY bad for growth *Recent evidence that inequality has been falling since 2000. Why? *Important because inequality is one of Latin America's biggest problems and many believe it has strongly inhibited economic development. Key issue right now!!!

"You will die 3 times"

Narco Machine (When they torture you, kill you and when you become a statistic) Difficulties: Narcos ubiquitous, hard to find • People afraid to combat them • Don't trust government to help them due to weak RoL Mexico: • Calderón: sent military, which increased violence Reguillo: • Narco-violence: kills people and leaves their bodies out...very abstract o De-centralizes violence • How we should fight narco-machine o Citizens must be counter-machine o Use language, art, writing to undermine machine o Need to create a new space to restore humanity • Criticizes Calderón's policy, says it has failed to address violence Rosenberg • Talking about Medellín, Colombia • Colombia born of piracy, contraband, greed • La Violencia (1948-1958) • 1970s: rise of cocaine, worsened violence • Story about how Alvaro Medina indicted Pablo Escobar when no one else would • Most drug traffickers concerned about being extradited to US, not worried about o Colombian justice system • 20 murders happen a day Suggestions on how to combat violence and drugs • Strengthen government and judicial system--you need the police, prosecutors, and judges • Need a sense of community, people willing to speak up- people need to stop fearing the narcos • Judges willing to indict Importance • Demonstrates weak rule of law o Judicial system lacks independence, impartiality o Poor people can't get help from judicial system o People taking justice into their own hands o Corruption

Five key tasks political parties perform in a democracy

Parties serve as a linkage institution--they link people's concerns to the policy agenda. They perform five key tasks: 1. Pick candidates: almost no one gets elected without winning a party's endorsement - or a party's nomination. Primary elections provide citizens with an opportunity to select who their party will nominate. 2. Run campaigns: through their national, state, and local headquarters, parties coordinate political campaigns. However, television (combined with money) has made it easier for candidates to campaign on their own. 3. Give cues to voters (Party image): most voters have a party image of each party - they know (or think they know) what Republicans and Democrats stand for. Voters use this party image - or perception of the parties - when making electoral decisions. 4. Articulate policies: within the electorate and government, each party advocates specific policy alternatives 5. Coordinate policymaking: parties coordinate between the different branches of government. Virtually all major public officials are members of a party. When they need support to get something done, the first place they turn to is their fellow partisans. Significance: Parties are incredibly important for the survival of the democratic process. Without parties and competition between them, modern democracy is unthinkable.

Civil Society (definition, roles, results, risks)

a. Definition: comprises groups and associations in society i. That are independent of the state ii. Where citizens associate according to their own interests and wishes iii. Potentially for some political end 1. ( Eg. union → mobilization, NGO → contention, Sect → institutionalization) 2. These functions, in turn, play different roles in democratization: developing citizenship, shaping the public agenda, or changing institutions through collective action b. Roles . Aggregate interests, articulate those interests i. Organize people, facilitate society's means of expression ii. Reach the State c. Results . The State no longer is managing everything d. Risks . Since civic groups have no designated sphere of authority, geographically or functionally overlapping organizations may claim to represent the same populations i. which social issues and identities are seen as public and political. ii. Corruption can also be a problem e. Significance (Results/risks) : * debate of democratizing civil society One of the challenges of new democratic regimes in L.A is the challenge with representation. After the dismantling of the corporatist system of state-society relationship as well as the decrease in the importance and quantity of Unions-- The introduction of democracy allowed for new tissues between society and the state needed to be formed as means of society connecting with the state. Byrsk points to such challenges can on some civil society groups that make them unalloyed→ democratic deficit leading to sometimes problems with accountability, representation and autonomy of such groups . He also argues that a democratic regime is key for a strong civil society but a strong Civil Society does not always lead to a democratic one( Ie popular social forces have recently sought to undermine democracy in Ecuador and Venezuela, and democratic voters have returned former authoritarian leaders to power in Guatemala and Bolivia) Democracy does not just require more civil society but better civil society → thus the debate of the democratization of some civil societies is a challenge. Also the increase in sources of representation lead to the creation of new political parties . because it is a form of organization of the interest in the society along with means to communicate them to the state, a form of organization arounds need, and those know have the power to influence via votes

