Democratic Transition
Pertaining to the topic of Democratic Consolidation, Smith and Sells put great emphasis on the importance of elections. In chapter 7, they described the electoral system as the “hallmark of democracy”. I agree with the authors in regard to this statement; without free and fair elections there cannot be a true democracy. But free and fair elections are not the only requisite for a true democracy, in fact we learned in class that Mexico’s PRI held free and fair elections and they held power for 70 years straight. Transition of political power is a trait of true democracy, as all parties and peoples with different political affiliations will be equally represented.
Latin America has had a rough transition to democracy and an equally difficult journey towards democratic consolidation. In page 194-195 of the text, the authors discuss that only three democracies had survived in Latin America which were: Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. In fact, the authors believe that Venezuela has had one of the longest surviving democracies in the region. I disagree with this because violation of basic human rights disqualify a regime from being labeled “democratic or semi-democratic” and classifies it a “authoritarian”.
Considering the events that have taken place in the last year in Venezuela, this regime headed by Nicolas Maduro cannot be labeled as democratic. In the last year, peaceful protestors have been met with deadly force from Venezuelan and Cuban military forces; as well as state sponsored non-state actors that are utilized to suppress the population. Non-state actors take the name of “los colectivos”, and they employ extortion, violence, and murder to maintain the population divided and oppressed. Even prior to Maduro, Chavez had taken authoritarianism and populism since he was democratically appointed president in 1999. He sought to divide the population, showing favoritism towards the low class majority and taking land, work, and companies from the middle and high class citizens.
Finally, the authors do a good job in depicting the violence that was part of democratic consolidation in just about every democracy/semi-democracy in the region. They describe the variables of political strife in such detail that a reader can recognize the distinction and magnitude that varied in different Latin American states. Also, Smith and Sells take into account foreign intervention as an area of high influence during the process of democratic consolidation; which I particularly view as a highly influential factor as well.
I agree with the writer that free and fair elections are necessary if a country will be democratic. Moreover, I concur that free and fair elections do not always mean that the country will possess democracy. The example he provides about Brazil having credible elections, yet the same party remained in power for over 70 years is suitable in proving his point. However, democratic countries such as Britain have been ruled by Queen Elizabeth for over 65 years. Therefore, I do not agree with the writer that for a country to be democratic there must be the transition of political power.
Moreover, I agree with the writer that the Venezuelan government is not a democratic one. For a country to be democratic, it must ensure that its subjects may exercise their freedom of expression and freedom of association. However, the government of Venezuela has recently used police brutality to disperse peaceful demonstrator that disqualify the state from being a democracy. In any democracy, all the people must be treated equally. In light of this, I concur with the writer that Venezuela is not a democracy since it treated better the poor at the expense of the rich and the middle class.
Finally, I agree with the writer that for a country to become democratic there must be violence involved. This is the case since the existing government does not wish to reduce their power or stop oppressing the people. Therefore, they use violence to discourage the people from fighting for democracy. I further agree with the author that foreign intervention helps in bringing democracy to a country. However, not all foreign intervention to bring about democratic consolidation achieves their goal. Sometimes, like in the case of Libya, the intervention leads to the creation of civil war in the country and thus does not promote democracy.
I agree with your point about free and fair elections not being the only indicator. You also have to, when looking at the elections, look at the margin of victory in each election. If it is a consistently abnormally high margin of victory for one party then something suspicious is obviously going on. In response to the comment on this post, I don’t think Britain’s Queen is a good example of democracy not transitioning because my limited knowledge of British politics tells me that they have a monarch and a parliamentary system. And the parliament experiences turnover all the time. I think the key factor to look at when trying to find a true democracy is the corruption or lack thereof from the elected leaders. Without fair leaders, there can be no true democracy
Free and Fair elections are not the only indicator this is true. A regime can have elections that may be considered as free and fair but have consistent election fraud or manipulate the system and therefore is it actually free or fair? An authoritarian regime can have elections just to “legitimize” their right to sit as leader of the government. The PRI I believe fall under the category that did not have any opposition from anyone that was viable and therefore issued a list of individuals that could run for government and even work in the government only if you were a member of the PRI. Therefore they did not have free and fair elections. I think what needs to be taken into account when discussing a true democracy is a few economic ideas such as the GINI coefficient and the ability for business to prosper in the region. True democracy I believe can not prosper without the ability of its citizens to be able to move in social classes and have the opportunity to experience liberties given to them by the government, from taxes and funds gained by employed citizens
I agree with you said that a free and fair election can not be the only indicator for democracy. Actually democracy is hard to define because the quality of democracy is hard to conceptualize, like you mentioned Mexico. I am also interested in the last point you made that foreign investment is a very important for democratic consolidation. Especially for those countries which are weaker in economic. If they would receive the foreign funds, they have to meet some standards, like economic liberalization which may accelerate the democracy progress.
I agree with your opinion that backs up what Smith says about free and fair election- they are the cornerstone of democracy. Your example of Mexico reinforces the idea of illiberal democracy that we have discussed in class as well.
Your note about about Venezuela not being considered a democracy is interesting as well. What do you think has allowed for this pattern of violence and oppression by the government? I think you did a good job processing all the information that was in the article.