Elections in the Americas v2.pdf

ELECTIONS IN THE AMERICAS

A DATA HANDBOOK

Elections in the Americas continues the series of election data handbooks

published by Oxford University Press. Together with Elections in Asia and

the Pacific and Elections in Africa, this is a highly reliable resource for

historical and cross-national comparisons of elections and electoral systems

world-wide.

Elections in the Americas

A Data Handbook

VOLUME II

South America

Edited by

DIETER NOHLEN

1

3Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of OxfordIt furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide in

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala LumpurMadrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal

Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Published in the United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York

� Dieter Nohlen 2005

The moral rights of the author have been asserted

Database right Oxford University Press (maker)

First published 2005

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate

reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproductionoutside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,

Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or coverand you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Data available

ISBN 0-19-928357-5 Vol-IISBN 0-19-928358-3 Vol-2ISBN 0-19-925358-7 (2-Volume set)

3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by the EditorPrinted in Great Britainon acid-free paper by

Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn

Preface

This two-volume work is the third installment in the series of election data handbooks published by Oxford University Press. Five years after the publication of the first title, Elections in Africa and three years after the publication of Elections in Asia and the Pacific, I now present the first compendium of electoral data that includes all American countries, from the introduction of universal male suffrage to the present day. The final part of the series Elections Worldwide, covering elections in Europe, is currently underway.

The basic idea of these handbooks—systematic and historically com-plete documentation of elections in all countries worldwide—is almost 40 years old. The idea was born in the early 1960s, when Dolf Sternber-ger and Bernhard Vogel embarked on an extensive research project on the election of parliaments at the University of Heidelberg (Wahl der Parlamente und anderer Staatsorgane). Since then, several research pro-jects on elections and electoral systems have been carried out in Heidel-berg, including empirical and theoretical publications covering the entire world. In 1978 a voluminous work on Africa was published under the subtitle Politische Organisation und Repräsentation in Afrika (PoliticalOrganization and Representation in Africa). In the same year I finished Wahlsysteme der Welt (Electoral Systems of the World), internationally better known in its Spanish version (Sistemas electorales del mundo,1981). In the late 1980s an international research team under my directi-on began working on parliamentary and presidential elections in Latin America and the Caribbean. The main result concerning electoral data was published in 1993 in German (Handbuch der Wahldaten Latein-amerikas und der Karibik) and in Spanish (Enciclopedia Electoral Lati-noamericana y del Caribe). A new project on elections and democratization in Africa and Latin America started in 1996. This pro-ject provided an ideal framework to revive the old idea of a worldwide compendium of electoral data.

The first book in this new series was Elections in Africa (1999), edi-ted by Dieter Nohlen, Michael Krennerich, and Bernhard Thibaut, fol-lowed by Elections in Asia and the Pacific (2001), edited by Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann.

Elections in the Americas is based on our previous work Handbuchder Wahldaten. But even so, most of the articles required a lot of time and energy in their elaboration: Collecting the relevant information, fit-

vi

ting the quantitative and qualitative data into a strict series of guidelines and often recalculating national data according to our standards. The editorial team demanded a great deal of patience from the authors, who had to answer never-ending questions. Such a work produces an appa-rently paradoxical outcome: the more time spent on enhancing an article, the clearer and simpler it finally appears to the reader.

I am deeply grateful to the 31 contributors from more then ten diffe-rent countries for their cooperation, patience, and encouragement. We have learnt a lot from them in these three years and their empathy with this project has become a decisive stimulus for us.

I am also especially grateful to those individuals and organizations that made this book possible. First of all, I owe much to my editorial team in Heidelberg: Matthias Catón, Philip Stöver, and Matthias Trefs have tirelessly edited the articles and collected and standardized the re-levant information. Katrin Falk, Julia Leininger, Arthur Mickoleit, Flori-an Rehli, and Johannes Schwehm helped in different phases of the project and Dominique Le Cocq provided most valuable help in revising the English version.

I would also like to thank the Institut für Politische Wissenschaft (In-stitute of Political Science) at the University of Heidelberg for accom-modating the project, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in Washington, the Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Huma-nos (IIDH; Inter-American Institute for Human Rights) in Costa Rica, especially its Center for Electoral Assistance and Promotion (CAPEL), and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm. I am also indebted to the Deutsche Forschungs-gemeinschaft (DFG; German Research Foundation), which supported the production of the typescript financially.

Finally, I thank Dominic Byatt and Claire Croft at Oxford University Press for their encouragement and professional support. Working with them has been a pleasure.

Heidelberg, February 2005 Dieter Nohlen

Contents

Notes on the Editor and Contributors. ....................................................ix Technical Notes .................................................................................... xiii

Elections and Electoral Systems in the Americas (D. Nohlen) ................1 Argentina (M. P. Jones/ M. Lauga/ M. León-Roesch) ...........................59Bolivia (J. Lazarte R.) ..........................................................................123Brazil (B. Lamounier/ O. Amorim Neto) .............................................163Chile (D. Nohlen) .................................................................................253Colombia (J. Jaramillo/ B. Franco-Cuervo) .........................................295Ecuador (D. Nohlen/ S. Pachano).........................................................365Paraguay (M. León-Roesch/ R. Ortiz Ortiz).........................................411Peru (F. Tuesta Soldevilla) ...................................................................445Uruguay (D. Nohlen)............................................................................487Venezuela (J. Molina/ B. Thibaut) .......................................................535

Glossary ...............................................................................................593

This page intentionally left blank

Notes on the Editor and Contributors

Editor

DIETER NOHLEN is professor of political science at the University of Heidelberg and a well-known expert on electoral systems, political de-velopment, and democratization with a focus on Latin America. He re-ceived the Max Planck prize for internationally outstanding research in 1991, and the University of Augsburg prize for research on Spain and Latin America in 2000. His numerous books include Wahlsysteme der Welt (1978; Spanish edn. 1981), Elections and Electoral Systems (1996), Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem (4th edn. 2004), Sistemas electorales y partidos politicos (3rd edn. 2004). He is editor of a seven-volume ency-clopedia Lexikon der Politik (1992–1998), and co-editor of Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina (1998; 2nd edn. 2005) as well as of an eight-volume Handbook of the Third World (3rd edn. 1991–1994), and a two volume encyclopedia of political science, Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft (2nd edn. 2004, Spanish edn. 2005).[E-mail: [email protected]]

Contributors

OCTAVIO AMORIM NETO received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of California at San Diego and is currently assistant professor of political science at the Graduate School of Economics at the Getulio Vargas Foundation at Rio de Janeiro. His publications have appeared in the American Journal of Political Science, Latin American Politics andSociety, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Party Politics and World Politics.[E-Mail: [email protected]]

BEATRIZ FRANCO CUERVO is a political scientist and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg. She is currently working as a lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Politics and Government of the Universidad del Rosario in Bogota, Colombia. [E-mail: [email protected]]

x

JUAN F. JARAMILLO PÉREZ is a lawyer, M.A. in public administration and holds a Ph. D. in political science. He is a professor at the Faculty of Law and Political and Social Science at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Jaramillo has written a book about electoral authorities in Latin America and a number of articles on elections, human rights and constitutional law. [E-mail: [email protected]]

MARK P. JONES is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Rice University. His research focuses on the manner in which electoral laws and other political institutions influence party systems, elite and mass political behavior, and representation. He is author of Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies (1995). His recent publications have appeared in journals such as the AmericanJournal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Electoral Studies, The Journal of Politics, and Party Politics.

BOLÍVAR LAMOUNIER holds a Ph.D. from the University of California in Los Angeles. He is a founding member and research director of the Institute of Economic, Political and Social Studies (IDESP) in São Paulo. [E-mail: [email protected]]

MARTÍN LAUGA has a Ph.D. in political science of the University of Hei-delberg, where he also worked as a researcher. Since 1999 he works as management and personnel consultant. Since 2003 he is a partner and director at VDG International Executive Solutions in Ratingen (Ger-many). [E-mail: [email protected]]

JORGE LAZARTE has a Ph.D. in political science of the Sorbonne. He is currently working as professor at the Bolivian Catholic University. He was also a consultant in the National Congress and a judge at the Na-tional Electoral Court of Bolivia. He has published works on a variety of topics, such as elections, political culture and processes of institutionali-zation. His main publications are: Working-class Movement and Politi-cal Process in Bolivia 1952–1987 (1988), Bolivia. Certitudes and Incertitudes of the Democracy (1993), Political groups, Problems of Representativity and New Challenges of the Democracy (1998) and Be-tween Two Worlds. The Political Culture and Democracy in Bolivia(2000). [E-mail: [email protected]]

MARTA LEÓN-RÖSCH has a law degree from the University of Córdoba (Argentina), she graduated in international relations at the Catholic Uni-

xi

versity of Córdoba, and holds a Ph.D. in political science from the Uni-versity of Heidelberg. León-Rösch is the author of several comparative studies on the voter registration in Latin America, among them ‘Los Registros Electorales’ (1998) in Dieter Nohlen et al. (ed.), Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de America Latina. She works as an in-dependent researcher on comparative Latin American law. [E-mail: [email protected]]

JOSÉ MOLINA is professor of political science in the University of Zulia, Venezuela and has been a visiting professor (2000–2003) in the Depart-ment of Political Science of the University of Michigan. His research focuses on Venezuelan and Latin American electoral systems and elec-toral behavior. He has written extensively on these subjects. His works include: La Participación Electoral en Venezuela (1989), El Sistema Electoral Venezolano y sus Consecuencias Políticas (1991), Los Siste-mas Electorales de América Latina (2000) and numerous articles.

RICHARD ORTIZ ORTIZ is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Heidel-berg where he studied political science, sociology and public law. He holds a Ph.D. in law from the Catholic University of Ecuador. Currently he is conducting research on the political stability in the Andean coun-tries.

SIMÓN PACHANO is a professor of political science at the Facultad Lati-noamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) in Quito/Ecuador. He studied sociology in Ecuador and Chile and has taught at numerous uni-versities in Latin America, Europe and the United States. [E-mail: [email protected]]

BERNHARD THIBAUT has been working as a research associate at the In-stitute of Political Science at the University of Heidelberg, where he studied political science and sociology (M.A. 1991, Ph. D 1996). His publications include a book on presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (1996), which received the ADLAF prize from the German As-sociation of Latin American Studies in 1998. He has also written numer-ous articles on institutional aspects of democratic transition and consolidation in Latin America and other regions and on social and eco-nomic development in third world countries. He is co-editor of Elections in Africa (1999). In 1999 he joined SAP, a leading software company for business applications, as a consultant and project manager for the public

xii

sector. Currently he is responsible manager for the healthcare and social security market at SAP Germany in Walldorf. [E-Mail: [email protected]]

FERNANDO TUESTA SOLDEVILLA is national director of the ONPE, the Peruvian authority in charge of the electoral process. He holds a Master degree in sociology from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and a Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg. He has been a lecturer at various Peruvian universities and a consultant to IFES, Capel and other renowned institutions. His more than 200 books and articles include: Eljuego Político (Fujimori, la oposición y las reglas); Los Enigmas del Poder (Fujimori 1990–1996); No sabe/no opina (Medios y encuestas políticas); El Sistema de Partidos Políticos en el Perú (1978–1995) andLa Jornada Electoral. [E-mail: [email protected]]

Technical Notes

The data in this handbook are presented in the same systematic manner for all countries in order to provide electoral statistics in line with inter-nationally established standards of documentation. The tables are organ-ized in ten parts:

2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat: Table 2.1 provides an overview of the dates of elections to national political institutions, referendums as well as interruptions of the constitutional order by coups d’état since national independence. Where necessary, the dates of indirect elections are indicated by footnotes. The signs xx/xx indicate that no information could be found regarding the exact polling date.

2.2 Electoral Body: Table 2.2 provides a comparative overview of the evolution of the electoral body, and records the data on population size, registered voters and votes cast. The figures of registered voters and votes cast are drawn from the relevant tables 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9. Popu-lation data have been generally rounded and their sources are named in a relevant footnote. Where electors have multiple votes, the column for ‘votes cast’ documents the numbers of ‘ballots cast’. A long hyphen (—) indicates that no information was available. All percentages are based on the figures given in the respective columns of this table.

2.3 Abbreviations: The abbreviations and full names of the political par-ties and alliances that appear in Tables 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 follow an alpha-betical order. Party mergers, splinters or successions are generally indicated in a footnote. Party names are given in their original language and the English translation is provided in parentheses. The abbreviations used in the tables are the ones commonly used in the country or in the international reference texts. In the few cases where no abbreviation is mentioned in electoral documents or reference texts, the authors may have used own abbreviations.

xiv

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances: The data regarding the participation of parties and alliances in all direct national elections are presented in a chronological order; they include the year of the elec-tions and the number of elections contested. Only parties recorded in Tables 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 appear in this table. If a party contested an elec-tion as part of an alliance, its participation is counted both with regard to the party and to the alliance.

2.5; 2.6; 2.7; 2.9 Distribution of Votes in National Referendums, Elec-tions to Constitutional Assembly, Parliamentary and Presidential Elec-tions: In these tables we try to provide exhaustive documentation of electoral participation, both in total numbers and in percentages, for every general election held since the introduction of male universale suf-frage. The percentages refer to votes cast as a percentage of registered voters, invalid and valid votes as a percentage of votes cast and party votes as a percentage of valid votes. For the purpose of this handbook invalid votes are those that enter the ballot box but are disqualified out of different possible reasons, and therefore do not affect the electoral outcome. Regarding national referendums, their purpose is indicated in a footnote. According to international standards the book uses the term ‘referendum’ for both plebiscites and (constitutional) referendums. Par-ties that received less than 0.5% of the vote were subsumed in a residual category (‘others’). The category of ‘independents’ includes all the can-didates that did not run on a party label. A long dash (—) indicates the lack of exact data. A short dash (–) indicates that the information did not apply in this case, because the party did not participate in that election.

2.8 Composition of Parliament: This table illustrates the distribution of directly elected seats per party/ alliance as the result of the election. Subsequent changes in party affiliation are not documented. All parties and alliances that won at least one seat in the respective body are listed. In addition, the numbers of appointed or indirectly elected members are documented in footnotes. A short dash (–) indicates that the information was not applicable, because the party did not hold in that term. Optional subsections provide differentiated accounts of bicameral chambers and segments of electoral systems (in case of combined systems).

2.9 Presidential Elections: see 2.5.

xv

2.10 List of Power Holders: Table 2.10 provides information on the suc-cession in the executive. For presidential systems only the head of state (corresponding also to the head of government) is given. For semi-presidential and parliamentary systems both the head of state and the head of government are provided. The remarks describe the circum-stances surrounding the accession to and resignation from office.

ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS IN THE AMERICASSouth America

by Dieter Nohlen*

This data handbook on Elections in the Americas is part of a wider project covering electoral data worldwide. Until recently, scholars of political science have been accustomed to finding information on elections ordered by country on the basis of their economic, social and political levels of development. In contrast, the data in this handbook is organized along continental lines. Following the books on Africa in 1999, on Asia and the Pacific (two volumes) in 2001, this is the third work in the series.

As with the previous publications, this volume first presents the con-stitutional and other legal conditions of elections from the introduction of universal male suffrage or political independence to date and consid-ers the rules that govern the electoral processes. Second, it lists the his-torical results of national presidential and parliamentarian elections, including time-series on electoral participation and data on referendums. Furthermore, the book provides basic information on political institu-tions and the distribution of power, based on political preferences ex-pressed in votes for political parties or candidates standing for political alternatives.

One of the main objectives of this handbook is to apply systematic criteria and homogeneous concepts to the information gathered. Official and non-official electoral reports often lack this prerequisite for com-parative analysis. For example, percentages in the official statistics on electoral results sometimes refer to the votes cast, sometimes to the valid votes. In this handbook, the percentages always refer to the same abso-lute unit, the valid votes. The concept of the electoral system is often used indistinctly for all electoral factors governing an electoral process or parts thereof. In this handbook, it refers specifically to the way voters express their political preference by means of votes and the way these votes are transferred into executive posts such as the presidential office * For research assistance I cordially thank Matthias Catón, Philip Stöver and Matthias Trefs.

Elections and Electoral Systems2

or legislative mandates in the form of parliamentary seats. The informa-tion given on different electoral systems is organized according to ana-lytical criteria and is intended to permit and enhance historical and international comparisons. The presentation of data and analyses is guided by the country-by-country-approach. One purpose of this intro-ductory chapter is to give a comparative and systematic overview of the aspects that are treated in greater detail in the individual country studies.

This second volume of Elections in the Americas covers ten South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecua-dor, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, in other words: The South American part of the Latin American world. The remaining Latin American countries of North America (Mexico), Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama) and the Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti) are treated in the first volume of this handbook. Nevertheless, since all Latin American countries share a number of characteristics, and comparisons within this region generally include the Central American and Hispanic Caribbean countries, this in-troduction also provides data on these countries.

1. History of and Prospects for Democracy in Latin America

It is common knowledge that the main cross-national characteristics of the Latin American area are found first in their historic and cultural heri-tage as former colonies; second in their way of nation-building during the nineteenth century; third in their model of integration into the world economy; fourth in their structure of society that is widely determined by these external relations; fifth in the ways in which their economic, social and political developments were interrelated and sixth, as a result of the chronic political instability. There are certainly great differences between individual countries. However, although all of them may insist that they are unique, the diverging characteristics actually highlight the fact that these differences occur within a framework of similarities. However, this does not question the idea of using an area-by-area ap-proach, i.e. to treat the region as a cultural unit as in social sciences.

The importance of the above mentioned common features goes far beyond mere description. The first five factors play a significant role in explaining the sixth. Furthermore, they not only stand as additional fac-tors explaining political instability, they also offer different and contro-versial approaches to understanding the problems democracy is confronted with in Latin America. Culturalist explanations highlight the

Elections and Electoral Systems 3

long-lasting influence of Spanish Catholic, centralist and oligarchic tra-ditions on Latin America’s political development. Scholars of political science, especially in the field of modernization theory, who first studied the nation-building process in the nineteenth century in Western Europe and North America and then compared them to situations elsewhere, place great emphasis on the lack of main features in this process in Latin America, that is to say on the absence of industrialization and economic growth. In Europe and Anglophone America the latter led to substantial social changes, social mobilization and modernization and created the societal structure on which democracy could be based (Eisenstadt/ Rok-kan 1973). Structuralist theorists and those advocating dependency hy-potheses emphasize the effects of unequal trade relations between two groups of countries: Metropolitan and peripheral. This imbalance is thought to undermine the prospects for economic development of the pe-riphery and to bring about and maintain their lack of development. At the same time, the type of industrialization by substitution of imports, introduced after the world economy crisis in 1929, determined the inter-nal social structure and power relations, without fostering and sustaining democracy (Prebisch 1981; Cardosos/ Faletto 1979). In contrast to the assumptions of the modernization theory, the new prerequisites for in-creased industrialization were thought to favour authoritarian regimes (O’Donnell 1973). Although this causal relationship was discussed criti-cally (Collier 1978) and empirically questioned by the emerging democ-ratic transitions, a widespread conviction was maintained that political order in Latin America had something to do with the specific capitalist development of the region (Rueschemeyer, Huber-Stephens, and Stephens 1992). In more general terms, since the seminal study of Sey-mour M. Lipset (1960), the literature on the history of and prospects for democracy has maintained that there is a high correlation between the level of development measured by average annual per capita income and the emergence and consolidation of democracy. This assumption opened up a discussion about the prerequisites required to establish democracy. They centred in particular on the sequences of the various features of the modernization process that had to be passed before a stable democracy could be established. On the other hand, the real transitions to democ-racy from the late 1970s showed scholars that democracy was feasible without the prerequisites postulated by structuralist theory. In other words, democracy can be crafted by political actors. The third wave of democratization (Huntington 1991), a primarily Latin American phe-nomenon, backed up this conviction, although transition does not mean


consolidation, which is a subsequent challenge for Latin American so-cieties (Linz/ Stepan 1996).

1.1 Historical Record of Elections and Democracy

Elections have a long tradition in Latin American countries. They are rooted in the era when the countries gained independence from Spain (see Annino 1995). However, this tradition is not connected to democ-racy because of the restrictions in suffrage, a worldwide phenomenon in the long-lasting process that led to the recognition of equal political rights and democracy. However, this missing feature of democracy in Latin America has also been due to the substance and functions of elec-tions. Elections in Latin America were mostly characterized by fraud und were used more to provide political legitimacy to the incumbents rather than to control their right to govern a country. As we examine the history of democracy in Latin America, we must consider its absence not only in terms of open and declared dictatorships, i.e. in the interruption of elected governments by coups d’état that led to authoritarian regimes, but in the more covert authoritarian rule, which included the use of elec-tions for authoritarian aims. One might think that governing by electoral fraud was primarily a nineteenth century phenomena in Latin America, linked to the suffrage restrictions and other impediments for democratic elections. But this is not really the case: the most prominent examples actually date from the twentieth century. First, the dictatorship of Al-fredo Stroessner in Paraguay, under whom the misuse of occasional elections corresponded to the formal pattern of democracy, was only overcome in 1990. Second, the Mexican one-party government was the most stable authoritarian system in the world. Its disguise was nearly perfect: The presidential term of office was limited to a single term of six years, that of the members of parliament to one period of three years. As a result there were a lot of institutional elements that led observers to believe that the Mexican political system was a special kind of democ-racy. Political scientists started to study the ‘Mexican democracy’. The authoritarian system was only slowly opened up from the 1970s by means of ambivalent reforms. They were always thought to lend new legitimacy to the authoritarian regime, until 1996, when this regime was finally overcome by a watershed electoral reform. Third, the so called façade democracies, where elections are used to cloud the true power relations, a feature shared by many of the Central American countries in the second half of the last century. In the eight elections in El Salvador


between 1962/1966 and 1984, in the four Guatemalan elections between 1964 and 1982, and in the seven elections held under the Somoza regime in Nicaragua between 1937 and 1979, voters actually had no choice. In Panama, elections were not manipulated due to US monitoring. In 1989, the regime annulled the elections when the victory of the opposition be-came evident. All these cases of fraud demonstrate that historically the holding of elections is not a sufficient indicator for a liberal democracy. The country-by-country analyses of the Latin American region confirm this assessment. Therefore, when looking at elections we have to distin-guish between competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive elec-tions (Hermet/ Rose/ Rouquié 1978; Nohlen 1978). We find all three types of elections in the history of the Latin American region and there has only been a tendency towards competitive elections in the last few decades. Thus, periods of elections are by no means tantamount to peri-ods of democracy. The reason for this is, as in other parts of the world, restrained suffrage that was in force for almost all of the nineteenth cen-tury. Moreover, it was due to a lack of independent electoral authorities which could have guaranteed free elections. The winner was automati-cally the one who counted the votes. Only few countries stood out as early exceptions: Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay. Elections that are subject to fraud cannot stabilize a political system permanently. However, the possibility to hold elections according to the rule of law was no guarantee for enduring democracy either, as the cases of Argen-tina and later on Chile and Uruguay proved. Bearing in mind the long authoritarian tradition and the fraudulent electoral past, free and fair elections are the most astonishing result of the political development in the last 15 years.

In this new context, elections are still subject to debate concerning their importance for democracy. As some scholars emphasize, it is true that holding free and fair elections is not a sufficient criterion for a poli-tical system to be classified as a democracy (Linz/ Stepan 1996). This consideration highlights further components of democracy such as the rule of law and social equality. Nevertheless, democracy—and democra-tization—is unthinkable without elections. If this is taken into account it is evident that the different starting points for the democratic develop-ment of the region and the different forces which brought it about, have not created any alternative to democratizing the political systems through elections and to build up a representative democracy Dahl sty-le—no matter how fragile the democratic quality may still be. Regard-less of the regime—be it traditional authoritarian as in Honduras and Paraguay or military as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and


Uruguay or revolutionary socialist as in Nicaragua—elections have al-ways played an important role in the process of democratization. Parti-cular importance can be attributed to the referendums in Chile and Uruguay. In both countries, the perspectives of continuing authoritarian regimes were rejected by popular vote, due to the independence and le-gal tradition of the administrative electoral bodies. Furthermore, as the countries extended the functions of their competitive elections they we-re especially crucial in the process of pacifying Central American coun-tries (Krennerich 1996). The 1990 elections in revolutionary Nicaragua, observed and monitored by the United Nations, were won by the opposi-tion. Thus, political development both in Nicaragua and in neighboring countries was at a crossroads. In the following years, elections in El Sal-vador and Guatemala were held to overcome the violent conflicts bet-ween the government and revolutionary forces. The aim was to integrate the revolutionaries into the peaceful competition for power. Finally, the turn to pluralist democracy in Mexico was initiated by an electoral re-form that established fair conditions and guaranteed free elections (see Nohlen on Mexico in the first volume). Having played an outstanding role in the transition process, elections became routine in the political process of the region in the following years (Cerdas-Cruz et al. 1992; Rial/ Zovatto 1998; Payne et al. 2002).

Some scholars argue that considering elections as crucial for demo-cratic development means promoting electoralism, i.e. the reduction of democracy to elections. They also claim that in the cases of El Salvador and Guatemala elections came too early in the process of pacification to permit a further development of non-violent and consensual approaches to politics (see for example Karl 1986 and 2000). Other scholars assert that in order to overcome authoritarianism, it would be better to develop liberal ideas and attitudes first to avoid illiberal democracies (Zakaria 1997). These are hypothetical considerations and mere counterfactual assumptions. To the present day, people have always demanded imme-diate free elections before and during the fall of authoritarian regimes because they want a legitimate government based on the will of the ma-jority.

In general, the history of democracy in Latin America features politi-cal instability and cyclical alternation of democratic experiments with different kinds of authoritarian regimes. No country shows an uninter-rupted democratic development as seen in the United States and Canada. The political history of the area is marked by periods of geographical expansion of democracy and subsequent retreats. Furthermore, there are sub-regional differences in both the formal existence of democracy and


in the degree of real inclusion of the people. Developments relevant to specific countries within the sub-regional setting also have to be taken into account.

Latin America experienced periods of democracy in earlier times and transitions to democracy are not entirely new to the area. If we consider the three waves of democratization as put forward by Samuel P. Hunt-ington, four Latin American countries were involved in the first long wave of democratization between 1828 and 1926: Argentina, Chile, Co-lombia, and Uruguay. All the democracies collapsed with the first au-thoritarian reverse between 1922 and 1942, but Chile and Uruguay overcame the crises in the early 1930s. Eight Latin American countries participated in the second wave of democratization between 1943 and 1962: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela, so that in the aftermath of World War II, ten out of 18 countries (according to the contemporary criteria for democracy) could be counted as democracies. At the end of the second authoritarian re-verse between 1958 and 1975, only three democracies survived: Colom-bia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela. In the third wave of democratization between 1978 and 1996, all authoritarian regimes broke down except for the one in Cuba. Since then, Latin America has enjoyed its most inclu-sive and long-lasting period of democracy.1

If we have a look at the aforementioned countries, some regions are underrepresented. This is especially true for Central America, but also for the Andean area. With regard to the former sub-region, a lot of atten-tion was paid to democratic concepts. Nevertheless, the regimes could hardly be called democratic despite continuously held elections (El Sal-vador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama). In the case of the second sub-region, democracy was extremely unstable and often inter-rupted by authoritarian regimes (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru). Furthermore, in both sub-areas, the degree of socio-political inclusion of indigenous people was extremely low. As for the Southern Cone area, political in-stability and the endemic alternation between democratic and authoritar-ian regimes mark the political history of Argentina since 1930, whereas Chile and Uruguay showed a more stable orientation towards democratic rule, only interrupted by military regimes in the early 1970s.

1 With regard to the definition of democracy, the concept of Robert A. Dahl, developed in his seminal study of 1971, is applied. This parsimonious concept underscores two dimensions of the political process: participation and contestation/opposition, as the main features for defining democracy. In other words, its focus is on elections based on universal suffrage and pluralistic competition between political parties. These are the dimensions of democracy on which the information and analysis given in this handbook are based. Furthermore: seven out of the eight criteria applied by Freedom House refer to Dahl’s dimensions.


It is true that all sub-regional considerations suffer from deficiencies. Exceptions are so numerous that it is impossible to account for all of them. In the case of Central America, Costa Rica represents a unique po-litical development (see volume 1). In the Andean region, Colombia stands out because of the relative continuity of its democratic govern-ment, although it has been fundamentally challenged for decades by chronic violence and guerrilla movements. These disruptions limit the monopoly of the legitimate power of the state and its internal sover-eignty. Venezuela has been able to maintain a democratic system since 1958, without any earlier experience of democracy. Recently it has been discuessed whether this system is a regime based on elections but lack-ing constitutional restraints of power. In the Southern Cone region, Paraguay has shown long periods of political stability since the begin-ning of its independence, but has also suffered from severe authoritarian regimes.

Furthermore, we have to consider some special cases, namely Brazil, Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. Brazil is considered a sub-region with its own political history comprising a short democratic experiment in the early 1960s and a long transition to democracy in the context of a military regime open to political liberalism and reform in the 1980s. Mexico, after the first successful revolution in the twentieth century and years of internal turmoil, sought to stabilize its political sys-tem by establishing an authoritarian regime based on the absolute domi-nance of the revolutionary party. This Mexican ‘democracy’ has only recently come to an end, brought about by the electoral reforms of 1996. They followed some half-hearted earlier reforms and turned the country into a representative democracy. The transition peaked in the first alter-nation of parties for the Presidency in 2000. In the Caribbean area, the Dominican Republic was able to establish a democratic regime after a long tradition of dictatorships. It was one of the first countries in the third wave of democratization and succeeded in maintaining democracy against all adverse internal conditions. In contrast, Haiti and Cuba, the first and last countries to gain political independence in Latin America, are unique in the non-viability of democracy and the long-term dictator-ship, respectively.

In summary, Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay are the only countries with long democratic traditions in Latin America and apparently the most stable ones. Venezuela and Colombia may be classified in the next category because of the length of their democratic regimes, ignoring the challenges. Argentina and Brazil show the opposite characteristics: De-mocracies without long traditions, but perhaps with better prospects for


stability in the near future. The extreme case of weak democratic tradi-tions but notable prospects for democracy may be Mexico. The main reasons for the good prospects for democracy may be the lack of an at-tractive alternative, the waning of belief in revolutionary solutions and the growing international support of democracy. The very challenged democracies of Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru are also more likely to prevail today. However, these favorable circumstances do not provide any barriers against the internal erosion of the representative form of democracy, as seen in the case of Venezuela. Table 1 gives a systematic overview of the democratic periods in Latin America.

Table 1: Times of Democracy in Latin Americaa

Argentina 1912–1930; 1946–1955; 1973–1976; 1983– Bolivia 1982– Brazil 1982– Chile 1949–1973; 1990– Colombia 1853–1858; 1936–1953; 1958– Costa Rica 1953– Cuba 1940–52 Dominican Republic 1978– Ecuador 1945–72; 1978– El Salvador 1989– Guatemala 1945–1954; 1985– Haiti – Honduras 1971–1972; 1982– Mexico 1997– Nicaragua 1990– Panama 1989– Paraguay 1992– Peru 1980–1992; 2001– Puerto Rico 1952– Uruguay 1918–1973; 1985– Venezuela 1945–1948; 1958–

a This table lists periods with general and competitive elections.

1.2 Context of Democratic Developments

As mentioned above, elections and democracy have to be considered in relation to a series of surrounding factors that have influenced their de-velopment in Latin America. We will only highlight some of the most important ones here. They concern the economic and social development as well as some properties of the regional political culture.


From a historical point of view, economic development, more precisely the failure to overcome the structure of underdevelopment, together with its interior expression, structural heterogeneity, is seen as the main ob-stacle for democracy and may continue to limit its prospects in the near future. Although the theory of dependencia is not as common any more, the concept of external dependency still prevails. It is thought to be of crucial importance in regard to social development. This notion has been confirmed by globalization and neo-liberalism when the countries opened up economically and subjected themselves to external influ-ences, which had to leave their marks on society. The Latin American countries are forced to act on the global market. Historically, this is shown by the policy of industrialization by import substitutions. On the one hand, this promoted the problematic role of the state as a political entity, designing policies to ensure economic development. On the other hand, the state’s role as entrepreneur made it the object of struggle not only as the arena to decide on political issues for the common good, but also as a job-creating machine or an opportunity to serve personal inter-ests or that of a family or a group. This latter function corresponded well with the traditional lack of distance between the public and the private sphere in Latin American culture in so far as the direct pursuit of private interest in the public domain brought about nepotism, clientelism, patri-monialism, paternalism, and other kinds of problematic relations be-tween the political and the societal sphere. These phenomena were significant obstacles for economic progress and social equality and had an enormous influence on politics, how they were handled by politicians and how they were perceived by the electorate.

