Latin American Politics Study Guide 2

What is the difference between abstract and concrete judicial review? What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori judicial review? Mention Latin American countries that utilize each procedure (one per rule)

-Abstract - Abstract review can take place in the absence of an actual case - in response to the demand of some specific political actors, such as members of congress or the executive. Brazil -For concrete review to take place, there must be a real case or controversy.This means that only after a law is in effect or a specific action has already taken place can the court find it unconstitutional - Argentina -Priori- If the constitutional review can take place before a bill is formally enacted, also known as ex-ante - Costa Rica -Posteriori -When a constitutional review can only take place after a law has been adopted- Mexico

Some Latin American countries, like Uruguay, Venezuela, and Peru have some institutional attributes that differ from the pure presidential type. Explain what those attributes are.

-Peru has been considered by scholars to be a semi-presidential country. The constitution of 1993 establishes a position of cabinet chief. This official as a government spokesperson and is hired and fired by the president and has the duty of naming and removing other ministers with agreement of the president. Also in the Constitution of 1993, a provision allows the unicameral congress to dismiss a member of the president's cabinet or the entire cabinet. For this to take place, a vote of censure needs to pass with the support of a majority of the members of congress. After the dismissal of two cabinets, the president has the power to dissolve congress and hold new elections.14 Moreover, the Peruvian constitution allows the cabinet chief and individual ministers to introduce a confidence motion associated with specific legislative proposals. If the motion of confidence (with its associated bill) is rejected by congress, the entire cabinet or the individual minister making the motion must resign -The constitution of Uruguay, enacted in 1967 and reformed several times after its inception, allows congress to censure ministers or the entire cabinet. Such a motion must garner a majority vote in one chamber of congress, and then in a joint session of both chambers. If the vote of censure in the joint session passes with a two-thirds majority, the minister or ministers must resign. If the motion of censure passes with a majority smaller than two-thirds, the president may veto it. After the veto, congress may override with a three-fifths majority, after which the minister or ministers must resign. However, if, following a veto, congress votes in favor of the motion of censure but does not reach the threshold required for an override, the president can prevent the minister(s) resignation and proceed to dissolve congress -In Venezuela, the position of cabinet chief, called the executive vice-president, was introduced in the 1999 constitution. This official is appointed and can be fired by the president. The duties of the executive vice-president include coordinating the activities of the cabinet, serving as a link between the executive and legislative branches, and managing personnel appointments in the state bureaucracy. 17 Venezuela's constitution indicates that members of the cabinet as well as the executive vice-president can be dismissed by a vote of censure. Such action requires the support of a three-fifths supermajority in the country's (unicameral) congress. Moreover, the president can choose to dissolve congress if the executive vice-president is dismissed three times over the course of one six-year presidential term.

Critics of presidentialism have argued that many political crises confronted by Latin American countries could have been avoided or resolved less painfully if a parliamentary system had been in place. Explain this argument. Why was presidentialism, presumably, a stumbling block to resolving these crises? How would parliamentarianism have helped to overcome these crises?

A parliamentary system lacks the rigidity of presidentialism ,the executive in a parliamentary system needs the support of a parliamentary majority to remain in power. When a majority party exists, it determines the composition of the executive. If the largest party lacks a parliamentary majority, it is forced to bargain with other parties to craft a government acceptable to most legislators. Since it is parliament that chooses the executive, dual democratic legitimacy is not a problem. For example, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile for and won around 36% of the vote. His opponents had a majority in congress, opposed Allende's major policies, and accused the president of undertaking various unconstitutional actions. In this conflict there was no safety valve to provide a way out of the executive-legislative crisis. The breakdown of democracy in Chile in 1973 might have been avoided had a parliamentary system been in place. Allende could have dissolved congress and called for a new election to legitimize his standing, or the 138 opposition could have voted no confidence in the government and either replaced it with one acceptable to them or called for an early election Venezuela -The country's descent into authoritarianism accelerated after the government party lost a parliamentary majority in congress in the elections of 2015. Executive- legislative deadlock paralyzed normal lawmaking and in the face of extreme political polarization, the executive began to govern around congress. This crisis intensified political violence and unconstitutional maneuvering on the part of the government. If Venezuela had a parliamentary system in place, the available institutional tools might have provided a democratic way out of this impasse.

Name four institutions aimed at judicial independence, and describe how they may enhance such independence.

Appointment Rules -Independence is more likely if neither the executive or legislative branch has unilateral control over appointments. Length of Tenure- Many experts on the judiciary have argued that short appointments ultimately reduce judicial independence by creating incentives to please those institutional actors who can help judges secure coveted jobs after their term in office is over. Most agree that judicial independence is enhanced when the length of tenure is longer than that of the appointers. Removal Proceedings- When judges fear arbitrary dismissal by political actors, judicial independence is threatened. Clauses specifying the number of judges in higher courts -One other institutional trait that is considered to influence judicial independence is whether the constitution stipulates the number of members in Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal. When the specific number of judges in the court is written into the constitution, it is more difficult for political actors to modify the rules to pack the court with friendly appointees. In such cases, a constitutional amendment must pass to change the size of the court. But if it is just a matter of law, it can be changed more easily, which facilitates court packing by political actors

What are some of the features of bicameralism typically utilized to classify legislatures. How are Latin American bicameral congress grouped under such classifications?