Democracy with adjectives (begin by offering the definition of democracy that we have adopted)

·Democracy: (procedural minimum) a system of governance with free, fair and frequent elections, universal suffrage, and some basic individual rights (freedom of expression/speech, right to vote, associate,...). ·Most countries in Latin America are seen as democracies, but these post-authoritarian regimes are very diverse, in part because of different institutional configurations. ·At the transition, Latin American democracies faced a lot of challenges (economic challenges à debt, inflation; building democratic institutions; consolidation of democracy, controlling the military => economic, social, and political problems). ·Scholars looked at these regimes and recognized them to be "democracies with problems" => they use adjectives to show their doubts/worries about these democracies. 550 different adjectives have been attached. ·These are democracies at the core, but with a plethora of different problems. ·2 examples: - O'Donnell → delegative democracy: the power is delegated to the president and, once elected, the president governs as he sees fit and does what he wants to do (no matter what he was elected for), what he thinks is best (// military's mindset). He's the main source of public policy. Strong executive and weak legislatures. We get this because parties are weak, people don't know what they stand for. Antidote for O'Donnell: strong institutions. Examples of delegative democracy: Argentina (Menem), Brazil, Peru (Fujimori), Bolivia, Ecuador. - Zakaria → illiberal democracy: when democracy (election and universal suffrage) and constitutional liberalism (rule of law, separation of power and basic civic liberties) are coming apart. When we don't have these two at the same time it's an illiberal democracy. Examples: Argentina (Menem), Peru (Fujimori), Ecuador (Bucaram). Why do we have this? It has to do with sequencing: because in Latin America we have democracy before liberalism. Why do we care? Because it doesn't legitimize democracy to people (they don't have rights); it relates to Latin America weak constitutionalism; these democracies that emerged in the 1980s have proven themselves to be durable, even though Latin American countries address their challenges more or less well/fast. Challenges to transition to democracy, economy democratic institutions, legitimacy from public, consolidation

Delegative democracy

• A form of unconsolidated and un-institutionalized democracy, mired in an area between authoritarianism and representative democracy (RD). • In DDs, citizens "delegate" the power to the leader: whoever wins election gets to run the country as he/she sees fit (along with his tecnicos). • Little to no horizontal accountability, "more democratic but less liberal" than RD. • Context: Term coined by Guillemo O'Donnell in his like-titled piece during the early 1990s. Response to the observation that most countries undergoing a "democratic transition" were not transitioning towards RD. To O'Donnell, most blatant forms of DD within LA are Argentina, Brazil and Peru, which suffer a lack of institutions and whose presidents imposed a flurry of policies without horizontal accountability • Importance: DD comprises one of the many "adjectives" to democracy (Collier). It sparked a lot of literature on categorizing consolidation failure, and DDs remain today (Argentina and Brazil, for two. Maybe Venezuela?).

Brown areas

• Brown areas are a visual representation to characterize territorial regions within countries where there's low/nil state presence. State presence defined by effective bureaucracies and effectiveness of properly sanctioned legality. • Brown areas have "low intensity citizenship" whereby certain groups of people (mostly class-based) cannot rely on proper representation by police or courts (i.e. gov't institutions) but can nevertheless vote (so still technically fits within Dahl's polyarchy but is by no means liberal democracy). • Context: O'Donnell used this term to evaluate RoL throughout Latin America during '90s, a time when countries had become nominal democracies with lots of problems that sparked questions as to why they weren't fully democratic. Blue = strong rule of law, green = high degree of territorial penetration but lower functionality/class penetration. Brown = all low. Examples: Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico. • Significance: Brown area → weak rule of law. O'Donnell is saying that countries can't consolidate with a lot of brown areas, meaning functionally strong and geographically pervasive rule of law is necessary for consolidation and for showing which type of democracy a country will end up having. Also deviates away from the common notion of polyarchy as representative of the democratic-ness of a country.

