The Fate of Liberal Democracy: An Analysis of Colombian Democracy

In chapter 12 and the Epilogue of Smith’s book, we are given a concise summary of the history of democracy in Latin America and are presented with some questions and forecasts for the future of democracy in the region. In chapter 12, Smith describes the changes in democracy seen throughout the 20th century, where it was “limited and tentative” in the early 1930s, and moved to become stronger electoral democracies from 1978 to 2000, where almost 90% of all people lived under an electoral democracy. The “pink tide” movement is described as a precursor to the current “shallow” democracy of today in Latin America. In the Epilogue, the author begins to analyze some reasons for democratization or the lack of it, and uses the definitions of a democracy to analyze current regimes. He lists four issues facing modern democracies, including the issue of “stateness” (strong democratic states) and the protection of citizen freedoms and civil rights. Using these definitions, Smith once again dubs Latin American democracies as “shallow” as many are still illiberal. However, he is optimistic as he believes that with time, democracy will deepen to replace illiberal democracy with liberal democracy.

Mainwaring’s article (2015) does a similar job in analyzing regimes over time, discussing the erosion, stagnation, and stable democracies that still experience shortcomings in the modern age. He notes that since 2000, many democracies have eroded (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia) with others still feeble and experiencing illiberal democracy. He is suspicious of the “stable” democracies because many still face violence, corruption, marginalized populations, and weak economies, such as in Colombia and Guatemala. He ends with describing four trajectories for the future of Latin American democracy, and notes that the third wave of democratization shows positive progress even if few nations have advanced much towards becoming liberal democracies.

These three articles fit in perfectly with my investigation paper on the strength of democracy over time in Colombia. In my paper, I analyze historic and political events in Colombia throughout the late 20th century and into today, and use the pillars of democracy to judge the Colombian government accordingly. From my research, I have argued that Colombian democracy today is not as strong as it seems, since its recent history shows a weekness of “stateness” and an ability to protect its citizens’ rights and freedoms, which are discussed in Smith’s Epilogue as necessary conditions for liberal democracy.

One important article that sums up Colombian weakness of state is a report by Joel Gillin called “Understanding the causes of Colombia’s conflict: Weak, corrupt state institutions” (2015). In his report, Gillin tracks major historical and political events in Colombia’s recent past such as the rise of guerrilla forces and their ties to newly-emerging drug cartels, both with which the government showed weakness in their response. Gillin even argues that the government allowed cartel moguls like Pablo Escobar to launch into power by conceding to his demands after major attacks throughout the country. This article is related to these three readings as it goes more in to depth of the reasons and influences on democratization in Latin America. In the Epilogue, we learn that changes in U.S. foreign policy after 9/11 affected the strength of Latin American democracy economically, and in Gillin’s article, we learn that Colombian democracy is also threatened, but by mostly internal factors (except for Plan Colombia).

My research and its implications also directly relates to Mainwaring’s article “Cross Currents in Latin America” (2015) because it uses a holistic approach in analyzing regime changes and their relation to democracy. For example, Mainwaring creates a chronology of democracy in the 20th century and looks at it through a social, political, and economic lens. He compares nations facing similar struggles such as Haiti, Guatemala and Paraguay experiencing difficulties in strengthening their democracies due to having weak economic performance and regional political polarization. At the end of my investigation paper, I explain how my findings may prompt more research of other Latin American nations’ democracies over time since it is probable that other strong democracies, such as Chile and Costa Rica, have experienced weakness in their rule of law, stateness, or commitment to protect its citizens’ rights and freedoms. Mainwaring’s article is a nice complement to my research because it lays out the value in comparing regimes overtime to find patterns of democratic strength. In comparing Colombia to nations with similar histories, we may find that some are likely to slip back in to being illiberal, such as is described in Smith’s chapter 12.

“We don’t want military; we want schools and hospitals.” The government could not protect its citizens from widespread violence

Escobar spends a fleeting moment in Congress before being revealed as a violent drug trafficker (1984)

Finally, the three articles, including Gillin’s report for my own investigation, nicely forecast the future of democracy in the region, and give factors that can influence and affect this process. In Mainwaring’s article, he describes that international factors such as U.S. influence may undermine democratic processes in Latin America, and explains how the strength of economic institutions is related to democratic strength. I would argue that these factors are important in forecasting a nation’s democratic future, but in my own research, I found that domestic influences and factors are just as strong as international ones. Within Colombia, the government’s challenges in handling its own people (FARC, ELN, drug traffickers) gives us data from which we can forecast its democratic strength in the future. While international factors play a role, like the U.S. involvement during Plan Colombia, I believe that since the government had such a hard time controlling insurgents in its own nation, its future may be dependent on how its government face these threats in the future.