Bicameral congresses can be classified according to the similarity of preferences between each chamber and the relative powers allocated to each one. Divergent preferences depends on such factors as the electoral rules, the size of the chamber, and the length of the mandate. • If the members of each chamber represent different constituencies and are elected at different moments in time, they are more likely to have different inclinations. • The constitutions of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile tend to have the greatest number of mechanisms to enhance divergence between the two legislative bodies. • The Dominican Republic and Paraguay are examples of countries with institutional mechanisms that promote the greatest level of preference congruence across chambers. Arrangements considered to affect the degree of power symmetry include the ability to initiate, modify, and reject legislation as well as the ability to exercise oversight, influence executive appointments, and participate in the impeachment process

Latin America is a region of the world where rules for mandatory voting are very common. What are the pros and cons of compulsory voting?

By increasing turnout, compulsory voting enhances the legitimacy of the elected representatives. 2. It fosters political equality because it primarily increases the participation of the economically disadvantaged, who would otherwise be less likely to influence the elected representatives. 3. Voluntary voting makes political polarization more likely by increasing the relative influence of the hard-core partisans that show up to vote. Also, it's been argued that voting is a duty rather than a right, a task necessary to preserve political liberty Compulsory voting is an infringement of individual freedom (voting is a right not an obligation and must be protected against state intrusion). 2. Compulsory voting violates their right to not go to the polls, which is a form of speech - a signal of their dissatisfaction with the available candidates, a protest against the political system, or perhaps, mere indifference. 3. Compulsion may be justifiable if the failure to vote imposed substantial costs on others, but this is not the case since non-voters do not impose a cost on voters and, most likely, increase the influence of those who choose to vote. 4. Voluntary voting makes the typical voter more informed and educated than the typical non-voter

Which countries allow for indefinite reelection of the president? What are some of the potential problems of unlimited presidential reelection?

Four Latin American countries allow unlimited reelection of the president: Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This ban on reelection was supposed to prevent already powerful presidents from perpetuating themselves in power. It was a check on the power of the president; when presidents lack sufficiently strong countervailing institutions, such as strong and independent legislatures and judiciaries, unlimited reelection may promote tyrannical tendencies. • Requiring turnover in the executive branch makes those out of government more likely to embrace democracy by giving them a greater chance to one day be in government. • When presidential reelection is possible, the incumbent's advantage may diminish the fairness of the election and weaken the chances of the opposition. Incumbents may use public resources to sway potential supporters, intimidate opponents, coerce interest groups, bend campaign rules, or build a personality cult

Several analysts of presidential politics have argued that divided government or fragmentation of power among the elected branches tends to support judicial independence, whereas unified government undermines it. What is the rationale behind this claim?

Judges are independent when they make decisions sincerely according their own ideas of what the law requires, without undue political or private pressures conditioning such decisions -Hence, independence requires that judges have a significant level of autonomy from the executive and legislative branches. -Montesquieu 1784: liberty requires that the powers of judging be separated from the legislature and the executive.

Describe some of the mechanisms used in Latin America legislatures to oversee the executive branch

One prerogative available to the legislature to exercise its oversight function is the ability to call ministers or other high-ranking officials to answer questions on matters under their purview ("interpelaciones") Members of congress can also request information from the executive. Another way in which congress may exercise oversight is through investigative committees. Constitutions allocate to the legislative branch substantial authority to oversee the execution of the budget., but for the most part, Latin American legislatures have fallen short of adequately checking the actions of the executive in this area of policy. • This is particularly evident with respect to the monitoring of executive compliance with approved budget rules. The executive's reassignment of expenditures during the execution of the budget, the recurrent use of off-budget expenditures, and the allocation of funds via executive decrees work to undermine legislative oversight.

What is the difference between "the personal vote" and "the partisan vote"? Name one rule that promotes the "personal vote" and another that promotes the "partisan vote."

Personal Vote - Refers to context where politicians pursue votes based on their individual popularity rather than on the reputation of their party Rule - Electoral rules that promote the personal vote have been associated with more frequent contact between legislators and their constituents that those that promote a partisan vote. - Partisan Vote- candidates should be less likely to run on their personal traits and more likely to campaign as members of a team. Rule- In the case of the former, legislators from the same party are more likely to behave in a unified fashion in congressional votes.They are also more likely to provide nationally oriented public goods and less likely to spend funds on inefficient localized projects. Studies have also shown that party-centered electoral rules tend to increase electoral turnout, which is assumed to be the result of parties' greater inclination to encourage individuals to vote.