One major consequence can be observed in the extreme gap between rich and poor in Latin America and its persistence over time. Latin America has the greatest differences in income distribution in the world, and no government has been able to produce a long-term shift in this general tendency, regardless of whether right or left-wing. Actually, neo-liberalism is accused of increasing the gap and undermining the so-cial basis for representative democracy. As data from Latinobarómetro 1996–2004 shows, people’s trust in political institutions and parties is dwindling. As a consequence, they try to achieve their goals outside the representative system by violent means. The rule of law, which is not really settled in Latin America, is being increasingly undermined. Due to the violent outbreaks under the military regimes, the state is no longer capable of sustaining public order. In various countries, this resulted in a caricature of liberal democracy, which in turn paved the way for critics


of democracy and scholars who think that the political system must be reformed.

2. The Process of Democratization of Franchise

The expansion of franchise was a long and complex process. Scholars who try to trace this process face two problems: the formal enfranchise-ment and its statistical outcome on the one hand and its significance and impact in the broader context of social and political domination on the other.

If we look at the expansion of franchise in Latin America, the major steps were first to introduce universal male suffrage, then to extend the system to women, then to include illiterates, and finally to reduce the vo-ting age. The statistical consequences of these formal steps (see Table 2) are displayed in the first table (2.1) in the case study chapter.

When attempting to trace and evaluate the statistical aspects of these formal fundamental rights, we face problems mainly because there is usually no automatic voter registration in Latin America (see the next chapter). Thus, research has to go beyond formal electoral provisions. Our attention should turn towards the specific conditions or barriers that limited the use of the formally granted franchise. However, this may be difficult because we do not always have the necessary information. The picture is distorted when countries seemingly fare worse only because they provide the relevant information. For example, Chile’s democratic development is often only thought to be completed with the 1970 electi-ons (see Rueschemeyer/ Huber Stephens/ Stephens 1992: 206). Other countries receive a better assessment because of a lack of relevant in-formation. Furthermore, it is also difficult to calculate the enfranchised electorate because the points of reference differ: either the total popula-tion or the adult population. Due to the very different demographic deve-lopments in the countries, the point of reference is important. In this book, we generally use the total population as point of reference.

With regard to the democratic significance of formal suffrage as well as its extension over time, we must point out that in some countries uni-versal suffrage (for example Argentina and Uruguay) was introduced virtually at the same time as in industrialized countries. This fundamen-tal right, however, was of little relevance prior to the so-called transition period. It was only at this time that due to the diversification of the ex-port economies the social strata emerged that is normally referred to as


Table 2: Expansion of Franchisea

UniversalsuffrageMale Female

Illiterates From 18 years on

Secretvote

Compul-sory voting

Introduc-tion of PR

Argentina 1912 1951 — 1912 1912 1912 1912 Bolivia 1952 1952 1952 1952b/

1995— 1924 1956

Brazil 1932 1932 1988 1932 1932 1932 1932 Chile 1925 1949 1970 — 1925 – 1925 Colombia 1936 1957 — 1975 1853 – 1932 Costa Rica 1913 1949 — 1974 1925 1936 1893 Dominican Republic

1865 1942 — 1873 1865 1966 1962

Ecuador 1861 1929 1978 — 1861 1929 1946 El Salvador 1883 1939 — 1950 1950 1950 1950 Guatemala 1879 1945 — 1887 1956 1965 1956 Haiti 1918 1950 — — — – – Honduras 1894 1954 — 1981 1894 1894 1957 Mexico 1857 1954 — 1973 1857 1917 1977c

Nicaragua 1893 1957 — 1979d 1893 1984 1962 Panama 1904 1941 — 1972 — 1928 1980 Paraguay 1870 1963 — 1870 1911 1940 1947 Peru 1931 1955 1979 — 1931 1931 1931 Puerto Rico 1898 1929 1936 — — – – Uruguay 1918 1934 — — 1918 1924 1918 Venezuela 1857 1946 1946 1946 1946 1958 1946

a The years indicated represent the first occurrence. b Married couples only, otherwise from 21 years on. c Segmented system. d Since 1979: 16 years; difficult to determine because of the practice of open electoral colleges.

the middle class: Industrial, civil, and military bourgeoisie, white-collar employees, and professionals. The emergence of this new group ques-tioned the existing social hierarchy. However, it remained too weak to assume power by itself at this time. The middle classes were only able to succeed in elections in coalition with the working classes. Alliances of this kind led to a change in power and democratic conditions in Argen-tina, Chile, and Uruguay. In other countries, where the middle classes were not able to control the masses by integrating them into society and politics, they joined forces with the traditional holders of state power. This usually meant that the democratic implications were removed from formal suffrage. The fabric of these alliances was responsible for the ex-pansion or limitation of suffrage and the establishment or abolition of barriers to the right to exercise suffrage. The effective extension of suf-


frage was thus controlled by the respective elites according to the rela-tions of power. Occasionally, pressure from below also played a decisive role. However, this factor must not be overestimated. The social coun-terpressure, originating from relationships of dependence that could mainly be found in the rural regions, was more influential. The problem was that formally enfranchised citizens had to register themselves in or-der to be entitled to vote. These two patterns are prototypical for the de-velopment of democracy in Latin America until the middle of the twentieth century. For some countries it was not until the third wave of democratization (e.g. Central America except for Costa Rica) that the regimes could be classified clearly as democracy or dictatorship. For the whole region it can be said that the cyclical pattern of alternation be-tween democratic and authoritarian regimes only came to an end with the third wave of democracy.

3. The Development of Conditions for Free and Fair Elections

In general, accounts concerning elections focus on the expansion of uni-versal suffrage as the process leading to democratic elections. This is due to the fact that illegal practices in the constitutional states of the Western hemisphere had been fought successfully by the end of nine-teenth century. In Latin America, however, because of the constant prob-lems with the implementation of the rule of law in nearly all state activities, the administration of elections was as important for the reali-zation of democratic elections as formal enfranchisement. The notion of free and fair elections addresses precisely this electoral aspect.

Where traditions and political culture tend to allow or further illegal practices, the administrative aspect of the electoral process is of utmost importance to elections and the legitimacy of their results. Since the third wave of democratization, political society has been very aware of this, and civil society has been committed to securing free and fair elec-tions. The experience in Latin America has varied. In some countries, the authorities that run elections have traditionally been held in high public esteem (for example Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Venezuela), while other countries lacked a confidential electoral organization. Under the military regime in Chile and Uruguay, the independent electoral au-thorities organized referendums that led to the defeat of the military el-ites in power. In Central America, however, the lack trust in the independence of electoral institutions (except for Costa Rica) was wide-spread, based on a long history of rigged elections. Institutional prereq-


uisites had to be created to ensure free and fair elections in legitimate elections. Two actors have been particularly active in this process: Inter-national organizations such as the UN, the OAS, the Carter Center, and above all, the Center for Electoral Assistance and Training (CAPEL), the electoral division of the Inter-American Institute for Human Rights (IIDH), ‘which played an important role in the diffusion and consolida-tion of standards for electoral practice and therefore in the enhancement of electoral bodies’ (López Pintor 2000: 99). Civil society organizations also played an extremely important role in the improvement of the elec-toral process by monitoring elections, organizing seminars on electoral matters, offering electoral and civic education (for example Transpar-ency International in Peru). In fact, extraordinarily efficient administra-tive bodies were created in a context generally lacking administrative competence and efficiency. This has led to remarkable progress in re-gard to the fairness and credibility of elections. This substantial im-provement can be seen as the most effective reform process since re-democratization. In the debate on democracy and democratic govern-ability, it paralleled the general recognition that electoral administrative authorities are ‘institutions of governance’ (López Pintor 2000).

Table 3: Compulsory Voting in Latin American Countries Compulsory

registrationCompulsory voting

Sanctions

Argentina yes yes yes Bolivia yes yes yes Brazil automatic yes yes Chile no yes yes Colombia no no no Costa Rica no yes no Dominican Rep. yes yes no Ecuador automatic yes yes El Salvador yes yes no Guatemala yes yes no Haiti — no — Honduras yes yes yes Mexico yes yes no Nicaragua yes no no Panama yes yes no Paraguay yes yes yes Peru automatic yes yes Uruguay yes yes yes Venezuela yes yes yes Source: Payne et al. 2002 and own data.


The most common type of electoral organization in Latin America is an independent electoral body with complete responsibility for the electoral process. The only exception is Argentina, where the government runs the elections under the control of a supervisory judicial authority. The independent electoral bodies, for example, the Tribunal, Court, etc. per-form all the functions of a supreme electoral authority, the manager of elections, and the supreme electoral court of justice. In some constitu-tions (Costa Rica, Venezuela), the electoral authority is defined as the fourth branch of the government in addition to the executive, the legisla-tive and the judiciary. In some countries, however, these functions are split into two autonomous organizations, one that is responsible for elec-toral administration, while the other serves as the supreme body for elec-toral justice (justicia electoral) settling disputes on electoral matters. This is the case in Chile, where the Electoral Service is in charge of or-ganizing the elections, in Colombia with the National Civil Registry, in Mexico with the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) and in Peru with the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE).

As all the organizational, supervisory, and judicial bodies improved and the skills and ethic standards developed, Latin America took a huge step forward. It has become possible to guarantee the free expression of the political will of the electorate. However, efforts to sustain this elec-toral culture have to continue. This is of particular importance in an en-vironment that is characterized by processes that are legally unrestricted (see Waldmann 2002). Some scholars argue that the rule of law is still missing and they therefore question the existence of democracy in Latin America. Nevertheless, in comparison with other areas there is no doubt that the highest legal standards have been achieved in the field of elec-toral politics.

Recently, the notion of free and fair elections was expanded to in-clude the idea of fair competition between the contenders, especially with regard to the financing of electoral campaigns and access to the media (see Zovatto 2003). This is a very controversial field, not least be-cause campaign financing is generally mixed, i.e. money is supplied by both public and private sources. It is worthwhile noticing that both have been regulated by law. It is equally remarkable that electoral bodies have become increasingly involved in controlling legal provisions, which may lead to conflicts between the electoral authorities and the political par-ties. as the latter may try to gain control over the former. In a non-consolidated democratic culture, extending the functions of the electoral bodies may threaten their own existence.


4. Electoral Participation

Political participation is certainly a broader concept than simply voting, but electoral participation is the most democratic form of political par-ticipation, with the smallest social bias discriminating against poor and low income groups. Therefore, voter turnout deserves much attention, and normative appeals to improve the level of electoral participation are quite understandable. On the other hand, evaluations linking the degree of legitimacy of a political order directly to the degree of voter turnout are not entirely convincing, since most stable democracies show low levels of electoral participation, a fact that should lead to more balanced assessments.

There are many factors affecting the level of electoral participation, including the legal properties of suffrage, functional aspects of the elec-toral administration, the type of political system, and the position of elections within the system. Others are linked to long-term phenomena such as political culture, social inclusion, political socialization and the functions of elections embedded in socio-economic structures characte-ristic to the Latin American region. Others are concerned with short-term political constellations focusing on contenders, issues, degrees of polarization and expectations in regard to a single election or a series of elections. In this multi-causal relationship, it is difficult to measure the influence of a single variable.

We will focus on the first group of variables in particular. At first glance, one seems to be of particular importance: whether voting is compulsory or not. In Latin America, suffrage is generally compulsory and is voluntary in only two countries, Colombia and Nicaragua. But compulsory voting is only likely to be relatively important, since there are usually no sanctions for failing to vote. Another variable is certainly more important: The registration procedure. In most countries, voter re-gistration is individual, which means that it is up to the enfranchised person to ensure that he or she is entered in the register, even though vo-ting is compulsory. In contrast, in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru registration is voluntary, whereas in Brazil and Ecuador it is automatic (see Table 3). These characteristics are likely to lead to differences bet-ween these countries in the meaning of voter turnout. In some countries varying numbers of persons legally entitled to vote may not be registe-red.

As Latin American political systems are presidential, a third variable refers to the kind of elections held. Parliamentary elections in presidenti-al systems are by no means as important as in parliamentary systems.


Turnout is generally higher in the more important elections, a fact that can be proven in countries in which mid-term elections are held. In comparison with simultaneous presidential and parliamentarian electi-ons, mid-term election data shows lower turnout rates. Furthermore, the degree of simultaneity between presidential and parliamentary elections has to be taken into account. Voter turnout is affected if elections take place on the same day, on the same ballot, or with a single vote (see be-low).

These considerations call for very cautious treatment of cross-national data and generalizations within Latin America as well as comparisons of this region with other regions in the world. Cross-national data includes different registration procedures and the different degrees of accuracy of registering the eligible population. A higher participation rate can be an epiphenomenon of a poor method of voter registration. Remarkably, as the administration of the elections improved, participation rates declined in many countries. The Mexican case is particularly conspicuous. In 2003, turnout reached an all-time low of just over 40% in the best orga-nized election in history. These findings contradict assumptions that vo-ter turnout could maybe be increased by greater public confidence in elections.

The average voter turnout in Latin America for presidential elections between 1978 and 2000 was 73.2% of registered voters and 65.5% of the voting age population. For legislative elections, the turnout rate for regi-stered voters was 71.7%. Differences between countries are great. Chile comes top at 92.0% of registered voters, Colombia only registers 44.1%. Both countries are among those with the longest democratic experience in Latin America. But there are similar voter turnout rates for countries like Costa Rica and Nicaragua, where the context of elections is very different. In Chile, turnout in relation to voting age population reaches only 80.3%. This data shows the importance of registration laws. Co-lombia and Nicaragua, the only countries with voluntary registration ha-ve very different positions with 75.9% and 39.3% of the voting age population. To sum up, it can be said that the institutional variables play a certain role, but that there is no strict linear causal relationship to ex-plain the differences in voter turnout.

This assumption regarding the cross-national perspective is supported by the historical perspective for the individual countries as there is great variation in electoral participation over time. Structural, long-term va-riables cannot explain them. In most countries, a decline in electoral par-ticipation has been observed; only three countries (Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Paraguay) show an inverse tendency to higher turnout ra-


tes. On the basis of survey studies focusing on political culture, the ge-neral tendency has been interpreted as a result of voter dissatisfaction with Latin American democracies, particularly the results of economic and social policy.

A more comprehensive approach to the study of electoral participati-on focuses less on the level of electoral participation and more on the different meaning of elections and voting, related to the respective soci-oeconomic and cultural conditions. These variations make a difference irrespective of the voter turnout:

(1) Levels of social equality. A high level of social inequality usually results in a greater bias against the political participation of socially de-prived groups, regardless of voter turnout. Furthermore, if the level of social injustice is high, elections are not seen as an act of political em-powerment by the majority of voters but rather as an opportunity to trade votes for material profit or favors. Thus, depending on the degree of so-cial inequality, high electoral participation can be coupled with entirely different expectation of politics.

(2) The governmental or societal focus of the political culture. This variable primarily applies to the rate of voter turnout. The societal focus on political culture in the United States, so aptly described by Alexis de Tocqueville, is likely to explain the low voter turnout in nationwide elections. As societal or community-oriented participation can compen-sate for low state-oriented political participation, it may relieve a demo-cracy of the necessity of high voter turnout. Governmental or societal focus of the political culture is certainly an essential factor in the inter-pretation of voter turnout figures.

(3) Centrality of a representative system of government in relation to other decision-making areas. A significant factor in interpreting voter turnout is whether a society has other means of enforcing its interests against veto powers, for example through traditional (violent) political conflict or via representational systems lacking democratically represen-ted political power.

(4) Confidence in the political institutions. It makes a big difference whether constitutionally guaranteed political participation is based on trust and a high level of political accountability, or whether distrust and low levels of vertical and horizontal accountability exist. Not only is the meaning of voter turnout strongly influenced by this factor, but also the quality and legitimacy of democracy as a whole.

In general, Latin America is characterized by a comparatively high degree of social inequality, a state-oriented political culture, a questio-ned centrality of the representative system as well as a comparatively


strong distrust of political institutions and low accountability. But there are great differences between countries, even between neighboring coun-tries such as Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Even if voter turnout is similar in the different countries, dissimilarities with regard to these variables may result in voter turnout having completely different meanings.

Table 4: Electoral Participation in Latin American Countriesa

1945–1959

1960–1969

1970–1979

1980–1989

1990–1999

2000–2004

Argentina 90.9 87.1 85.5 85.3 82.2 75.6 Bolivia 85.0 91.9 90.5 82.0 72.2 72.1 Brazil 92.0 79.6 81.7 94.9 85.8 82.3 Chile 79.5 80.6 81.8 94.7 91.3 87.1 Costa Rica 67.5 81.4 83.3 81.8 81.8 68.8 Ecuador 82.6 – 80.4 77.3 86.2 65.0b

Paraguay — 85.1 86.0 92.6 80.5 64.1 Peru — — — 79.8 68.1 82.0 Uruguay – 74.3 91.9 88.7 91.8 89.6 Venezuela 92.1 94.5 96.5 87.3 60.2 56.0 a The table indicates the maximum participation for parliamentary elections per given time span; in bicameral systems: elections to the lower house. b For presidential elections.

5. Elected Institutions: President and Parliament

All Latin American countries have presidential political systems in which two bodies are elected: President and parliament, both with their own legitimacy based on popular vote.

The unanimous decision to implement presidentialism in Latin Ame-rica has been seriously questioned theoretically. President and parlia-ment have to cooperate, although they are elected separately and their functions differ. In parliamentary systems, the government is elected by the parliamentary majority and backed by it. In presidential systems, however, the president and parliamentary majority frequently support different political standpoints, which means that the president often lacks support in the legislation. Some scholars purport that the decision for presidentialism in Latin America, which remained unaltered during the recent transition processes to democracy, has something to do with a lack of democracy and stability. These scholars call for the system to be changed to parliamentarism (see Linz/ Valenzuela 1994). Others disco-vered good reasons for presidentialism in Latin America, for example,


historical tradition since the nineteenth century nation-building process, a political culture of personal leadership and hierarchical decision-making and parties and party systems not responsible enough to base government stability on. Furthermore, the few attempts to establish par-liamentary government (for example in Chile and Brazil) were not parti-cularly successful. Where constitutions made parliamentarism possible—such as in Uruguay—politicians did not use this option. The latter group of researchers propose reforms within presidentialism in or-der to make relations between the president and the parliament more fle-xible and to improve cooperation (Nohlen/ Fernández 1991 and 1998).

Latin American presidentialism works in a context that is typical for the entire region but we also have to look at factors that differ from country to country. These differences make it hard to believe that presi-dentialism can really explain political development in Latin America.

For the analysis of presidential elections and the effects of presidenti-al electoral systems it is useful to look not only at the electoral system, but also at the characteristics and effects of presidentialism. Presidentia-lism in Latin America varies greatly according to the type of relationship that exists between government and parliament, the type of parties and the structure of party systems, the structure and degree of electoral vola-tility, and so on. It would go beyond the scope of this introduction to mention all of the differences here. I will concentrate on the institutional aspects of the political system.

5.1 President and Vice President

Today, Latin American presidents are all elected directly. The last two countries to introduce direct elections were Brazil in 1988 and Argentina in 1994. Most countries also have a vice president, with the exception of Chile, Mexico and Venezuela.

The term of office for presidents varies between four and six years. In nine countries the term is four years (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala and Honduras), in eight countries it is five years (Bolivia, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay), and in three countries it is six years (Chile, Mexico and Venezuela). Argentina reduced the presidential term from six to four years and Brazil and Guatemala reduced it from five to four years. At the same time, Argentina and Brazil introduced the possibility of reelection. The term was extended in Bolivia from four to five years and in Venezuela from five to six years. According to the


Constitution of 1980, the length of presidential mandate in Chile was eight years. The first president after redemocratization held office for four years. Eventually the term was formally reduced to six years.

Table 5: Presidential Electoral SystemsCountry Simultaneity

of pres. and parl. elections

Electoral term of president

Re-election

Requiredmajority

Further procedure

Argentina yesa 4 yes plurality of 45%b

runoff between two strongest candidates

Bolivia yes 5 no absolute majority


Brazil no 4 yes absolute majority


Chile no 6 no absolute majority


Colombia no 4 no absolute majority


Costa Rica yes 4 no plurality of 40%


Dominican Republic

no 4 yes absolute majority


Ecuador yes 4 no plurality of 40%c


El Salvador no 5 no absolute majority


Guatemala yes 4 no absolute majority


Haiti no 5 no absolute majority


Honduras yes 4 no plurality – Mexico yesa 6 no plurality – Nicaragua yes 5 no plurality of

40%runoff between two strongest candidates

Panama yes 5 no plurality – Paraguay yes 5 no plurality – Peru yes 5 yes absolute

majority runoff between two strongest candidates

Uruguay yes 5 no absolute majority


Venezuela no 6 yes plurality – a Except mid-term elections. b 40% if there is a difference of at least ten percentage points between the two strongest candidates. c Plus a difference of at least ten percentage points between the two strongest candidates.


One of the most peculiar constitutional characteristics of Latin America is the prohibition of reelection. It is still prohibited for presidents in most Latin American countries. There are two basic forms of no-reelección(non-reelection): Prohibition of consecutive reelection and permanent prohibition (see Table 5). The no-reelección has a long tradition and is mainly justified by historical experience: Latin American presidents had a tendency to stay in power as long as possible by using electoral fraud. For decades, no-reelección had a symbolic significance for democratic constitutionalism in Latin America. Today, with generally free and fair elections, this dogma may be reviewed in the light of problems with governance. In fact, during the last decade, eight countries changed re-election rules, one country even twice. Currently, five countries allow immediate re-election: Argentina (since 1994), Brazil (since 1995), Peru (since 1993), Venezuela (since 1998), and the Dominican Republic (again since 2004 after ten years of prohibition). Nicaragua (in 1995) and Paraguay (in 1992) in contrast banned reelection.

5.2 Parliament

Parliaments can have one or two chambers. Ten Latin American coun-tries have a bicameral parliament: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Co-lombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay. Peru and Venezuela changed from bicameralism to unicameralism in 1993 and 1999, respectively. Interestingly enough, these changes were promoted by two populist presidents: Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. All Central American parliaments are unicameral. In total, nine Latin American countries have a unicameral parliament.

Generally, the number of seats is determined by law. In some cases, the number of representatives in the lower house is bound to the number of inhabitants and thus depends on the demographic development, as the Constitution or the electoral law provides that a certain number of in-habitants are entitled to be represented by one deputy.

In nine countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras) the parliamentary term is four years. In seven countries (Bolivia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela) it is five years. In El Salvador and Mexico the term is three years. The only country with mid-term renewal is Argentina (until 1994 one-third renewal, since the reduction of a presidential term, half renewal). For the senate, the term differs from that of the house of deputies in Argentina (six years), in Brazil and Chile


(eight years) and in Mexico (six years). Whereas half the deputies are renewed in Argentina (every two years) and Chile (every four years), in Brazil one-third or two-thirds of the senators are renewed every four years. In Mexico the entire senate is renewed. In some countries, not all senators are elected using a popular vote. In Chile, only 38 of 49 sena-tors are elected; the others are appointed or are ex officio members for life due to their status as former presidents.

5.3 Simultaneity of Elections

As mentioned above, although the president and parliament are sepa-rated in presidential systems, their elections may be closely related. In most countries both elections are held on the same day: In Bolivia, Bra-zil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras (one half), Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. In Argentina, Honduras and Mexico half of the members of parliament are elected together with the president whilst the other half is renewed in the middle of the legislative term. In Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, and Venezuela, however, the elections are held on different days. The degree of interrelation varies. There are three different degrees of simul-taneity: It is low when the elections are simply held on the same day; it is moderate when there is a single ballot paper for presidential and par-liamentary elections; it is high when both president and parliament are elected with the same vote. Table 6 gives an overview of the interrela-tion.

Table 6: Degrees of Simultaneity Country Elections on the

same day One ballot only One vote

onlyArgentina yesa yes yes Bolivia yes yes yesb

Brazil no no no Chile no no no Colombia no no no Costa Rica yes no no Dominican Rep. no no no Ecuador yes no no El Salvador no no no Guatemala yes no noc

Honduras yesa yes yes Mexico yesa no no


Country(continued)

Elections on the same day

One ballot only One vote only

Nicaragua yes no no Panama yes no no Paraguay yes no no Peru yes yes no Uruguay yes yes yes Venezuela yes no no Source: Nohlen 1993, updated. a Except mid-term elections. b Except uninominal constituencies. c Yes with regard to 25% of the seats.

The degree of simultaneity is important because presidential elections can dominate parliamentary elections. Presidential elections are the most important elections in presidential systems. Their winner-takes-all char-acter is likely to lead to a concentration of votes on a few viable options. This certainly has an effect on the parliamentary elections and this effect can increase in accordance with the degree of simultaneity and may con-tribute to a more homogeneous political orientation of the president and the majority of the parliament. I will return to these assumptions later on when discussing the effects of electoral systems.

6. Presidential Electoral Systems

In presidential elections—which are necessarily winner-takes-all elec-tions—preferences tend to concentrate on those candidates with a realis-tic chance of winning and this may cause a similar effect on the parliamentary elections. This effect depends on the degree of simultane-ity and on the electoral system.

In general terms, there are two types of systems used for presidential elections: The plurality system (in which candidate with the most votes wins) and the absolute majority system (the winner needs more to win than half the votes). Furthermore, a third type can be distinguished: sys-tems in which candidates are required to gain at least 40% of the votes or a certain advantage in terms of percentage points over the second placed candidate in order to win.

All non-plurality systems need provisions for the case that no candi-date gains the threshold required to win. Currently, it is only in Bolivia where the parliament decides between the two candidates with the most votes. In all other countries a runoff (ballotage) is held.


Plurality is used in the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Mexico, Pa-nama, Paraguay and Venezuela. Plurality with a minimum winning share of at least 40% is used in Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Absolute majority systems are used in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, and Uruguay (see Table 7).

Some system changes have taken place in the last few decades: Ar-gentina and Nicaragua changed from plurality to plurality with a mini-mum threshold; Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay changed from plurality to a majority system with runoff; Ecuador changed from a majority system with runoff to plurality with a minimum threshold. Uruguay abolished the traditional doble voto simultaneo(double simultaneous vote), which was a fundamental institutional change. In Bolivia, the parliament’s choice was reduced from the three candidates with the most votes to the top two candidates. (On two occa-sions, the candidate with the most votes was defeated: once by the sec-ond placed candidate and once by the third placed candidate.) There is a general trend to introduce thresholds of 35%, 40% or 50%. Neverthe-less, the reasons for doing so and the expected results can be quite dif-ferent.

Although the study of the effects of electoral systems focused mainly on electoral systems for parliaments (as pluri-personal organs), the pos-sible outcome of presidential elections (as a uni-personal organ) have been used most often to highlight the different effects of electoral sys-tems. For example, Taagepera and Shugart point out the case of Chile in 1970, where a candidate who had only received one-third of the votes could win due to the structure of the electoral system. At the time, Chile had an absolute majority system, in which the parliament decided be-tween the top two candidates if no one candidate had won more than half the votes. Traditionally, however, parliament elected the candidate who had received the most votes. A counter-example, as mentioned above, is Bolivia, where the main criterion from 1985 onwards was which of the candidates could rely on stable support in parliament. These examples highlight the fact that similar types of systems can have very different outcomes, depending on political tradition and practices.

There are various criteria for evaluating presidential electoral sys-tems. The most important ones are legitimacy and efficiency. With re-gard to the absolute majority system, it offers on the one hand the advantage of granting a higher degree of legitimacy to the winner as he or she will be backed by the majority of voters, at least in the runoff. On the other hand, in the first round of an election under an absolute major-


ity system, voters are free to vote according to their real preference, which may enhance the dispersion of votes and encourage party frag-mentation. This factor is likely to effect governability, especially when presidential elections are held at the same time as parliamentary elec-tions and presidential candidates run as the most visible candidate of the party in the competition for parliamentary seats. This means that the process which results in an absolute majority for the candidate with the most votes in a runoff election, is not accompanied by a similar effect on the party system. The plurality system is said to sponsor a concentration of votes in the first and only round with a collateral effect on concentra-tion of party votes in the parliamentary election, even when they are held at the same time (Lijphart 1994: 15). Even if these effects are difficult to prove in practice due to the interaction of other factors, there are many indications that the different majority formulas have influences similar to those that Duverger (1951) observed in his seminal sociological laws with regard to parliamentary elections, and second, that there is a certain trade off between legitimacy and governability and that the decision be-tween plurality and majority is in some way identical to the one between this or the other function. The plurality system with minimum threshold is likely, however, to offer a middle road and to give an incentive for concentration in the first round, for both types of elections, which may be the only and decisive round, if the degree of the concentration of votes in one candidate is high enough and thereby sufficiently high to give the elected president the required degree of legitimacy.

Comparing the effects of the different types of electoral systems on presidential elections since re-democratization in Latin America, Payne et al. (2002: 74) point out that the average winner in a plurality system received 49.5%, in an absolute majority system 41.0% and in a plurality system with minimum threshold 49.1%. In five countries with a plurality system the average winning share was over 50%, in three countries the average winning share was slightly below 50% and only in the Domini-can Republic (43.3%) and Uruguay (37.5%) were the average winning shares as low as some of the theoretical argumentation would suppose.

In absolute majority systems the winner of the first round only re-ceived more than 50% on average in Chile (53.7%) and in Peru (50.5%). In Bolivia (31.1%), Brazil (45.9%), Colombia (40.4%), the Dominican Republic (45.4%), Ecuador 28.0%), Guatemala (37.1%), and Uruguay (40.1%) the winner’s share was particularly low.

The average winning share in the first round in plurality systems with minimum threshold was over 50% in two countries. It was only rela-tively low in Ecuador at 34.9%. When we look at countries in which the


electoral system was changed (Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Re-public, Ecuador and Uruguay) we notice that the differences in the win-ner’s share are so strongly influenced by contingent factors that it is difficult to establish a general assessment.

Table 7: Types of Presidential Electoral Systems and their effects Country Effective

number of presidential candidates(1st round)

Effectivenumber of parties (lower house seats)

Votes for the first place candidate(%, av.)

Votes for the first place cand. at last elections (%)

Plurality Argentina (1983, 1989) 2.64 2.70 49.6 – Colombia (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990) 2.48 2.33 51.0 – Dominican Republic (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994)

3.45 2.43 43.4 –

Honduras (1981, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1997)

2.15 2.10 51.9 52.2

Mexico (1982, 1988, 1994, 2000) 2.50 2.29 54.6 43.4 Nicaragua (1990) 2.14 2.05 54.7 – Panama (1989, 1994, 1999) 2.78 3.77 49.8 44.8 Paraguay (1989, 1993, 1998) 2.18 2.20 57.6 38.3 Uruguay (1984, 1989, 1994) 3.23 3.18 37.5 – Venezuela (1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2000)

2.73 3.62 48.8 59.8

Average for all elections 2.67 2.72 49.5 – Plurality with threshold Argentina (1995, 1999) 2.88 2.64 49.2 24.5 Costa Rica (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998)

2.17 2.32 51.6 38.6

Ecuador (1998) 4.10 5.73 34.9 20.6 Nicaragua (1996) 2.47 2.79 51.0 56.3 Peru (1980) 3.23 2.46 46.5 – Average for all elections 2.60 2.74 49.1 – Majority with runoff Bolivia (1980, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1997)

5.01 4.40 31.0 22.5

Brazil (1982, 1986, 1989, 1994, 1998) 3.62 6.70 45.9 46.4 Chile (1989, 1993, 1999) 2.36 5.04 53.7 48.0Colombia (1994, 1998) 2.79 2.95 40.4 54.0 Dominican Republic (1996, 2000) 2.87 2.32 45.4 49.9 Ecuador (1978, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996)

5.15 5.69 28.0 –

El Salvador (1984, 1989, 1994, 1999) 2.81 3.11 49.6 52.0 Guatemala (1985, 1990, 1995, 1999) 4.33 3.19 37.1 34.3 Peru (1985, 1990, 1995, 2000) 2.80 3.76 50.3 36.5 Uruguay (1999, 2004) 3.30 3.07 40.1 51.7 Average for all elections 3.72 4.37 41.0 – Source: Payne et al. 2002: 74, last column adapted.


Empirically it seems that absolute majorities are more likely under plu-rality than under absolute majority systems. In fact, plurality and plural-ity with a minimum threshold ‘are associated with fewer significant candidates running for office and fewer parties being elected to seats in the legislature. […] The winner of unique or first rounds averaged very close to 50 percent of the vote, while in majority runoff systems, the winner typically received just above 41 percent of the vote. In some countries, the winner averaged only about 30 percent of the vote’ (Payne et al. 2002: 71). It has to be kept in mind, however, that an electoral sys-tem is chosen on the basis of an existing party system. Accordingly, Payne et al. (2002: 71) rightly emphasize that ‘countries where many parties typically compete and present presidential candidates are pre-cisely the ones that are most likely to adopt a majority runoff system’. This refers to the circular causality between electoral systems and party systems, one of the main results of my analysis of electoral systems and party systems (see Nohlen 2004).

7. Electoral Systems for the House of Deputies

The electoral system is the main factor that determines the composition of parliament. This section first considers the electoral systems for the lower chambers and then for the senates.

