Political Behavior and Political Parties
The author attempts to answer why people in Latin America would accept authoritarian regimes during times of difficulty. He explains that from a Western stand point, democracy is broadly seen as the only legitimate form of governance based on the argument that: democracy gives power to the people, and people utilize power to promote their interests; therefore, people should easily be turned towards democracy. He also explains that this way of thinking derives from the fact that in Western societies, democracy is the only game in town; and that in Latin America, democracy is just a “novel experiment rather than a time tested tradition”. Additionally, he mentions that even though democracy may have its critiques in Western society, there is “no plausible alternative”. Finally, the author explains that democratic consolidation in the region is further complicated by the options of Authoritarian regimes, juntas, and charismatic strongman taking over by popular support.
It is true that countries in Latin America have turned the popular support to autocrats, during times of difficulty. We have historical examples like: Trujillo in Dominican Republic, Pinoche in Chile, and Fujimori in Peru; to mention a few. However, I do not agree completely with the author’s perception of the preference in Western governance or with the statement that democracy is the only game in town for Western countries. It is true that nowadays democracy is broadly seen by the West as the only legitimate form of governance, but this wasn’t always the case. The author states that most Latin American democracies are experiments rather than time tested traditions because they originated in the 80s and 90s. But democracy isn’t a time tested tradition for all Western countries either, there were Autocratic and communist regimes during the 1900s in: Germany, Italy, and Spain. And democracy emerged vastly during the French revolution to replace feudalism and monarch rule in the West. In fact, Germany is considered a Western country and it did not achieve true democratic consolidation until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall. So it can be argued that democracy has been a tradition in some Latin American countries for longer than it has been in some Western countries. Finally, his explanation for Authoritarian regimes, juntas, and charismatic strongman complicating democratic consolidation in Latin America seems to disregard the strife for democratic consolidation that the West went through. It can be argued that it took two World Wars in the European front for democratic consolidation to occur; getting rid of the various autocratic regimes that were there and for charismatic strongman like Hitler, who gained popular support in a “time of difficulty”, to be replaced. My main disagreement with the author is that he lacks regard for political history in the West, prior to the 90s, when comparing consolidation of democracy in the West and in Latin America; and his argument that political culture is different in both regions when in fact it is very similar when comparing the stages of democratic consolidation that each entity has gone through.
While I agree that taking prior struggles of democracy into account is important to the argument of democratic consolidation, I’m not sure if that was the point the author was trying to make. I think it was more meant to say that other countries (not in Latin America) are much more used to the idea of democracy and would prefer it to other regimes. Latin America and its lack of experience with democracy led to the people being used to authoritarian regimes, this can definitely not be said about America. The example of Europe during WW1 and WW2 is accurate in that there was a reversion to socialism/communism, although the people and governments still struggled for democracy. The difference between Latin America as a whole and other countries, is that there is a struggle for democracy in other countries while in Latin America there is acceptance for the normal standard of some other form of government.
There is a distinction between Western democracy and general democracy that must be made. Oftentimes, the West wants to impose its own form of democracy without regard for any cultural or political differences of a certain place. States can still achieve democracy, but it does not have to mold the western form of it exactly. I think there are a couple of reasons why Latin American countries turned to authoritarian leaders in times of crisis. The first being that populist rhetoric sells and wins. While there is normally little follow-through, the electorate gets caught up in populist rhetoric even though it may not be in their own best interests. Secondly, during crisis there remains the problem of social order. People usually seek stability and a knowledge of what to expect. They do not have this during periods of economic downturn or democratic incompetence. This is one of the reasons why authoritarian leaders or even military coups were accepted or at least condoned.
Finally, I agree with your historical analysis of the West and democracy. Western nations often take a “do as we say not as we did” approach, especially with Multi-National Corporations and protectionist policies. This is the geopolitical reality however.
You did a good job in arguing with the author. I am also interested in the point if the historical tradition makes the western countries more democratic. I think each country is different. Germany is not like the UK, Spain is not like Italy. Even they are all western countries they still have differences. I think we can not regard all western countries as a whole but should anayze them individually as well as Latin America.