The struggle for democracy in Latin America has been marked by a correlation of historical, political, economical and social factors. These elements have influenced the development, challenges, and progress of democratic governance in the region.
By understanding why it has been so difficult for democracy to develop deep roots in Latin America, we are able to explore the complexities and challenges we face nowaday. We are provided with a foundation and a comprehensive understanding of political systems, governance and societal dynamics that help us develop informed policies and strategies aimed at strengthening democratic institutions and processes in the region.
The state of democracy in Latin America is influenced by a wide range of variables. Throughout this study, we will focus on the next hypothesis: The specific historical experiences and trajectories of individual countries in Latin America, including periods of authoritarianism and strong military enforcement, have a profound impact on the current state of democracy.
This study will be carried out in the form of an exploratory, analytical and hypothesis method. The purpose is to analyze the variables that influence the lack and difficulty of establishing deep democratic roots in the region; specifically in countries such as Chile, Mexico and Venezuela.
In first instance, it is important to define what we understand by democracy. In etymological terms, democracy means the power (kratos) of the people (demos). However, it is important to go beyond and understand the concept of democracy from a prescriptive and descriptive definition. Sartori argues that a democratic system is supported by democratic deontology; what democracy is cannot be separated from what democracy should be. This is where the definition of democracy becomes more complex. (G. Sartori, 2012)
Lately, modern governments might have or not, practices and institutions that are considered democratic. These practices respond to a representative model of democracy where political parties and people in office represent the people’s general will. Anibal Perez-Liñan (2004) provides 4 dimensions that determine the democratic level of competitive regimes: (i) free elections (political alternation), (ii) universal suffrage, (iii) protection of civil and political rights, (iv) elected authorities must exercise the power.
Now, it seems pertinent to make a periodic recapitulation of the democratization processes in Latin America. With the independence of the Spanish kingdoms in the 19th century, there were a series of political, social, economical and cultural transformations that shaped the foundations of Latin America. The consolidation of these National States was marked by periods of political instability (internal conflicts and struggles for power). Throughout this period, Latin America experienced a wide range of political models: republics, empires, dictatorships, and democratic governments.
The 20th century in Latin America is characterized by processes of industrialization, urbanization, military dictatorships, revolutionary movements, economic crises and democratization. In order to understand the complexity of this period, we will study three practical cases: Chile, Mexico and Venezuela.
Chile: From 1823 to 1833, we can observe a period of consolidation of the Chilean nation state with a series of constitutional trials that aim to give a legal and constitutional order to the Republic. The Constitution of 1826 was promulgated, which sought to establish a more liberal and democratic political system. There were frequent changes in the presidency and conflicts between different political factions.
From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century (1901-1920) we can observe a parliamentary period, which is characterized by the primacy of the legislative power and a political system in which the National Congress had a predominant role in decision-making.
In 1920, a significant change occurred in Chilean politics with the arrival of Arturo Alessandri Palma to the presidency, marking the beginning of a period known as the «Presidential Republic.» Which was characterized by the strengthening of the executive branch, a series of constitutional and political reforms, and an emphasis on economic and social development. This period represented a transition towards a more presidential political system and a greater concentration of power in the executive. Later on, the Revolution of 1924 occurred, triggered by a series of political and economic tensions. Followed by a period of political and economic stabilization after listening to popular demands.
The Chilean political environment took a turn in 1970, with the arrival of Salvador Allende to power (his election marked a historical milestone as he was the first democratically elected socialist president in Chile). However, in 1973 a revolutionary movement occurred due to policies of nationalization, agrarian reforms and other changes promoted by the Allende government.
Additionally, Allende’s lack of relations with the military sector, deepend the vulnerability of his government. Giving rise to General Augusto Pinochet’s revolutionary movement and military dictatorship. Dissolving the National Congress and suspending political parties. During the dictatorship, serious human rights violations were carried out. The government of Augusto Pinochet represents a dark stage in the history of Chile, marked by repression, human rights violations and significant changes in the country’s economy and politics. His departure from power marked the beginning of a new democratic stage.
In the late 1980s, there was growing internal opposition, as well as international pressure for a democratic system to be established. One of the most significant milestones was the 1988 referendum (democratic procedure through which citizens express their opinion or decision on a specific issue with binding effects for the government) in which Chileans had the opportunity to decide if they wanted Pinochet to continue in power for eight more years or if they preferred a return to democracy. The «No» won with a majority of 55%, marking a turning point on the path to democracy. From that moment on, negotiations began between representatives of the Pinochet government and the opposition to carry out an orderly transition. This involved agreements on key issues such as amnesty for certain regime crimes and the democratic election of a president. In 1989, presidential elections were held, resulting in the victory of Patricio Aylwin, candidate of the Coalition of Parties for Democracy, a coalition of opposition parties. On March 11, 1990, the transfer of power ceremony took place, marking the return to democracy in Chile after 17 years of military rule.
México: After the Mexican Revolution, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) was consolidated as the dominant party in Mexico. Although there were elections, the PRI maintained an almost hegemonic control of power from 1929 to 2000.