7.1 Types of Electoral Systems

Most of the Latin American countries have systems of proportional rep-resentation (PR). The evolution of electoral systems in Latin America can be described as a process of expansion of proportional representa-tion. This process lasted nearly one century; that is, PR was introduced in the individual countries at very different times. Costa Rica introduced PR in 1893 in MMCs with more than two deputies. Uruguay followed suit in 1918. During the 1930s a number of countries changed their elec-toral system: Peru in 1931, Brazil and Colombia in 1932 and Chile in 1937. Ecuador followed later in 1945, Guatemala in 1946, Bolivia in 1956, Honduras in 1957, Venezuela in 1958, El Salvador in 1963, Pa-nama in 1983, and Nicaragua in 1984. Paraguay waited until 1990 to in-troduce PR. The only remaining exceptions are Haiti and Mexico: Haiti has never changed its absolute majority system, Mexico changed from a pure plurality system to plurality with minority representation, then in-


troduced some proportional seats and currently has a segmented system. Electoral reforms were generally introduced more gradually than in Europe, as the constituency allocation was generally maintained and the only change was the principle of decision. This incremental reform process (and not deliberate design) more or less determined the histori-cal outcome in terms of the type of electoral system.

PR systems other than pure PR and PR in MMCs of different magni-tude began to be introduced from the 1980s: Bolivia and Venezuela started to use personalized proportional systems; Chile opted for a new kind of electoral system, the binominal system; Mexico, as just men-tioned, changed to a segmented system and Ecuador returned to a major-ity system.

There are seven types of electoral systems for election to the lower house or the unicameral parliaments in Latin America:

(1) Plurality system in MMCs. Each voter has as many votes as there are seats to be filled in his or her constituency. The election is decided by plurality. This system has a highly fragmentary effect and is used in Ecuador.

(2) Absolute majority system in SMCs. Candidates need to win more than half the votes. If no candidate achieves this majority, a runoff takes place. This system is only used for both chambers in Haiti.

(3) Binominal system. The members of parliament are elected in two-member constituencies. It combines personal voting with a list element in order to structure the vote along party or party-alliance lines. The party with the most votes is given one seat and the party with the sec-ond-most votes gets the other. A list only wins both seats if it wins more than twice the number of votes than the second list. The most important effect of this system is that it favors the second-strongest party or party-alliance. The binominal system is used in Chile.

(4) PR in MMCs. Seats are distributed in MMCs using a proportional formulae such as the d’Hondt method or the Droop quota. This type of system can be further divided according to the constituency magnitude: small MMCs (two to five seats), medium MMCs (six to ten seats) and large MMCs (more than ten seats). The bigger the magnitude the more proportional the outcome will be. PR in MCCs is by far the most popular electoral system in Latin America. It is used in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru.

(5) Mixed-member PR (personalized PR). Uninominal candidatures are combined with MMCs. The seat distribution is determined using PR in MMCs. Voters have one vote for the candidate and one for a party list


as in Bolivia and in Venezuela since 1989, or one vote for the party list and as many votes as there are candidates to be elected in the SMCs or MMCs as in Venezuela after the reform of 1999 (for further details see the section on Venezuela in this volume).

(6) Segmented system. One part of the seats is allocated by a majority formula and the other by a proportional formula in which each method is applied separately. This system is used in Mexico.

(7) Pure PR. A system aimed at achieving the highest possible degree of proportionality between votes and seats. Such a system is used in Uruguay.

If we look at the electoral systems for the senates, we can further dis-tinguish between plurality systems, (as applied in the Dominican Repub-lic) and majority systems with minority representation and proportional elements (as applied in Mexico).

Table 8: Types of Electoral Systems for the Chamber of Representatives or the Na-tional Assembly

Binominal system

Segmented sy-stem

PR in MMC Personalized PR

Pure PR

Argentina Brazil Bolivia Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican

Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Table 9: Electoral Systems for the House of Representatives Country Electoral

system Electedseats

Constituencies Number Size(s) Mean size

Form of candidacy

Ballot form Level(s) of seat allocation

Electoral formula

Argentina PR in MMCs

257 24 2–25 10.7 closed party lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt; legal threshold: 3% constituency level

Bolivia mixed-member PR(personal-ized PR)

130:6862

689

1— 6.9

individualclosed party lists

two votes:personal and list vote

two levels: party share of seats is determined on MMC-level

d’Hondt; legal threshold: 3% nationwide

Brazil PR in MMCs

513 27 8–70 19.0 closed, non-blocked lists

single vote for candidate

constituency only Hare quota, greatest average

Chile Binominal System

120 60 2 closed, non-blocked lists

single vote for candidate

constituency only plurality list gets the 1st seat, and the 2nd, only if it doubles the vote share of the second best list

Colombia PR in MMCs

166 33 — 4.8 closed party listsa

single vote constituency only d’Hondt; legal threshold: 50% of the Hare quota

Costa Rica PR in MMCs

57 7 4–20 8.1 closed party lists single vote constituency only Hare quota, largest remain-der

Dom. Republic

PR in MMCs

150 47 2–8 3.2 closed party lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt

Ecuador PR in MMCs

100 22 2–18 4.5 open lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt

ElSalvador

PR in MMCs

84:6420

141

3–1620

4.6 closed party lists single vote constituencynational level

Hare quota, largest remain-der

Guatemala PR in MMCs

158:12731

231

1–1931

5.5closed party lists two votes:

regional and national

constituency national level

d’Hondt

Country(cont.)

Electoral system

Electedseats


Form of candidacy


Electoral formula

Haiti Absolute majority system

83 83 1 individual single vote constituency absolute majority (ballo-tage)

Honduras PR in MMCs

128 18 1–23 7.1 closed party lists single vote constituency only Hare quota, largest remain-der

Mexico segmented system

500:300200

3001

1200

party candi-dates;closed party lists

one vote, both candidate and list vote

SMCMMC

plurality threshold: 2% nationwide

Nicaragua PR in MMCs

90:7020

121

1–1920

5.8closed party lists single vote

constituency national level

at both levels: Hare quota, largest remainder

Panama Plurality in 26 SMCs, PR in 14 small MMCs

71:2645

2614

12–6 3.2

closed, non-blocked lists

as many votes as seats to be distributed

constituency only plurality; PR in three stages: Hare quota, half Hare quota and highest number of personal votes

Paraguay PR in MMCs

80 18 1–17 4.4 closed party lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt

Peru PR in MMCs

120 — — — closed party lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt

Uruguay Pure PR 99 19 2–45 5.2 preferential list single vote constituency and national level

d’Hondt

Country(cont.)

Electoral system

Electedseats


Form of candidacy


Electoral formula

Venezuela mixed-member PR (per-sonalized PR)

203:10598

10521

12–25

individualclosed list

two votes: personal vote list vote

3 levels: party share of 203 seats is determined at the level of the regional multi-member const.; additional seats are allocated at the national level

single member: plurality multi-member: d’Hondt add. national seats: Hare quota

a Parties decide whether their lists shall be blocked or if the voter may cast a preferential vote.


7.2 Technical Components of the Electoral Systems

This section focuses on the technical elements of electoral systems and their configuration in Latin America, where we are confronted with a wide variety of individual elements. The main purpose here is to form the empirical basis for an informed evaluation of electoral systems and for their further improvement, since parliamentary electoral systems are pivotal in the debate on institutional reforms in Latin America.

With regard to (1) constituencies the general tendency is that district magnitude is comparatively low. Most seats are distributed in small and medium-sized constituencies. An important parameter for districting is the political-administrative structure of the countries: In almost all coun-tries the electoral districts follow the adminstrative division into depart-ments, provinces or states. The small size of most of the constituencies is remarkable, considering that most of the countries use PR systems.

Table 10 shows that the constituencies in two countries are all small. In Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay the share of small constituencies and the share of deputies elected in these constituencies is remarkably high. This favors the per-sonal vote rather than the party vote, although there might be closed and blocked lists (see infra). Brazil and Peru, two countries lacking small constituencies, are the only cases (together with Panama) which have some kind of personal or preferential vote. Semi-free lists are a functio-nal equivalent to small constituencies with regard to the relation between voters and parliamentarians.

With regard to (2) nomination rules in PR systems, candidates gene-rally run on lists. Many constituencies, however, are small as districting follows the countries’ administrative divisions. Some constituencies may have only one or two seats, so that within a list system we suddenly have uninominal and binominal constituencies. Lists are almost always closed and blocked. The only exceptions are in Brazil, Panama and Peru.

Uruguay is a special case where it is debatable whether the lists are blocked or not. The law speaks of blocked lists. The difference lies in whether one looks at the lema, i.e. the groups of lists under one party la-bel or at the individual lists (sublemas), from which the voters actually choose. The sublemas are blocked but not the lemas, as voters can choose between them. Another special case was Colombia, where votes could be cast for candidate lists within the parties until the elections of 2002. In Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela vot-ers vote for individual candidates, not parties.


Table 10: Small Sized Constituenciesa

Number of constituencies Number of seats Number of members per constituency

1 2 3 4 5 Sub-totalb

% of totalc

Sub-totald

% of totale

Argentinaf – 5 11 2 2 20 83.3 61 48.0 Boliviag (68) – – – 1 1 11.1 (68) 5 (52.3) 3.8 Chile – 60 – – – 60 100 120 100 Colombia – 12 (12 overall) 24 72.7 - - Costa Rica – – – 1 2 3 42.8 14 24.5 Dominican Rep.

– 16 8 1 3 28 93.3 75 62.5

Ecuadorh 1 – 4 9 1 15 71.4 53 variablei

El Salvador – – 8 2 2 14 87.5 42 50.0 Guatemalah 8 6 1 3 2 21 91.3 45 variablei

Honduras 2 1 2 2 1 8 44.4 23 18.0 Mexicoj – 300 – – – 300 60.0 300 60.0 Nicaraguah 1 5 6 1 – 13 76.5 33 38.0 Panama 26 7 1 3 2 40 97.5 65 91.5 Paraguay 4 4 2 2 1 13 61.9 29 39.7 Peru 3 2 4 2 – 11 45.8 27 15.0 Uruguay – 11 5 1 – 17 89.5 41 41.4 Venezuelag (102) – 5 2 3 10 43.5 43 22.7 a Table includes only countries with small sized constituencies. b Number of small sized constituencies. c Number of small sized constituencies as a percentage of the total number of constituencies. d Number of deputies elected in small sized constituencies e Number of deputies elected in small sized constituencies as a percentage of the total number of deputies.f Partial renovation only. This reduces the magnitude of constituencies. g Personalized PR. Introduced in Venezuela in 1993 and in Bolivia in 1997. h Some deputies are elected in a separate nationwide constituency. i The number of seats is not fixed, as it is linked to population size. j Segmented system.

With regard to (3) the voting system, the voter in Latin America gener-ally has one vote, more accuarately one party vote. In Mexico, Vene-zuela and Bolivia (since the reforms of 1989 and 1993, respectively) voters have two votes: with the first vote, he or she chooses a candidate at the uninominal constituency level, the second vote is used to select a party list at the MMC level. Since the reform of 1998 in Venezuela, vot-ers still have one party vote but they now also have as many votes as there are deputies to be elected in the SMC or MMC. Other exceptions are Ecuador and Panama: the voters have as many votes as seats are to be filled in the MMC. A third group of exceptions concerns forms and alternatives of voting: in Brazil—within a system of non-blocked lists—


the elector votes for a list or for a candidate; in Peru the elector has an optional additional preferential vote.

Finally, Guatemala, Nicaragua and temporarily Mexico constitute a fourth group of systems with two votes: In Guatemala, 25% of the seats are determined by the votes cast for the president; in Nicaragua one vote is counted at the district or regional level and another one at the national level. Currently, in Mexico one vote elects both the representatives in the SMCs and the representatives in the MMCs with PR. In the Domini-can Republic, deputies and senators are elected using the same vote.

An important aspect to consider is whether voters can vote individu-ally for the different entities or whether the different elections are con-nected; that is, voters cast their vote simultaneously for president and parliament with the same vote. In these combined votes the outcome tends to be determined by the most important election at stake (voto de arrastre), usually the presidential election. Until recently, voters in Ar-gentina, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Uruguay only had one vote for president and parliament. In Uruguay the double simul-taneous vote (the double referred to more than one organ to be elected by one vote) was a system that gave the voter more freedom in his or her choice. Reforms in Bolivia, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay (see supra) abolished the system of the combined vote.

With regard to (4) the formulas for seat distribution, seats in most countries are only distributed at the constituency level. The only excep-tions are Uruguay, where the distribution is at both the constituency level and the national level and Bolivia and Venezuela with their com-pensatory effects.

Half the countries apply the Hare quota to distribute seats and the other half use the d’Hondt divisor system, sometimes called cifra repar-tidora, although the procedure is identical, but on a larger scale. The last quotient resulting from the divisions by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. is taken as the dividing number to calculate the number of seats parties are entitled to receive. Sometimes, the application of the Hare quota is restricted—as in Ecuador and Nicaragua—to constituencies with more than two seats. Furthermore, differences may occur in the calculation depending on the reference data used. In Brazil, for example, blank votes are included in the calculation.

When using quota systems, some seats usually remain unallocated. Generally, these are then allocated using the method of the largest re-mainder. In Brazil, however, the method of the largest average is used (refer to the glossary for a more detailed description of the different sys-tems used).


Thresholds usually required to participate in the process of seat alloca-tion (5) are uncommon in Latin America. Argentina has a threshold of three percent (until 1973 eight percent) of the registered voters at con-stituency level. The threshold is so low that it only has an effect in MMCs with more than 30 deputies. Bolivia introduced a three percent national threshold in 1996 and Mexico has a two percent national threshold (since 1996 1.5%) for the PR section. Mexico also has an up-per threshold: No party can receive more than 60% of all seats, no mat-ter how many votes it wins. This measure was first introduced in 1986; the threshold was lowered from an initial 70% to 65% in 1993 and fi-nally to 60% in 1996. In 1996, Mexico also established that the differ-ence between the vote share and seat share of a party may not exceed eight percentage points. This provision is waived, however, when the disproportion results from seats won in the plurality segment.

Knowledge of the technical details is important as they are crucial for improving the effects of the electoral systems on gobernability and the consolidation of democracy. One important debate, for example, focused on how to increase what has been called ‘representativeness’, but what, according to our differentiation of functions, corresponds to participati-on. If one looks at the technical elements it is easy to recognize that most Latin American electoral systems include components intended to enhance the freedom of choice between candidates, either through uni-personal or small constituencies, through personal or preferential vote, or through as many votes as there are seats are to be filled. Furthermore, the official definition of the technical elements in Latin America may differ from the common scientific definitions and this may cause confu-sion. For example, Colombian and Uruguayan law states that the lists are closed. In fact, however, voters choose factions or sublists within their party preference, so that the lists are actually semi-open and only the sublists are closed and blocked. Therefore, only precise scrutiny of the technical details enables us to analyse electoral systems and to pro-pose adequate reforms.

7.3 The Effects of Electoral Systems on Party Systems

As long as electoral systems have been in existence, there has been a de-bate first on their effects, the real impact they have on the structure of party systems and on governability, and second on the evaluation of their effects. The general information relating to both aspects refers mainly to theoretical considerations; that is, on the intrinsic effects re-


sulting from pure logical and/or normative assessments. The special in-terest in the study of parliamentary electoral systems in Latin America and elsewhere stems from the assumed relationship between PR, multi-partism, incapability to build one-color, stable parliamentary majorities, which, as a consequence, leads to problems of governability. This linear relationship is also highlighted with regard to presidential systems, al-though governments do not depend—as in parliamentary systems—on parliamentary majorities, neither for their formation nor for their politi-cal activities. Some scholars maintain that PR is in some way responsi-ble for the political problems that Latin America has been suffering during the last decades. They argue that the fact that PR occurs together with the instability of democracy in Latin America is not coincidental (Blais/ Dion 1990); and that the combination of presidentialism with PR is the worst of all the possible combinations of the basic forms of de-mocratic government and the basic electoral systems (Lijphart 1991).

However, first the electoral system is not the only factor that influen-ces the structure of party systems and the phenomenon thought to de-pend on it. And second, the real effects of electoral systems depend on the context and the special factors constituting this context. The factors emerge in their confrontation with real social and political structures as well as with political culture and traditions over time. Factors that de-termine the structure of the party system and influence the effects of electoral systems include the social and political cleavages, e.g. the high social inequalities and widespread exclusion in Latin America; values, beliefs and attitudes produced by these fundamental social structures and historical experience concerning politics, e.g. personalism, informalism, clientelism, etc. On the one hand, these factors determine the weakness of institutions, the representative system, and democracy, and, on the other, they enforce certain kinds of institutional arrangements such as presidentialism, the prohibition of reelection, the low degree of institu-tionalization of parties and party systems, which may enhance electoral volatility. Although these contextual conditions seem to characterize La-tin America in comparison to other parts of the world, there are, howe-ver, great differences between countries in the region itself. A given electoral system may work sufficiently well in one context, but fail to do so in another. As electoral systems do not emerge from pure theoretical considerations, they partially reflect the conditions on which they are expected to have an effect. This is especially true with regard to the structure of the party system, which is the most important factor to de-termine for example, the degree of proportionality an electoral system can reach.


The evaluation of the effects of electoral systems is often guided by unique criteria. To create an electoral system that may meet the expecta-tions of good governance, electoral systems generally have to perform three main functions: representation, concentration (or effectiveness), and participation. The extent to which they do so according to contextual demands, can form the basis for an adequate and useful evaluation. The following section defines these concepts, which are to be applied in our evaluation of Latin American electoral systems, and considers their de-velopment and possibilities for reform.

(1) Representation can be defined in two ways: in the sense of repre-senting all relevant social groups, including minorities and women, in the elected representative bodies; and in the sense of fair representation; that is, as close as possible a reflection of the social interest and political opinions in parliament. The parameter for reasonable representation is the degree of proportionality between votes and seats. Wide-ranging de-viations in proportionality are often perceived as being problematic.

(2) Concentration measures the aggregation of social interests and po-litical opinions for the purpose of making political decisions and enab-ling the polity to function effectively. Elections are considered an act of forming political will, not as a portrayal of the voters’ opinions. The first parameter to ensure a reasonable degree of concentration of an electoral system is the number of parties that receive parliamentary seats, and the second parameter is the ability to form a stable party or coalition majori-ties in parliament. Unstable government conditions caused by multi-party systems are frequently perceived as being problematic.

(3) Participation concerns the possibility for the voter to express his or her political preference, with regard both to parties and candidates in the framework of the alternative between the personalized vote and party or list vote. Here the idea is not participation in the common mea-ning of the term, as elections are in themselves an act of political parti-cipation. The specific kind of participation is associated with the level of the relationship, knowledge, responsibility, and identification between voters and the elected. The parameter for measuring the adequacy of par-ticipation (in this strict sense) permitted by an electoral system is the personalized vote. If the personalized vote is totally eliminated, as it is for example under a blocked list, it may be interpreted as problematic.

There are two further functions that may play a role in the assessment of electoral systems:

(4) Simplicity, which becomes pertinent when electoral systems are expected to comply with the criteria of representation, effectiveness, and participation simultaneously. This inevitably leads to electoral systems


that are more complicated than those satisfying only one of the above criteria. Yet, it is worth trying to get the electorate to understand the electoral system and even to be aware of the effects of their votes.

(5) Legitimacy is a criterion that encompasses all the others, in the sense that it refers to the acceptance of the electoral results, which are considered—whether right or wrong—as determined by the electoral system. As a result, if there is a reduction in the legiti-macy of the political system as a whole this means that the electoral system and the rules of the democracy must be reformed. It is not easy to establish the extent to which the electoral systems meet the criterion of legitimacy. There are different approaches besides the numerous contingent considerations, and these approaches are close-ly related to the three basic functions and the priorities expressed with regard to them. We will return to the function of legitimacy later.

The degree of proportionality in a system can be measured by looking at the difference in percentage points between the share of the votes and the share of seats a party receives. Disproportionality is low when the difference does not exceed three percentage points. The first elections of the 21st century in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela had proportional outcomes as the difference was lower than three percentage points. In Bolivia, Chile, Co-sta Rica, and Nicaragua the difference did not exceed six percentage points, so these results can be qualified as slightly disproportional. Ac-cording to this criteria, the electoral systems in these two groups of countries fulfill the function of representation. Electoral outcomes were only disproportional in Argentina (11.3 percentage points), the Domini-can Republic (6.5), Mexico (6.4), Panama (15.9), and Peru (11.2). While these results can be explained by the effects of the electoral systems in the cases of the Dominican Republic (small constituencies) and Mexico (segmented system), in Argentina, Panama, and Peru other factors, such as the party system, voter behavior, and some contingent factors, obvi-ously played a determinant role.

In general terms, the effects of Latin American parliamentary electo-ral systems on the structure of party systems correspond to the theoreti-cal expectations. However, nearly all cases show some peculiarities that are mainly caused by the respective party system. As most of the electo-ral results are sufficiently proportional, one would expect party fragmen-tation and political instability, but the reality is different. There are as many party systems with a reduced effective number of parties (Colom-bia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Paraguay) as there are multi-party systems (Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, Peru, Uruguay). The


first group of countries can be said to have basically two-party systems, or at least concentrated party systems. With regard to the second group, Brazil is the only country with a highly fragmented party system, with extremely high volatility. It has to be recognized that among the PR sys-tems, the Brazilian electoral system is the system that least encourages concentration and, thus, effective procedures. Uruguay, with the Lema system, fairs only slightly better. This country, however, has a fairly sta-ble three-party system, which on the one hand is very factionalized, due to the properties of the electoral system, which was introduced in atten-dance of party fragmentation; but on the other shows growing tendencies to a more bipolar development (whereas Costa Rica from the first group of countries showed an inverse evolution in the last election). The real results of PR systems are so varied that each case would require a spe-cific explanation. Consequently, due to the importance of contextual fac-tors, the theoretical expectations are reduced to fulfill a more heuristic than an explanatory function. The findings are similar for the non-proportional systems in Latin America in so far as there is also no com-mon pattern of results. Chile has an electoral system that encourages ef-fectiveness, and indeed, the political competition on the basis of electoral alliances is nearly bipolar; in other words, the effective number of contenders is closest to two in Latin America. But Chile continually has more than two parties, and the political process cannot be under-stood without recognizing the basic structure of this multi-party system. Nevertheless, the electoral system is determinant with regard to the elec-toral competition and to the high stability of the government. The alli-ance system itself ensures that proportionality is relatively high and the individual vote leads to high levels of participation. Ecuador, the only country with a real majority system, has chaotic representation: it is not very proportional and extremely ineffective, but it involves good oppor-tunities for electors to vote for specific candidates. The segmented elec-toral system used in Mexico fulfils these three functions averagely; that is, neither particulary well nor particularly badly.

An analysis of 111 parliamentary elections held between the mid-1970s and 2003 shows that a party was able win a majority of seats in 32 cases. 18 majorities were earned—the party won more than 50% of the votes—while 14 were manufactured, due to the mechanical effect of the electoral system. Absolute majorities were achieved in Argentina (three times), Brazil (one), Colombia (five), Costa Rica (three), the Dominican Republic (three), Guatemala (three), Honduras (four), Nicaragua (two), Paraguay (two), and Venezuela (two). If we look at all the elections for


Table 11: Degrees of Proportionality Country Electoral system Election

(year)Effectivenumber of parties (votes)

Effectivenumber of parties (seats)

Rose-Indexa

Argentina PR in MMCs 2001 5.91 3.41 —b

Bolivia mixed-member PR (personalized PR)

2002 5.77 4.98 82.6

Brazil PR in medium and large MMCs

2002 9.29 8.50 84.4

Chile binominal system 2001 6.57c 7.52 79.05Colombia PR in MMCs 2002 8.94 7.57 60.0 Costa Rica PR in medium and large

MMCs2002 4.52 3.68 81.5

Dominican Republic

PR in MMCs 2002 3.12 2.86 87.6

Ecuador PR in MMCs 2002 15.65 8.91 —b

El Salvador PR in MMCs with additional national list

2003 4.08 3.53 80.8

Guatemala PR in small and medium MMCs with additional national list

2003 6.21 4.65 67.9

Haiti absolute majority system in SMCs

2000 — 1.29 —

Honduras PR in MMCs 2001 2.58 2.41 93.1 Mexico segmented system 2003 3.52d 3.02 85.1 Nicaragua PR in MMCs with addi-

tional national list; one seat for the Ex-president, one for second voted pres. candidate

2001 2.20e 2.04 92.2

Panama plurality in SMCs and PR in small and medium MMCs

1999 5.68 3.26 57.3

Paraguay PR in MMCs 2002 4.21 3.17 77.5 Peru PR in MMCs 2002 6.62 4.37 67.6 Uruguay PR in MMCs 1999 3.13 3.08 98.5 Venezuela mixed-member PR

(personalized PR) 2000 4.22 3.65 78.1

a The Rose-Index of proportionality is calculated by first adding up the differences between the vote and seat share of each party, and then subtracting half of this total sum from 100. Parties below 0.5% of the national vote share are not included. The Rose-Index ranges theoretically from 0 to 100; the closer the value is to 100, the more proportional the effects of the electoral system are. b Due to new party-alliances after the elections the Rose-Index is not applicable. c Results for the different parties within alliances. d Based on the results of the plurality segment. e Based on departmental results.


Table 12: Some Features of Party Systems Strongest party No. of

electionsEarnedmajorities

Manu-facturedmajorities

Changes in majority

Difference be-tween shares of votes and seats in per-centage pointsa

Highestshare of votes

Lowestshare of votes

Argentinab 10 0 3 1 1.3 48.8 35.8 Bolivia 5 0 0 3 5.1 35.6 22.3 Brazil 6 0 1 3 -0.7 47.8 17.5 Chilec 4 0 0 0 — 27.1 18.9 Colombiad 8 5 0 0 1.6 56.4 29.1 Costa Rica 7 1 2 4 3.5 55.2 29.8 Dominican Republic

7 2 1 3 6.5 51.4 34.6

Ecuador 10 0 0 4 — 31.7 11.5 El Salvador 7 1 1 2 2.9 52.4 34.0 Guatemala 5 0 3 4 2.9 42.1 23.0 Honduras 5 3 1 3 1.2 53.0 44.3 Mexicob 3 0 0 0 6.4 38.7 36.7 Nicaragua 3 2 0 0 4.0 53.9 45.2 Panama 3 0 0 1 15.9 36.1 22.9 Paraguay 4 2 0 0 -0.9 74.5 35.3 Peru 5 2 0 4 11.2 51.1 26.3 Uruguay 4 0 0 1 0.3 41.0 32.3 Venezuela 7 0 2 3 2.3 49.9 23.3 a Last election (between 1999 and 2003). b Partial elections. c Electoral alliances. d From 1978 onwards.

the individual countries, we find the highest proportion of absolute ma-jorities in Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, and the Domini-can Republic, in this order. Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay have never produced a one-party majority in parliament. The lowest vote share, with which an absolute majority of seats could be won, was 34.6% (Guatemala 1985). In all other cases, the vote share was above 40.0 %, four times above 48%. When we examine the party sy-stems in which an absolute parliamentary majority was achieved by one party, they tend to be concentrated in two-party systems (Argentina, Co-lombia, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela). The only three-party system in our sample is the Dominican Republic. Brazil and Guatemala have multi-party systems, and the latter case shows that a high dispersion of votes can produce manufactured parliamentary majo-rities under PR with relatively little support for the party that won the most votes. Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay on the contrary, were the first countries to experiment with party-based formalized coalitions as none


of the parties were able to win absolute majorities. In Chile the electoral competition is bipolar as parties form electoral alliances. It is worth no-ticing that within these alliances, parties that are most distant from the center have continuously gained to the disadvantage of their counterparts located more to the center of the left-right continuum.

The data shows that it is becoming more and more difficult for a sin-gle party to win a majority. In the last elections (between 1999 and 2003), the winning parties only twice won more than 40% of the vote, seven times between 30% and 40%, five times between 20% and 30%, and three times less than 20%. Compared to data from earlier decades after re-democratization, the party systems of Latin America have conti-nuously lost their ability to form majorities. These findings demand further studies to examine the causes and consequences of this develop-ment.

Parliamentary majorities changed in more than one-third of the elec-tions. In some countries (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Bolivia), such changes occur rather regularly. In the first two countries this usu-ally happens in connection with the result of the presidential elections. From a theoretical point of view, the pattern of electoral change in Costa Rica corresponds nearly perfectly to the model of alternative govern-ment within the presidential framework. Some scholars argue, however, that changes, which are actually regarded as signs of sound democratic practices, are so frequent that they rather reflect the voters’ dissatisfac-tion with politics and especially with economic and social policies. In contrast, for other countries we notice a considerable continuity, which surely implies different causes and consequences. Conditions in both Colombia, the traditional bipartism with one dominant party, and in Paraguay with only one dominant party, which may be perceived as problematic for the democratic process, differ greatly from those of Chile. Here, a stable coalition managed to win three consecutive elec-tions, thus overcoming the pre-authoritarian electoral fluidity that had resulted in problematic executive-legislative relations (divided govern-ment) and in the breakdown of democracy.

7.4 The Reforms of Electoral Systems Since the Transition to Democracy

Since re-democratization, i.e. since the late 1970s, there has been a de-bate about whether electoral systems are an important factor for the im-provement of political representation, participation, and governance (see Nohlen 2004). The debate, however, is not an indicator for actual re-


forms. Closer examination is required to see whether electoral reforms have been carried out and, if so, which shape these reforms have taken.

Presidential electoral systems have certainly been subject to the grea-test range of changes. However, in most cases (10) traditional electoral systems have been maintained. As we saw earlier, Argentina changed from plurality to plurality with a minimum threshold; Colombia and the Dominican Republic from plurality to absolute majority; Ecuador from absolute majority to plurality with a minimum threshold; Nicaragua from plurality to plurality with a minimum threshold and Uruguay from plurality to an absolute majority system. In general terms, the number of systems favoring a broader base of legitimacy for the elected candidate were increased by the reforms. No reform introduced a plurality system, which was, in contrast, replaced by an absolute majority system in three cases. Three times, reforms introduced a plurality system with minimum threshold, one of them changing from an absolute majority system, two from a plurality system. These reforms follow the general tendency in electoral reforms in Latin America to promote the side of input into the political system. According to this tendency, the rules to be applied if no candidate wins an absolute majority were changed in El Salvador and Guatemala, where the decision by Congress was replaced by a popular vote in a runoff election. In Argentina and Brazil, indirect elections were replaced with direct ones. Nevertheless, the increasing use of a plurality system with minimum threshold, a system much more appropriate with regard to the effects of the presidential electoral system on the party sy-stem, shows that criteria of efficiency were also taken into account.

Brazil, Chile, and Costa Rica have not changed their parliamentary electoral systems at all. Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, changed their electoral systems: Ecuador changed from PR in regional MMCs with a national MMC to plurality in MMCs; Mexico switched from plurality to a segmented system; Peru changed in 1993 from PR in MMCs to pure PR and back to PR in 25 MMCs in 2000; and Bolivia and Venezuela changed from PR in MMCs to personalized proportional re-presentation. These reforms were preceded, accompanied or followed by minor innovations in different areas of the electoral institutional structu-re. In the other Latin American countries, most changes to electoral sy-stems from the end of the 1970s concerned the number of parliamentary seats. The number of deputies rose in Argentina from 254 to 257, in the Dominican Republic in 1997 from 120 to 149, in Ecuador in 1998 from 82 to 121 seats, in El Salvador in 1988 from 60 to 84 and in Guatemala after continuous changes in 1998 from 80 to 113. In Honduras, the size of the assembly was increased from 82 to 134 in 1985 and reduced again


to 128 in 1988. In Peru, the number of deputies was reduced from 180 to 120, in Colombia from 199 to 161. These changes meant that consti-tuencies had to be redistributed, which affected the proportionality of the electoral systems.

Other reforms were due to the reform of the presidential term of of-fice. In Argentina, the number of mid-term elections was reduced from two to one. Further reforms separated the vote for president and parlia-ment (as in Honduras in 1992 and in Uruguay in 1996) or the ballots on which they are elected (as in the Dominican Republic and Guatemala in 1990, in Honduras in 1993 and in Panama 1993). Another reform intro-duced a national constituency (El Salvador 1988). Furthermore, some minor changes in the way seats were assigned in Nicaragua actually re-placed a purely proportional system with a system of PR in MMCs.

Major reforms concerned representation of women, as in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, and Panama, where legal quota were introduced, ranging from 25% in the Dominican Republic to 40% in Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Panama, parties ha-ve to alternate men and women on the lists. Another reform which has an indirect impact on the role of the parliamentary electoral system has to do with the simultaneity of elections (as discussed above). Some countries, such as El Salvador in 1982, the Dominican Republic in 1994, and Venezuela in 1998, separated the presidential from the parliamenta-ry term. This reform may encourage different majorities in presidency and parliament (as happened in El Salvador 2003/2004) and produce sta-lemates.

