Blog Post- New Authoritarianism
Next week’s reading on Collier’s “The New Authoritarianism in Latin America” talks about how the correlation between socio-economic modernization and democracy does not fit with Latin America. Collier uses O’Donnell’s research on Latin American regime types and regime transitions to conclude that political transitions are affected by the timing of the countries’ advanced industrialization, the availability of political/ economic resources (such as oil), and the solutions implicated by the leaders of the countries when the problems and crises of advanced industrialization arise.
Collier first utilizes O’Donnell’s breakdown on regime types in Latin America classify the leadership types in the region. He states that these regime types are important because they will each deal with the problems of modernization and industrialization differently, and the methods which they solve these issues are integral to political transition. According to O’Donnell, the three types of regimes are: Oligarchic, Populist, and Bureaucratic- Authoritarian. In an oligarchic regime, only the elite of the primary sector can politically participate and control the state’s public policy, while the remaining population is unable to participate. In a populist regime both industrial elites and the popular sector can both control state’s public policy. Lastly, in a bureaucratic authoritarian regime, the political elite are both military and civilian high level technocrats, with a public policy usually aimed at promoting advanced industrialization. O’Donnell then states that there are three crucial aspects of modernization, these being industrialization, increased political activity of the popular sector, and the growth of technocratic roles in public and private bureaucracies.
While I agree with some of the facts provided in this article, one thing I believe O’Donnell fails to talk about is the effects of the aftermath of imperialism on government stability. It can be noted that countries that were abused by foreign powers during the Colonial era have political systems that fluctuate in correlation to the economic growth of those countries, such as China’s regime remaining in power for extended periods of time due to their constant increase of economic growth. Another example of this can be seen in modern Venezuela, where the shortages of resources have resulted in a widespread cry for regime change. Another issue I believe is left out is the effect of the Cold War upon Latin American modernization, while he may be hinting to this when he states that the timing of industrialization is key to the problems the countries will face (which I don’t believe he is due to the article being published in 1979), it is integral to the regimes in Latin America due to the fact that the 3rd wave of democracy differs quite significantly from the 2nd wave of democracy (which most of O’Donnell’s examples are from). In the third wave of democracy, every country in the region transitioned to democracy regardless of wealth, which only changed when the country transitioned (wealthier countries transitioned to democracy before poorer ones), and with the third cycle of democracy beginning in 1978, O’Donnell bases most of his findings on the regression to authoritarianism at the end of the 2nd cycle of democracy. It is because of these facts that the statement I most agree with in this article is “O’Donnell’s analysis in no sense represents an accepted interpretation of Latin American politics.”