Liberal and Illiberal Democracy in Latin America

This article examines the incidence of liberal and “illiberal” democracy in Latin America from 1978 through 2004. It demonstrates, first, that illiberal democracy—which combines free and fair elections with systematic constraints on citizens’rights—became the norm throughout the region. Second, it shows that regime transitions most often ended not in liberal democracy but in illiberal democracy. Third, rare events logit analysis reveals that two variables, hyperinflation and presidential elections, had significant impact on movement toward fuller democracy. As a form of short‐term economic shock, hyperinflation generates widespread discontent; given the opportunity to vote, citizens elect reformist opposition candidates who, once in office, remove controls on civil liberties. This scenario substantially increases the likelihood of transition from illiberal to liberal democracy.     

Indigenous Parties and Democracy in Latin America

In recent years, important indigenous parties have emerged for the first time in Latin American history. Although some analysts view this development with trepidation, this essay argues that the indigenous parties in Latin America are unlikely to exacerbate ethnic conflict or create the kinds of problems that have been associated with some ethnic parties in other regions. To the contrary, the emergence of major indigenous parties in Latin America may actually help deepen democracy in the region. These parties will certainly improve the representativeness of the party system in the countries where they arise. They should also increase political participation and reduce party system fragmentation and electoral volatility in indigenous areas. They may even increase the acceptance of democracy and reduce political violence in countries with large indigenous populations.     

The European Union and Democracy in Latin America

The European Union has developed a significant range of democracy promotion initiatives in Latin America since the 1990s. The E.U.'s approach to democracy building has been seen to possess a number of strengths relative to U.S. policy, especially in connection with grassroots developmental imperatives. European policy itself, however, has a number of limitations. It has inadequately conceptualized the linkages between economic and political dimensions; it has insufficiently recognized the potential benefits of balancing bottom-up and top-down approaches. The E.U.'s influence over Latin American governments has remained more nebulous than that of the United States. European and U.S. policies in Latin America have both rivaled and complemented each other. Understanding this might inform both actors' democracy promotion efforts in the region.     

Neoliberalism and Democracy in Latin America: A Mixed Record

This essay argues that neoliberalism has strengthened the sustainability of democracy in Latin America but limited its quality. Drastic market reform seems to have abetted the survival of competitive civilian rule through its external and internal repercussions. By opening up Latin American countries to the world economy, neoliberalism has exposed them to more of the international pressures for preserving democracy that intensified with the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the move to market economics has weakened leftist parties, trade unions, and other proponents of radical socioeconomic reform, reassuring elites and preventing them from undermining democracy. But tighter external economic constraints limit governments' latitude and thereby restrict the effective range of democratic choice; and the weakening of parties and interest associations has depressed political participation and eroded government accountability. The available evidence therefore suggests that neoliberalism has been a mixed blessing for Latin American democracies.