7.5 General Tendencies in the Evolution of Electoral Systems

On the whole, and considering the main features of the Latin American electoral systems for the lower or sole chamber, we can see that there is a general trend to improve representation and participation. From time to time, effectiveness has also been tackled by the reforms, but in most cases these reforms have only had a negative effect, or if a reform has a positive effect it is due more to a contributory effect of a different objec-tive rather than in its own right. Chile is the one main exception to this rule because the military regime introduced a binominal system, which can be said—leaving aside all the criticism it deserves (see the chapter on Chile in this book)—to be effective. Most remarkably, the system has been able to be maintained, and it looks as if Chilean politicians are in-creasingly aware of the necessity for further reforms to fulfill the func-


tion of effectiveness in similar terms. Some minor exceptions, such as the last reform in Colombia, may be a first sign of a solid reaction to the disproportionate regard given to the representative and participatory functions.

All these empirical observations on the evolution of electoral systems in Latin America show what is generally supposed to be a legitimate electoral system. Representation and participation are the top objectives and correspond to what the people demand, assuming that these con-cepts can be used to improve the social conditions. Furthermore, the de-gree to which people participate in the elections, or the degree of abstention, is an additional parameter for judging the legitimacy of the electoral result and the political system as a whole. Therefore, when tur-nout declines and discontent with democracy increases, there is a further incentive to open the channels to allow wider representation and partici-pation. Remarkable examples of this tendency are found in the Andean area, especially in Colombia and Ecuador, where a ‘chaotic representati-on’ is the result of this search for legitimacy using unbalanced electoral means.

Actually, abstention is not as good an indicator as one would think, since: First, there is no significant correlation between the degree of participation in elections and the legitimacy of the democratic system, although mass media and some social scientists support this theory, and second, the electoral systems may have a very limited effect on absten-tion. Another indicator of legitimacy could be the the extent to which the the public criticizes the electoral systems. Here there is a real gap between the technical quality of an electoral system on the one hand, and the intensity of the criticism on the other. In Venezuela, for exam-ple, in the 1980s, almost all of experts on the subject supported the electoral system in force, but public opinion was in favor of reform. In the end, the candidates for presidency paid attention to the public opini-on in their campaign promises, and the parties finally agreed to reform the electoral system. There are contingent factors that may force an electoral system to be changed even though it meets the appropriate requirements. The context is not only important with regard to the ef-fects of electoral systems, but also with regard to the assessment of the electoral systems.


8. Electoral Systems for the Senate

8.1 Types of Electoral Systems

As mentioned above, some countries have a unicameral system, others a bicameral one. There are a number of different electoral systems for the senates and these are: A plurality system in the Dominican Republic; a plurality system with minority representation in Argentina, Brazil, and Bolivia; the same type with an additional list for PR in Mexico; binomi-nal system in Chile; PR in one MMC in Colombia and pure PR in Para-guay and Uruguay. The following table highlights the major details.

Table 13: Electoral Systems for the Senate Country Term of

officeMembers Electoral system

Argentina 6a 3 for each province plus Bue-nos Aires (plus vice president, without right to vote)

2 for the most-voted party, one for the first minority

Bolivia 5 3 for each province 2 for the most-voted party, one for the first minority

Brazil 8b 3 for each State, i.e. SMCs or binominal constituencies

as much votes as members to be elected; plurality or the two most-voted candi-dates

Chile 4 19 binominal constituencies (plus appointed senators)

the two most-voted lists, except if the most-voted list doubles the vote of the second strongest list; within the list: plurality

Colombia 4 100 seats plus 2 for indigenous communities

one national MMC; natural quotient (Hare quota) with largest remainder

Dominican Republic

4 30 SMCs plurality

Mexico 6c 32 trinominal constituencies 2 for the most-voted party, one for the first minority; 32 additional seats for pro-portional representation

Paraguay 5 45 seats (30 substitutes) in one MMC

blocked and closed lists, d’Hondt method

Uruguay 5 30 (plus vice president with right to vote)

voto simultáneo, onenational MMC, closed but not blocked list, d’Hondt

a Partial renovation of two thirds every other year. b Every four years, alternating partial renovation of one third and two thirds, respectively. c Partial renovation of one half every three years.


8.2 Reforms and Evolutions of Electoral Systems for the Senates

In contrast to the lower houses in Latin America, the senates are mainly elected using some kind of majoritarian representation. There have been a few changes since redemocratization, but the electoral systems for the senate have generally maintained their basic majoritarian character. The only exception is Colombia, where PR in a nationwide constituency was introduced. Other reforms aimed at adding some proportional compo-nents into the established system or separating the votes for senators from those for other institutions, the president or the lower house. While the first kind of reforms enhanced the function of representation, the second enforced that of participation. None of these reforms were car-ried out to improve the effectiveness.

9. Institutions of Direct Democracy

The possibilities for direct democracy have been enhanced recently. Nearly all the constitutions reformed since the 1990s have included ele-ments of direct democracy: Argentina (1994), Bolivia (2004), Colombia (1991), Costa Rica (2002), Ecuador (1998), Honduras (2004), Paraguay (1992), Peru (1993), and Venezuela (1999), with some differences be-tween the countries (see Table 14).

Only a few Latin American countries have a tradition of referendums, such as Uruguay, where the instrument was introduced as early as 1934. However, referendums have played an important role in the re-establishment of democracy in Uruguay and Chile. The main reason for this institutional innovation lies in the crisis of political representati-on by parties and in that of representative democracy in general in some countries, where decisions made by the representative organs meet pub-lic resistance and can only be implemented with difficulty. Another source of empowerment in the idea of direct democracy lies in the ex-pectation of civil society that referendums may strengthen its influence on politics. But experience has shown that this instrument is used more to express general dissatisfaction with the incumbent government and less for specific policy preferences and clear mandates. Until recently, the use of referendums was very limited. Some new experiences have confirmed the ambivalent real functions of the instrument. On one occa-sion, the people of Colombia were called to decide on 15 political que-stions. As all but one of the questions were rejected due to an insufficient turnout, the referendum proved how ineffectual an instru-


ment it can be and furthermore, showed that participation was not the priority of the electorate. In Bolivia, the vice president, who had become president by force by coercing the incumbent president into resigning, tried to expand his basis of legitimacy and to decide a political question that polarized the political elite and the people. In Venezuela, civil poli-tical opposition to the authoritarian leadership tried to use the instrument for recall, but was prevented from exercising their constitutional right for a long time due to the public administration. When it was finally agreed to hold the referendum, the government used all political and economic means, particularly the petroleum revenues and public debt, i.e. a populist expense policy, to bring about a decision to its own favor.

To summarize, referendums in Latin America have recently gained importance as they have been held in order to make decisions on which no agreement could be reached and which could not be implemented within the framework of the representative institutions, a) because a lar-ge part of the population is not included in the decision-making process; b) because of the high degree of polarization among political groups and parts of the population, who are unable to come to a consensual decision due to the instrumentalization of political issues in their struggle for po-wer; and c) because of strong resistance on the part of social forces out-side of the representative system against political decisions. It has often been observed that referendums are not centered on the issue at stake but on the desire to cast a verdict on the government and politics in general. As regards content, the decisions are very ambivalent because they give reductionist answers according to a yes/no schema even to questions that require differentiated solutions. This is why it would be a mistake to as-sume that referendums really increase the degree of satisfaction with democracy.

Table 14: Mechanisms of Direct Democracy Legislative

initiativeReferendum/ Plebiscite

Recall

Argentina yesa yes no Bolivia yes yes no Brazil yesa yes noChile no yesc no Colombia yes yes yes Costa Rica yesa yesb no Dominican Republic no no no Ecuador yes yes no El Salvador yesb yes no Guatemala yesb yes no


(continued) Legislativeinitiative

Referendum/ Plebiscite

Recall

Honduras no yes no Mexico no no no Nicaragua yesb yesb no Panama no yes yesb

Paraguay yes yes no Peru yes yes no Uruguay yesa yes no Venezuela yes yes yes Source: Zovatto 2005. a Not for changes of the constitution. b Has not been used until now. c Rules for constitutional reform.

10. Elections, Electoral Systems, and the Search for Democracy in Latin America

As we have seen in the previous chapters, elections have become a stan-dard in Latin America. In general, the electoral regulations meet democ-ratic standards and their practice is free and fair. Electoral justice (justicia electoral) is certainly the most effective part of all public branches relating to justice. This progress does not prevent irregularities from occurring or stop regional leader from trying to exercise influence on electoral results by using social dependencies, nor does it make peo-ple have more faith in elections or stop associations or parties from try-ing to control the electoral process on their behalf. The most important criterion is that any actions against the freedom and fairness of elections will not alter the electoral result. This pragmatic criterion is used in in-dustrialized western democracies, which paid considerably less attention and spent far less money in order to guarantee free and fair elections. In social science, those who criticize elections actually refer mainly to the importance given to elections in the conceptualization of democracy. Of course, the complete concept of democracy includes more than just elec-tions, but it must not be forgotten that people living in authoritarian re-gimes first demand free elections in order to see personal and public issues change, and that a political system according to a thin, politically inclusive definition of democracy is what really can be achieved in countries where nearly all other components of a society, according to a broad and socially inclusive definition of democracy, are to be con-quered and transformed on the proper basis of the actual feature of de-mocracy.


Electoral systems play an important role in the area of institutional fac-tors that influence governability and the outcome of the wide range of public policies. But there are a lot of non-institutional factors, which are not less determinant. One feature of the academic and public debate is to look primarily at the side of the input into the political system. It might be due to a certain historical heritage from the authoritarian past of Latin America that, in both spheres, considerations to overcome occurring cri-ses are centered on only one type of answers to improve or renew le-gitimacy; that is by increased representation and/or participation of the people. But our considerations refer to democracies with, generally spo-ken, a sufficiently democratic institutional structure (required to be clas-sified a democracy). First, all empirical evidence shows that in most cases, what really makes a difference in the evaluation of democracy in Latin America is the economic and social outcome of a regime (see Latinobarómetro). The dissatisfaction with democracy is based on poor political results, so that a best answer to the question of legitimacy would be to improve governability by institutional reforms, which are centered on greater efficiency of the political system. However, if insti-tutional reforms aim to improve representation and expand participation, this is done by neglecting the issue of effectiveness in the institutional units. In most of our findings focusing on electoral systems, the contex-tual factors and their influence on governability, we observed a tendency to improve representation and/or to expand participation: Direct presi-dential elections, absolute majority for the election instead of plurality, the complete separation of presidential and parliamentary elections, the presence of small constituencies, the introduction of personal vote or as many votes as there are deputies to be elected in a constituency, the in-troduction of more proportional elements into electoral systems, the ab-sence of thresholds, etc. There are a number of good arguments in favor of these reforms, but they all focus on the oncerns of representation and participation and not on those of effectiveness.

The approach to institutions and their reform has to change from rep-resentation and participation to concentrate on effectiveness. However, if we look at the citicism of democracy today, at the search for more democracy and the institutional answers to its critics, one can distinguish three considerations and reform initiatives: (1) to open the nomination of candidates for parliamentary seats and public offices to independents or groups of civil society; (2) to enforce internal democracy in political par-ties; and (3) to introduce mechanisms of direct democracy. All these measures are important, but all of them are likely to encourage represen-tation and participation. With regard to the first section of reform pro-


posals, political parties still maintain their monopolist position in most countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama), but they feel challenged by the civil society and fight against proposals to allow independent candidates to compete. These fears seem exaggerated, especially as civil society groups would have to organize in the same way as the parties if they wanted to be successful in the long term, but obviously, a possible reform tends to produce more dispersion of votes and greater fragmentation of political representation.

Concerning internal democracy of parties, there is a general trend to-wards more regulation of these aspects. Electoral authorities have taken an interest in the internal life of parties after laws were passed obliging parties to follow democratic principles not only externally but also inter-nally. Public scrutiny is becoming evident through the requirement to register parties and candidates with the electoral authorities. Nomina-tions of party leaders and candidates for public office are supposed to be democratic and attempte are being made to open up the decision-making process to ordinary party members. Internal elections and primaries play an increasingly important role; however, the candidate for president is still generally nominated by traditional party organs. For parliamentary elections, openness is limited by the need to secure the efficiency of the parties, as defection of parliamentarians is a common problem. Also, at-tempts to introduce internal democratization have not yet been able to stop the widespread criticism of the parties.

As far as direct democracy is concerned, many scholars doubt that conditions necessary for successful use are currently met in Latin Ame-rica. Demands for direct democracy normally come from the civil socie-ty and are meant less as a form of participation complementary to representative democracy than as a radical critique of this type of demo-cracy and a means against it. Recent experiences confirm the skepticism towards referendums. According to Daniel Zovatto (2005), mechanisms of direct democracy are rather distorting elements that are incapable of efficiently replacing the institutions of representative democracy, which are based on a party system strongly connected to society.

All these considerations lead to the conclusion that the functions of elections as instruments for developing democracy within the broader context of political culture, social exclusion, and public policy require-ments in Latin America have to be improved. After decades of focusing on representation and participation, effectiveness should play a greater role in the debates on ‘democracies in development’ (Payne et al. 2002) in order to acquire a better balance in the relationship between the three evaluative criteria for elections and electoral systems.


Bibliography

Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age.Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.

Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Barzak, M. (2001). ‘Representation by Consultation? The Rise of Direct De-mocracy in Latin America’. Latin American Politics and Society, 43/3.

Blais, A. and Dion, S. (1990). ‘Electoral Systems and the Consolidation of New Democracies’, in D. Ethier (ed.), Democratic Transition and Con-solidation in Southern Europe, Latin America and Southern Asia. Lon-don: Macmillan: 250–268.

Bovens, M. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizen-ship in Complex Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, D. and Ranney, A. (eds.) (1994). Referendums around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.

Cardoso, F. H. and Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Cerdas-Cruz, R., Rial, J., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1992). Una tarea inconclusa: Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1988–1991.San José: IIDH / CAPEL.

Clarke, C. (1991). Society and Politics in the Caribbean. Oxford: McMillan. Collier, D. (ed.) (1979). The New Authoritarianism in Latin America.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Colomer, J. M. (2001). Instituciones políticas. Barcelona: Ariel — (2002). ‘Reflexiones sobre la reforma política en México’. Este país.

Tendencias y opiniones, 137 (August): 2–12. Comisión Andina de Juristas (ed.) (1993). Formas de gobierno: Relaciones

ejecutivo – legislativo. Lima: Comisión de Juristas. Cox, C. G. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the

World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, Ill.: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press. Dahl, R. A. and Tufte, E. R. (1973). Size and Democracy. Stanford, Cal.:

Stanford University Press. Diamond, L., Linz, J. J., and Lipset, S. M. (eds.) (1989). Democracy in De-

veloping Countries: Politics, Society, and Democracy in Latin America. Vol. 4. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Drake, P. W. and Silva, E. (ed.) (1986). Elections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980 – 85. San Diego, Calif.: University of California.

Duverger, M. (1959). Political Parties. New York: John Wiley.


Eisenstadt, S. N. and Rokkan, S. (eds.) (1973). Building States and Nations.London: Sage Publications.

Griner, S. and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (2004). De las Normas a las Buenas Prácticas. El desafío del financiamiento político en América Latina. San José: OEA/IDEA.

Grofman, B. and Lijphart, A. (eds.) (1986). Electoral Laws and Their Politi-cal Consequences. New York: Agathon.

Hermet, G., Rose, R., and Rouquié, A. (ed.) (1978). Elections without Choice. London: McMillan.

Huntington, S. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twenti-eth Century. Norman, Okl./ London: University of Oklahoma Press.

Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (ed.) (2000). DiccionarioElectoral. 2 Vols. San José: IIDH.

International IDEA (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Re-port on Political Participation (2nd edn.). Stockholm: International IDEA.

— (2002). Voter Turnout since 1945. A Global Report on Political Participa-tion, Stockholm: International IDEA.

Jaquette, J. S. and Wolchik, S. L. (eds.) (1998). Women and Democracy. Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jaramillo, J. (1994). Wahlbehörden in Lateinamerika. Opladen: Leske + Bu-drich.

Jones, M. (1995). Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democra-cies. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Karl, T. L. (2000). ‘Electoralism’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclope-dia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQPress, 95–96.

Katz, R. S. (1997). Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.

Krennerich, M. (1996). Wahlen und Antiregimekriege in Zentralamerika. Op-laden: Leske + Budrich.

Lauga, M. (1999). Demokratietheorie in Lateinamerika. Die Debatte in denSozialwissenschaften. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

LeDuc, L., Niem, R. G., and Norris, P. (eds.) (1996). Comparing Democra-cies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Lijphart, A. (1991). ‘Constitutional Choices for New Democracies’. Journalof Democracy, 2/1: 72-84.

— (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-SevenDemocracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— (1999). Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, Conn./ London: Yale Uni-versity Press.


Lijphart, A. and Waisman, C. (eds.) (1996). Institutional Design in New De-mocracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: West-view Press.

Linz, J. J. and Stepan, A. (eds.) (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Re-gimes. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

— (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. SouthernEurope, South America, and the Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, Md./ London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Linz, J. J. and Valenzuela, A. (ed.) 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democ-racy. Baltimore, Md./ London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lipset, S. M. (1959). ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic De-velopment and Political Legitimacy’. American Political Science Re-view, 53: 69–105.

— (1960). Political Man. New York: Doubleday. López Pintor, R. (2000). Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of

Governance. New York: UNDP. Mackenzie, W. J. M. (1958). Free Elections. London: George Allan and Un-

win.Mackie, T. T. and Rose, R. (eds.) (1991). The International Almanac of Elec-

toral History (3rd edn.). London: MacMillan. Maingot, A. P. (1985). Some Perspectives of Governing Elites in the English-

Speaking Caribbean. Claremont, Calif.: Claremont McKenna College. Mainwaring, S. and Shugart, M. S. (eds.) (1997). Presidentialism and De-

mocracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Middlebrook, K. J. (ed.) (1998). Electoral Observation and Democratic

Transitions in Latin America. La Jolla: Center for U.S.–Mexican Stud-ies, University of California, San Diego.

Morgenstern, S. and Nacif, B. (eds.) (2002). Legislatures and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nohlen, D. (1978). Wahlsysteme der Welt. Munich: Piper. — (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios

Constitucionales. — (ed.) (1993). Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericano y del Caribe. San

José: IIDH/CAPEL. — (ed.) (1993). Elecciones y sistemas de partidos en América Latina. San

José: IIDH/CAPEL. — (1996). Elections and Electoral Systems. New Delhi: McMillan India. — (2004): Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos (3rd edn.). Mexico City:

Fondo de Cultura Económica. Nohlen, D. and Fernández, M. (ed.) (1991). Presidencialismo versus

parlamentarismo. América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad. — (ed.) (1998). El presidencialismo renovado. Instituciones y cambio

politico en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad.


Nohlen, D., Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Nohlen, D., Picado, S., Zovatto, D., and Orozco, J. J. (eds.) (2005). Tratadode Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Norris, P. (ed.) (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, G. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authori-tarianism. Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley, Calif.: Inst. of International Studies.

O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P., and Whitehead, L. (eds.) (1986). Transitionsfrom Authoritarian Rule. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain De-mocracies. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Organization of American States (OAS) (ed.) (1999). SeminarioInternacional sobre Legislación y organización electoral: Una vision comparativa. Lima: Transparencia.

Pastor, R. A. (1999). ‘The Role of Electoral Administration in Democratic Transitions: Implications for Policy and Research’. Democratization,6/4: 1–27.

Payne, J. M., Zovatto, D., Carrillo, F., and Allamand, A. (eds.) (2002). De-mocracies in Development. Politics and Reform in Latin America. Wash-ington, D.C.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Planas, P. (1998). Comunicación política y equidad electoral. Lima: Universidad de Lima.

— (2001). Parlamento y gobernabilidad democrática en América Latina, 3 vols, Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Perú.

Potter, D., Goldblatt, D., Kiloh, M., and Lewis, P. (ed.) (1997). Democratiza-tion. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Prebisch, R. (1981). Capitalismo periférico: Crisis y transformación. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Rae, D. W. (1968). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Ha-ven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Reynolds, A. and Reilly, B. (1997). The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm: International IDEA.

Rial, J. and Zovatto, D. (ed.) (1998). Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1992–1996. Urnas y desencanto. San José: IIDH / CAPEL.

Rose, R. (ed.) (2000). International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQPress.

Rueschemeyer, D., Huber Stephens, E., and Huber, J. D. (1992). CapitalistDevelopment & Democracy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.


Rule, W. (2002). ‘Political Rights, Electoral Systems, and the Legislative Representation of Women in 73 Countries: A Preliminary Analysis’, in S. Nagel (ed.), Global Policy. New York: Marcel Dekker, 73–91.

Rush, M. E. (ed.) (1998). Voting Rights and Districting in the United States.Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— (1997). Comparative Constitutional Engineering. An Inquiry into Structure, Incentives and Outcome (2nd edn.). Houndmills/ London: MacMillan.

Shugart, M. S. and Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and Assemblies: Constitu-tional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Thibaut, B. (1996). Präsidentialismus und Demokratie in Lateinamerika, Op-laden: Leske + Budrich.

Tuesta Soldevilla, F. (ed.) (1996). Simposio sobre reforma electoral. Lima: IFES.

UNDP (ed.) (2005). Democracy in Latin America. Towards a Citizens’ De-mocracy, Buenos Aires: Aguilar.

Valadés, D. (2003). El gobierno de gabinete. Mexico City: UNAM. Waldmann, P. (2002). Der anomische Staat, Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Zovatto, D. (2003). América Latina, in M. Carrillo et al. (eds.), Dinero y

contienda politico-electoral. Reto de la democracia, Mexico City, 33–96. — (2005). ‘Instituciones de democracia directa’, in D. Nohlen et al. (eds.),

Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina (2nd edn.). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

ARGENTINAby Mark P. Jones, Martín Lauga, and Marta León-Roesch

1. Introduction

1.1 Historical Overview

Argentina’s experience with democratic government began in 1912. However, in the 1930s the country entered a prolonged political crisis, characterized by considerable political instability and the cyclical alter-nation between constitutional and de facto regimes. These cyclical crises appear to have ended with the consolidation of democracy in the post-1983 era.

Argentina obtained independence in 1816. During the next 50 years the country’s political life was marked by the struggle between the sup-porters of a federal and decentralized form of government and the sup-porters of a unitary and centralized form of government (with power centralized in the Province of Buenos Aires). The promulgation of the 1853 Constitution marked a milestone in Argentina’s history. It establis-hed a presidential form of government and a bicameral legislature. Fede-ralism was adopted, but the Province of Buenos Aires remained the country’s economic and political center.

In the second half of the 19th century, strong economic growth, based on the exportation of beef and cereals, led to the emergence of a national political elite that brought stability and legitimacy to the political sy-stem. This elite created the clientalist Partido Autónomista Nacional (PAN; National Autonomist Party). Although the 1853 Constitution established universal male suffrage, the elections (direct for chamber deputies; indirect for the president, vice president, and senators) were held in public and excluded the growing immigrant population. Furthermore, electoral results were often manipulated as the provincial governments controlled the electoral rolls. Under these conditions, the PAN became a hegemonic party, allowing neither formal nor de facto party competition.

By the end of the 19th century the systematic electoral fraud carried out by the PAN had eroded the legitimacy of the political system. The

Argentina60

opposition parties, including the powerful Unión Cívica Radical (UCR, Cicil Radical Union)—founded in 1890 by Leandro N. Alem—began to demand the secret and compulsory vote. In 1912, the Sáenz Peña electo-ral law introduced universal and secret suffrage for men 18 years of age and older. Suffrage was granted to native and naturalized citizens. Both voting and registration was compulsory. With this reform the old order had come to an end.

Following these reforms, the UCR quickly established itself as the country’s principal political force, winning the presidential elections of 1916, 1922, and 1928. The UCR became the dominant party in a compe-titive party system. It had little programmatic and organizational cohesi-on, however, and was made up of the most heterogeneous and fragmented social class. Although the UCR benefited the most from the extension of suffrage it was unable to become the main representation of labor interests.

At the same time, the PAN tried to stop the UCR’s success by mer-ging eight provincial parties into the Partido Demócrata Progresista(PDP; Progressive Democratic Party)—founded in 1914. This attempt failed because the Argentine right lacked a national structure. On the left the Partido Socialista—founded in 1896—entered congress.

From 1912 to 1930, most political conflicts were settled within the party system. Political actors were the UCR, the Conservatives, the PDP and the PS. There was little ideological-programmatic polarization bet-ween them as they shared a basic consensus on the development strate-gy: an export model of agricultural products.

This first attempt at democracy began to fail with the rising abuse of the right to federal intervention, that is, the military’s intervention in provinces ordered by the national executive of President Yrigoyen. The physical and psychological deterioration of the president, his tendency to promote only personal allies in the military, his efforts to deny political rights to the opposition, and the effects of the economic Great Depressi-on were the factors that intensified the political crisis and paved the way for a conservative restoration.

In 1930, a military coup d’état overthrew the democratic government of President Hipólito Yrigoyen and banned the UCR. This marked the beginning of a long period of political instability and military interventi-on in politics, the so-called Década Infame (Infamous Decade). It was the return to a political system like the one before the Sáenz Peña Law had been introduced. It was characterized by restricted civic rights and limited political participation. The terms of Presidents Uriburu, Justo, Ortiz and Castillo were part of this era. All of them lacked public legiti-

Argentina 61

macy due to the widespread electoral fraud, which was openly justified as fraude patriótico (patriotic fraud). This practice ended in 1943, when a group of nationalist officers (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos, GOU, United Officer’s Group) instigated a military coup d’état and President Castillo was replaced by General Rawson. Two other coups followed shortly af-terwards: Pedro Ramírez deposed Rawson and Edelmiro Farrel over-threw Ramírez. All three were military officers.

It was Farrel’s government where Juan Domingo Perón began his rise to the top of the state. In the military regime Perón was vice president, the employment secretary and also in charge of the war department.

Perón ran successfully in the 1946 presidential elections as the candi-date of an alliance led by the Partido Laborista (Labor Party). Three months later, Perón dissolved both the party and the alliance and foun-ded a new party called Partido Único de la Revolución (Single Party of the Revolution), which was renamed to Partido Peronista in 1947. In the years to come, the Partido Peronista enjoyed an overwhelming ma-jority in both the lower chamber and the senate. At this point, the old dualism of Radicals versus Conservatives had been replaced by the new antagonism of Peronists versus Anti-Peronists. In 1949, a new Peronist-inspired constitution was promulgated.

In the course of the time, the Peronist regime became more and more authoritarian. The state intervened in society, while the Peronist Party occupied the political arena. The hegemonic and personalistic style of the party in power shaped the state’s character. Political institutions ero-ded and state, party and labor movement were amalgamated.

Perón’s government was weakened by the death of his popular wife Eva, called Evita, in 1952, an economic crisis which meant the end of the distribution policy and a conflict with the Catholic Church. The voi-ce of the opposition grew louder and in turn repression and political per-secution increased. After a military insurgency in June 1955 had failed, a coup in September of the same year forced Perón into exile and esta-blished a military government.

Peronism was banned, and elections to a constituent assembly were called. In 1957, the constituent assembly abolished the constitutional and legal reforms introduced by Perón’s government and reintroduced the 1853 Constitution. In the general election of 1958, two opposing fac-tions of the UCR, the UCRI and the UCRP, competed, while Pero-nism—prohibited from participating in the election—remained the largest political force in the country. The introduction of proportional representation, as a mechanism to counteract Peronist political dominan-ce, encouraged the fragmentation of the party system.

Argentina62

In 1962, another coup overthrew President Arturo Frondizi from the UCRI, who had been elected with Peronist support. In 1963, new presi-dential elections were called, while the Peronists were still banned. Artu-ro Illia from the UCRP was elected, but he lasted just three years in office: In 1966, a coup deposed him and the military established an authoritarian regime from 1966 to 1970 led by Juan Carlos Onganía, fol-lowed by Roberto Levingston (1970 to 1971) and Alejandro Lanusse (1971 to 1973). During this period, all political parties were banned.

In the next elections, held in March 1973, the Peronists—now the Partido Justicialista (PJ; Justice Party)—defeated the UCR. Perón, still in exile, returned to Argentina, and in September 1973 was elected pre-sident with over 60% of the vote. Perón’s sudden death in 1974 plunged the Peronist government into chaos. In 1976, a military coup d’étatmarked the beginning of the darkest period in Argentine history, charac-terized by unprecedented levels of repression and violence against go-vernment opponents.

In 1983, following the United Kingdom’s victory over Argentina in the 1982 Malvinas (or Falklands) War, free and competitive elections were held. The UCR, headed by Raúl Alfonsín, won the elections, brea-king the Peronist unbeaten streak that stretched back to the 1940s. Raúl Alfonsín’s presidency saw the start of a new period in Argentine poli-tics, marked by an acceptance of the principles of competitive democra-cy and the rule of law, and the peaceful coexistence of the political actors within the framework of the 1853 Constitution.

In 1989, the presidential election was won by the PJ candidate, Carlos Saúl Menem, due in part to the failure of the Alfonsín government to re-solve the profound economic crisis facing the country. Following the 1989 partial renewal of the bicameral legislature (indirect in the case of the senate) the PJ held a near-majority of the seats in the chamber of de-puties and an absolute majority in the senate.

In 1994, as a consequence of a pact (Pacto de Olivos) between Me-nem and Alfonsín, a new constitution was promulgated—following a constituent assembly that for the most part rubber-stamped the Menem-Alfonsín agreement. The 1994 Constitution introduced, among other things, the possibility of a single immediate re-election of the president.President Menem was re-elected in 1995. At the same time, the UCR fell to an anemic level of representation in the chamber of deputies, while an important new center-left political force (the Frente País Solidario)emerged.

In 1999, the UCR and Frente País Solidario—along with several pro-vincial parties—formed the Alianza Trabajo, Justicia, y Educación (Ali-

Argentina 63

anza THE; Labor, Justice and Education Alliance) that competed against the PJ in the chamber and presidential elections, presenting a joint chamber list in 23 of the 24 electoral districts. The Alianza TJE presi-dential candidate, Fernando de la Rúa (UCR), soundly defeated the PJ candidate, Eduardo Duhalde. Following the election, the Alianza TJE controlled a near-majority of the seats in the chamber. The PJ, however, retained its absolute majority in the senate.

On 20 December 2001, under mounting social and economic pressu-re, President de la Rúa resigned from office. After a tumultuous period, in which three other individuals occupied the presidency (two in an inte-rim capacity), on 1 January 2002 Eduardo Duhalde (PJ) was elected by the joint chamber of deputies-senate legislative assembly (262 votes in favor of Duhalde versus 21 against) to complete the remainder of de la Rúa’s term.

However, Duhalde called early elections on 27 April 2003. Eighteen candidates participated in the presidential elections, of which Carlos Menem and Néstor Kirchner received the most votes. Due to the opinion polls, which predicted Menem’s defeat, he decided to withdraw from the second election round. According to the electoral provisions, the runoff scheduled for 18 May between Menem and Kirchner did not take place and the latter was automatically proclaimed president. On 25 May, Néstor Kircher assumed as president of Argentina.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions

The historical evolution of the Argentine electoral provisions can be ob-served in the 1853 Constitution (reformed in 1860, 1866, and 1898), the Ley No 8871 de 1912 (Ley Sáenz Peña) and other national laws. Elec-toral provisions were later modified by the constitutional reforms in 1949, 1957 (which abolished the 1949 Constitution and re-established the 1853 Constitution), and 1972 (Estatuto Provisional which only ap-plied to the 1973 elections).

Under the 1853 Constitution, both the president and the vice president were elected for a six-year term. Immediate re-election was prohibited (this was modified by the 1949 Constitution, which introduced immedia-te presidential re-election and direct election by a plurality vote; the 1972 Estatuto Provisional reduced the mandate to four years, permitted one re-election, and provided for direct election via majority runoff). Presidential elections were indirect, via an electoral college, which was formed by a number of electors twice the size of the total number of

Argentina64

chamber deputies and senators. An absolute majority in the electoral col-lege was required. If no candidate attained such a majority, the Argenti-ne congress would choose from the two candidates who had received the most votes in the electoral college.

Except for the periods from 1957 to 1963 and from 1973 to 1976, de-puties were elected using a majority electoral formula (plurality or in-complete list). Except for the periods 1951–1955 and 1973–1976 (when elections were direct using plurality and the incomplete list method re-spectively), until 2001, the senators were indirectly elected for nine-year terms. In the provinces, the senators were elected by the provincial legis-latures by plurality (in the Capital Federal by an electoral college). Uni-versal suffrage was introduced in 1951.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions

Sources: Constitución de 1994; Código Electoral de 1983 (including subsequent modifications).

Suffrage: Argentina has universal adult suffrage. Argentine citizenship is required (naturalized citizens may register three years after acquiring citizenship). The minimum voting age is 18 years. Voting is compulsory except for people over 70 years old, ill persons, those more than 500 km away from home, and people exercising vital public service functions on election day. Since 1991, Argentineans living abroad can vote in all na-tional elections. Mentally ill, illiterate deaf-mutes, prisoners, and detain-ees are excluded from voting.

