Democratic Direction in Latin America

Has democratization weakened in the region of Latin America? Since the beginning of the millennium, it appears that the results are mixed. Depending on who you ask it can either be a positive answer or a negative one. Before going any farther, it should be mentioned how democracy is defined, at least in the reading. It’s defined as free and fair elections, have suffrage for everyone except illegal immigrants that are not citizens, civil liberties are protected by the state, and other actors (such as the military or crime organizations) have a significant say on policies.

First, it is evident that democracy has eroded over time in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Also, it appears that Democracy is definitively weak in other countries such as Guatemala, Haiti, and Paraguay but the problem here is that these countries have always had a history of having a feeble democracy so there’s really no trend in either direction. On the other side, Democracy has grown stronger in the Brazil which is the largest country in the region and remains strongly intact in nearby countries Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Chile. Overall, after a survey was done of the area it was found that the region’s score (on a scale of 0-100) hasn’t really changed all that much (went from 66.5 to 66.1) since 2001. There’s really not a set pattern for the region as whole.

However, that doesn’t mean that there’s no reason for concern. It’s not so much as the erosion of Democracy that should be the cause to pause, but it should be the prevalence of weak democracy across the region. There’s also countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela that do cause more reason to worry. They present “1) the prospect of competitive authoritarian rule consolidating itself on a popular base; and 2) the resulting radicalization of opposition. Malign demonstration effects may also appear” In these countries there’s clearly been national erosion. In these countries the old form Democracy was in one way or another replaced by something less democratic where horizontal accountability was crippled, the political field is unjust, and intolerance towards the opposition is high.

In the cases of Venezuela and Nicaragua specifically with Venezuela taking the lead, there are competitive authoritarianisms where it may look like a normal election but actually has lots of undemocratic properties. Venezuela became an outright dictatorship with Hugo Chávez after the established parties were quickly losing ground then Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua followed suit. These leaders acted as if they had sole power of the government and ruled with an iron fist.

In other countries there are stable democracies but there still lacking in quality. Such examples include Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, and Paraguay. Colombia, the outlier of the group with a higher level of economic development and its tradition of competitive politics, has a lot of holes in its Government. President Alvaro Uribe has gone against the will of the people time and time again and has broken constitutional law. He’s made referendums to allow him to run for re-election twice, he’s been exposed to have links to paramilitary groups within his administration and it’s been found that the army has killed innocent people to make it look like guerrilla groups are responsible for more casualties than in actuality. There’s also the fact that drug money seems to play a key role within the legislators.

Lastly, there are other stable democracies, but these countries have some shortcomings to them. This group (Brazil Mexico, Argentina, Peru, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Panama) which include 4 of the 5 biggest countries in terms of population all have free/fair elections, mostly leveled playing fields and the central governments tend to respect opposition rights. The one thing where they seem to fail is citizenship. Instead of granting universal suffrage they seem to disenfranchise the poor and the indigenous leaving them without a voice. They also seem to not enforce protection laws which lets groups like the police abuse their power and have no consequences. Out of these spotty democracies, Brazil seemed to deepened its democratic ties by ousting the president in 2014 when the economy was falling and discontent grew

Don’t get me, or authors wrong, there are countries with a very strong Democratic standing in the area as well. This group is very small only consisting of three countries: Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay. These countries have all displayed a great example of what a democracy according to the authors and seem to on the path of continuing to do so in the near future.

So what explains all these trajectories? There seem to be four variables. First, countries with higher socioeconomic development have been more likely to switch form transitional to a strong democracy. Second, rebuilding a democracy where it has fallen seems to be a near impossible task. Third, party systems that are institutionalized and democratic favor higher-quality democracy. These three variables don’t give you a forgone conclusion, but it can give you a suggestion as to the direction of the country. The last and most important variable is the leader. How committed he/she is and to what capacity are they to building a strong democracy. Without this, the first three don’t seem to matter as in the case of many previous dictators.

On the whole, it seems rather difficult to tell where democracy is heading in the region as a whole. The definition is subjective, so a definitive answer can’t be given. What is know is that some seem to have falter in the eyes of most people while some seem to have progressed. It can’t accurately foretold where countries head from here, but it can be projected to a degree. Hopefully, especially now with the death of Castro, all the countries in the region swing towards a more democratic regime.