Neoliberalism and Poverty. The unfortunate duo
This article by Holzner brings up some concerning pieces of information on the implementation of neoliberal policies. It suggests that while policies of free markets and electoral representation exist, it may still in the end equate to less representative democracy. This is because the roots of democracy are not deep in these places. Therefore, it is fragile and weak. There is usually no incentive for the elected leaders to represent the poor once they are in office, even if they ran a campaign that say they would do just that. This is a problem that many democracies face. Even many States in the United States unsuccessfully vote in policy that is not what the majority wants more than fifty percent of the time. So while it can be very hard to see what the constituents want, the larger problem in places like Mexico is that the new neoliberal values tend to create institutions that will lean toward that free trade and not to things like helping the poor. The poor are less involved in political activity like protests and discuss politics at a much less frequent rate then the wealthy class. The policies of neoliberalism have caused the poor to have a decreasing income and be less able to get political information. This is a clear example of how, even though a country may be starting to move to democracy, it is still very weak and inconstant. Holzner shows that the poor are not well represented and do not have the finances it takes to get representation. There is no accountability and therefore the gap continuous to increase. States that pursue a policy of neoliberalism are just looking at other countries that are successfully using it and will, regardless of who they leave behind, give it a try in hopes they can become a global player as well.
Holzner discusses how economic barriers prevent poor individuals from getting involved in politics, whether through petitioning or protesting. I am curious to find out if Mexican political parties purposely overlook this increasingly depoliticized sector, because they can maintain their political power without the support of the poor? A very large percent of Mexico’s population live in poverty (46.2% in 2014). Huber and Solt say that 40% of all of Latin Americans live in poverty. This is a huge percent of the population! Political parties that could successfully gain the support of this sector could do very well in elections. The issue, it seems, is that the needs of this sector must be addressed in order to gain their support. As I asked above, perhaps the costs of addressing poverty in Mexico and elsewhere are just too great to even try? As a result, this massive bloc of potential political support is growing ever more apathetic towards political participation.
I agree with your point, however, I think that you dance around the concept of corruption. In Latin America and the US as well, I believe it can be argued that a great portion of the issues with democracy stem from official corruption. I do appreciate though, that you liken the democratic problems of Latin American countries to the ones that we face in the United States.