Elected national institutions: The president and the vice president are directly elected for a four-year term. One immediate re-election is per-mitted. The 257 members of the Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Nación are directly elected for four-year terms. One-half of the member-ship (127 and 130) is renewed every two years. Deputies can be re-elected. Vacancies are filled by those candidates who follow on the party list. The 72 members of the Honorable Senado de la Nación are directly elected for six-year terms. Following the complete renovation of the senate in 2001, two-thirds of the senators initially had two or four-year terms, only. One-third of the membership is renewed every two years, beginning in 2003. Senators can be re-elected. Vacancies are filled by those candidates who follow on the party list.

Argentina 65

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates for president and vice president must have been born in Argentina or be children of a native Argentinean. Nominated by political parties based on the parties’ own internal rules. The minimum age for candidacy is 30 years.- parliamentary elections: Candidates must have been born in the prov-ince in which they are running or have been a resident there for at least two years. Candidates running for the senate must have possessed Ar-gentine citizenship for at least six years and candidates for the chamber of deputies for at least four years. In addition, candidates for the senate must have an annual income of at least 2000 pesos fuertes or the func-tional equivalent. Nominated by political parties. The minimum age for candidacy is 25 years for deputies and 30 years for senators.

Electoral system - presidential elections: The president and the vice president are elected using the same (fused) electoral ticket following a two-round procedure. If in the first round no candidate receives either (1) over 45% of the valid vote, or (2) a minimum of 40% of the valid vote (that is, votes cast for candidates) and at the same time is more than ten percentage points ahead of the second place candidate, then a runoff is held between the top two candidates from the first round. - parliamentary elections: For the chamber of deputies, the Capital Fed-eral and the 23 provinces make up a total of 24 MMCs. Due to partial renovation, the size of the districts varies. For the elections in which 127 deputies are elected, there are six constituencies of two deputies, ten of three, two of four, two of five, one of nine, one of 13, and one of 35. For the elections in which 130 deputies are elected, there are four constitu-encies of two deputies, nine of three, five of four, two of five, two of nine, one of twelve, and one of 35. Prior to 1991, both cycles had 127 deputies (in 1987 no deputies were elected from the then national terri-tory of Tierra del Fuego). The candidates are presented on closed and blocked party lists. Every voter is entitled to a single vote. The seats are distributed using the d’Hondt formula. Lists that do not receive a per-centage of the vote equal to at least 3% of the number of registered vot-ers in the constituency cannot take part in the allocation of seats.

Three senators per province and the Capital Federal are elected for a six year term with partial renewal (one third of the provinces renew all of their seats) every two years. The candidacies are presented on closed and blocked party lists. The party that gains the highest percentage of the vote receives two seats and the second place party one.

Argentina66

Organizational Context of Elections: Elections are run by the DirecciónNacional Electoral. It is located within the Argentine ministry of the in-terior, currently under the jurisdiction of the ministry’s secretariat of po-litical affairs. The Dirección Nacional Electoral is responsible for coordinating and running the entire electoral process for national level elections. In carrying out this task it coordinates with the 24 respective provincial election offices as well as the National Elections Court, the latter being responsible for resolving election-related legal disputes.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics

The official Argentine electoral and parliamentary statistics are reliable, although some of the data used here for the pre-1973 period come from secondary sources. During the post-1983 period, several distinct ‘defini-tive’ versions of the electoral results have been released. Thus, depend-ing on which ‘definitive’ results one is consulting, the vote results will occasionally differ slightly. For several elections, no data were available on the individual results for minor parties and, therefore we could not always determine if a small party participated or not. Consequently, the information in Tables 2.4 and 2.8 may at times be inaccurate in this re-spect.

Data for the 1989–2003 period come from three sources: the Depar-tamento de Coordinación y Estadística de la Dirección Nacional Electo-ral, Ministerio del Interior, República Argentina; the Dirección de Información Parlamentaria de la Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Nación; and the outstanding reference work on Argentine political in-stitutions by N. Guillermo Molinelli, M. Valeria Palanza, and Gisela Sin (1999).

Argentina 67

2. Tables

2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat

Year Presidential Parliamentary electionsa Elections for Referen- Coups elections Total Partial Constit. As-

sembly dums d’état

1916 02/04 02/04 1918 03/03 1920 07/03 1922 02/04 02/04 1924 23/03 1926 07/03 1928 01/04 01/04 1930 02/03 06/09 1931 08/11 08/11 1934 04/03 1936 01/03 1937 05/09 1938 06/03 1940 03/03 1942 01/03 1943 04/06 1946 24/02 24/02 1948 07/03 05/12 1951 11/11b 11/11 1954 25/04c 25/04 1955 19/09 1957 28/07 1958 23/02 23/02 1960 27/03 1962 18/03 29/03 1963 07/07 07/07 1965 17/03 1966 28/06 1973 11/03b 11/03 1973 23/09b 1976 24/03 1983 30/10 30/10 1984 25/11 1985 03/11 1987 06/09 1989 14/05 14/05

Argentina68

Year Presidential Parliamentary electionsa Elections Referen- Coups (cont.) elections Total Partial for Constit.

Assembly dums d’état

1991 11/08 08/0927/1001/12

1993 03/10 1994 10/04 1995 14/05b 14/05 1997 26/10 1999 24/10b 08/08

12/0926/0924/10

2001 14/10 2003 27/04 a Lower chamber.b Direct elections.c Vice president only.

2.2 Electoral Body 1916–2003

Year Type of Population Registered voters Votes cast electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. Voters

% pop.

1916 Pr/Pap 8,302,932 1,189,254 14.3 745,825 62.7 9.0 1918 Pap 8,589,923 1,303,446 15.2 780,747 59.9 10.0 1920 Pap 8,968,716 1,436,472 16.0 762,115 53.1 8.5 1922 Pr/Pap 9,521,398 1,586,366 16.7 876,354 55.2 9.2 1924 Pap 10,215,787 1,579,876 15.5 699,057 44.2 6.8 1926 Pap 10,804,170 1,799,131 16.7 884,646 49.2 8.2 1928 Pr 11,437,900 1,807,566 15.8 1,461,605 80.9 12.8 1928 Pap 11,437,900 1,807,566 15.8 1,461,581 80.9 12.8 1930 Pap 12,046,937 1,981,246 16.4 1,487,535 75.1 12.3 1931 Pr/Pat 12,286,756 2,116,552 17.2 1,554,437 73.4 12.7 1934 Pap 12,939,573 2,357,157 18.2 1,554,320 65.9 12.0 1936 Pap 13,371,734 2,431,129 18.2 1,722,717 70.9 12.9 1937 Pr 13,608,428 2,672,750 19.6 2,035,839 76.2 15.0 1938 Pap 13,840,658 2,705,347 19.5 1,846,180 68.2 13.3 1940 Pap 14,283,723 2,721,906 19.1 1,939,421 71.3 13.6 1942 Pap 14,755,720 3,058,946 20.7 1,586,806 51.9 10.8 1946 Pr/Pat 15,787,174 3,405,173 21.6 2,839,507 83.4 18.0 1948 CA/Pap 16,519,120 3,794,262 23.0 2,815,632 74.2 17.0

Argentina 69

Year Type of Population Registered voters Votes cast (cont.) electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. Voters

% pop.

1951 Pr/Pat 17,644,000 8,633,998b 48.9 7,593,948 88.0 43.0 1954 VPr 18,240,000c 9,194,157 50.4 7,906,858 86.0 43.3 1957 CA 19,100,000 9,662,620 50.6 8,703,322 90.1 45.6 1958 Pr/Pat 19,380,000 10,002,327 51.6 9,088,497 90.9 46.9 1960 Pap 19,920,000 10,187,586 51.1 8,870,202 87.1 44.5 1962 Pap 20,540,000 10,596,321 51.6 9,084,512 85.7 44.2 1963 Pr/Pat 20,850,000 11,353,936 54.5 9,717,677 85.6 46.6 1965 Pap 22,180,000 11,460,766 51.7 9,565,574 83.5 43.1 1973 Pr/Pat 23,390,000 14,302,497 61.1 12,235,481 85.5 52.3 1983 Pr/Pat 29,227,000 17,929,951 61.4 14,927,572 83.3 51.1 1984 Ref 29,643,000 17,824,795 60.1 12,902,637 72.4 43.5 1985 Pap 30,055,000 18,649,101 62.1 15,628,821 83.8 52.0 1987 Pap 31,497,000 19,452,790 61.8 16,263,572 83.6 51.6 1989 Pr 31,929,000 20,034,252 62.8 17,086,704 85.3 53.5 1989 Pap 31,929,000 20,034,252 62.8 17,086,704 85.3 53.5 1991 Pap 32,974,000 20,764,012 63.0 16,595,952 79.9 50.3 1993 Pap 33,869,000 21,463,761 63.4 17,242,141 80.3 50.9 1994 CA 34,318,000 21,647,583 63.1 16,778,983 77.5 48.9 1995 Pr 34,768,000 22,178,154 63.8 18,203,452 82.1 52.4 1995 Pap 34,768,000 22,178,154 63.8 18,203,452 82.1 52.4 1997 Pap 35,672,000 23,199,814 65.0 18,465,875 79.6 51.8 1999 Pr 36,578,000 24,121,947 66.0 19,878,018 82.4 54.3 1999 Pap 36,578,000 24,118,320 66.0 19,829,220 82.2 54.2 2001c Pap 37,500,000 24,884,338 66.4 18,799,011d 75.6 50.1 2003 Pr 38,740,807 25,480,440 65.8 19,930,111 78.2 51.4 a CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pap = Parliament partial renovation; Pat = Parliament total re-novation; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum; VPr = Vice president. b Introduction of women’s suffrage. c The 1983–1999 population data are based on official Argentine government projections, while the 1991 and 2001 data are based on official census data. d The number of votes cast for the senate elections is 18,802,968. The number stated here is for the lower chamber elections.

Argentina70

2.3 Abbreviations

Alianza HTE Alianza Honestidad, Trabajo, Eficiencia (Honesty, Labor, Efficiency Alliance)

Alianza TJE Alianza Trabajo, Justicia y Educación (Labor, Justice and Education Alliance)

ARI Alternativa por una República de Iguales (Alternative for a Republic of Equals)a

CFI Alianza Confederación Federalista Independiente (AllianceIndependent Federalist Confederation)

FIP Frente de Izquierda Popular (People’s Front of the Left) FREJULI Frente Justicialista de Liberación (Justicialista Front for Liberation) FREJUPO Frente Justicialista de Unidad Popular (Justicialista Front of Popular

Unity)FREPASO Frente para un País Solidario (Front for a Country with Solidarity) FUT Frente Unidad de Trabajadores (Workers’ Unity Front) MAS Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism) MID Movimiento de Integración y Desarrollo (Movement for Integration

and Development) MODIN Movimiento por la Dignidad y la Independencia (Movement for

Dignity and Independence) MOFESA Movimiento Federal Santacruzeño (Federal Movement of Santa Cruz) PAIS Política Abierta para la Integridad Social (Open Politics for Social

Integration)PAN Partido Autónomista Nacional (National Autonomist Party)PDP Partido Demócrata Progresista (Progressive Democratic Party)PI Partido Intransigente (Intransigent Party) PJ Partido Justicialista (Justice Party) PSD Partido Socialista Democrático (Democratic Socialist Party) PSP Partido Socialista Popular (People’s Socialist Party) UceDé Unión del Centro Democrático (Union of the Democratic Center) UCR Unión Cívica Radical (Civic Radical Union) UCRI Unión Cívica Radical Intransigente (Intransigent Civic Radical

Union)a ARI changed its name to Afirmación para una República Igualitaria (Affirmation for a Repub-lic of Equals) in 2002.

Argentina 71

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1916–2003

Party / Alliance Years Elections contesteda

Liga del Sur 1916 1 UCR Disidente 1916–1918 2 Socialista Argentino 1916–1918; 1960–1965 6 Unión Democrática 1916–1920 3 Provincial 1916–1922 2 Concentración 1916–1924 3 Autonomista 1916–1930; 1962–1965 6 Popular 1916–1938 7 Conservador 1916–1963 11 Socialista 1916–1963 21 Demócrata 1916–1989; 1993–2001 21 Demócrata Progresista 1916–2001 28 UCRb 1916–2003 32 Concentración Catamarqueña 1918 1 Socialista Internacional 1918–1920 2 Concentración Popular 1918–1926 2 Unitario 1918–1926 3 Concentración Cívica 1918–1940 4 Liberal 1918–1965 17 Liga Agraria 1920 1 UCR Negra 1920 1 UCR Oficialista 1920 1 UCR Popular 1920 1 Unión Provincial 1920–1930; 1958 4 UCR Independiente 1920–1931 3 Concentración Nacional 1922 1 Unión Popular 1922 1 UCRI 1922; 1958–1965 6 UCR Principista 1922–1930 4 UCR Roja 1922–1930 4 UCR de Tucumán 1922–1942 4 UCR Lencinista 1922–1946 7 UCR Bloquistac 1922–1987; 1991; 1995 16 Azules 1924 1 Bascartistas 1924 1 Liberal Georgista 1924 1 Obreros Idependientes 1924 1 UCR Personalista 1924 1 Unión Republicana 1924 1 Veristas 1924 1 Laborista 1924; 1938; 1946–1965 8 Feminista Nacional 1924–1926 2

Argentina72

Party / Alliance (continued) Years Elections contesteda

Liberal Autonomista 1924–1926 2 UCR Opositora 1924–1930 2 Independiente 1924–1934 2 UCR Unificada 1924–1938 8 UCR Yrigoyenista 1924–1946 2 UCR Antipersonalista 1924–1946; 1960–1962 9 Comunista 1924–1958; 1995 11 Comité Independiente 1926 1 UCR Alem 1926 1 UCR Blanca 1926 1 UCR Dr. Carranza 1926 1 UCR (Tacuarí) 1926 1 Videla 1926 1 UCR (Avenidas de Mayo) 1926–1934 2 Comunista Obrero 1928 1 Frente Único 1928 1 UCR Ferrocarril a Calingasta 1928 1 UCR Ferrocarril a Jáchal 1928 1 Comunista de la Rep. Argentina 1928–1930 2 UCR Caballero 1930 1 UCR Corvalanista 1930 1 UCR Situacionista 1930 1 Defensa Provincial BanderaBlanca

1930–1934; 1942–1946; 1960–1965; 1987–1989

11

Agrario 1930–1940 2 Socialista Independiente 1930–1940 5 Alianza Demócrata Progresista Socialista

1931 1

Liberal Pactista 1931 1 Lista Única 1931 1 Reformista 1931 1 Unión Nacional Agraria 1931–1934 2 Demócrata Nacional 1931–1946 8 Demócrata Nacional Antigubernista

1934 1

Federación Socialista 1934 1 Independientes 1934 1 Libertador 1934 1 Argentino Nacionalista 1934 1 Lista Obrera y Campesina 1934 1 Nacionalista Radical 1934 1 Salud Pública Nacional 1934 1 Unión Deportiva 1934 1 Unión Regional Intransigente 1934 1 UCR (Charcas) 1934 1

Argentina 73


UCR Lencinista Federalista 1934 1 UCR (Paso) 1934 1 UCR Provincia de Buenos Aires 1934 1 UCR (Talcahuano) 1934 1 UCR Tradicionalista 1934 1 Ferroviarios e Industriales 1934 1 UCR Impersonalista 1934–1938 2 UCR de Buenos Aires 1934–1940 4 Concordancia 1934–1942 6 Concentración Obrera 1934–1960 9 Demócrata Nacional Centro Renovación

1936 1

Integración Argentina 1936 1 Nacional Laborista 1936 1 Popular de Jujuy 1936 1 UCR de San Luis 1936 1 UCR Federalista 1936–1938 2 Radical 1936–1940 3 UCR de Santa Fé 1936–1946 4 UCR Molinari-Rocco 1937 1 Bloque Opositor 1938 1 Concurrencista 1938 1 Demócrata Nacional Reorganizado 1938 1 Radical Unificado 1938 1 Servidores del Estado 1938 1 Socialista Obrero 1938 1 UCR de Salta 1938 1 UCR de San Juan 1938 1 UCR Junta Reorganizadora 1938 1 UCR Monteagudo 1938 1 UCR Junta Renovadora Nacional 1938–1946 2 UCR de Mendoza 1940 1 UCR Frente Popular 1940 1 Frente Popular Agrario 1942 1 Demócrata Nacional Autónomo 1946 1 Laborista Independiente 1946 1 Patriótico 4 de Junio 1946 1 UCR de Santiago del Estero 1946 1 Unidad y Resistencia 1946 1 Unión Centros Independientes 1946 1 Alianza Libertadora Nacionalista 1946–1948 2 UCR de la Rioja 1946–1965 3 Laborista de Salta 1948 1 Nacionalista Independiente 1948 1 Salud Pública 1951 1

Argentina74


Unión Cívica Nacionalista 1951–1962 2 PJd 1951–2003 17 Alianza Chaqueña 1958 1 Azul y Blanco 1958 1 Cívico Independiente 1958 1 De los Trabajadores 1958 1 De los Trabajadores Popular y Recuperación Social

19581

Demócrata Formoseño 1958 1 Renovador 1958 1 UCR Antimperialista 1958 1 Unión Popular Populista 1958 1 Populista 1958–1962 2 Unión Federal 1958–1962 3 Unión Popular 1958–1962 3 Demócrata Autonomista (Junta Renovadora Nacional)

1958–19633

Demócrata Conservador Popular 1958–1963 4 Del Pueblo 1958–1965 5 Demócrata Conservador 1958–1965 5 Demócrata Liberal 1958–1965 4 Conservador Popular 1958–1965; 1973; 1991–

19937

Demócrata Cristiano 1958–1989 4 Liberal Popular 1960 1 UCR Intransigente Rojo y Blanco 1960 1 UCR (Lista Verde) 1960–1962 2 Unión Cívica Principista 1960–1962 2 Unión Propietarios de Inmuebles 1960–1962 2 Obrero 1960–1962; 1989; 2001–

20035

UCR Intransigente Popular 1960–1963 2 Unión Cívica Formoseña 1960–1963 2 PSDe 1960–1989 7 Socialismo Argentino de losTrabajdores

1961 1

Blanco 1962 1 Conservador del Chaco 1962 1 Movimiento Cívico Bandera Popular

1962 1

Movimiento Demócrata Cristiano 1962 1 Movimiento Nacional Popular 1962 1 Movimiento Popular Argentino 1962 1 Provincial de Chubut 1962 1 Ruralista 1962 1

Argentina 75


Unión Cívica 1962 1 Demócrata Popular 1962–1963 2 Socialismo Argentino deVanguardia

1962–1963 2

Demócrata Unido 1962–1965 3 Tres Banderas 1962–1965 3 Unión Conservadora 1962–1965 3 Movimiento Popular Neuquino 1962–2001 14 Conservador Obrero Popular 1963 1 Cruzada de Acción Nacional 1963 1 De la Justicia Social 1963 1 Movimiento de Frente Nacional 1963 1 Social Agrario 1963 1 Unión Nacional 1963 1 Colorado 1963–1965 2 Independencia Nacional 1963–1965 2 Unión del Pueblo Argentino 1963–1965 2 Acción Popular Argentina 1965 1 Alianza de la Justicia Social 1965 1 De la Revolución Libertadora 1965 1 Reconstrucción Nacional 1965 1 MID 1965–1993 8 Acción Chubutense 1973 1 Alianza Popular Federalista 1973 1 Alianza Republicana Federal 1973 1 Confederación Popular Federalista 1973 1 FIP 1973 1 Movimiento Popular Pampeano 1973 1 Movimiento Popular Provincial 1973 1 Nueva Fuerza 1973 1 Orientación Legalista 1973 1 Socialista de los Trabajadores 1973 1 Unión Cívica Cruzada Renovadora 1973 1 Partido Popular Cristiano 1973; 1993 2 FREJULI 1973–1985 2 Movimiento Popular Catamar-queño

1973–1989 4

Intransigenteg 1973–1995 8 Movimiento Popular Jujeño 1973–1995 7 UCeDé 1983–1987; 1991–2001 9 Pacto Federalg 1983–1989 3 Renovador de Salta 1983–1995; 2001 8 Pacto Autonomista Liberalh 1985-1999 8 Frente Acción Provinciana 1987 1 Partido Popular Rionegrino 1987–1989 2

Argentina76


Socialista Popular 1987–1989 2 Unidad Socialista/HTE 1987–1993 4 Mov. Patriótico de Liberación 1989 1 Alianza Acuerdo Político 1989 1 Alianza de Centro 1989 1 Blanco de los Jubilados 1989 1 Confederación Federalista Inde-pendiente

1989 1

Frente Humanista-Verde 1989 1 FREJUPO Popular 1989 1 Humanismo y Liberación 1989 1 Socialista Unificada Cristiano 1989 1 Alianza Izquierda Unida 1989; 2001–2003 3 Corriente Renovadora 1989–1991 2 Partido Federal 1989–1991; 2001 3 Cruzada Renovadora 1989–1993; 1997–1999 5 Fuerza Republicana 1989–2001 7 Afirmación Peronista 1991 1 Frente por la Justicia Social 1991 1 Movimiento al Socialismo 1991 1 Movimiento Peronista 1991 1 Acción Chaqueña 1991–1995 3 MODIN 1991–1995 3 Movimiento Popular Fueguino 1991–1997 4 Frente de la Esperanza 1993 1 Frente Grande 1993 1 Corriente Grande 1995 1 Mov. Azul y Blanco 1995 1 Participación y Justicia 1995 1 Renovación Cívica 1995 1 Linea Abierta 1995–1997 2 Mov. Popular Provincial de San Luis

1995–1997 2

PAIS 1995–1997 2 Partido Republicano Democrático 1995–1997 2 Frepaso 1995–2001 4 Acción por la República 1997–2001 3 Alianza TJE 1997–2001 3 Frente Cívico y Social 1997–2001 3 Partido Nuevo 1997–2001 3 Desarrollo y Justicia 1999 2 Movimiento Cívico y Social 1999 1 Movimiento Popular Unido 1999 1 Unidad Bonaerense 1999 1 ARI 2001–2003 2

Argentina 77


Autodeterminación y Libertad 2001 1 Fiscal 2001 1 Frente Nuevo País 2001 1 Frente por Todos 2001 1 Humanista 2001–2003 2 Polo Social 2001 1 Unidad Federalista 2001 1 Alianza Frente por la Lealtad 2003 1 Alianza Frente por la Victoria 2003 1 Alianza Movimiento Federal para Recrear el Crecimiento

2003 1

Alianza Frente Movimiento Popular

2003 1

Confederación que se vayan todos 2003 1 a This column includes the participation of the parties in both paliamentary and presidential elec-tions, counting as only one election when both of them have been held on the same day (same year for the 1983–1999 period). For the period since 1991, only parties that won at least 1% of the vote in the election or won at least one seat are considered to have participated in the electi-on. Furthermore, it should be noted that the definition of participation employed does not include most parties (i.e. other than the PJ or UCR) that compete in an electoral alliance as participating parties in the given election. The alliances are listed instead. b Contested under the name of UCR del Pueblo in 1958, 1960, 1962, 1963 and 1965. c It continues to exist as the Partido Bloquista (San Juan). d In 1946, it participated under the name of Partido Laborista. In 1948, 1951, and 1954 it used the name Partido Peronista. It was part of the Frente Justicialista de Liberación from 1973 to 1985 and of the Frente Justicialista de Unidad Popular in 1989.e Participated in 1989 along with the Partido Socialista Popular under the name of Unidad So-cialista.f Participated as Alianza Popular Revolucionaria in 1973.g In the elections of 1989, it participated as part of the alliance called Confederación Federalista Independiente which also included the Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Movimiento Renovador de Salta, Movimiento Popular Catamarqueño, Acción Transformadora de Corrientes, and Partido Línea Popular of Entre Ríos and La Rioja. h The Pacto Autonomista Liberal (PAL) is a long-standing alliance between the Partido Autono-mista and Partido Liberal in the province of Corrientes.

Argentina78

2.5 Referendums

Year 1984a

Total number % Registered voters 17,824,795 – Votes cast 12,902,637 72.4 Blank votes 141,349 1.1 Invalid votes 64,209 0.5 Valid votes 12,697,079 98.4 Yes 10,492,391 82.6 No 2,204,688 17.4 a This non-binding referendum was held on whether or not the public was in agreement with the government’s negotiated settlement with Chile to resolve the Beagle Canal dispute.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly

Year 1948a 1957c

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 3,794,262 – 9,662,620 – Votes cast 2,815,632 74.2 8,703,322 90.1 Blank votes —b —b 2,115,861d 24.3 Invalid votes 118,610 4.2 36,066 0.4 Valid votes 2,697,022 95.8 6,551,395 75.3 Peronistas 1,728,120 64.1 – – UCR 756,102 28.0 2,106,524e 32.2 Socialista 2,070 0.1 525,721 8.0 Comunista 82,957 3.1 228,821 3.5 Demócrata 18,933 0.7 333,749 5.1 UCR Intransigente – – 1,847,603 28.2 Demócrata Progresista – – 263,805 4.0 Demócrata Cristiano – – 420,606 6.4 Others 108,840c 4.0 824,566 12.6 a Data on the composition of the constituent assembly (seats) are not available. b Blank votes are counted as ‘invalid’. c Including Concentración Obrera (4,091) and Nacionalista Independiente (1,659). d The majority of the blank votes were cast by Peronists. e Participated as UCR del Pueblo.

Argentina 79

Year 1994 Total number %a Seats % Registered voters 21,647,583 – Votes cast 16,778,983 77.5 Blank votes 782,477 4.7 Invalid votes 224,163 1.3 Valid votes 15,772,343 94.0 305 100.0 PJ 5,977,389 37.9 134 43.9 UCR 3,114,166 19.7 74 24.3 Frente Grande 2,082,622 13.2 31 10.2 MODIN 1,461,451 9.3 21 6.9 Al. Unidad Socialistab 353,568 2.2 2 0.7 Fuerza Republicana 277,808 1.8 7 2.3 Partido Demócrata Progresista

254,584 1.6 3 1.0

UCeDé 237,014 1.5 3 1.0 Alianza del Centroc 228,957 1.5 1 0.3 Partido Demócrata (Mendoza)

217,631 1.4 4 1.3

Pacto Autonomista Liberal

187,030 1.2 5 1.6

Alianza por el No 158,604 1.0 0 0.0 Alianza HTEb 111,731 0.7 1 0.3 Frente de la Esperanza (San Juan)d

94,946 0.6 3 1.0

Partido Renovador de Salta

93,429 0.6 3 1.0

Cruzada Renovadora 74,968 0.5 3 1.0 Acción Chaqueña 67,613 0.4 2 0.7 Mov. Popular Jujeño 56,813 0.4 2 0.7 Mov. Popular Neuquino 47,023 0.3 2 0.7 Partido Bloquista 33,486 0.2 1 0.3 Mov. Popular Fueguino 10,481 0.1 3 1.0 Others 631,029 4.0 – – a Only parties that won at least 1% of the popular vote or a seat are listed.b The Alianza Unidad Socialista and Alianza HTE were both led by the country’s main socialist parties (i.e. Partido Socialista Popular and Partido Socialista Democrático).c The Alianza del Centro was an alliance led by the UCeDé in the Province of Buenos Aires and Capital Federal (in the Capital Federal it was called Alianza del Centro Liberal).d Frente de la Esperanza was the name adopted by the most popular faction of the PJ in the pro-vince of San Juan, which competed against the official party list in this election.

Argentina80

2.7 Parliamentary Elections

2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1916–2001

Year 1916 1918 Total number % Total number %

Registered voters 1,189,254 – 1,303,446 – Votes cast 745,825 62.7 780,747 59.9 Invalid votes 26,256 3.5 16,750 2.1 Valid votes 719,569 96.5 763,997 97.9 UCR 336,980 46.8 367,263 48.1 Conservador 96,103 13.4 76,864 10.1 Demócrata Progresista 63,098 8.8 – – Socialista 52,215 7.3 64,414 8.4 UCR Disidente 28,116 3.9 66,058 8.6 Autonomista 21,323 3.0 8,759 1.1 Concentración 17,965 2.5 8,033a 1.1 Popular 16,141 2.2 – – Unión Democrática 13,921 1.9 11,289 1.5 Demócrata 6,314 0.9 57,826 7.6 Provincial 5,265 0.7 – – Liberal – – 14,054 1.8 Socialista Argentino – – 35,281 4.6 Others 62,128 8.6 54,156 7.1a Participated as Concentración Catamarqueña.

Year 1920 1922 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,436,472 – 1,586,366 – Votes cast 762,115 53.1 876,354 55.2 Invalid votes 18,790 2.5 48,203 5.5 Valid votes 743,325 97.5 828,151 94.5 UCR 338,723 45.6 406,304 49.1 Conservador 104,569 14.1 62,029 7.5 Socialista 85,693 11.5 54,813 6.6 Demócrata Progresista 76,900 10.3 63,147 7.6 Liberal 29,186 3.9 22,874 2.8 UCRI 9,320 1.3 6,707 0.8 Provincial 8,092a 1.1 16,812 2.0 UCR Lencinista 7,319 0.9 14,150 1.7 Unión Democrática 6,120 0.8 – – Autonomista 5,551 0.7 – – ConcentraciónNacional

– – 64,942 7.8

UCR Tucumán – – 16,671 2.0

Argentina 81

Year (continued) 1920 1922 Total number % Total number % UCR Bloquista – – 7,048 0.9 Others 71,852b 92,654c 11.2 a Changed its name to Unión Provincial in 1920.b Including UCR Independiente (2,785 votes). c Including the Partido Popular (2,123 votes).

Year 1924 1926 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,579,876 – 1,799,131 – Votes cast 699,057 44.2 884,646 49.2 Invalid votes 13,880 2.0 20,027 2.3 Valid votes 685,177 98.0 864,619 97.7 UCR 181,179 26.4 337,898 39.1 Socialista 101,724 14.8 97,880 11.3 UCR Unificada 75,191 11.0 74,463 8.6 Demócrata Progresista 66,029 9.6 45,936 5.3 UCR Antipersonalista 46,435 6.8 – – Conservador 35,902 5.2 38,584 4.5 Autonomistaa 25,692 3.7 26,618 3.1 Concentración 20,084 2.9 – – UCR Lenicinista 15,485 2.3 18,327 2.1 Liberal 15,058 2.2 23,200 2.7 Laborista 9,009 1.3 – – Demócrata 7,175 1.0 – – Popular 5,733 0.8 – – UCR Bloquista – – 13,333 1.5 Provincial – – 9,288 1.1 Comunista – – 7,088 0.8 UCR Independiente – – 5,736 0.7 Others 80,481 11.7 166,268 19.2a Participated as Autonomista-Liberal in 1924 and 1926.

Argentina82

Year 1928 1930 Total number % Total number %

Registered voters 1,807,566 – 1,981,246 – Votes cast 1,461,581 80.9 1,487,535 75.1 Invalid votes 101,256 6.9 39,868 2.7 Valid votes 1,360,325 93.1 1,447,667 97.3 UCR 839,140 61.7 618,411 42.7 UCR Antipersonalista 134,222 9.9 47,891 3.3 Frente Unico 87,709a 6.4 – – Conservador 73,048 5.4 153,826 10.6 Socialista 65,660 4.8 123,734 8.5 UCR Unificada 47,412 3.5 53,221 3.7 Liberal 27,018 2.0 39,543 2.7 UCR Lencinista 20,166 1.5 19,375 1.3 UCR Bloquista 16,379 1.2 2,883 0.2 Demócrata 14,173 1.0 – – Demócrata Progresista – – 136,121 9.4 Socialista Independiente – – 110,792 7.7 Autonomista – – 17,152 1.2 Defensa Provincial – – 12,778b 0.9 Provincial – – 7,231 0.5 Comunista – – 6,834 0.5 Others 35,398 2.6 97,875c 6.8a Alliance between one sector of the UCR Antipersonalista and the Confederación de los Parti-dos de Derecha.b Participated as Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca. c Including the Partido Popular (2,263 votes) and the UCR Tucumán (1,905 votes).

