Democracy without Party Regimes? A Comparison with the PRI and an Explanation of Racial Politics in Peru

In Levitsky and Cameron’s article, they argue that political parties are essential for the success of democracy, and use the modern example of Peru’s decomposition of the party system which allowed the rise of an authoritarian regime. They seek to explain how the structural changes in the 1980s allowed candidate-centered regimes to emerge such as Fujimori, and argue that the implications of party system collapse include an eroded capacity to act and mobilize against the regime. They conclude their article by analyzing the future of democratic success in Peru based on three different analytical lenses: a democratic institutions perspective with an optimistic view, an institutionalist which casts some hope for the reemergence of political parties, and finally, a historical-structural perspective with a pessimistic outlook.

Based on what we’ve learned in class of similar regime structures and histories, by comparing this article to Magaloni (2005) “The Demise of Mexico’s One-Party Dominant Regime” I would argue that the PRI in Mexico, a major political party, in some ways eroded Mexico’s democracy in the 1980s. The PRI was in power for almost 80 years until the 1980s, when they started losing local elections, experienced a loss of economic funding, and were charged with fraud. Although they controlled the Mexican political scene with threats of violence to its opposition, the PRI eventually began to split and lose power. The fact that this political party was able to manipulate elections for years to remain in power, and even adding safeguards to the electoral process to ensure impunity from the law, erodes the political process and undermines a crucial aspect to democracy: voting. With a lack of fair elections, and with great numbers of voters feeling guilted or forced to vote for the PRI, a crucial democratic institution was undermined. In Levitsky and Cameron’s article they praise political parties for their ability to facilitate collective action, to check authoritarian regimes, and protect the interests of socioeconomic elites, but do not mention the negative effects of a political party system. This analytical flaw renders this hypothesis inapplicable in other nations, such as Mexico, with a unique political history, by specifically tailoring it to the political history of Peru. I would therefore critique this article because though it is especially convincing when it utilizes specific examples from Peru to support the hypothesis, an informed reader could find instances where the hypothesis does not apply, such as with the PRI. By analyzing more than one instance of the weakness of political parties and their role in the democratic process, Levitsky and Cameron could make an even stronger overall argument.

Geographic distribution of Peru

The implications of Levitsky and Cameron’s article are strong as they relate to the current demographic fragmentation of Peru, which leads to this bleak outlook of the reemergence of strong political parties. They note that “indigenous cultures coexist uneasily with the individualistic notions of citizenship that underpin representative democratic institutions” (25) and explain that a gap between el país oficial and el país real (the political institutions versus established customs and habits) directly correlates to obstacles to mass partisan consolidation. An article by Marisol de la Cadena, and anthropologist and writer on race theory, describes this demographic fragmentation well in her article “Indigenous Mestizos: The Politics of Race and Culture in Cusco, Peru 1919-1991” (200). She describes the cultural differences due to colonialism and geography which render this gap among the citizens of Peru due to race. For example, in Cusco and the highlands of the Peruvian Andes, the major group of indigenous mestizos has a completely different political perspective than Peruvians on the coast, limeños, who are majorly white and properly educated. These differences in race and educational attainment, paired with a history of racial and cultural segregation throughout Peru, can contribute to Levitsky and Cameron’s argument that the inability of citizen consolidation weakens democratic institutions. I would propose that the two authors take the idea of race into account when explaining voter consolidation, because de la Cadena’s linkage between race and educational attainment in Peru could explain why there currently isn’t a strong consolidation of political parties.

Limeños: white politicians from capital of Lima

Traditional darker-skinned indigenous woman from Cusco

Overall, I do agree with the democratic importance of political parties, especially in weakening an authoritarian regime such as Fujimori, but I would be cautious in stating generally that this is the case. As evidenced by the PRI in Mexico, democracy does not always benefit from strong political parties because charges of fraud and voter corruption clearly undermine an important democratic process of citizen voting participation. I would also offer a new lens to analyze the argument, such as considering racial politics in Peru, which is clear in showing the link between racial differences and the consolidation of voting parties.