Transitions to Democracy
Magaloni’s The Third of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks offers an effective and pragmatic take on Mexico’s “PRI” party and its 70 year control of Mexican politics and government. Amidst its Latin American peers Mexico is different in the sense that its cold war era style of government was not marked by the battle between authoritarianism and socialism, but rather a weak quasi democratic authoritarianism. Magaloni outlines that this trend in Mexican government was due to the PRI’s unity among elites, its massive electoral support, and the “authoritarian nature of electoral institutions”. As the book goes on to detail the in-fighting instances amidst the PRI, the transition to an actual democracy without electoral fraud in the early 90’s, and the eventual demise of the ever reigning PRI, it is hard not imagine such a system in one’s home country. Where do the differences lie in the electoral fabric between the U.S. and Mexico?
The answer is clear. Although the system devised by lawmakers in Mexico was flawed and led to the 70 year reign of the PRI, it is not uncommon for a nation to elect a party to lead it’s nation more often than another. The United States is extremely unique in the sense that over the past 70 years we have not elected a candidate of the same party more than twice in a row to the Presidency. This has effectively created an era of almost perfect alternation between parties. This has an explanation that is almost directly alternative to the nature of Mexican culture. The bedrock of the foundation of American government is a tolerance of ideas, a hatred of tyranny, and a uninterrupted hope for political balance and debate. The keystones of Mexican politics are rooted in its culture that is family based and derived from Spain. The U.S. ideology was derived from a desire to obtain a just state. One where its experiment in government was going to be its greatest contribution to the universe. A party like the PRI could never exist in the United States unless there was a drastic disturbance in America’s character.
A party like the PRI could never exist in the United States because of their vast corruption. They controlled the government for so long because of their corruption and eventually wove it into the fabric of Mexico. They became the status quo and people accepted that. My question to you would be, do you think the transitions between the two parties is good or bad for democracy and economic success. I think this gives a lot of weight to the time for change model proposed by Abramowitz. I think that this can usually be the indication of a healthy democracy. And usually places that have single party reign for so long have some kind of corruption
I think a culture like Mexico was a prime culture for political domination like we saw. I say this due to the fact that once all the elites became united and after that corruption became the norm for the seventy plus years and I do think the US is special due to the fact that not all the elites are united with the same ideology that you touched on. Mexico at the did not have the healthy debate that is needed for a democracy to thrive. I think it is a little unfair to compare the US and Mexico when it comes to democracy because the US is such an extreme example and how a democracy should look and it is such a high bar that not every other country can reach.
I think the strength of the various institutions within the US and Mexico are the main differences between the two in regards to the dominance of one party. In the US, one party cannot have a complete stranglehold on power in various facets of governance whereas in Mexico, the institutions are much weaker and more like to be controlled.