Third Wave Politics

17 July 2014

Review
Policies: Colonialism, Monoculture,
Import Substitution Industrialization,
Communism, Social Democracy,
Washington Consensus
Balance between freedom, equality,
state power?
Authoritarian regimes (often military
juntas), implementation of Washington

Overview
What did the 3rd wave of
democratization look like?
Who were the most powerful players
during the transition? Who are the
most powerful players today?
Focus: military, civil society, parties,
president

Theoretical Background:
What is democracy?
- Elections (Schumpter)
- Elections + govt responsive to politically
equal citizens (Dahl- polyarchy)
- Dahl + citizens influence govt between
elections + independent govt (Karl and
Schmitter)
- Basic civil liberties + relatively competitive
elections + effective power to govern +
additional features (Collier and Levitsky)
- Procedural minimum definition (elections,
full suffrage, civil liberties) vs expanded
procedural minimum (effective

Confidence in Institutions
% of respondents with a lot or some confidence
From Latinobarometro data and Surveymonkey (n=55)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

LA 2011

LA Average 1996-2010

US Survey

Theoretical Background:
Transitions to Democracy
Bottom up
Top down, elite negotiations
Experience
Modernization Theory
International pressure
International trends (waves/ Dominoes)
Who wins and loses in the process?
Who will be powerful in the new
system?

Key Players:
Military
Ideology
- Created nations, goal of defending la
patria from internal and external
threats
-Argentina officer 1911: the army is
the nation. It is the external armor
that guarantees the cohesive
operation of its parts and preserves it
from shocks and falls Smith 74

Military: Patterns of
Participation

1910s: crisis of oligarchic

rule with rise of working
class
1930s: economic crises,
questioning of exportimport strategies
1960s, 1970s:
anticommunism, Cold War
coups, institutionalized
- Veto coups to prevent
election
- Rivalry within armed

Types of Reformist Military

Rule
Inclusionary (populist): incorporate lower
middle class and lower urban and rural class
into politics. Mobilization, redistribution,
increased state management of economy
(Peru 68-75, Ar 46-55, Panama 68-81,
Ecuador 72-78)

Types of Reformist Military

Rule
Exclusionary: middle and upper class
support, internationally oriented
economic interests, opposition to
popular sector groups. Demobilization,
anticommunism, economic liberalism,
morality, law and order, devotion to la
patria (Ar 66-73, 76-83, Brazil 64-85,
Chile 73-89)
Bureaucratic Authoritarianism:
institutionalized military dictatorship,
alliances with ruling economic and

Economic Policies
Often neoliberalism (mid 1970s: only
Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela
democratic)
-Chile 1973- Chicago Boys

Justification

Commonalities of Military
Rule
- Personalistic and collegial elements
- Commitment to future elections,
country needed to be prepared for
true democracy

- Paradox: more success, shorter term

Key
Players:
Military
Transitions
-60s-80s- Half of LA led by military
governments (coups: Brazil 1964, Argentina
1966 and 1976, Peru 1968, Uruguay 1973,
Chile 1973)
-Performance legitimacy
-Pacted transitions- amnesty, electoral
rules, designated seats, budget, civilian
control?

Example:
Chile
1988 Plebiscite (Additional 8 years?)
Challenges: Voter registration, unity of
opposition, free/ fair / recognized election?
Intl Influence: Ad campaign, pressure:
"President Pinochet should also be informed that
nothing could so permanently destroy his reputation in
Chile and the world than for him to authorize or permit
extreme violent and illicit steps which make a mockery
of his solemn promise to conduct a free and fair
plebiscite."US
create buzz a movement that people could join and
feel safe about."

Theoretical Background:
Types of Democracy
-Formal choices
- Structure of government (presidential/
parliamentary)
- Electoral rules (majoritarian/ proportional
representation
- Participation and Representation (voting,
parties)
- Legacy of pacted transitions

Impact of informal norms? (clientelism,

Institutional Choices
Branches: Strong President, weaker
legislative and judicial branches (military
courts)
Electoral System: Majoritarian (2 parties
expected, 3.3 mean) or Proportional
Representation (3.9 mean)
Constitution: more a norm to strive
toward than a strict basis for rule of law
VP 204

Theoretical Background:
Political Parties
Why are parties important?
- Help citizens make choices, channels
for representation, aggregate demands,
train leaders
-Institutionalization parties makes
politics predictable (stable base of
support, strong and deep roots in
society, central and positive element of
political process)

Theoretical Background:
Political Parties
Decisions: independents? funding? support?
Potential Problems:
-Goals of parties: elect member to positions of
power, conspirator (challenge elections), create
political monopoly (Cuba, Mexicos PRI)
-Ties to public (clientelism, charismatic)
-Ideological polarization
-Fragmentation (dominant party, two-party,
multiparty) related to electoral rules
-Institutionalization (stability of system)

Party Fragmentation

Key Players: Political Parties

Traditional Parties (elite political clubs)
-Conservatives- official religion,
centralized government, regulated trade
and commerce
-Liberals- political and economic
liberalism

Key Players: Political Parties

European-inspired parties (broadbased)
-Radicals- suffrage, expanding
public education, workers rights
(emerged 1900s)
-Christian Democrats- political
democracy, reform
-Argentina: Union Civica Radical
-Chile: Partido Radical, joined with
Partido Social Democracia to form
Partido Radical Socialdemocrata

Key Players:
Political Parties
Nationalist Populist
parties (emerged 30s,
40s)
-Personality, urban
industrial working class,
national development
Left/Right?
Chavez? Fujimori?