Year 1931 1934 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,116,552 – 2,357,157 – Votes cast 1,554,437 73.4 1,554,320 65.9 Invalid votes 149,662 9.6 126,095 8.1 Valid votes 1,404,775 90.4 1,428,225 91.9 Demócrata Nacional 452,560 32.2 410,883 28.8 Demócrata Progresista 436,121a 31.0 127,177 8.9 Concentración Obrera – – 18,965 1.3 Lista Única 126,370d 9.0 – – UCR Antipersonalista 55,497 4.0 19,630 1.4 UCR Antipersonalista/ SocialistaIndependiente

86,435d 6.2 – –

Liberal 27,139 1.9 24,264 1.7 UCR Unificada 26,629 1.9 35,864 2.5 UCRI 6,910 0.5 – – UCR Bloquista 18,678 1.3 7,859 0.6

Argentina 83

Year (continued) 1931 1934 Total number % Total number % Popular 9,246 0.7 19,345 1.4 Demócrata Nacional- Liberal/Pactista-UCRAntipersonalistac

28,835 2.1 – –

Defensa Provincial 22,195 1.6 10,159 0.7 Socialista – – 264,294 18.5 UCR – – 194,794 13.6 ConcentraciónNacional

– – 58,950b 4.1

UCR Talcahuano – – 32,081 2.2 UCR Avenida de Mayo

– – 26,767 1.9

UCR de Buenos Aires – – 24,750 1.7 Salud Pública – – 17,231 1.2 Independiente – – 14,103 1.0 UCR LencinistaFederalista

– – 12,032 0.8

Unión Nacional Agraria – – 9,935 0.7 UCR Lencinista – – 8,756 0.6 Demócrata Nacional Antigubernista

– – 8,577 0.6

UCR Tradicionalista – – 8,236 0.6 UCR Impersonalista – – 7,841 0.5 Others 108,160e 7.7 65,732f 4.6 a It participated as part of an electoral alliance with the Partido Socialista.b It participated as Concordancia since 1934.c Alliance between parts of Demócrata Nacional and UCR Antipersonalista-Socialista Independiente. d Sectors of these parties participated in only one alliance. e Including Socialista Independiente (4,947 votes). f UCR Provincia de Buenos Aires (5,753 votes), Federación Socialista (4,949), UCR Paso (4,762),UCR Bloquista Junta Reorganizadora (4,560), Nacionalista Radical (1,752), Libertador (1,685), Salud Pública Nacional (1,471), Lista Obrera y Campesina (1,105), UCR Charcas (1,095), UniónDeportiva (1,027), Ferroviarios e Industriales Independientes (797), Socialista Independiente (518), Argentino Nacionalista (511), Unión Regional Intransigente (13) and an unknown rest of 35,734.

Argentina84

Year 1936 1938 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,431,129 – 2,705,347 – Votes cast 1,722,717 70.9 1,846,180 68.2 Invalid votes 88,080 5.1 68,957 3.7 Valid votes 1,634,637 94.9 1,777,223 96.3 UCR 720,009 44.0 439,064 24.7 Demócrata Nacional 370,315 22.7 599,751 33.7 Socialista 150,442 9.2 99,112 5.6 UCR de Santa Fé 82,625 5.1 — — Demócrata Progresista 80,542 4.9 — — UCR Unificada 43,615 2.7 22,751 1.3 Demócrata Nacional/ UCR Antipersonalista

39,798 2.4 – –

UCR de Tucumán 32,903 2.0 — — Concordancia 30,443 1.9 — — Concentración Nacio-nal

– – 156,325 8.8

Liberal 17,043 1.0 16,646 0.9 SocialistaIndependiente

12,073 0.7 – –

Radical 10,987 0.7 — — Popular de Jujuy 11,171 0.7 — — Popular 2,775 0.2 11,700 0.7 UCR Antipersonalista – – 25,519 1.4 Concentración Obrera – – 13,859 0.8 Others 29,896a 1.8 392,496b 22.1 a UCR de Buenos Aires (7,142 votes), UCR Federalista (6,919), Salud Pública (5,387), UCR de San Luis (4,063), Demócrata Nacional Centro Renovación (2,719), Nacional Laborista (1,681), Integ. Argentino (267) and an unknown rest of 1,718. b Including: UCR Santa Fé (157,958 votes), Partido Laborista (3,357), UCR Bloquista (966), eleven other UCR fractions and another four small parties.

Argentina 85

Year 1940 1942 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,721,906 – 3,058,946 – Votes cast 1,939,421 71.3 1,586,806 51.9 Invalid votes 109,119 5.6 82,256 5.2 Valid votes 1,830,302 94.4 1,504,550 94.8 UCR 877,051 47.9 49,607 3.3 Demócrata Nacional 453,869 24.8 676,293 44.9 Socialista 155,152 8.5 188,975 12.6 Concentración Nacional 68,948a 3.8 193,617 12.9 UCR Antipersonalista 32,740 1.8 167,550 11.1 Concentración Obrera 30,312 1.7 32,126 2.1 Demócrata Progresista – – 49,198 3.3 UCR Tucumán – – 26,612 1.8 Defensa Provincial – – 13,229 0.9 Others 212,230b 11.6 107,343c 7.1 a It participated in an alliance with the UCR Junta Reorganizadora Nacional and the Frente Nacio-nal.b Including UCR Santa Fé (122,007 votes), Partido Socialista Independiente and another six parties. c Including the Partido Conservador (3,011 votes).

Year 1946 1951 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 3,405,173 – 8,633,998 – Votes cast 2,839,507 83.4 7,593,948 88.0 Invalid votes 71,293 2.5 122,860 1.6 Valid votes 2,768,214a 97.5 7,471,088 98.4 Laborista-UCR Junta Renovadora

765,458b 27.7 – –

UCR 765,186c, d 27.6 2,415,750 32.3 Laborista Independiente 301,174b 10.9 – – Demócrata Nacional 200,628d 7.2 – – Laborista 142,015c 5.1 – – Demócrata Progresista 71,606d 2.6 2,625 0.0 Comunista 41,864d 1.6 71,318 1.0 Socialista 35,492d 1.3 54,920 0.7 Demócrata Nacional/ UCR Antipersonalista

19,608d 0.7 – –

Liberal 16,118 0.6 – – UCR Bloquista 13,696d 0.5 – – Peronista – – 4,745,168e 63.5 Demócrata – – 174,399 2.3 Others 395,669f 14.2 6,908g 0.1

a The sum of all parties’ votes exceeds the official number of valid votes as stated here by 300. b Parties that supported the presidential ticket Perón-Quijano.c Participated as UCR Comité Nacional.

Argentina86

d Participated in the alliance Unión Democrática supporting the presidential ticket Tamborini-Mosca. e Participated as Partido Peronista between 1951 and 1954. f Including Concentración Obrera (4,241 votes), UCR Lencinista (4,044), Defensa Provincial(3,937), Unión Centros Independientes (872). g Concentración Obrera (1,233 votes), Salud Pública (5,512), and Unión Cívica Nacionalista (163).

Year 1954 1958 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 9,194,157 – 10,002,327 – Votes cast 7,906,858 86.0 9,088,497 90.9 Blank votes — — 814,400 9.0 Invalid votes 163,374a 2.1 22,724 0.2 Valid votes 7,743,484 97.9 8,251,373 90.8 Peronista 4,977,586 64.3 – – UCR 2,502,109 32.3 2,617,693c 31.7 Demócrata 104,006 1.3 145,935 1.8 Comunista 88,007 1.1 42 0.0 Demócrata Progresista 46,077 0.6 126,991 1.5 Socialista 22,516 0.3 264,721 3.2 UCRI – – 4,070,398d 49.3 Demócrata Cristiano – – 285,650 3.5 Liberal – – 51,092 0.6 Others 3,183b 0.0 688,851 8.3a Invalid and blank votes are combined. b Concentración Obrera.c Participated as UCR del Pueblo between 1958 and 1965. Since 1973, it has participated as UCR. d The Partido Peronista was banned; its supporters mainly voted for the UCRI due to the pact signed between Perón and Frondizi.

Argentina 87

Year 1960 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 10,187,586 – 10,596,321 – Votes cast 8,870,202 87.1 9,084,512 85.7 Blank votes 2,178,181a 24.6 — — Invalid votes 55,329 0.6 332,956d 3.7 Valid votes 6,636,692 74.8 8,751,556 96.3 UCR 2,060,264 31.0 1,688,805 19.3 UCRI 1,813,454 27.3 2,284,091 26.1 Socialista Argentino 352,960 5.3 139,137e 1.6 Demócrata Cristiano 344,039 5.2 169,824 1.9 PSD 313,227 4.8 250,172 2.9 Demócrata 291,544 4.4 173,334 2.0 Demócrata Progresista 241,611 3.6 156,114 1.8 Socialista 80,556 1.2 12,346 0.1 Liberal 64,616 1.0 72,179 0.8 Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca

47,319b 0.7 32,732 0.4

Demócrata Liberal 33,946 0.5 – – Unión Popular – – 1,592,446f 18.2 Tres Banderas – – 270,248 3.1 UCR Bloquista – – 54,441 0.6 Others 993,156c 15.0 1,855,687g 21.2a The majority of the blank votes were cast by peronists. b Participated as Defensa Provincial.c Including the Partido Comunista (20,145 votes) and Concentración Obrera (9,098).d Null and blank votes are combined. e Participated as Socialista Argentino Casa del Pueblo.f Peronism used this party as a vehicle to present candidates. g Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino, Concentración Obrera (5,758), Unión Cívica Nacionalista (2,092), and the Partido Comunista (1).

Argentina88

Year 1963 1965 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 11,353,936 – 11,460,766 – Votes cast 9,717,677 85.6 9,565,574 83.5 Blank votes 1,828,673 18.8 361,832 3.8 Invalid votes 236,975 2.4 38,324 0.4 Valid votes 7,652,029a 78.7 9,165,418 95.8 UCR 2,771,064 31.9 2,724,259 29.7 UCRI 1,593,002 20.8 417,395b 4.6Unión del PuebloArgentino

728,662 9.5 183,048 2.0

Demócrata Progresista 619,471 8.1 291,603 3.2 Demócrata Cristiano 434,823 5.7 250,705 2.7 Socialista Argentino 278,856 3.6 184,779 2.0 PSD 258,787 3.4 170,362 1.9 Demócrata 185,261 2.4 188,330 2.1 Tres Banderasc 113,941 1.5 148,067 1.6 Demócrata Liberal 38,772 0.5 34,074 0.4 Unión Popular – – 2,833,528d 30.9MID – – 606,179e 6.6 UCR Bloquista – – 75,225 0.8 Liberal – – 54,211 0.6 Others 959,390 12.5 1,003,653f 11.0 a The official number of valid votes as stated here exceeds the sum of all parties’ votes by 330,000.b The sector led by Oscar Alende retained the name UCRI. c Including the Partido Conservador de Chaco, Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca, and the Movimimiento Popular Neuquino.d Peronism used this party as a vehicle to present candidates. e UCRI sector which defected during the government of Arturo Frondizi. f Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (21,052 votes) and Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca (12,163).

Argentina 89

Year 1973 1983 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 14,302,497 – 17,929,951 – Votes cast 12,235,481 85.6 14,927,572 83.3 Blank votes 273,682 2.2 — — Invalid votes 51,710 0.4 371,114e 2.5Valid votes 11,910,089 97.3 14,556,458 97.5 PJ 5,899,543a 49.5 5,697,610f 39.1 UCR 2,535,537 21.3 7,104,748 48.8 Alianza PopularFederalista

1,757,784b 14.8 – –

UCRI 885,272c 7.4 411,883g 2.8 Alianza Republicana Federal

342,970 2.9 – –

Nueva Fuerza 235,305 2.0 – – PSD 108,361 0.9 – – Socialista de los Trabajadores

73,799 0.6 – –

MID —a — 223,763 1.5 Demócrata Cristiano – – 139,881 1.0 Others 71,518d 0.6 978,573h 6.7 a Participated as Partido Justicialista, being part of the Frente Justicialista de Liberación (FRE-JULI) along with MID, the Partido Conservador Popular, the Partido Popular Cristiano, other minor socialist parties and some provincial parties. b Consisting of Movimiento Federal 17 de Octubre, Partido Renovador de la Capital, Unión Po-pular de Catamarca, Partido Renovador de Corrientes, Partido Democrático Federal de Misio-nes, Unión Popular, and Partido Demócrata Progresista. d Including the Frente Izquierda Popular (48,571 votes). c The sector led by Oscar Alende participated in the 1973 elections as Alianza Popular Revolu-cionaria. Afterwards it adopted the name Partido Intransigente.e Invalid and blank votes are combined. f Participated as Partido Justicialista outside of FREJULI. g Participated since that year as Partido Intransigente.h Includes the following parties: Demócrata Progresista (2,907 votes), Comunista, FIP, Movi-miento de Afirmación Socialista (MAS), Partido Obrero y Partido Socialista Popular, Movi-miento Popular Jujeño, Pacto Autonomista Liberal de Corrientes, Partido Bloquista (San Juan), Movimiento Popular Neuquino and others.

Argentina90

Year 1985 1987 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 18,649,101 – 19,452,790 – Votes cast 15,628,812 83.8 16,263,572 83.6 Blank votesa — — — — Invalid votes 301,905 1.9 865,800 5.3 Valid votes 15,326,907 98.1 15,397,772 94.7 UCR 6,678,860b 43.6 5,948,610 38.6 PJ 5,303,163b 34.6 6,609,012d 42.9 PI 931,325 6.1 322,611 2.1 UCeDé 491,889b 3.2 917,499 6.0 Demócrata Progresista 190,305 1.2 216,932 1.4 MID 35,161 0.2 154,692 1.0 Others 1,696,204c 11.1 1,228,416e 8.0 a Invalid and blank votes are combined. b Peronist forces participated as two parties known as FREJULI and as PJ. The number includes the votes obtained by both of them and also votes garnered in two other provinces by peronist lists: the Frente Renovador Justicialista in the Province of Buenos Aires (1,549,744 votes) and the Frente Justicialista de Chubut (43,587). In a similar manner, votes won by the UCR in an alliance in Catamarca (57,872) are added to the original UCR total and votes won by UCeDé led alliances with other parties in the Capital Federal (204,943) and the Province of Buenos Aires (229,485) are included in its row. c Includes Partido Demócrata Cristiano (65,947 votes), Alianza Unidad Socialista, Frente del Pueblo, Partido Obrero, PSP and the provincial parties Movimiento Popular Neuquino, and Mo-vimiento Popular Pampeano. d Participated as Partido Justicialista outside FREJULI. e Includes Partido Demócrata Cristiano (35,929 votes), Alianza Unidad Socialista, Frente del Pueblo, Partido Obrero, PSP, the provincial parties Movimiento Popular Neuquino, Movimiento Popular Pampeano and others.

Year 1989 1991a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 20,034,252 – 20,764,012 – Votes cast 17,086,704 85.3 16,595,952 79.9 Blank votes 307,879 1.8 834,527 5.0 Invalid votes 135,942b 0.8 127,252 0.8 Valid votes 16,642,883 97.4 15,634,173 94.2 PJ 7,436,640c 44.7 6,288,222 40.2 UCR 4,784,584 28.8 4,538,831 29.0 Alianza de Centro 1,596,963d 9.6 – – CFI 629,108e 3.8 – – Alianza IzquierdaUnida

580,944f 3.5 – –

Alianza UnidadSocialista

426,145g 2.6 243,035h 1.6

Blanco de los Jubilados 301,101 1.8 — — Fuerza Republicana 213,957 1.3 282,478 1.8

Argentina 91

Year (continued) 1989 1991a

Total number % Total number % Pacto Autonomista Liberal

143,497 0.9 167,276 1.1

Corriente Renovadora 113,387 0.7 80,476 0.5 Cruzada Renovadora 87,273 0.5 77,425 0.5 Mov. Popular Neuquino 49,070 0.3 77,381 0.5 UCeDé – – 811,929 5.2 MID – – 543,375 3.5 Alianza HTE – – 225,769h 1.4 Mov. al Socialismo – – 212,202 1.4 Partido Renovador de Salta

– – 189,009 1.2

Frente por la Justicia Social

– – 159,561 1.0

Acción Chaqueña – – 149,441 1.0 Partido Demócrata Progresista

– – 133,203 0.9

Partido Bloquista – – 74,603 0.5 Others 280,214 1.7 1,379,957i 8.8 a Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat.b Including 36,393 votes that were excluded due to tally sheet differences. c Competed as part of the FREJUPO along with the MID, Demócrata Cristiano, PI and other minor socialist parties. Not included are votes where one of the parties integrating the alliance presented separately: Partido del Trabajo y del Pueblo (3,836 votes), Partido Demócrata Cri-stiano (1,831), MID (1,830), and Movimiento Patriótico de Liberación (17,321).d Not included here are votes where one of the parties intergrating the alliance presented separa-tely: UCeDé (52,366 votes), Partido Demócrata Progresista (800). The parties/alliances partici-pating in the Alianza de Centro were UCeDé, Partido Demócrata Progresista, and Concentración Demócrata (an alliance of provincial parties). e The parties participating in the CFI were the Partido Federal, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Partido Renovador de Salta, Movimiento Popular Catamarqueño, Acción Transformadora (Cor-rientes), and Partido Línea Popular (Entre Ríos and La Rioja).f The main parties participating in the Izquierda Unida were the Partido Comunista, Movimiento al Socialismo, and Izquierda Democrática y Popular.g In 1989, the Alianza Unidad Socialista consisted principally of the PSP and PSD. The AlianzaUnidad Socialista row does not include votes won by either the PSP (18,876 votes) or PSD (1734) where they presented separately. h In 1991, the Alianza Socialista was composed principally by the PSP and PSD. The AlianzaHTE was dominanted by the PSP. Votes won by the PSP (14,249 votes) and PSD (705) alone, or in other alliances, are not included in either of these rows. i Including the Movimiento Popular Jujeño (49,865 votes) and the Movimiento Popular Fuegui-no (9,704).

Argentina92

Year 1993a 1995a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 21,463,761 – 22,178,154 – Votes cast 17,242,141 80.3 18,203,452 82.1 Blank votes 700,562 4.1 1,087,329 6.0 Invalid votes 180,554 1.1 161,477d 0.9 Valid votes 16,361,025 94.9 16,954,646 93.1 PJ 6,946,586 42.5 7,294,828 43.0 UCR 4,946,192 30.2 3,679,864 21.7 MID 946,304 5.8 287,196 1.7 Frente Grande 571,137 3.5 – – UCeDé 428,522 2.6 536,679 3.2 Fuerza Republicana 227,726 1.4 140,955 0.8 Partido Demócrata Progresista

216,082 1.3 158,857 0.9

Pacto Autonomista Liberal

181,576 1.1 158,269 0.9

Acción Chaqueña 125,597 0.8 —e —Alianza HTE 125,400 0.8 – – Frente de la Esperanza (San Juan)

122,065 0.8 – –

Partido Renovador de Salta

120,669 0.7 135,622 0.8

Partido Demócrata (Mendoza)

113,528 0.7 114,581 0.7

Unidad Socialista 109,552b 0.7 – – Frepasof – – 3,507,792 20.7 Others 1,180,089c 7.2 940,003g 5.5 a Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. b Both the Unidad Socialista and Alianza HTE were vehicles for the PSP and the PSD. Not in-cluded in either row are votes for the PSP (14,411 votes) where it presented separately. c Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (55,375 votes), the Movimiento Popular Jujeño(45,369) and the Movimiento Popular Fuegino (7,972). d Including 38,641 votes that were excluded due to tally sheet differences. e Exact number of votes not available, subsumed under ‘others’. f The principal members of the Frepaso alliance included the Frente Grande, PSP, PSD, PI, Par-tido Demócrata Cristiano, and PAIS. PAIS withdrew from Frepaso in 1996. g Including the Partido Bloquista (66,082 votes), the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (60,781), the Movimiento Popular Jujeño (32,707), and the Movimiento Popular Fuegino (7,638).

Argentina 93

Year 1997a 1999a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 23,199,814 – 24,118,320 – Votes cast 18,465,875 79.6 19,829,220 82.2 Blank votes 953,174 5.2 1,122,778 5.7 Invalid votes 261,265b 1.4 192,829 1.0 Valid votes 17,251,436 93.4 18,513,613 93.4 Alianza TJE 6,274,614c 36.4 8,102,252e 43.8 PJ 6,267,891 36.3 6,653,074f 35.9UCR 1,256,956 7.3 – – Acción por la República 662,403 3.8 1,502,221g 8.1 Frepaso 484,586 2.8 – – Fuerza Republicana 247,129 1.4 99,572 0.5 Partido Demócrata (Mendoza)

228,291 1.3 235,357 1.3

Partido Nuevo 223,660 1.3 115,464 0.6 Partido Demócrata Progresista

159,035 0.9 289,655 1.6

Desarrollo y Justicia 77,476 0.5 – – Pacto Autonomista Liberal

77,219 0.5 85,207 0.5

Mov. Popular Neuquino 42,701 0.2 89,798 0.5 Unidad Bonaerense – – 289,860 1.6 Others 1,249,475d 7.2 1,051,153h 5.7 a Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. Votes cast abroad for a few provinces are not included in the 1999 congressional totals due to a lack of data. b This figure includes 1268 votes that were under legal review. c The Alianza TJE consisted of the UCR, FREPASO, and other smaller parties (e.g., district level parties such as the Partido Renovador de Salta). The Alianza TJE presented legislative lists in 14 of the 24 districts. In the remaining 10 districts the UCR and Frepaso presented seperate lists (alone or in alliance with district level parties). d Including the Movimiento Popular Fueguino (10,740 votes). e The Alianza TJE was composed of the UCR, Frepaso, and several district level parties (e.g. Cruzada Renovadora, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Partido Bloquista, Partido Renovador de Salta). Votes won by the UCR and Frepaso in the one district where they presented seperately are included in the Alianza TJE row. Votes won by parties that presented a fused list with the Alianza TJE candidates are also included in this row. f This row includes votes won by parties that presented a fused list with the PJ, most prominent of which was the UCeDé in the provinces of Buenos Aires and Córdoba (499,699 votes). g Includes votes won by parties that presented a fused list with Acción por la República: UCeDé in the province of Santa Fé and Movimiento Popular Patagónico in the province of Río Negro. h Including the Movimiento Popular Unido (57,662 votes).

Argentina94

Year 2001 Total number %a Registered voters 24,884,338 – Votes cast 18,799,011 75.6 Blank votes 2,022,607 10.8 Invalid votes 2,486,296 13.2 Valid votes 14,290,108 76.0 PJ 5,114,918 b 35.8 Alianza TJEc 2,293,187 16.1 ARI 1,053,359 7.4 UCR 926,501 6.5 Polo Social 584,244 4.1 Izquierda Unida 499,621 3.5 Partido Humanista 369,822 2.6 Unidad Federalista 296,804 2.1 UCeDé 260,204 1.8 Partido Obrero 237,195 1.7 Partido Nuevo 174,089 1.2 Acción por laRepública

156,534 1.1

Autodeterminación y Libertad

135,361 1.0

Partido Demócrata (Mendoza)

126,769 0.9

Frente Nuevo País 122,841 0.9 Partido Demócrata Progresista

109,796 0.8

Fuerza Republicana 103,447 0.7 Partido Renovador de Salta

95,001 0.7

Frente por Todos 75,408 0.5 Fiscal 74,002 0.5 Others 1,481,005d 10.4 a Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. b Includes votes won by parties that presented a fused list with the PJ. c The Alianza TJE was composed of the UCR, Frepaso, and a small number of minor parties. The Alianza TJE presented candidates in 15 provinces. The UCR presented alone (or in alliance with provincial-level partners) in the remaining nine provinces. Frepaso presented alone in some of these latter nine provinces, garnering a meager 25,880 votes. d Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (60,852 votes).

Argentina 95

2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 2001

Year 2001a Total number % Registered voters 24,884,338 – Votes cast 18,802,968 75.6 Invalid votesb 4,252,302 22.6 Valid votes 14,550,666 77.4 PJ 3,761,010 25.8 Alianza TJE 1,471,785 10.1 ARI 714,395 4.9 Frente Polo Social 600,086 4.1 UCR 513,594 3.5 Alianza Izquierda Unida 404,935 2.8 UCeDé 375,829 2.6 Frente de Todos 363,286 2.5 Frente Justicialista por Santa Fe

353,573 2.4

Partido Humanista 330,845 2.3 Unidad Federalista PAUFE

312,676 2.1

Alianza Santafesina 245,907 1.7 Alianza Frente por un Nuevo País

226,998 1.6

Partido del Socialismo Auténtico

192,282 1.3

Frente Fundacional Justicialista

185,184 1.3

Frente para la Unidad 174,797 1.2 Acción por la República 172,832 1.2 Alianza Obrero-MAS 163,078 1.1 Frente para el Cambio 162,496 1.1 Alianza Frente Unión por Buenos Aires

150,291 1.0

Alianza Grande 137,065 0.9 Alianza por Mendoza 131,852 0.9 Partido Demócrata 127,343 0.9 Alianza FrenteJusticialista/ Todos por el Cambio

116,637 0.8

Partido de los Trabaja-dores Socialistas

105,757 0.7

Partido Demócrata Progresista

104,411 0.7

Argentina96

Year (continued) 2001a Total number % Movimiento Acción Vecinal

103,350 0.7

Fuerza Republicana 99,408 0.7 Partido Demócrata Cristiano

98,147 0.7

Renovador de Salta 94,423 0.6 Autodeterminación y Lib.

92,647 0.6

Fuerza de UnidadPopular

88,349 0.6

Alianza FISCAL 87,354 0.6 MID 86,913 0.6 Frente Cívico Jujeño 83,291 0.6 Alianza Unidos por San Juan

83,006 0.6

Alianza por San Juan 81,699 0.6 Alianza Frente de la Unidad

81,190 0.6

Socialista Popular 77,217 0.5 Frente para Todos 77,128 0.5 Alianza Frente Cívico y Social

72,061 0.5

Frente JusticialistaPopular

71,804 0.5

Socialista Democrático 71,378 0.5 Othersc 1,502,357 10.3 a Many parties participated in varying alliances in the different provinces. Individual party votes listed here only comprise those votes where the party ran alone. Alliance votes are listed under the corresponding alliance name. b Including blank votes. c Partido Obrero (63,655 votes), Movimiento Popular Neuquino (61,613), Frente Compromiso Soci-al (56,663), Popular Nuevo Milenio (54,054), Popular de la Reconstrucción (53,140), Jubilados en Acción (51,975), Acción Popular (50,390), Frente Cívico y Social Correntino (46,202), PI (45,257), Partido Comunista (44,716), Frente Renovador Popular FREPEBA (43,349), Frente con Todos(42,326), Movimiento de Bases (40,197), Movimiento Socialista Entreriano (40,113), Acción para el Cambio (35,614), Partido Laborista (30,634), Nacionalista Constitucional (29,294), Alianza Polo Social Intransigente (28,849), Alianza por el Trabajo y la Justicia (28,784), Movimiento para el So-cialismo y el Trabajo (28,703), Frente de los Jubilados (25,294), Frente de la Gente (24,037), FrenteUnión para el Cambio (24,020), Partido Socialista Auténtico (23,917), Frente del Pueblo Unido(22,892), Acción Chubutense (22,379), Movimiento Popular para la Reconquista (21,030), Movi-miento Popular Bonaerense (20,793), Acción Nativa (20,333), Alianza Frente Unidos por Catamar-ca (20,041), FREPASO (19,839), Desarrollo y Justicia (18,183), Partido Ecologista (17,656), Alianza Santacruzeña (17,434), Humanista, Derechos Humanos y Ecologista (17,428), Progreso Social (17,348), Nuevo Movimiento (16,619), Demócrata Liberal (16,355), Por un nuevo Jujuy(15,871), Cambio Córdoba (15,501), Movimiento Socialista Trabajadores (14,444), Frente Cívi-co/ARI (13,030), Frente Popular (12,896), MODIN (12,849), Movimiento Renovación Cívica

Argentina 97

(12,518), Provincial Rionegrino (11,771), Movimiento Patagónico Popular (11,547), Frente de Li-beración (10,464), Humanista-Ecologista (10,447), Movimiento Demócrata Independiente (10,343), MOFESA (8,514), Movimiento Social de los Trabajadores (7,134), Solidaridad y Esperanza (7,092), Movimiento de Unidad Vecinalista (7,005), Partido Autonomista (6,638), Memoria y Participación(6,582), Frente del Norte/ARI (6,548), Partido Social Demócrata (6,462), Frente Unidad Trabaja-dora (6,437), Federal Fueguino (6,330), Generación Intermedia (6,192), Unidad Federalista(6,166), Frente Federal de Córdoba (5,861), FUT (4,500), Acción Cívica Provincial (3,182), AlianzaPacto de la Unidad, Fe y Esperanza (2,926), Nueva Dirigencia (2,764), Movimiento Popular Fue-guino (2,757), Frente Grande (2,506), Alianza Unidad Social (2,310), Corriente Patria Libre(1,374), Unión Vecinal de Córdoba (177), and Nuevo Frente (93).

2.8 Composition of Parliament


Year 1916 1918 1920 1922 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 120 100.0 120 100.0 158 100.0 158 100.0 UCR 44 36.7 56 46.7 84 53.2 91 57.6 Conservador 28 23.3 19 18.8 14 8.9 14 8.9 Socialista 9 7.5 6 5.0 10 6.3 10 6.3 Demócrata Progresista

8 6.7 14 11.7 19 12.0 14 8.7

UCR Disidente 4 3.3 8 6.7 3 1.9 Unión Provincial 4 3.3 4 3.3 3 1.9 3 1.9 CoaliciónLiberalAutonomista

3 2.5 3 2.5 3 1.9 3 1.9

Liberal 3 2.5 3 2.5 4 2.5 3 1.9 Liga del Sur 2 1.7 – – – – – – Popular 2 1.7 – – – – 0 0.0 Provincial 2 1.7 – – 0 0.0 0 0.0 UniónDemocrática

2 1.7 1 0.8 0 0.0 – –

Demócrata 1 0.8 0 0.0 – – – – ConcentraciónCívica

1 0.8 – – 1 0.6 – –

Oficial 2 1.7 – – – – – – ConcentraciónPopular

– – 1 0.8 1 0.6 2 1.3

UCR Bloquista – – – – – – 2 1.3 UCRI – – – – 0 0.0 1 0.6 Independents 2 1.6 4 3.3 – – – – Others 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.3 7 4.4 Vacancies 3 2.5 1 0.8 3 1.9 7 4.4

Argentina98

Year 1924 1926 1928 1930 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 158 100.0 158 100.0 158 100.0 158 100.0 UCR 72 45.6 60 38.0 92 58.2 98 62.0 Socialista 18 11.4 19 12.0 4 2.5 1 0.6 Conservador 14 8.9 15 9.5 14 8.9 12 7.6 Demócrata Progresista

14 8.9 9 5.7 – – 3 1.9

UCR Unificada 7 4.3 16 10.1 11 6.7 4 2.5 CoaliciónLiberalAutonomista

5 3.2 5 3.2 5 3.2 2 1.3

Liberal 4 2.5 7 4.4 6 3.8 4 2.5 UCR Lencinista 4 2.5 2 1.3 1 0.6 1 0.6 UCRAntipersonalista

3 1.9 7 4.3 5 3.2 3 1.9

UniónProvincial

3 1.9 2 1.3 2 1.3 1 0.6

ConcentraciónPopular

3 1.9 1 0.6 – – – –

UCR Bloquista 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 0 0.0 Demócrata Nacional

2 1.3 – – – – – –

UCRI 1 0.6 – – – – – – UniónComercio y Producción

1 0.6 – – – – – –

Demócrata 0 0.0 5 3.2 6 3.8 7 4.4 ConcentraciónCívica

0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.6 – –

SocialistaIndependiente

– – – – 6 3.8 15 9.5

Frente Único – – – – 1 0.6 1 0.6 Others 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.3 Independents – – 6 3.8 – – – – Vacancies 5 3.2 1 0.8 2 1.3 4 2.5

Argentina 99

Year 1931 1934 1936 1938 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 158 100.0 158 100.0 158 100.0 158 100.0 Demócrata Nacional

58 36.7 60 38.0 55 34.8 59 37.3

Socialista 43a 27.2 43 27.2 25 15.8 5 3.2 UCRAntipersonalista

17 10.8 16 10.1 11 6.7 5 3.2

Demócrata Progresista

14 8.9 12 7.6 6 3.8 – –

Socialista In-dependiente

11 6.7 6 3.8 2 1.3 – –

Liberal 5 3.2 4 2.5 2 1.3 1 0.6 UCR Unificada 4 2.5 4 2.5 4 2.5 5 3.2 Popular 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 0 0.0 UCR Bloquista 2 1.3 1 0.6 1 0.6 0 0.0 DefensaProvincial

2 1.3 1 0.6 – – – –

UCR – – 2 1.3 40 25.3 64 40.5 Independents – – 2 1.3 2 1.3 – – Others 0 0.0 2 1.3 6 3.8 18 11.4 Not incorpora-ted

– – – – 1 0.6 – –

Vacancies – – 3 1.9 1 0.6 1 0.6 a All socialists apart from Socialistas Independientes have been combined.