This hegemony was sustained, in part, through the use of corporatism. This political strategy consists in establishing interest groups organized and regulated by the State to collaborate in making political and economic decisions. During the PRI government, corporate organizations were created under state control. These included the worker, peasant and popular sectors, allowing the political party to maintain effective control over various sectors of society, which contributed to its political dominance.
On the other hand, a fourth sector that was given an important focus was the military. Under the government of Plutarco Elías Calles, policies were implemented to incorporate the Army as a corporate organization under the control of the State. Specific unions and trade organizations were created for military personnel. These unions were controlled by the State and had the objective of channeling the demands and needs of the military. Military corporatism sought to promote discipline and loyalty of the armed forces to the government. This was achieved through the centralization of state command and control over military leaders.
In the 1990s, the party faced increasing challenges due to demands for reform and an increase in political competition. Luis Donaldo Colosio was selected as the PRI’s presidential candidate for the 1994 elections. While Colosio was holding a rally in Lomas Taurinas, Tijuana, he was shot dead. This tragic event generated a political crisis in Mexico. Uncertainty and public upheaval led to a reordering of the electoral process and significant changes to the PRI campaign. Ernesto Zedillo took over as the PRI candidate and eventually won the 1994 elections. The assassination of Colosio and the subsequent victory of Zedillo marked the beginning of a period of transformations in Mexican politics. The PRI could no longer maintain its absolute dominance and was forced to adapt to a new political reality.
This gave way to a democratic transition in which candidate Vicente Fox of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) won the 2000 presidential elections. The new government regimes did not change the way the old PRI operated. To the extent that in the second government of the right-wing party, President Felipe Calderon once again gave prominence to the military sector. Introducing the war on drug trafficking and reintroducing the militia to the public life. For the year 2018, the presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (considered a left-wing politician) had as his campaign proposal the promise of removing the militia from Mexican public spaces. However, as president, his government decisions have been inclined to give power and money to the military sector. Following the Venezuelan model and Hugo Chavez’s footsteps with decisions surrounding the relation between State and militia.
It is evident that the current Mexican government has given greater power to the military, especially when it comes to public security and the fight against organized crime. This phenomenon has translated into the active participation of the Army and Navy in patrol, surveillance and combat operations against criminal groups in various regions of the country. In addition, close coordination has been established between the armed forces and civil security agencies, such as federal and state police. The armed forces have also assumed security roles in strategic areas such as ports, borders and other areas of national interest.
Now let’s continue with the practical case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is important to emphasize the great natural wealth of Venezuela, having the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. Which caused the military to take advantage of the institutional instability in the 90s, stemming from its history and political trajectory. Said instability gave way to a first failed coup attempt against the government of then-president Carlos Andrés Pérez; led by Hugo Chávez on February 4, 1992. Chávez was arrested and then pardoned, released from prison thanks to public pressure and a growing political movement that supported him.
In 1997, Chávez founded the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR), a political party that would serve as the basis for his presidential candidacy. In the 1998 presidential elections, Hugo Chávez ran as a candidate and won by a wide margin, gaining the support of a significant portion of the population who sought change in the country’s political and economic system.
Even though his campaign promise was not to be re-elected, he did not comply. Chavez left power when he died due to a terminal cancer, but not before imposing the person who succeeds him to date, Nicolás Maduro.
Chávez implemented a series of political, economic, and social reforms, fundamentally reshaping Venezuela’s governance and society. He introduced a new constitution in 1999, which brought about significant changes to the country’s political landscape, including the establishment of recall referendums and the option for indefinite presidential re-election. Economically, Chávez pursued a policy of nationalization, taking control of key industries such as oil, telecommunications, and electricity. He also launched social assistance programs and missions to address basic needs in areas like healthcare, education, and housing. Additionally, Chávez established a close and complex relationship with the Venezuelan armed forces. To consolidate his power, he promoted loyal officials and gave them key positions in his government. He assigned the armed forces an active role in the fight against organized crime and the country’s internal security, which included operations against insurgent and drug trafficking groups. In addition, Chávez invested in the modernization and acquisition of weapons, making Venezuela one of the main buyers of weapons in Latin America. He encouraged the military to actively participate in politics, holding ministerial and government positions. The Strategic Operational Command of the Armed Forces acquired a central role in decision-making on security and defense.
Latin American countries share aspects that affect the instability of their governments. Some of them are: they lived for hundreds of years under the public and administrative control of European powers; they are highly stratified societies, most of the time responding to discriminatory criteria; the independence of these countries caused a birth with economic difficulties and populations with a high degree of illiteracy; considering that in Europe the modern state can be traced back to the 15th century, Latin America’s countries (born in the 19th century) are very young in modern State history, causing a maturity deficit in their political institutions.
These factors cause a weak state complex to govern. Said obstacles become opportunities to promote change. Most of the time these opportunities have been crystallized with the support of those who have a monopoly on public force: the militia. Once in power, they lack motivation to strengthen democratic institutions since it would imply the possibility of abandoning the privileges they enjoy.