Globalization- definition, two central aspects, two examples of each aspect

• Definition: A broad international tendency toward greater interaction of people across national boundaries of all types- economic, cultural, national, etc. • Two parts: o First, Things crossing border more easily and more often. o Second, integration in the form of international and supranational organizations • Things crossing borders more easily o People- migration from Latin America to the U.S. o Products- enhanced trade between countries. Things can be shipped quickly and cheaply • Integration o UNASUR- regional trade agreement ♣ 12 South American countries ♣ Brazil is the leader (kind of) ♣ Moderate liberalization o ALBA- ♣ More aggressive version of UNASUR ♣ Politically oriented, associated with socialist or quasi-socialism ♣ Led by Cuba and Venezuela ♣ Integrates healthcare and education • Significance: Globalization, by some accounts, has had positive effects. Helps economies grow, share technology, increases accountability across national lines. On the other hand globalization has had negative effects on Latin America (more of a dependency theory approach on the negative side it seems): encroaches on national sovereignty, may exacerbate inequality, Latam exploited by global economy

New Social movements (two goals, two strategies, two examples of each aspect)

• Definition: Heterogenous collections of groups and individuals employing contentious tactics and organizing challenges to political structures and social values. • Causes - neoliberal reforms weakened unions/labor-based parties → representational gap for the popular sector out of which emerged new types of parties, organizations, and social movements • Served the function of connecting society to the state - social movements were able to reach the government and represent the people (where small civil society organizations and NGOs failed) • Goals: Collective rights, citizenship, democratic rights, make government respond to dire economic situation from the neoliberal reforms which disincorporated unions and labor-based parties which were part of civil society and representation (reform not revolution) • Strategies: contentious tactics such as: • protest • consciousness raising and community building to build movement (let poor know that they are poor) • Example: Cacerolazo pot banging protests during Argentina currency crisis 1998-2002, unemployed workers Piqueteros in Argentina putting up pickets in middle of street, stall daily life and economy to force government to address their concerns. Brazil landless movement during the 1980s regarding the displacement of people to the amazon and then again kicked out of amazon.CONAIE in Ecuador (indigenous and peasant movement that shut down highways and invaded Quito, forcing the government to enter into negotiations) • Significance: Again made possible because of democracy, people demand accountability from government, especially relevant in post neoliberal reform times because of negative effects on poverty and inequality, but questionable efficacy when social movements are not entirely political, cannot affect real change but once they are co-opted by a party and become political lose their independence. • They have had strong success in Latin America in the post-neoliberal era as the popular and marginalized sectors of society have come together to challenge the lack of representation (lost/severely weakened as a result of neoliberal reforms). New social movements are distinguished by their heterogeneity of interests, and this presents problems/challenges in forming a coherent, unified platform. The success of these movements are also tied to gaining support of the middle class. Similarly, in order to effect change, movements often have to work with the state or engage in politics (either directly by forming a party, or by working closely with political parties) - this presents the risk of co-optation.

An institutional combination that may be detrimental to democracy: describe the institutions themselves and then give three reasons why the combination may be bad for democracy

• Mainwaring says that presidentialism (institution) + multi party system (electoral system/institution) lead to democratic instability. • In general, limited moderate ideological polarization enhances the prospects for a stable party competition and democracy • Presidentialism: fixed term, tough to impeach (making violent overthrow by opposition more likely), more likely to establish legislative deadlock, it's possible to elect presidents with little political experience, President independently chooses cabinet • Multiparty: more parties→more deadlock, more parties reduce the number of elected /officials who are in favor of the President (and his party) • Combining these two institutions lessens the chances of consensus and the amount of legislation that ultimately gets passed o Immobilizing executive-legislative gridlock-- destabilizes democracy o Ideological polarization more likely • Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela o Limited polarization ( longest standing democracies in Latin America) o Venezuela → example somewhat greater ideological spreads between the farthest left and farthest right relevant parties, relevant left and center-left parties that relevant political contenders even if they have not be able to win elections • The ideological distance tends to widen as the effective number of parties increases as is the case in Brazil • SIGNIFICANCE? o It is difficult to sustain and modern mass democracy without institutionalized party system This observations have implications for the discussions about what institutional arrangements would be most beneficial for building solid democracies → many democracies in Latin America have been stable but are low quality democracies, and this arrangement has proven to not be the best institutional arrangement, it is important to understand what dynamics work in order to have better quality stable democracies in Latin America FIX IDEA