Argentina100

Year 1940 1942 1946 1951 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 158 100.0 158 100.0 158 100.0 149 100.0 UCR 76 48.1 63 40.0 44a, b 27.8 14 9.4 Demócrata Nacional

49 31.0 48 30.3 1b 0.6 – –

UCRAntipersonalista

7 4.4 19 12.0 0 0.0 – –

Socialista 5 3.5 17 10.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 UCR Unificada 5 3.2 2 1.3 – – – – Laborista/UCR Junta Renovadora

– – – – 62c 39.2 – –

LaboristaIndependiente

– – – – 28c 17.7 – –

Laborista – – – – 11c 7.0 – – UCR Bloquista – – – – 1b 0.6 – – Demócrata Progresista

– – – – 1b 0.6 0 0.0

Peronista – – – – – – 135 90.6 Others 16 10.1 6 3.8 10d 6.3 – – Notincorporated

– – 2 1.3 – – – –

Vacancies – – 1 0.6 – – – – a Participated as UCR Comité Nacional. b Part of the alliance Unión Democrática which won a total of 49 seats (31%).c Parties supporting the presidential ticket Perón-Quijano obtained 109 seats (69%), including eight seats included under ‘others’.d Includes: UCR Irigoyenista, UCR Junta Renovadora, UCR La Rioja Laborista, Laborista,UCR Irigoyenista, UCR Junta Renovadora (supporting the ticket Perón-Quijano), UCR Antiper-sonalista-Demócrata Nacional (supporting the ticket Tamborini-Mosca).

Argentina 101

Year 1954a 1958 1960 1962e

Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 157 100.0 187 100.0 192 100.0 100.0 Peronista 140 89.2 – – – – UCR 12 0.8 52b 27.8 74 38.5 UCRI – – 133c 71.1 109 56.8 Liberal – – 2 1.1 0 0.0 Federación de Partidos de Centro

– – – – 3 1.6

DefensaProvincial

– – – – 1 0.5

Others – – 0 0.0 2d 1.0 Not incorporated 1 0.6 – – 1 0.5 Vacancies 4 2.6 – – 2 1.0 a Based on 1955 seat data.b It participated as the UCR del Pueblo between 1958 and 1965.c The Partido Peronista was banned. Its supporters voted primarily for the UCRI because of a pact between Perón and the UCRI leader (Frondizi).d Belonging to the UCR Disidente.e Elections annuled by a decree issued by President Guido.

Year 1963 1965 1973 1983 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 192 100.0 192 100.0 243 100.0 254 100.0 UCR 72 37.5 68 35.4 51 21.0 129 50.8 UCRI 40 20.8 11 5.7 12a 4.9 0 0.0 Unión del Pue-blo Argentino

14 7.3 7 3.6 – – – –


12 6.2 9 4.7 3 1.3 0 0.0

Demócrata Cristiano

7b 3.6 4 2.1 – – 1 0.4

SocialistaArgentino

6 3.1 4 2.1 – – – –

SocialistaDemocrático

5 2.6 2 1.0 0 0.0 – –

Demócrata 4 2.1 0 0.0 2 0.8 – – Unión Popularc 4 2.1 52d 27.1 1 0.4 – – Tres Banderas 3 1.6 0 0.0 – – – – Liberal 2b 1.3 0 0.0 – – – – Mov. Popular Neuquino

2 1.1 0 0.0 2 0.8 2 0.8

Autonomista Lib. deCorrientes

2 1.1 2 1.0 3e 1.3 2 0.8

Argentina102

Year 1963 1965 1973 1983 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 192 100.0 192 100.0 243 100.0 254 100.0 PartidoBloquista

1 0.5 2 1.0 3 1.3 2 0.8

DefensaProvincial

1 0.5 1 0.5 – – – –

Federación de Partidos de Centro

– – 10f 5.2 – – – –

MID – – 16 8.3 12 4.9 – – PJ – – –g – 131h 53.9 111i 43.7 Alianza Popular Federalista

– – – – 5j 2.1 – –

Mov. Popular Pampeano

– – – – 2 0.8 1k 0.4

Mov. Popular Jujeño

– – – – 1 0.4 1 0.4

Intransigente – – – – – – 3 1.2 UceDé – – – – – – 2 0.8 Others 17 8.9 3 1.6 15 6.2 – – Vacancies – – 1 0.5 – – – – a Participated that year as Alianza Popular Revolucionaria. Since 1983, it used the name Partido Intran-sigente.b Participated in the alliance Federación de Partidos de Centro along with the Unión Conserva-dora, Demócrata Conservador, Demócrata Liberal, and Demócrata Unido.c The Peronists used this party as a vehicle to present candidates. d It was part of the Justicialista delegation in the chamber of deputies along with Blanco de los Trabajadores, Tres Banderas, Movimiento Popular Mendocino, Movimiento Popular Neuquino, Laborista Nacional, Acción Popular, Sanluiseña, and Acción Popular.e Participated as the Pacto Autonomista-Liberal de Corrientes.f Participated as Federación Nacional de Partidos de Centro together with Unión Conservadora,Demócrata, Liberal, Demócrata Unido y Demócrata Liberal.g The Jusiticialistas ran as Unión Popular.h Paricipated as the PJ, forming part of the FREJULI along with MID, Partido Conservador Po-pular, Cristiano, minor socialist parties, and some provincial parties. i It participated as Partido Justicialista and it was part of the Justicialista delegation in the chamber of deputies. j Consisted of the Movimiento Federal 17 de Octubre, Partido Renovador de la Capital, Unión Popular de Catamarca, Renovador de Corrientes, Democrático Federal de Misiones, Unión Popular, and Demócrata Progresista.k Participated as Movimiento Federal Pampeano.

Argentina 103

Year 1985 1987 1989 1991 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 254 100.0 254 100.0 254 100.0 257a 100.0 UCR 130 51.2 117b 46.1 90 35.4 84 32.7 PJ 101 39.8 106c 41.7 120 47.2 116 45.1 PI 6 2.4 5 2.0 2 0.8 2 0.8 Pacto Autono-mista Liberald

3 1.2 4 1.6 3 1.2 3 1.2

UCeDé 3 1.2 7 2.8 11 4.3 10 3.9 Demócrata Cristiano

2 0.8 3 1.2 3 1.2 1 0.4

Mov. Popular Neuquino

2 0.8 2 0.8 2 0.8 2 0.8


2 0.8 0 0.0 2 0.8 2 0.8

PartidoBloquista

1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4


1 0.4 1 0.4 3 1.2 3 1.2

MID 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 2 0.8 Partido Reno-vador de Salta

1 0.4 2 0.8 2 0.8 3 1.2

PartidoDemócrata de Mendoza

1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4

Partido Popular Rionegrino

– – 1 0.4 1 0.4 – –

UnidadSocialista

– – 1 0.4 1 0.4 3 1.2

DefensaProvincial

– – 1 0.4 1 0.4 – –

Frente Acción Provinciana

– – 1 0.4 – – – –

FuerzaRepublicana

– – – – 2 0.8 4 1.6

Partido Federal – – – – 2 0.8 1 0.4 Humanismo y Liberación

– – – – 2 0.4 – –

SocialistaUnificadaCristiano

– – – – 1 0.4 – –

Izquierda Unida – – – – 1 0.4 – – Blanco de los Jubilados

– – – – 1 0.4 1 0.4

CruzadaRenovadora

– – – – 1 0.4 2 0.8

Argentina104

Year 1985 1987 1989 1991 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % Mov. Peronista – – – – – – 5 1.9 Afirmación Peronista

– – – – – – 3 1.2

MODIN – – – – – – 3 1.2 Mov. Popular Fueguino

– – – – – – 2 0.8

AcciónChaqueña

– – – – – – 1 0.4

Partido Conser-vador Popular

– – – – – – 1 0.4

Mov. alSocialismo

– – – – – – 1 0.4

a Since 1991, the chamber of deputies has 257 seats (three more due to the provincialization of Tierra del Fuego); between 1991 and 1993 one seat remained vacant.b Includes one seat of the Alianza UCR-Movimiento Popular Jujeño known also as Convergencia Progra-mática. The UCR lost its quorum in the chamber of deputies following the 1987 chamber election. c Includes one independent from Córdoba (Alianza Partido Justicialista-Independiente).d The two members of the Pacto Automista Liberal of Corrientes (Partido Autonomista and Par-tido Liberal) maintained separate delegations in the chamber of deputies between 1983 and 1999. They are however included together here.

Year 1993 1995 1997 1999 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 257 100.0 257 100.0 257 100.0 257 100.0 Justicialista 127 49.4 131 51.0 119 46.3 99 38.5 UCR 84 32.7 68 26.5 66 25.7 –a –a

MODIN 6 2.3 3 1.2 – – – – UnidadSocialista

5 2.0 – – – – – –

Pacto Autono-mista Liberalb

4 1.6 4 1.6 3 1.2 2 0.8

Unión delCentroDemocrático

4 1.6 2 0.8 1 0.4 1 0.4

Partido Reno-vador de Salta

3 1.2 3 1.2 3 1.2 2 0.8

Mov. Popular Fueguino

3 1.2 2 0.8 2 0.8 1 0.4

FuerzaRepublicana

3 1.2 1 0.4 2 0.8 3 1.2

Frente Grande 3 1.2 Mov. Popular Neuquino

2 0.8 2 0.8 2 0.8 2 0.8

Argentina 105

Year 1993 1995 1997 1999 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % PartidoDemócrata Progresista

2 0.8 2 0.8 2 0.8 3 1.2


2 0.8 1 0.4 1 0.4 0 0

AcciónChaqueña

2 0.8 1 0.4 – – – –

PartidoDemócrata de Mendoza

1 0.4 2 0.8 3 1.2 3 1.2

PartidoBloquista

1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4

PartidoIntransigente

1 0.4 1 0.4 – – – –

CruzadaRenovadora

1 0.4 – – 1 0.4 1 0.4

MID 1 0.4 – – – – – – Partido Conser-vador Popular

1 0.4 – – – – – –

Partido Popular Cristiano

1 0.4 – – – – – –

Frepasoc – – 22 8.6 38 14.8 –a –a

PAISc – – 3 1.2 2 0.8 – – Mov. Popular Provincial de San Luis

– – 1 0.4 1 0.4 – –

PartidoRepublicanoDemocrático

– – 1 0.4 1 0.4 – –

Linea Abierta – – 1 0.4 1 0.4 – – Mov. Azul y Blanco

– – 1 0.4 – – – –

CorrienteGrande

– – 1 0.4 – – – –

Participación y Justicia

– – 1 0.4 – – – –

PartidoComunista

– – 1 0.4 – – – –

Renovación Cívica

– – 1 0.4 – – – –

Acción por la República

– – – – 3 1.2 11 4.3

Argentina106

Year 1993 1995 1997 1999 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % Partido Nuevo – – – – 2 0.8 3 1.2 Frente Cívico y Social

– – – – 2 0.8 2 0.8

Desarrollo y Justicia

– – – – 1 0.4 1 0.4

Alianza TJEa – – – – 0 0.0 119 46.3 Mov. Social y Entrerriano

– – – – – – 1 0.4

UnidadBonaerense

– – – – – – 1 0.4

Mov. Cívico y Social

– – – – – – 1 0.4

a The Alianza TJE delegation is a combination of the UCR (82 deputies) and Frepaso (37 depu-ties). While the Alianza TJE is a formal delegation, the UCR and Frepaso maintain their own seperate delegations as well. While the Alianza TJE existed since 1997, the UCR and Frepaso did not create this unified delegation until 1999. b The two members of the Pacto Autonomista Liberal of Corrientes (the Partido Autonomistaand Partido Liberal) maintained separate delegations in the chamber of deputies between 1983 and 1999. They are however included together here. c Frepaso (Frente del País Solidario) was an alliance of the Frente Grande, Partido Demócrata Cri-stiano, PI, PSP, PSD, and PAIS. Early in 1996, PAIS officially left the Frepaso alliance, although many of its members remained in Frepaso. By 2001, the Frepaso alliance consisted of only a faction of the Frente Grande, with another Frente Grande faction functioning as a separate delegation.

Year 2001 Seats % 257 100.0 PJ 121 47.1 UCR 65 25.3 ARI 16 6.2 Frente Grande 8 3.1 Frepaso 7 2.7 Acción por la República 4 1.6 Partido Demócrata Progresista 4 1.6 Movimiento Popular Neuquino 3 1.2 Autodeterminación y Libertad 2 0.8 Frente Cívico Social 2 0.8 Frente para el Cambio 2 0.8 Fuerza Republicana 2 0.8 Partido Demócrata de Mendoza 2 0.8 Partido Renovador de Salta 2 0.8 PSP 2 0.8 Frente Polo Social 2 0.8

Argentina 107

Year (continued) 2001 Seats % Unidad Federalista 2 0.8 Autonomista de Corrientes 1 0.4 Partido Bloquista 1 0.4 Fiscal 1 0.4 Izquierda Unida 1 0.4 Movimiento Cívico Social 1 0.4 Partido Demócrata de Capital Federal

1 0.4

Partido Federal 1 0.4 PI 1 0.4 Partido Nuevo 1 0.4 Renovación Cívica 1 0.4 UceDé 1 0.4

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 2001

Year 2001 Seats % 72 100.0 PJ 25 34.7 Alianza TJE 7 9.7 UCR 6 8.3 Frente de Todos 3 4.2 Alianza Frente Cívico y Social 2 2.8 Alianza Frente de la Unidad 2 2.8 Alianza Frente Justicialista/Todos por el Cambio

2 2.8

Alianza Unidos por San Juan 2 2.8 Frente Cívico Jujeño 2 2.8 Frente Fundacional Justicialista 2 2.8 Frente Justicialista por Santa Fe 2 2.8 Frente para el Cambio 2 2.8 Frente para la Unidad 2 2.8 Movimiento Popular Neuquino 2 2.8 Alianza Grande 1 1.4 Alianza por Mendoza 1 1.4 Alianza por San Juan 1 1.4 Alianza Santacruzeña 1 1.4 Alianza Santafesina 1 1.4 ARI 1 1.4 Frente con Todos 1 1.4

Argentina108

Year (continued) 2001 Seats % Frente Justicialista Popular 1 1.4 Fuerza de Unidad Popular 1 1.4 Fuerza Republicana 1 1.4 Renovador de Salta 1 1.4

2.9 Presidential Elections 1916–2003

1916 Total number % Votes Registered voters 1,189,254 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 745,825 62.7 College in the Invalid votes 26,256 3.5 Seats ElectoralValid votes 719,569 96.5 Won College Hipólito Irigoyen (UCR) 336,980 46.8 133 152 Leopoldo Angel D. Rojas(Conservador)

96,103 13.4 46 104

Nicolás Lisandro de la Torre(Demócrata Progresista)

63,098 8.8 43 20

Juan B. Justo (Socialista) 52,215 7.3 14 14 Other parties with representation 109,045 15.1 64 8a

Other parties without representation 62,128 8.6 – – Total 298 Absent 2 a Votes for the candidate Alejandro Carbo.

1922 Total number % Votes Registered voters 1,586,366 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 876,354 55.2 College in the Invalid votes 48,203 5.5 Seats ElectoralValid votes 828,151 94.5 Won College Marcelo de Alvear (UCR) 406,304 49.1 216 235 Norberto Piñero (Concentración Nacional)a

64,942 7.8 23 60

Carlos Ibarguren(Demócrata Progresista)

63,147 7.7 25 10

Nicolás Repetto (Socialista) 54,813 6.6 22 22 Other parties with representation 148,414 17.9 90 9b

Other parties without representation 90,531 10.9 Total 336 Absent 40 a Formed by conservative groups. b Votes for the candidates Miguel Laurencena (6), Rafael Núñez (2), and Jose A. Correa (1).

Argentina 109

1928 Total number % Votes Registered voters 1,807,566 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 1,461,605 80.9 College in the Invalid votes 101,256 6.9 Seats ElectoralValid votes 1,360,349 93.1 Won College Hipólito Irigoyen (UCR) 839,140 61.7 249 245 Leopoldo Melo (UCRAntipersonalista)

134,222 9.9 40 71a

Nicolás Matienzo (Socialista) 65,660 4.8 3 3 Other parties with representation 209,559 15.4 84 Other parties without representation 111,768 8.2 Total 319 Absent 57 a Supported by the Frente Único (an alliance of conservative parties) which won 87,709 votes (6.4%) and 20 electors.

1931 Total number % Votes Registered voters 2,116,552 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 1,554,437 73.4 College in the Invalid votes 149,662 9.6 Seats ElectoralValid votes 1,404,775 90.4 Won College Agustín P. Justo (Demócrata Nacional)

452,560 32.2 135 237

Lisandro de la Torre (AlianzaDemócrata Progresista Socialista)

436,125 31.0 124 122

Other parties with representation 412,877 29.4 117a 12b

Other parties without representation 103,213 7.3 Total 371 Absent 5 a Includes 24 electors of a sector of the UCR Antipersonalista who did not participate in any alli-ance, 12 electors of the Partido Liberal and 11 more of the UCR Unificada.b Votes for Francisco Berroetaveña.

1937 Total number % Votes Registered voters 2,672,750 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 2,035,839 76.2 College in the Invalid votes 72,902 3.6 Seats ElectoralValid votes 1,962,937 96.4 Won College Roberto M. Ortiz (Concordancia Demócrata Nacional)a

1,094,685 55.8 248 245

Marcelo T. de Alvear (UCR) 814,750 41.5 128 127 Other parties without representation 53,502 2.7 Total 372 Absent 4 a The Concordancia was an alliance between the UCR Antipersonalista, the Partido Demócrata Nacional and the Partido Socialista Independiente. They ran separately in the election and joi-ned in the electoral college.

Argentina110

1946 Total number % Votes Registered voters 3,405,173 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 2,839,507 83.3 College in the Invalid votes 71,293 2.6 Seats ElectoralValid votes 2,768,214 97.4 Won College Juan D. Perón (Laborista) 1,487,886 53.7 304 299 José P. Tamborini (Unión Democrática)a

1,207,080 43.6 72 66

Other parties without representation 73,248 2.7 Total 365 Absent 11 a Coalition of the following parties: UCR, Partido Socialista, Demócrata Progresista and Parti-do Comunista.

1951a Total number % Registered voters 8,633,998 – Votes cast 7,593,948 88.0 Invalid votes 122,860 1.6 Valid votes 7,471,088 98.4 Juan D. Perón (Peronista) 4,745,168 63.5 Ricardo Balbín (UCR) 2,415,750 32.3 Others 310,170 4.2 a The direct election of the president according to the constitution of 1949 was abolished in 1955.

1958 Total number % Registered voters 10,002,327 – Votes Votes cast 9,088,497 90.9 Electoral Cast Blank votes 814,400 9.0 College in the Invalid votes 22,724 0.2 Seats ElectoralValid votes 8,251,373 90.8 Won College Arturo Frondizi (UCRI) 4,070,398 49.3 319 318 Ricardo Balbín (UCR del Pueblo) 2,617,693 31.7 142 135 Ernesto R. Meabe (Liberal) 51,092 0.6 5 5 Other parties without representation 1,512,190 18.4 Total 458 Absent 8

Argentina 111

1963 Total number % Registered voters 11,353,936 – Votes Votes cast 9,717,677 85.6 Electoral Cast Blank votes 1,828,673 18.8 College in the Invalid votes 236,975 2.4 Seats Electoral Valid votes 7,652,029 78.8 Won College Arturo Illia (UCR del Pueblo) 2,441,064 31.9 168 270 Oscar Alende (UCRI) 1,593,002 20.8 110 86 Pedro E. Aramburu (Unión del Pueblo Argentino)

728,662 9.5 42 74

Alfredo Palacios (SocialistaArgentino)

278,856 3.6 12 12

Other parties with representation 2,424,522 31.7 144 19a

Other parties without representation

185,923 2.4

Total 461 Absent 12 Blank

votes3

a Carlos Sylvestre Begnis (11 votes), Alejandro Leluar (4), Eduardo Blanchel (3), and León Justo B. (1).

1973 (I) Total number % Registered voters 14,302,497 – Votes cast 12,235,481 85.5 Blank votes 273,682 2.2 Invalid votes 51,710 0.4 Valid votes 11,910,089 97.3 Héctor J. Cámpora (FREJULI)a 5,899,543 49.5 Ricardo Balbín (UCR) 2,535,537 21.3 Francisco Manrique (AlianzaPopular Federalista)b

1,757,784 14.8

Oscar Alende (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria)

885,272 7.4

Julio Chamizo (Nueva Fuerza) 235,305 2.0 Othersc 596,648 5.0 a Formed by the Partido Justicialista, Partido Conservador, Popular Cristiano, other minor so-cialist parties, and some provincial parties. With Balbín’s assent, a decision was made by the military not to hold a second round, and Cámpora was declared the winner. b Formed by the Movimiento 17 de Octubre, Partido Renovador de la Capital, Unión Popular de Catamarca, Partido Renovador de Corrientes, Partido Demócrata Federal de Misiones, Unión Popular, and Partido Demócrata Progresista. cIncluding Jorge A. Ramos (FIP; 48,571).

Argentina112

1973 (II) Total number % Registered voters 14,302,497 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 11,897,443 — Juan D. Perón (FREJULI) 7,359,252a 61.8 Ricardo Balbín (UCR) 2,905,719 24.4 Francisco Manrique (AlianzaPopular Federalista)

1,450,998 12.2

Others 181,474 1.6 a Includes 889,727 votes of the FIP that participated separately but supported Perón.

1983 Total number % Votes Registered voters 17,929,951 – Electoral Cast Votes cast 14,927,572 83.3 College in the Invalid votes — — Seats Electoral Valid votes 14,556,458 97.5 Won College Raúl Alfonsín (UCR) 7,104,748 48.8 317 336 Italo A. Lúder (PJ) 5,697,610 39.1 259 247 Oscar Alende (PI) 411,883 2.8 2 2 Rogelio Frigerio (MID) 223,763 1.5 2 2 Others 1,118,454 7.7 20 1 Total 588

Abstentions from the Electoral College Vote 12

Argentina 113

1989 Total number % Registered voters 20,034,252 – Votes Votes cast 17,086,704 85.3 Electoral Cast Blank votes 221,585 1.3 College in the Invalid votes 118,862 0.7 Seats Electoral Valid votes 16,746,257 98.0 Won College Carlos Menem (FREJUPO) 7,956,628 47.5 312 325 Eduardo Angeloz (UCR) 5,433,369 32.5 213 231 Alvaro Alsogaray (Alianza deCentro)

1,201,015 7.2 33 33

Eduardo Angeloz (CFI) 779,182a 4.7 21 Nestor Vicente (Alianza Izquierda Unida)

409,751 2.5 1 1

Carlos Menem (Blanco de los Jubilados)

301,527b 1.8 7

Guillermo Estévez Boero (Alianza Unidad Socialista)

237,683 1.4 0 0

Antonio Bussi (Fuerza Republicana) 188,632 1.1 7 7 Other parties with representationc 82,281 0.5 6 Other candididates or parties without representation

156,189 0.9 0 0

Abstentions from the electoral college vote

– – – 3

a The CFI supported Angeloz and vice presidential candidate Guzmán while the UCR supported Angeloz and vice presidential candidate Casella. b This includes only votes won by the Partido Blanco de los Jubilados in those provinces where the party supported Menem. c Three district level parties did not present a presidential candidate, but a list of presidential electors and won electoral college seats. The Movimiento Popular Neuquino won 35,446 votes and four seats, the Alianza Bloquista (led by the Partido Bloquista) won 27,004 votes and one seat, and Acción Chaqueña won 19,831 votes and one seat.

Argentina114

1995 Total number % Registered voters 22,178,154 – Votes cast 18,203,452 82.1 Blank votes 653,434 3.6 Invalid votes 155,167 0.9 Valid votes 17,394,851 95.6 Carlos Menem (PJ)a 8,680,520 49.9 José O. Bordón (Frepaso)b 5,095,929 29.3 Horacio Massacessi (UCR)c 2,955,997 17.0 Aldo Rico (Movimiento por la Dignidad y la Independencia)

294,467 1.7

Others 367,938 2.1 a Several other parties (e.g. Acción Chaqueña, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Partido Bloquista, Partido Renovador de Salta, UCeDé) also presented Menem as their candidate. These votes are included in Menem’s overall total. b Includes votes received from the lists of the Alianza Cruzada-Frente Grande and Alianza Fren-te País in San Juan, and of the Movimiento de Izquierda en Chaco.c Includes votes received in three provinces from the MID, and in Córdoba from the Partido Fe-deral (the Partido Federal presented Menem as its candidate in Capital Federal).

1999 Total number % Registered voters 24,121,947 – Votes cast 19,878,018 82.4 Blank votes 728,408 3.6 Invalid votes 199,987 1.0 Valid votes 18,949,623 95.3 Fernando de la Rúa (Alianza TJE)a 9,165,032 48.4 Eduardo Duhalde (Alianza Concer-tación Justicialista por el Cambio)b

7,330,962 38.7

Domingo Cavallo (Alianza Acción por la República)c

1,859,461 9.8

Patricia Walsh (Alianza Izquierda Unida)

151,208 0.8

Lía Méndez (Partido Humanista) 131,779 0.7 Jorge Altamira (Partido Obrero) 113,898 0.6 Others 197,283 1.0 a Other parties that participated outside the Alianza TJE but nevertheless presented de la Rúa as their presidential candidate are included here. Among them are the Pacto Autonomista Liberal in Corrientes and the Partido Demócrata Progresista in Santa Fé.b This total includes votes won by Duhalde as the candidate of the UCeDé in those provinces where the party presented a separate list, except for Santa Fé where the party had Domingo Ca-vallo as its candidate. Votes won by Duhalde as the candidate of other parties (e.g. Partido Nue-vo in Corrientes) are also included in this total. c UCeDé votes in Santa Fé are included with Cavallo’s vote total.

Argentina 115

2003 Total number % Registered voters 25,480,440 – Votes cast 19,930,111 78.2 Blank votes 196,574 1.0 Invalid votes 345,642 1.7 Valid votes 19,387,895 97.3 Carlos S. Menem (Alianza Frente por la Lealtad)a

4,740,907 24.5

Néstor C. Kirchner (Alianza Frente para la Victoria)

4,312,517 22.2

Ricardo López Murphy (Alianza Movimiento Federal para Recrear el Crecimiento)

3,173,475 16.4

Adolfo Rodriguez Saá (Alianza Frente Movimiento Popular)b

2,735,829 14.1

Elisa M. A. Carrió (ARI) 2,723,574 14.0 Leopoldo R. G. Moreau (UCR) 453,360 2.3 Patricia Walsh (Alianza Izquierda Unida)

332,863 1.7

Alfredo P. Bravo (Socialista) 217,385 1.1 Jorge Altamira (Partido Obrero) 139,399 0.7 Enrique Venturino (Confederación para que se vayan todos)

129,764 0.7

Guillermo A. Sullings (Humanista) 105,702 0.5 Othersc 323,120 1.7 a Including votes for Menem garnered by the UCeDé. b Including votes for Rodriguez Saá garnered by the Partido Unión y Libertad.c José C. Arcagni (Alianza Tiempo de Cambios; 63,449 votes), Mario Mazzitelli (Partido Socia-lista Auténtico; 50,239), Carlos A. Zaffore (MID; 47,951), Manuel E. Herrera (Partido De-mócrata Cristiano; 47,750), Gustavo Breide Obeid (Partido Popular de la Reconstrucción;42,460), Juan R. Mussa (Alianza Unidos o Dominados; 39,505), Ricardo C. Terán (MODIN; 31,766).

Argentina116

2.10 List of Power Holders 1916–2004

Head of State Years Remarks Hipólito Irigoyen 1916–1922 Elected president. Assumed office on

12/10/1916.Marcelo T. deAlvear

1922–1928 Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1922.

Hipólito Irigoyen 1928–1930 Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1928. He was overthrown by a milita-ry coup on 06/09/1930.

José Félix Uriburu 1930–1932 Military officer. Provisional president. He took over office after the coup of 06/09/1930 and remained in power until 20/02/1932.

Agustín P. Justo 1932–1938 Military officer. Elected president. Assumed office on 20/02/1932.

Roberto M. Ortiz 1938–1942 Elected president. Assumed office on 20/02/1938 and resigned due to illness on 24/07/1942.

Ramón S. Castillo 1942–1943 Assumed office on 25/07/1942. He resigned after a coup d’état on 04/06/1943.

Pedro Pablo Ramírez 1943–1944 Military officer. Assumed office on 06/06/1943, replacing General Rawson who, as president of the military junta, had taken over the presidency on 04/06/1943. Resigned on 09/03/1944.

Edelmiro J. Farrel 1944–1946 Military offcer. He was vice president under Ramírez and assumed office on 10/03/1944.

Juan Domingo Perón 1946–1955 Elected president. Assumed office on 04/06/1946. He was overthrown by a coupd’état on 16/09/1955 but remained in office until 23/09/1955.

Eduardo Lonardi 1955 Military officer. Assumed office on 23/09/1955.

Pedro EugenioAramburu

1955–1958 Military officer. Assumed office on 13/11/1955.

Arturo Frondizi 1958–1962 Elected president. Assumed office on 01/05/1958. He was overthrown by the the military on 29/03/1962.

José María Guido 1962–1963 Assumed office on 29/03/1962. Arturo H. Illia 1963–1966 Elected president. Assumed office on

12/10/1963 and was overthrown by a coupd’état on 28/06/1966.

Argentina 117

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Juan Carlos Onganía 1966–1970 Military officer. Assumed office on

29/06/1966 and was removed by the milita-ry junta on 08/06/1970.

Roberto M. Leving-ston

1970–1971 Military officer. Assumed office on 18/06/1970. The military junta removed him on 22/03/1971.

Alejandro A.Lanusse


Héctor J. Cámpora 1973 Elected president. Assumed office on 25/05/1973 and resigned on 13/07/1973.

Raúl Lastiri 1973 President of the chamber of deputies. As-sumed office on 13/07/1973 in lieu of Cámpora.

Juan D. Perón 1973–1974 Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1973 and died in office on 01/07/1974.

María E. Martínez de Perón

1974–1976 Being the vice president she replaced Perón on 01/07/1974. She was overthrown by a coup d’état on 24/03/1976.

Jorge R. Videla 1976–1981 Military officer. Assumed office on 29/03/1976.

Roberto E. Viola 1981 Military officer. Assumed office on 30/03/1981.

Leopoldo Galtieri 1981–1982 Military officer. Assumed office on 22/12/1981 and resigned on 17/06/1982.

Reynaldo A.Bignone


Raúl A. Alfonsín 1983–1989 Elected president. Assumed office on 10/12/1983. He resigned on 08/07/1989, six months before the regular end of his term.

Carlos S. Menem 1989–1999 Elected president. Assumed office on 08/07/1989.

Fernando de la Rúa 1999–2001 Elected president. Assumed office on 10/12/1999 and resigned on 20/12/2001.

Ramón Puerta 2001 President of the senate; he took over the va-cant presidency on 21/12/2001.

Adolfo Rodríguez Saá

2001 Elected by the legislative assembly. Assu-med office on 23/12/2001 and resigned on 30/12/2001.

Eduardo Camaño 2001 President of the chamber of deputies. Presi-dent for one day on 31/12/2001.

Eduardo Duhalde 2002–2003 Elected by the legislative assembly as pro-visional president. Assumed office on 01/01/2002.

Néstor Kirchner 2003– Assumed office on 25/05/2003.

Argentina118

3. Bibliography

3.1 Official Sources

Departamento Coordinación y Estadística, Dirección Nacional Electoral, Mi-nisterio del Interior, República Argentina (2001). Departamento Archi-ves.

Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1983). Elecciones. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación.

Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1984). Sistema electoral nacional. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación.

Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1987). Elecciones nacionales gene-rales. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación.

Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1987). Régimen electoral. Legisla-ción nacional. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación.

Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (2002). DIP Archives. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación.

Dirección Nacional Electoral (1987). Fechas de actos comiciales. Buenos Aires: Ministerio del Interior.

Dirección Nacional Electoral, Departamento de Estadisticas (1999). Archivesof the Departamento de Estadisticas.

Dirección Nacional del Servicio Estadístico (1950). Anuario estadístico de la República Argentina, Vol. I, 1949–1950. Buenos Aires.

Legislación Electoral. Código Electoral Nacional. Cordoba (Argentina): Edi-torial Comercio y Justicia.

Leyes de Elecciones Nacionales y de Formación del Padrón Electoral con sus respectivos Decretos Reglementarios (1914). Buenos Aires: Librería Nacional.

Subsecretaria de Informaciones (1946). Las fuerzas armadas restituyen el imperio de la soberania popular. Buenos Aires: Ministerio del Interior.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports

Academia Nacional de la Historia (1965). Historia argentina contemporánea.Buenos Aires.

Adrogué, G. (1995). ‘El nuevo sistema partidario argentino’, in C. Acuña (ed.), La nueva matriz política argentina. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 27–70.

Alcántara Saez, M. (1987). ‘Hacia la alternancia política en Argentina? (Las elecciones del 6 de setiembre de 1987)’, in Revista de Estudios Políticos,Nueva Epoca (Madrid), 58: 300–302.

Argentina 119

Badeni, G. (1976). Comportamiento electoral en Argentina. Buenos Aires: Plus Ultra.

