Clientelism in Latin America
Two of these articles look to tackle clientelism and why it occurs. This is the idea that politicians trade things to voters in exchange for their support. Auyero states that politicians use two methods to keep the public dependent on them. They are information hoarding and resource control. So they do not tell anyone in the public certain things that may be useful to know. And they control how resources are given out. This creates a culture that is very dependent on the government. This really constricts democracy because the people feel they need the same politicians or political parties in office so they will vote for them out of fear there is no other existing option. However, the connection between the citizen and the politician goes even deeper. As Holzner observes, even when the PAN was challenging and defeating the PRI, in Oaxaco, and offering the same kind of benefits as the PRI, many continued to stick with the PRI. Many newcomers defected to the PAN and were involved in the community more. While those who stayed with the PRI isolated themselves and did not want anything to do with the newcomers. I find this to be quite like the United States’ two party system because it too is very polarized. Both sides isolate themselves and this is not healthy for democracy. So overall clientelism is a very dangerous trend for a democracy. It creates scared citizens who only vote based on that fear. And, although its not the only factor that causes polarization of parties, it certainly plays a large role, as established by Holzer. Both of these trends are also things that appear in United States politics. As I have already stated, the parties here are very polarized and people tend to always vote for the same party that they always have voted for. The US also has politicians that make promises in return for votes. People become dependent on the resource allocation that is done by them and then feel like they always need to vote that way because they are reliant on these resources. They are, in a sense, controlled by the party
Based upon your analysis, what is the appropriate unit of analysis for evaluating clientelism? Is it an individual-level phenomena? Or should we analyze larger groups? Additionally, what qualifies as an “exchange” of support?
You raise a interesting comparison with our two parties here in the US, and I would agree with you that politics, in general, is always about clientelism, with obvious moderations and differences? There is always information withholding for various reasons from the public that they should know about or would like to know about, and as far as resource allocation and funding it is a clear divide with which party is willing to offer what. As opposed to the PAN and PRI who were offering basically the same thing. I would argue that clientelism in Latin America is on a far more extreme scale especially in the case in Venezuela where the government, more specifically the military, is in charge of the food / water allocation to its people. Yes this creates an overdependence on the government but I would argue that it can not last because of the amount of violent events that will occur when not enough resources is being given out.
You make many good points. I agree with you that people feel desperate for the resources provided so they vote out of fear, not according to who they actually want to be in office. I would also argue that they may have a positive relationship with who they vote for as for they associate them with security, resources, and a better community.
I like your comparison to the United State political parties as for many people are loyal to their political party even if they don’t prefer the candidate. But clientelism is different as for people don’t have the chance to vote differently if they wanted. There is a fear in the communities to vote against those who “run their region”. I question the capabilities of political candidates to know for sure how people vote but it could be possible they play their hand in the election if there is bribery and corruption. Clientelism threatens democracy because you can argue that the elections aren’t far because people aren’t actually voting for their preferred candidate.
I like your comparison of Latin American clientelism with the politics of the United States. However, I am interested in how you connected it to the two-party system here. Would you argue that the opposite party here acts as the anti-establishment in Latin
America?
I agree that it is essential to stress that clientelism is a dual strategy: limit information and provide basic goods and services. However, I think another component of this is that, along with restricting public information, political parties will also give off the appearance that they can track how voters cast their ballots. This fear of monitoring in addition to losing certain services drives people to stay with their parties, like the PRI. Furthermore, given how long the PRI was in power, many people who grew up with these services may have been afraid of losing the predictability and reliability of these benefits.
While I see the parallel between US political parties and the PRI, I would be cautious in saying that they are similar because the PRI provides a direct line of goods/services to voters while Democrats and Republicans can only provide a representative voice when creating legislation. There is no guarantee that one’s platform will be delivered.
This was an awesome post! I understand the connection that you make at the end to the United States and the reasoning behind it, but I don’t think that this is clientelism, it’s party loyalty. I grew up very involved in local politics, and a popular trend that I have noticed is that, even on a local level, people make connections vital to survival in their party. Whether that’s jobs, establishing a rapport with legislators and politicians, or other perks, the party system is more about maintaining networks of people who collectively share the same beliefs and work to achieve the same goals through politics. There is a good amount of pay to play going on, but overall, it’s a relatively open system. My legislators aren’t going to try to take away my electricity if I support the opposition, because most legislators have more to worry about than one person’s vote.
Thanks all. Sorry for the delay of responding. In regards to my comparisons to the US, in my mind, what is going on now (and in the past, for sure) could be considered clientelism. Several civil service reforms made it so those filling those posts were the most qualified people, or at the very least, had competency. The situation we see in the US now is just the opposite, people with close ties are appointed to powerful positions over people who have baseline qualifications. On the lower levels of government, the US does a good job of this, but the higher level appointed positions have been filled with cronies who have no experience or qualifications.