CYCLES AND TRANSITIONS

READING

Smith, Democracy, Introduction + chs. 1-2, 4

Modern Latin America, chs. 3, 5 (Mexico, Cuba)

Magaloni, “Demise of Mexico’s One-Party Regime”

OUTLINE

1. Concepts of democracy

2. Electoral variations

3. Transitions, To and Fro

4. Case Studies: Cuba and Mexico

5. Caveats, Causes, and Codas

KEY QUESTIONS

What explains the spread of democracy in Latin America? Given authoritarian past?

What kind of democracy? What quality?What’s new about the current phase of democratic

change? How does it compare to prior periods?What role (if any) for the United States?What implications for U.S. relations with Latin

America?

Concepts of Democracy

DEFINING PRINCIPLES

• Participation, such that no substantial segment of the population is excluded from the effective pursuit of political power

• Competition, such that there are free, fair, and regular contests for gaining support from the populace

• Accountability, such that political rulers and elected representatives serve as “agents” of their constituents and must justify their actions and decisions in order to remain in office.

INSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES

1. Freedom to form and join organizations2. Freedom of expression3. The right to vote4. Eligibility for public office5. The right of political leaders to compete for support

and votes6. Alternative sources of information7. Free and fair elections8. Institutions for making government policies depend

on elections and other expressions of popular preference.

TWO KEY DIMENSIONS

Elections

Items 3-5, 7-8

Rights

Items 1-2, 6

[missing: rule of law]

Question: What if they don’t go together? What about the prospect of “illiberal democracy”?

Electoral Variations

CATEGORIES OF ELECTORAL REGIMES

Electoral democracy = free and fair elections

Semidemocracy = elections free but not fair; or, effective power not vested in winner of elections

Competitive oligarchy = elections fair but not free; candidates restricted to socio-economic elite and suffrage restricted to minority of population

Autocracy/authoritarianism = no elections, or elections neither free nor fair.

Figure 1. Cycles of Political Change in Latin America, 1900-2000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Nu

mb

er Semi-Democracy

Oligarchy

Democracy

Figure 12-1. Cycles of Political Change in Latin America, by Population, 1900-2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Per

cen

t o

f R

egio

nal

Po

pu

lati

on

Semi-Democracy

Oligarchy

Democracy

Figure 4. Cycles of Political Change by Region: South America, 1900-2000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Nu

mb

er Semi-Democracy

Oligarchy

Democracy

Figure 5. Cycles of Political Change by Region: Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, 1900-2000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Nu

mb

er Semi-Democracy

Oligarchy

Democracy

Transitions, To and Fro

DETERMINANTS OF DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS: DOMESTIC FACTORS

1. Economic Development

2. Social Forces/Class Coalitions

3. Authoritarian Failures

4. Elite Splits, Exclusions, and Negotiations of “Compacts” with Opposition

5. “Unsolvable Problems” and the Search for Exits

DETERMINANTS OF DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS: INTERNATIONAL FACTORS

1. Imperialism and Democracy

2. Anti-Communist Crusades

3. Optimism and Uncertainty: The 1990s

4. Now: 9/11 and Its Aftermath

Types of Authoritarian Regime

________________Power Structure___________________ Personalist Institutionalized

Leadership____________

Traditional Caudillo or Collective Junta orMilitary “Man on Horseback” Bureaucratic-Authoritarian

Regime

Technocratic State, One-Party State orCivilian Delegative Semi-Democracy, Corporatist Regime

or Sultanistic Despotism

FORMS OF TRANSITION

Personalist regimes, especially “sultanistic despotism” = armed revolution

Personalist regimes if military = armed revolution or military replacement

Bureaucratic regimes = fissures within ruling elite, negotiation with opposition

One-party regimes = winning elections

CASE STUDIES: CUBA AND MEXICO

Cuba (1959): armed revolution (against weak state, corrupt regime, incompetent military, withdrawal of U.S. support)

Mexico (1910): disputed election + armed revolution + incomplete replacement of leadership

Mexico (2000): victory at polls

DEMISE OF THE PRI

Decline from hegemony to dominanceSplits within elite (1980s)Economic problems and policies (NAFTA)Deterioration of party base, strengthening of opposition

( + Zapatista uprising)Institutional reforms:

1990-93 piecemeal change 1994-96 independent IFE

PRI: PREFERENCES + PAYOFFS

Preferences:“The PRI prefers winning to losing and having a submissive

electoral institute to an independent IFE [and] … prefers the Opposition to accept the election results rather than contest them because this entails legitimacy costs.”

Payoffs:Winning + 10Creating IFE - 2Fraud - 2Challenge - 4

OPPOSITION: PREFER + PAYOFFS

Preferences:“The Opposition prefers winning to losing; it prefers an

independent IFE; and it makes its decision to accept or contest contingent on the PRI’s choice to create an independent IFE or not.”

Payoffs:Winning + 10Independent IFE + 2Losing/fraud - 4Contesting/Strong IFE - 2Contesting/Submissive IFE + 2

Caveats, Causes and Codas

Caveat No. 1

On the importance of defining terms:

Electoral democracy (Smith + others) Liberal democracy (Smith + others) ~ Robert Dahl democracy Illiberal democracy (Smith + Zakaria) Nondemocracy (Smith) = Authoritarianism

Caveat No. 2

On choice of terms: “Wave” vs. “cycle” Implicit causal mechanisms

On Latin America in world context: Understanding pre-1950s Singular profile among developing areas Roles of ideology/culture

Caveat No. 3

“A weak state is a weak democracy”

Taming of democracy vs. incompetent governance

Democracy by permission

And then: the rise of the “new left”

Caveat No. 4

Outcomes of Political Transitions, 1900-2000

1900-1939 1940-1977 1978-2000 1900-2000

___ %___ ___%____ ___ %___ ___%____ Outcome____ Autocracy 45 47 17 39 Oligarchy 36 6 -- 15 Semidemocracy 11 20 40 22 Democracy 9 27 43 24

N transitions 56 64 35 155

Caveat No. 5

How to understand the “return” of the PRI? PRI = 39.2 % PRD = 32.4 PAN = 26.1 New = 2.3

Is it the same party?Was it a PRI victory? Or losses by other parties?What might have happened with a MRO?Does this mean “consolidation”?