What are some of the most significant institutional differences between US and Latin American presidentialism regarding the power of the executive

Presidents in Latin America are given greater authority over legislative matters than the U.S. president. This power is codified in various rules that influence policymaking. The right to initiate bills; veto power; influence over the legislative agenda; and executive decree power. In the U.S., presidents do not have the right to initiate bills directly; to enact their programs, they require surrogates in congress to introduce and push forward particular bill. In Latin America, however, presidents have the authority to introduce bills directly. In the case of the U.S., the executive veto gives the president an opportunity to reject the entire bill. All Latin American countries give the executive this power, although the threshold for override varies. In many countries,a two-thirds majority in each chamber or unicameral is required to override the president's veto. In addition to the block veto, most Latin American countries allow presidents to veto just parts of the bill, presidents have wide authority over which part (section or words) of the bill they are allowed to remove. In the U.S. Congress, the legislative agenda is firmly controlled by the majority party, and the president lacks the formal authority to interfere in the daily scheduling of bills. This is not the case in Latin America, where presidents have powers to influence the legislative agenda. In Latin America, executive decrees tend to have a greater reach than the executive orders of the American president. The fourth and final type is the delegated decree, in which congress chooses to temporarily cede authority to the president to legislate on certain specified matters. While the U.S. Congress cannot delegate legislative powers to the president, . But federal courts have the power to determine whether the delegation is constitutional.

What is the most common rule for electing presidents in Latin America? What is the most common electoral rule for choosing members of congress in Latin America?

Proportional Representation (PR) • It is the most common type of electoral rule utilized in Latin America for choosing members of congress Plurality was the most common form of choosing presidents in the early 20th century; Majority runoff is now the most common form of choosing presidents ( Under this rule, a candidate is elected president if he or she wins more than 50% of the vote. If no candidate passes the 50% threshold, there is a runoff election between the top two vote-getters)

Why do we consider proportionality an important outcome of electoral rules? What specific feature of proportional representation is closely associated with less disproportionality between the share of votes and the share of sets?

Proportionality is greater under proportional representation rules than under plurality rule - the latter boosts the number of seats distributed to large parties and penalizes small parties, which leads to disproportional results. While the first focuses on providing an opportunity for minority parties Within PR, district magnitude (DM) matters. High DM, more proportional results; low DM disproportionality increases. Under this rule, each party presents a list of candidates for each district; the votes cast in an electoral district are aggregated by party; and seats are allocated to parties according to their share of the district vote The guiding principle of proportional representation is that the distribution of seats should be based on the share of the vote. It is designed to incorporate minor parties into the legislature.

Describe the three essential functions of legislatures. Include examples.

Representation-Members of congress are expected to represent their constituents Example: Bill initiation: In Colombia's Senate, geographically targeted bills are more likely to be initiated by legislators whose votes come mainly from geographically concentrated constituencies Lawmaking- Latin American legislators initiate a large number of bills addressing local and national issues Example-the number of bills introduced each year by Chilean legislators is on averse to one per member while, in Argentina and Peru, the yearly average is greater than four per member Oversight- Effective oversight can help deter corruption, restrain the power of the executive, and make governments more accountable. Example:In Chile, congress can pass a resolution asking questions of the executive, which must be answered within 30 days.

Since the 1980s, 20 Latin American presidents have fallen from power before the stipulated end of their term in office without military intervention. How did their terms come to an end? What are some of the factors/variables associated with presidential interruptions?

Resigned, Impeachment, and Dismissed Four Variables Associated with Presidential Interruptions: Democratic Longevity, The performance of the economy, Congressional Support for the president, Street Protest

What are the two sources of committee power in legislatures? What are some of the reasons we tend to consider congressional committees in Latin America as weakly professionalized/specialized?

There are two main sources of committee power: one has to do with the prerogatives given to the committee by the rules of procedure, the other with the capability of its members. The strength of committees and the professionalization of its membership are important research topics among legislative specialists • Congressional committees are also strengthened by experienced legislators and a stable membership. • In several chambers in the region, legislators frequently switch committees throughout their term in office, which lowers incentives to specialize. Discontinuity in committee membership is associated with lower expertise, absenteeism, and infrequent meetings. Argentina - low reelection rate and legislators prioritizing careers at the provincial level lead to an amateurish committee system. • Brazil - although there tends to be a stable core within each committee, the total composition tends to vary as frequently as from one meeting to another. • Costa Rica - legislators are not only forbidden from running for reelection but also frequently required to annually rotate to a different committee. • Colombia - the yearly rotation of committee chairs and other chamber authorities is stipulated in the country's constitution.

What were the three most common restrictions regarding the right to vote in early 20th century Latin America? What were some of the arguments in favor of such restrictions?

Up until the 20th century, the most common restrictions in place had to do with wealth, education, and gender. Restrictions based on wealth were justified by arguing that the poor had no will of their own - they would be manipulated. he argued that a voter needed a certain level of education and social status to cast an informed and free vote, independent of the dictates of others. Furthermore, he maintained that many voters who had such qualifications had chosen not to vote because they felt that their vote would have been drowned by those of the unprepared masses