La Violencia/Gaitán

• Sparked by the 1948 assassination of presidential candidate Jorge-Eliécer Gaitán. • 10YR civil war in Colombia, fought between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, who organized as armed self-defense groups and as guerrillas fighting in rural areas. • La Violencia was centered around who was to ultimately control Colombia's vast agricultural land. Perpetuated low level civil war under democratic regime. • One authoritarian interlude in 1953-56 • La Violencia cost ~200,000 lives. • Colombia tries to stop the violence between both parties in 58' • Frente Nacional (1958-1974)** o Split presidential terms between the two parties o Democratic election but each party goes on and off for four years (Libs-Conserv-Libs-Conserv) o BOTH calmed and caused violence o Disenfranchised anyone not a conservative or liberal o Leads to guerilla groups (Farq, ELN) • Farq: Established in 1964 as military wing of colombian Communist party. Historically has been very violent and has kidnapped many; has been much debated with Colombian leaders (and globally) as to whether it is a formal army although its power in government has been influential nonetheless. RECENT AGREEMENTS/PEACE ACCORDS TO STOP KIDNAPPINGS AND VIOLENCE. o Ultimately coalesced with other groups that started during La Violencia who were already fighting etc. o Shows there were MASSIVE socioeconomic problems AND people were locked out of politics so they took ALTERNATE ROUTES to power! • Paramilitaries: Group supported by government; not the army one step removed and contracted by state.. Lots of power

Debt Crisis

• The Debt Crisis was a financial crisis that affected various Latin American countries primarily during the 1980s (in some places it started in the late 1970s) and led to the the so called "lost decade" • Latin American countries could not pay the interest on their loans • It was caused by a number of factors (the perfect storm), starting with the oil shock in the 70's when OPEC raised prices on oil and were able to make a large profit ("petrodollars"); these petrodollars were invested in banks in the developed world and then borrowed by Latin American countries. In 1979, the U.S. raised the interest rates on their loans, inflation also ate up the value of the loans, consequently, Latin America was in further debt and many countries default on their loans as a result. Catalyzed by 1982 Mexican default. • The reason this debt crisis occurred was also because of the fact that Latin America believed it would be able to pay back their debt in the future with their revenue from exporting commodities, but this was halted by the recession in OECD hence could not buy LA exports Significance: It impacted the commodity-based economy showed its dependence on the global economic powers. More importantly, this crisis fostered the implementation of neoliberal reform that caused all other political and economic effects.

Illiberal democracy

• There's a difference between Democracy (free, fair, frequent elections with universal suffrage) and Constitutional Liberalism (checks and balances and list of basic liberties--NOT informal institutions!) • West Europe and US have had strong mix of both democracy and const. liberalism but in much of the Third World the two concepts are separating from each other • an illiberal democracy has no constitutional liberalism • Uruguay has both, Venezuela has weak constitutional liberalism, Cuba doesn't have either, Singapore has constitutional liberalism but not democracy • Because Latin America did not have a historical base of liberalism, Latin america failed to develop constitutional liberalism which often fosters the development of a strong democracy. Instead, Latin America formed democracy first and then attempted to develop constitutional liberalism. • Weak constitutional liberalism can reduce the strength of democracy because without const liberalism democracy has hardly any benefits.

Informal institutions + one example (showing how it meets all criteria of an informal institution)

• What are they? Socially shared rules, created communicated and enforced usually outside officially sanctioned channels • They are NOT: culture, weak institutions • To be an informal institution it needs to: o Be an established rule or guideline o Be rooted in widely shared expectations among all o Produces a behavioral regularity o Be enforced in some fashion • These institutions can be social, economic or political • For example: corruption, black market, mercantilism, etc. • A real world example of this is "el dedazo" in Mexico, where presidents hold office for one term and then "choose" the next president-- PRI o This was a tradition in Mexico 1929 to 1982 o During this time the PRI won all of the elections, people expected it, it was routine every year o Did hold actual elections, but by choosing the PRI candidate they were basically choosing the winner of the election • Significance: Work together with formal institutions, sometimes in tension