Key Players: Political Parties

Left Reform Parties- opposition to
dictatorships
Brazilian Workers Party (PT)
Lulas Campaigns:
1989, 1994, 1998,
2002 (e), 2006 (re)

Key Players:
Political Parties
Revolutionary Movements
Work through the state? Or
attempt to fundamentally
change the state?
Inside: Nicaragua FSLN, El
Salvador FMLN
Outside: FARC, Sendero

Players:
New
Social
Movemen
ts

- Ethnicity
(Indigenous/Afro)
- Gender (LGBT)
- Demand (Land/
Coca/ Antiprivatization)
Greater power from
increased political

Key Players: Military

Current Day
-Today, varying strength,
understanding of mission (internal/
external security).
-If narcotraffic becomes
narcoterrorism or narcosubversion, the
armed forces are going to be there to
smash it. Argentine defense minister
1992
-Guatemala- https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBd3ozFboI

Political Culture
Attitudes and beliefs affecting how we
think about, engage in, and evaluate
politics
- individualism, authoritarianism, weak
law enforcement, legitimacy of
conflict, elitism, personalism,
corporatism, patron-client

Class Structure

Castaneda- LAs Left Turn

- modern, open-minded, reformist, and
internationalist from the hard-core left of the
past.
- nationalist, strident, and close-minded from
tradition of LA populism
- Why elected?
- How have leftist parties transitioned?
Is Castenada correct when he states that the
Latin American left continues to have close ties
to and emotional dependency on Fidel Castro?
In what ways did the fall of the Soviet Union
change perceptions of leftist movements in Latin

Review
-

Types of democratization
Institutional choices
Range of the political spectrum
Military involvement

- Greatest challenges facing newly

democratic countries?

Preview
Democratic consolidation: challenges and
solutions
- How to promote meaningful
representation and effective
governance?
- Challenges: inequality, range of
ideological spectrum, economic growth,
violence, trafficking
- Responses: rise of the left, populism
De Soto: transitioned Perus economy (late

Coppedge- The Dynamic Diversity of

Latin American Party Systems LASA
Paper, 1997.

All definitions from Appendix, pages 14-15.

Right: 1. Parties that target heirs of the traditional elite of the 19th century without moderating
their discourse to appeal to middle- or lower-class voters. (Chilean P. Conservador) 2. Parties that
employ a fascist or neo-fascist discourse. (Chilean P. Nacista) 3. Parties sponsored by a present or
former military government, as long as they have a conservative (organicist, authoritarian, elitist,
looking to the past) message and are not primarily personalist vehicles for particular authoritarian
leaders. (Brazilian ARENA)
Center-Right: Parties that target middle- or lower-class voters in addition to elite voters by
stressing cooperation with the private sector, public order, clean government, morality, or the
priority of growth over distribution. (Argentine UCeD)
Center: 1. Parties that stress classic political liberalism--broad political participation, civic virtue,
the rule of law, human rights, or democracy--without a salient social or economic agenda.
(Argentine Unin Cvica Radical). 2. Governing parties whose policies are so divided between
positions both to the left and to the right of center that no orientation that is mostly consistent
between elections is discernible.
Center-Left: Parties that stress justice, equality, social mobility, or the complementarity of
distribution and accumulation in a way intended not to alienate middle- or upper-class voters.
(Venezuelan Accin Democrtica)
Left: Parties that employ Marxist ideology or rhetoric and stress the priority of distribution over
accumulation or exploitation of the working class by capitalists and imperialists, and advocate a
strong role for the state to correct social and economic injustices. They may consider violence an
appropriate form of struggle, but do not necessarily. They do not worry about alienating middle- and
upper-class voters who are not already socialist intellectuals. (P. Socialista de Chile; any Communist
party)
Other Bloc: Any parties that represent an identifiable ideology, program, principle, region, interest,
or social group that cannot be classified in left-right or Christian-secular terms. (Unidad
Catamarquea of Argentina, Movimiento Revolucionario Tupak-Katari of Bolivia, P. Verde)
Personalist: 1. Parties that base their primary appeal on the charisma, authority, or efficacy of
their leader rather than on any principles or platforms, which are too vague or inconsistent to permit
a plausible classification of the party in any other way. (P. Nacional Velasquista of Ecuador) 2.
Independents. 3. Unusually heterogeneous electoral fronts formed to back a candidate. (P. Agrario