Botana, N. (1977). El orden conservador. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. Botana, N. et al. (1985). La Argentina electoral. Buenos Aires: Sudamerica-

na.Brenes Camacho, G. (1989). ‘Argentina’, in Boletín Electoral Latinoameri-

cano, 1: 36–41. Cabrera, E. and Murillo, V. (1994). ‘The 1993 Argentine Elections’, in Elec-

toral Studies, 13: 150–156. Calvo, E. and Abal Medina, J. M. (eds.). (2001). El Federalismo Electoral

Argentino: Sobrerepresentación, reforma política y gobierno dividido en la Argentina. Buenos Aiers: EUDEBA.

Cantón, D. (1969). Materiales para el estudio de la sociología política en la Argentina, Vol. I. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigación Torcuato di Tella.

— (1973). Elecciones y partidos políticos en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Si-glo XXI.

— (1985). El pueblo soberano. Las elecciones de 1983. Buenos Aires. Cantón, D. et al. (1986). La democracia constitucional y su crisis. Buenos

Aires: Paidós. Catterberg, E. (1991). Argentina Confronts Politics: Political Culture and

Public Opinion in the Argentine Transition to Democracy. Boulder, Co-lo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Corbacho, A. L. (1998). ‘Reformas Constitucionales y Modelos de Decision en la Democracia Argentina, 1984-1994’, in Desarrollo Económico, 37:591–616.

De Luca, M., Jones, M. P., and Tula, M. I. (2002). ‘Back Rooms or Ballot Boxes? Candidate Nomination in Argentina’, in Comparative Political Studies, 35: 413–36.

De Luca, M. and Malamud, A. (1996). ‘La estabilidad democrática en la Ar-gentina de fin de siglo’, in J. Pinto (ed.), Las nuevas democracias del Cono Sur: cambios y continuidades. Buenos Aires: Oficina de Publica-ciones (CBC) de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 215–242.

De Riz, L. (1995). ‘Argentina: Democracy in Turmoil’, in J. I. Domínguez and A. F. Lowenthal (eds.), Constructing Democratic Governance: South America in the 1990s. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 147–165.

Del Carril, B. (1989). Los colegios electorales en la democracia masiva.Buenos Aires: Ed. Emecé.

Echegaray, F. (1993). ‘¿Adiós al bipartidismo imperfecto? Elecciones y par-tidos provinciales en la Argentina’, in Nueva Sociedad, 124: 46–52.

Etchepareborda, R. (1983). Irigoyen/1. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de Amé-rica Latina.

Argentina120

— (1983). Irigoyen/2. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina. Ferreira Rubio, D. and Goretti, M. (1998). ‘When the President Governs A-

lone: The Decretazo in Argentina, 1989–93’, in J. M. Carey and M. S. Shugart (eds.), Executive Decree Authority. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 33–61.

Ferrer, G. (1971). Los partidos políticos. Buenos Aires: Colección Historia Popular.

Fraga, R. (1995). Argentina en las Urnas 1916-1994. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios Union para la Nueva Mayoría.

Fundación de Estudios Contemporáneos (FUNDECO) (1981). Partidos po-líticos. Estatuto de ordenamiento. Sistema electoral. Buenos Aires: FUNDECO.

Galletti, A. (1961). La política y los partidos. Buenos Aires.Gallo, E. and Cortés Conde, R. (1972). La República Conservadora. Buenos

Aires.— (1973). La formación de la Argentina moderna. Buenos Aires: Paidós. Gallo, R. (1983). La división del radicalismo. Buenos Aires: Ed. Belgrano. García, C. R. (1983). Historia de los grupos y partidos políticos de la Repúb-

lica Argentina desde 1810 a 1983. Buenos Aires: Sainte Claire. Gibson, E. L. (1996). Class and Conservative Parties: Argentina in Compa-

rative Perspective. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gómez de la Fuente, P. and Pérez Colman, C. (1995). Glosario Electoral Ar-

gentino. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor Argentino. González Calderón, J. (1975). Curso de derecho constitucional. Buenos Ai-

res: Ed. Depalma.Haffa, A. (1984). ‘Wahlen und Redemokratisierungsprozeß in Argentinien’,

in D. Nohlen (ed.), Wahlen und Wahlpolitik in Lateinamerika. Heidel-berg: Esprint, 109–128.

Halperín Donghi, T. (1986). La democracia de masas. Buenos Aires: Paidós.Jones, M. P. (2002). ‘Explaining the High Level of Party Discipline in the

Argentine Chamber of Deputies’, in S. Morgenstern and B. Nacif (eds.), Legislative Politics in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 147–184.

— (1997). ‘Evaluating Argentina’s Presidential Democracy: 1983–1995’, in S. Mainwaring and M. S. Shugart (eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 259–299.

Jorrat, J. R. (1986). ‘Las elecciones de 1983: ¿Desviación o realineamiento?’, in Desarrollo Económico, 101: 89–120.

Kvaternic, E. (1987). Crisis sin salvataje: la crisis político-militar de 1962–63. Buenos Aires: Ides.

Levitsky, S. (2001). ‘An Organized Disorganization: Informal Organization and the Persistence of Local Party Structures in Argentine Peronism’, in Journal of Latin American Studies, 33: 29–65.

Argentina 121

López, E. (1986). ‘Argentina: procesos electorales y consolidación de la de-mocracia’, in Sistemas Electorales y representación política en Lati-noamérica. Madrid: Fundación Ebert-ICI.

Luna, F. (1973). Argentina de Perón a Lanusse. Buenos Aires: Planeta.— (1981). Irigoyen. Buenos Aires: Ed. Belgrano. McGuire, J. W. (1995). ‘Political Parties and Democracy in Argentina’, in S.

Mainwaring and T. R. Scully (eds.), Building Democratic Institutions. Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 200–246.

— (1997). Peronism Without Perón: Unions, Parties, and Democracy in Ar-gentina. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Manzetti, L. (1993). Institutions, Parties, and Coalitions in Argentine Poli-tics. Pittsburgh, Pen.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Maronese, L., Cafiero de Nazar, A., and Waisman, V. (1985). El voto peroni-sta 1983. Perfil electoral y causas de la derrota. Buenos Aires: El Cid.

Matienzo, J. N. (1917). El gobierno representativo federal en la República Argentina. Madrid.

Mazo, G. del (1964). Breve historia del radicalismo. Buenos Aires: Coepla. Melo, C. (1970). Los partidos políticos argentinos. Córdoba (Argentina): U-

niversidad Nacional de Córdoba.Miguens, J. E. (1983). ‘The presidential elections of 1973 and the end of an

ideology’, in F. Turner and J. E. Miguens (eds.), Juan Perón and the Reshaping of Argentina. Pittsburgh, Pen.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 147–170.

Molinelli, N. G. (1991). Clase Política y Reforma Electoral. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.

— (1989). Colegios electorales y asambleas legislativas 1854-1983. Buenos Aires: Manantial.

Molinelli, N. G., Palanza, M. V., and G. Sin. (1999). Congreso, Presidencia y Justicia en Argentina: Materiales para su estudio. Buenos Aires: CEDI - Fundación Gobierno y Sociedad, Temas Grupo Editorial.

Mora y Araujo, M. and Llorente, I. (eds.) (1980). El voto peronista. Ensayos de sociología electoral argentina. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.

Nohlen, D. (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estu-dios Constitucionales.

Novaro, M. and Palermo, V. (1998). Los Caminos de la Centroizquierda: Di-lemas y Desafíos del Frepaso y de la Alianza. Buenos Aires: Editorial Losada.

Palacio, E. (1988). Historia de la Argentina 1515–1983. Buenos Aires: Ed. XV, Abeledo-Perrot.

Palermo, V. (1986). Democracia interna en los partidos. Las elecciones par-tidarias de 1983 en el radicalismo y justicialismo porteños. Buenos Ai-res: IDES.

Argentina122

Peralta-Ramos, M. (1989). Class Conflict and Political Instability in Argenti-na since 1930. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Ramella, P. (1986). Derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Ed. De Palma. Rock, D. (1975). Politics in Argentina, 1890-1930. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Romero, L. A. et al. (1968). El radicalismo. Buenos Aires: Carlos Pérez Edi-

tor.Rowe, J. W. (1963). The Argentine Elections of 1963. Washington, D.C.: In-

stitute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems (ICOPS).Sabsay, D. A. and Onaindia, J. M. (1994). La Constitución de los Argentinos:

Análisis de Su Texto Luego de la Reforma de 1994. Buenos Aires: Erre-par.

Schoultz, L. (1983). The Populist Challenge: Argentine Electoral Behavior in the Post War Era. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.

Serrafero, M. D. (1997). Reelección y Sucesión Presidencial. Poder y Conti-nuidad. Argentina, América Latina, y E.E.U.U. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano.

Smith, P. (1974). Argentina and the Failure of Democracy: Conflict Among Political Elites. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.

Tula, M. I. (1995). ‘La reforma electoral en los ’90: algunos comentarios so-bre la Ley de Lemas en la Argentina’, in R. Sidicaro and J. Mayer (eds.), Política y sociedad en los años del menemismo. Buenos Aires: Carrera de Ciencia Política-Oficina de Publicaciones (CBC) de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 243–68.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (1988). El constitucionalismo en las postrimerías del siglo XX. México: UNAM.

Zarini, H. J. (1984). Constitución de la Nación Argentina. Buenos Aires: De Palma.

BOLIVIAby Jorge Lazarte R.

1. Introduction


Bolivia is a multicultural and pluri-ethnic country with an indigenous majority, and a population estimated at 8,274,325 according to the 2001 census. Its major natural resources, which have greatly influenced the history of the country, are distributed across a territory of 1,098,581 square kilometers. Today, Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in the region, with one of the fastest growing rates of income inequality.

From the foundation of the Republic in 1825 the political system has been organized around three branches of state: the executive, legislature and judiciary. The constitutional reforms of 1994 introduced a Constitu-tional Tribunal, a Judicial Council, and a Human Rights Ombudsman. Until 1982, Bolivia was regarded as one of the most unstable countries in the region. Currently under democratic rule, it is experiencing the longest period of political stability in its history.

After independence in 1825, Bolivia went through a period of military regimes led by so-called caudillos. These caused political instability and economic stagnation and lasted until the end of the Pacific War against Chile (1879–1880). For Bolivia, the war ended in 1880, when it abando-ned the conflict following the defeat of El Alto de la Alianza. In the years after the war, Bolivia’s economy experienced a boom, triggered by the discovery of large silver and later tin deposits. This economic upturn led to the emergence and consolidation of a new oligarchic elite, which was based on the mining industry and ore exports. These factors led to an initial period of modernization facilitated by the creation of political parties and the growing awareness that political stability was a necessary condition for economic growth. Between 1884 and 1920, the emerging multi-party system was dominated by two parties, the conservative Par-tido Conservador and the liberal Partido Liberal. From the 1920s on-wards, the Partido Republicano took power. Although it was a breakthrough that these parties had come into existence at all, they still

Bolivia124

competed within a restricted democracy, tainted by unreliable election results and political violence. With regard to the basic principles of suff-rage, the various constitutions enacted in the 19th century were very si-milar. The right to vote did not include women, Indians, the poor or illiterate. Regardless of some small changes, this system prevailed until 1952.

During the first two decades of the 20th century, trade union structu-res emerged and a more pluralist trend in politics could be observed: new political ideologies, parties and social groups appeared. In turn, the influence of the traditional elite began to decline. This process was acce-lerated by the worldwide economic crisis of 1930 and particularly by the national unrest provoked by the Bolivian defeat in the Chaco War a-gainst Paraguay (1932–1935). The post-war period deepened the crisis of the oligarchic establishment, which culminated in the so-called Revo-lución Nacional in 1952. This change of power was brought about by the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR; Revolutionary Na-tionalist Movement). Founded in 1941, it was mainly supported by mi-ners and the urban lower and middle classes. The revolution was the climax of a period of unrest. Harsh repressions against the unions, Indi-ans, and the political opposition together with the abrogated elections in 1951, which should have been won by the MNR, had led to a popular insurrection. As for the 1951 election, it became clear that the MNR would be victorious shortly after the ballots had been closed. As a result, even before all votes had been counted, the then incumbent government resigned in favor of a military junta in order to prevent a so-called com-munist take-over. The following turmoil ended with the defeat of the army and the collapse of the old system in 1952.

During the subsequent period, the MNR-government was actively supported by the powerful Central Obrera Boliviana (COB; Bolivian Labor Headquarters), the Bolivian Workers Union. This alliance intro-duced important reforms, such as the agrarian reform, the nationalization of mines and universal suffrage. Undeniably, the implementation of uni-versal suffrage was a step forward. However, it did not put an end to po-litical violence or electoral fraud. These problems simply changed in scale and became a ‘bad habit’. Overall, many of the revolutionary goals were not reached and the government failed to establish a democratic order with fair and regular elections. Moreover, the political arena be-came determined by an increasingly bitter conflict between the COB and the MNR government.

The re-election of MNR leader and president Víctor Paz Estenssoro, with a constitutional reform imposed using the party’s congressional

Bolivia 125

majority, was the spark which is triggered a military coup d’état led by General René Barrientos in November 1964. This marked the beginning of an instable period of authoritarian and conservative military regimes. When civil and political liberties were withheld, this led to political and social uproar. The unions were seen as the most important opposition, but guerrillas gained relevance, particularly the movement led by Che Guevara. In this context of violence, confrontation, and general ungo-vernability a new conservative military coup d’état took place in 1971. For the next decade, Bolivia’s political system was characterized by ant-agonism between the military forces and unions, in particular the COB.

The elections that were held during this period were semi-competitive, fraudulent, and solely aimed at legitimizing the military government. There were very few guarantees regarding the organization of parties and the right to exercise the right to vote. Although the milita-ry leaders did not abolish political parties in general, inner-party demo-cracy was weakened and the hitherto most important mass party, the MNR, suffered various splits, which led to the creation of various other parties. However, the MNR was still the dominant player in this polari-zed and fragmented party system.

The end of the military regime was brought about in 1982, after suc-cessive political crises and internal struggles within the armed forces. Mainly due to pressure from the unions, the business sector and the Church, the last military government ceded power to the Unión Demo-crática y Popular (UDP; Democratic and Popular Unity), a center-left coalition. The UDP had already won the elections held in June 1980. However, another military coup d’état prevented it from governing. Re-democratisation did not begin until 1982, when competitive elections were held regularly.

In the general elections of 1985, President Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) handed power over to the winning candidate of the opposition, Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR). Even though the country had to cope with a se-vere economic crisis caused by hyperinflation, the change in government in 1989 respected the democratic rules. Thus, Jaime Paz Zamora of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (MIR; Movement of the Revo-lutionary Left), a social-democratic party took office. However, both changes were not a direct result of the elections. Neither Paz Estenssoro nor Paz Zamora won a majority of votes, but were elected by congress. Both governments were backed by majority coalitions in parliament in order to avoid the presidency of former military leader Hugo Banzer of the Acción Democrática y Nacionalista (ADN; Nationalist Democratic Action). These majorities were also the necessary basis for important

Bolivia126

reforms to strengthen parties, the constitution and the electoral law in the late 1980s and early 90s. The 1980s also saw a process of consolidation within the party system. The resulting most important parties were the MNR, the MIR, the ADN. Later, populist parties with authoritarian structures, such as the Conciencia de Patria (CONDEPA; Fatherland’s Conscience) and the Unión Cívica Solidaridad (UCS; Civic Union Soli-darity), emerged to channel popular dissatisfaction with the political sy-stem. Thus, they acted as an important element of the redemocratization process.

In 1993, Gonzalo Sánchez de Losada (MNR) became head of state with a clear majority of votes far ahead of the next candidate, Banzer. Despite his majority, Sánchez de Losada built up a coalition government comprising the MNR, the USC, the center-left Movimiento Bolivia Libre(MBL; Movement Free Bolivia) and the ethnic-cultural Movimiento Re-volucionario Tupaj Katari de Liberación (MRTKL; Revolutionary Mo-vement of Liberation Tupaj Katari). Between 1993 and 1997, this coalition implemented important economic and social reforms, such as the privatization of various companies, the reform of the pension system, educational reforms, and the extension of democracy.

The general elections of 1997 were won by the ADN, which achieved not only the relative majority but whose candidate, former general Ban-zer, could finally take office as president. He was supported by the ADN’s coalition partners, the MIR, the UCS, and the CONDEPA.

The biggest challenge for Banzer was to prove that he could rule the country democratically. With the aim of distancing himself from his authoritarian past, Banzer tried to govern with minimum recourse to vio-lence, but in doing so, he allowed social conflicts to paralyze the go-vernment. He was unable to complete his presidential mandate due to serious illness and resigned in August 2001, leaving the country in a sta-te of economic recession in the midst of the political vacuum. Banzer was replaced by Vice President Jorge Quiroga, who concluded the pre-sidential period with a change in style of government.

In the 2002 elections, an electoral revolution in which the poor voted for their kind of leader, for the first time in the history of the country, to a multi-ethnic and pluri-cultural parliament, with a strong presence of indigenous representatives. This phenomenon was in parallel to the col-lapse of the system of parties which had dominated the political lands-cape for the last 20 years. A new system of political parties emerged in their place, polarized between the systemic traditional parties and the new anti-systemic parties. Both processes reflect growing popular dis-

Bolivia 127

content which has manifested itself in recent years in different forms of social ingovernability.

The electoral results of 2002 were an additional test of political and institutional stability, but altered the balance of power in the political class. While the traditional political parties continued to govern, the op-position was now in the hands of the anti-systemic parties, which had a strong political presence in congress, and the capacity for social mobili-zation in the streets. These developments reflected demands for change in two directions: more participative institutional reforms, and a redirec-tion of the neoliberal economic model which had been in place since 1985. When the government tried to strike an economically very unfavo-rable deal with Mexico and the USA, widespread dissatisfaction led to popular unrest at the end of October 2003. The riots culminated in the forced resignation of President Lozada and his flight to the USA. Lozada was succeeded by his former vice president Mesa whose aim was to re-concile the protesting citizens and to depart from the strictly liberal eco-nomic policy.


Since independence in 1825, Bolivia’s electoral system has been shaped by the numerous constitutions and electoral laws. On the national level, these regulations referred to the presidential and parliamentary elections. During the 19th century, the president was elected for a term varying be-tween three years and the rest of the respective candidate’s life. Later the term of office was either four or five years. Re-election was usually im-possible. Only the 1886 and the 1956 Constitutions allowed for a presi-dent to stand in the following election period. In 1839, the direct election of the president was introduced. In order to win, a candidate had to gain two-thirds of all the votes. Later, it was sufficient to obtain the majority of votes. The constitution of 1956 even established plurality rule. If these criteria were not met, the president was chosen by the congress from the group of most successful candidates. Taking this provision into account, Bolivia is often classified as ‘parliamentarized presidentialism’.

Both houses of congress, the senate and the house of representatives, were elected for a term ranging from three to eight years. These electi-ons were held in a way that only a part of the respective house—either a third or half of it—was renewed at a time. Sometimes there were regula-tions ruling out re-election of a candidate.

Bolivia128

Until redemocratization, the number of seats in the house of representa-tives had always been dependent on the population size in each constitu-ency. Before 1924 and after 1956, there were eight or nine MMCs; between 1924 and 1956 regulations provided either for SMCs or for smaller MMCs. Since the 1980 elections, the number of seats has been fixed to 130. Voters had a single vote with which they could vote for a closed list. This vote was simultaneously used to determine the distribu-tion of seats in the senate and the race for presidency. Until 1878, this was done following majority rules; from then on plurality rules applied. Since 1956, seats had been distributed according to various proportional-ity formulas, which changed frequently after Bolivia’s redemocratiza-tion. The system was further complicated by quotas and thresholds. The fact that these restrictions could be overruled by the National Electoral Court (NEC) added to the confusing character of the allocation of seats, particularly as the NEC was controlled by the major parties, which were continually losing the trust of the electorate.

This increasingly unsatisfying situation, which threatened to under-mine the legitimacy of the system, led to the major electoral reform in 1994. The main alteration was the shift to a mixed-member proportional system based on the German model. Its aims were to strengthen the re-presentatives versus their parties, to link them to their constituencies and to improve the voters’ choice. From then on, voters have had two votes: one for a list, the other for a candidate of the respective constituency. The former not only determines the overall distribution of the now con-stitutionally-fixed 130 seats, but is also used to elect the president and the senators.

Despite this wide-ranging overhaul, there were still some unclear is-sues hindering a smooth running of the system, particularly in regard to potential overhang seats. Thus, in 1997, another reform was introduced in order to amend the constitution. It established a nationwide threshold of 3%, the use of the d’Hondt formula, and the regulation that there must not be overhang seats. This means that nominal-tier seats that exceed the number of seats a party is entitled to according to its overall listed votes in a certain departamento, will lead to a reduction of the distributed list seats. The law provides for the least successful parties to be the first o-nes that will be deprived of seats.

The senate has always comprised a fixed number of deputies. Eachdepartamento has sent the same number of senators. Initially, they were elected in two-member-constituencies; since 1966 the departamentos have been divided into three-member constituencies. Until that year, a majority of votes was required to win a constituency. From 1966 on-

Bolivia 129

wards, the party with most votes obtained two seats, the second-best par-ty one.

In regard to suffrage, Bolivia’s electoral history can be divided into two stages. The first period was ended by the National Revolution, which destroyed the traditional oligarchic system. Until 1952, both acti-ve and passive suffrage were restricted to literate male citizens. Already mentioned in the constitution of 1826, this constraint was explicitely laid down in the constitution of 1839. From 1831 onwards, passive suffrage became linked to a minimum income or level of wealth. Nine years later, these limitations were extended to active suffrage as well. As a conse-quence, native citizens became excluded from the right to vote. In con-trast to this, during the 19th century, foreigners were entitled to take part in elections if they fulfilled certain requirements, as for example in re-gard to the length of their stay in the country. Thus, until 1956, the Boli-vian population was divided into citizens with rights, native-born citizens, nationalized citizens, and Bolivians without the right to vote.

It was not until 1952, that universal suffrage was introduced. All un-married Bolivians, including women, were granted the right to vote as soon as they were 21 years old. Married couples could vote once they were 18. The Electoral Statute of 1956, and later the 1959 Law acknow-ledged the right of citizenship to all Bolivians, men and women over the age of 21, but made no reference to married couples. The constitutional reform of 1995 established the age of citizenship at 18, thus abolishing the distinction with married couples. The reforms of the electoral law in 1997 abolished this distinction and established 18 as the minimum age for all Bolivians. Passive suffrage, however, remained restricted to lite-rate citizens until 1961. The new system also kept compulsory voting, which had been introduced in 1924.

Under democracy, the opposition parties and the government have passed successive electoral and constitutional reforms. This has been in-strumental in solving the most serious problem in Bolivia; namely the chronic instability and non-governability of the political system.

The reforms of the Electoral Law in 1991 established new rules and guarantees for the electoral system, which included the principle of pre-clusion, by which the results of the polling station cannot be revised, and the system of election of the Electoral Court by a two-third congressio-nal majority. The law of 1992 established the irrevocable principle for Electoral Court resolutions. The Electoral Law of 1997 regulated the election for uni-nominal representatives of the lower chamber, introdu-ced in the Constitutional Reform of 1995. Finally, in 1999 the Electoral Law became the Electoral Code. All these developments are evidence of

Bolivia130

this political compromise and of concerted agreements that have trans-formed the basis of Bolivia’s political stability, creating a new political order. Since 1985 an alternation in government has taken place in each legislative period. Furthermore, the position of parliament in the politi-cal process has been strengthened as regards the role of the president.


Sources: The Political Constitution of 1995 and the Electoral Code of 1999 establish the legal bases for the electoral system.

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, direct, equal, and secret. Every Bolivian citizen has the right to vote as soon as he or she turns 18. All citizens must register to be allowed to vote. Voting is compulsory. Passive suf-frage requires a certain minimum age, 35 years for president of the re-public, vice president and senator, and 25 years for members of the lower house. Bolivian citizenship and—for male candidates—the com-pletion of military service.

Elected national institutions: president and bicameral congress consi-sting of the house of representatives and the senate. The president is elected by the same vote that is used to determine the overall distribution of seats in the house of representatives and to elect the senators. The term of office is five years for each.

Nomination of candidates: Parties have the monopoly of nominating candidates for all three institutions. However, it is customary for the par-ties to add the names of independents to their lists. The constitution also allows for civil institutions to participate in elections and to present can-didates, but only in alliance with political parties, after legal recognition by the Electoral Court. This has not been the case since the 1960s. In fact, these alliances have been formed very rarely.

Electoral system- presidential elections: Absolute majority. If no candidate achieves this majority, congress chooses the president from the two best-placed can-didates. If there is a draw, this procedure can be repeated twice. If no clear result is obtained after these two additional rounds, the candidate who achieved a simple majority in the general elections is automatically elected. The second best candidate is elected vice president.

Bolivia 131

- parliamentary elections: The seats in the house of representatives are allocated using the mixed-member proportional system (MMP), provi-ding the voter with two votes. The house consists of 130 members: 68 are elected according to the first-past-the-post system in SMCs (first vo-te), the remaining 62 are elected from closed lists in nine MMCs (second vote), which vary in size based on their population. These 62 seats are allocated proportionally using the d’Hondt formula. In order to be repre-sented in the house, a party must obtain at least 3% of the valid votes at national level. The overall distribution of seats is determined by the sha-re of list votes each party gets. Regional lists may not be linked, and the-re are no overhang seats. If the number of directly-elected candidates exceeds the number of seats a party is entitled to in a certain departa-mento, the overall number of seats to be allocated to the lists in the re-spective departamento will be reduced. This reduction happens at the expense of the weakest parties.

The senate has 27 seats, three for each departamento. Based on the share of list votes in each of these nine districts, the most successful par-ty obtains two seats, the second best, one.

Organizational context of elections: According to the constitution and the Electoral Code, the National Electoral Court is responsible for orga-nizing and administering the elections, supported by the Departmental Courts in each departamento. The National Electoral Court has both ju-risdictional and administrative functions. Its decisions on electoral mat-ters are not open to appeal. It is independent of any other state institution. It consists of seven members. Four are elected by a two-thirds’ majority in congress and one is appointed by the president.


With respect to electoral statistics, two stages can be distinguished in the period starting from 1952. The first period extends to 1985, and the offi-cial reports submitted to congress by the Electoral Court are untraceable. For the purposes of this article the Legislative Annual Reports (1956, 1960, and 1964) of congress have been used to report the results of each electoral process.

The data on the partial renovation of congress can be found in the par-liamentary reports (1958, 1962) of the lower chamber of congress. Neither of these sources coincide with the data included in the tables, nor do they reflect the same information. Thus, additional information

Bolivia132

from the press has been very important. It is worth stressing that the dif-ferences in information are minor. This explains in part the different electoral results which feature in several publications and which fre-quently cite no sources, and are repeated over time. The electoral data used in this article have been checked against the official sources that are available, correcting many old and widely-cited errors, with the ex-ception of the data for the 1978 and 1980s, taken from Mesa (2003). This source has also been used for the list of power-holders.

Under these conditions, the press became the most accessible source of electoral information in these years. Nowadays, the information of the yearly reports of the national congress has become more accessible. These are the reports sent by the electoral authorities. Another source of consultation are the various publications, such as essays and research papers which are usually obtained from the press.

In the second stage, from 1985 to the present day, the situation has been very different as a consequence of democratic institutionalization. Electoral instititutions are now stable and permanent. They have head-quarters and offices with available archives, which are appropriatley sto-red and readily accessible. The reports for each election, printed out and distributed to all parties and the media, can be consulted in the libraries of the national congress and the Electoral Court. In 1991 a process of computerization began in the electoral statistics.

The press, in turn, registers the final results of the electoral body, although they are not official. An additional source are the electoral re-ports elaborated by the Interamerican Institute of Human Rights through its specialized body, the Centre of Assistance and Electoral Training (Centro de Asesoría y Capacitación Electoral, IIDH-CAPEL). CAPEL also registers short reports accompanied by data published in its Latin American Electoral Bulletin. The source for these reforms is the Electo-ral Court. The National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Esta-dística, INE) also publishes electoral information taken from the National Electoral Court.

Other electoral data, such as the percentage of registered voters ac-cording to sociodemographic variables, have not been elaborated yet, except for the elections of 1997 and 2002, separated by gender. Some research exists on the orientation of the vote, but the information is not available for each election.

Bolivia 133

2. Tables


Year Presidential Elections

Parliamentary Elections

Elections for ConstitutionalAssembly

Referendums Coups d’étata

1951 06/05 06/05 1956 17/06 17/06 1958 20/07 1960 05/06 05/06 1962 04/06 1964 31/05 31/05 1964 05/111966 03/07 03/07 03/071969 26/091970 07/101971 21/081978 09/07b 09/07b 21/07

24/111979 01/07 01/07 01/111980 29/06 29/06 18/071981 04/08

04/091982 19/071985 14/07 14/07 1989 07/05 07/05 1993 06/06 06/06 1997 01/06 01/06 2002 30/06 30/06 2004 18/07a Only those coups d’état which have brought about a new president are taken into account. b Annulled.

Bolivia134

2.2 Electoral Body

Year Type of Populationb Registered voters Votes cast electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1951 Pr 2,823,862 204,649 7.2 126,123c 61.6 4.41956 Pr/Pa 3,139,453 1,126,528 35.8 958,016 85.0 30.51958 Pad 3,279,315 — — 472,463c — 14.41960 Pr/Pa 3,428,092 1,300,000 37.9 987,730 76.0 28.81962 Pad 3,585,790 — — 1,064,480 — 29.61964 Pr/Pa 3,753,077 1,411,560 37.6 1,297,319 91.9 34.51966 Pr/Pa 3,931,909 1,270,611 32.3 1,099,994 86.6 27.91978 Pr/Pa 5,292,497 1,921,556 36.3 1,971,968 —e 37.21979 Pr/Pa 5,433,412 1,871,070 34.4 1,693,233 90.5 31.11980 Pr/Pa 5,579,367 2,004,284 35.9 1,489,484 74.3 26.61985 Pr/Pa 6,380,973 2,108,458 33.0 1,728,365 82.0 27.01989f Pr/Pa 7,122,483 2,136,587 29.9 1,573,790 73.7 22.01993 Pr/Pa 7,063,200 2,399,197 33.9 1,731,309 72.2 24.51997 Pr/Pa 7,767,059 3,252,501 41.8 2,321,117 71.4 29.82002 Pr/Pa 8,823,743 4,155,055 47.0 2,994,065 72.06 33.9 2004 Ref 8,809,000 4,458,293 50.6 2,678,518 60.1 30.4 a Pa = Parliament; Pap = Parliament Partial; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum. Presidential and parliamentary elections are held simultaneously in Bolivia since 1967. b Censuses: 1950: 2,713,630; 1976: 4,613,486; 1992: 6,420,792; and 2001: 8,274,325. Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.c Only valid votes are available. However, these do not include votes from Beni and Pando.d Mid-term elections. In 1958, according to the corresponding constitution of the time, a third of the senate and half of the chamber of deputies was renewed. The elections were held in the de-partments of La Paz, Cochabamba, Oruro, Tarija, Beni and Pando. In 1962, this partial renovati-on took place in the departments of La Paz, Chuquisaca, Cochabamba, Santa Cruz, Oruro, Beni, Pando, Potosí and Tarija. There is no information on the number of registered voters. Following the 1967 reform, both chambers are fully elected, and this takes place at the same time as the presidential election. e In 1978, the official number of voters was higher than the number of registered voters. Electi-ons were annulled because of electoral fraud. f In the presidential elections, the number of voters sank by 10,608 votes, because the FSB did not present a presidential candidate.

Bolivia 135

2.3 Abbreviations

ACB Acción Cívica Boliviana (Bolivian Civic Action) ACP Acción Cívica Popular (Popular Civic Action)ADN Acción Democrática Nacionalista (Nationalist Democratic Action)ADR Alianza Demócrata Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Democratic

Action)ADRN Alianza Democrática de la Revolución Nacional (Democratic

Alliance of the National Revolution) AFIN Alianza de Fuerzas de la Izquierda Nacional (Alliance of the

Forces of the National Left)AID Alianza Institucionalista Democrática (Democratic

Institutionalist Alliance) ALIN Alianza de Liberación de Izquierda Nacional (Liberation

Alliance of the National Left)A-MNR Alianza del Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (Alliance

of the Revolutionary National Movement)ANPD Asociación Nacional de Profesionales Demócratas (National

Association of Democratic Professions)AP Acuerdo Patriótico (Patriotic Agreement) APIN Alianza Popular de Integración Nacional (Popular Alliance of

National Integration) ARBOL Alianza Renovadora Boliviana (Bolivian Renewal Alliance) ARENA Alianza Renovadora Nacional (National Renewal Alliance) ASD Alternativa al Socialismo Democrático (Alternative to

Democratic Socialism) AUR Acción Humanista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Humanist Action) CDC Comunidad Democrática Cristiana (Christian Democratic

Community) COB Central Obrera Boliviana (Bolivian Labor Headquarters) CONDEPA Conciencia de Patria (Fatherland’s Conscience) CUN Comité de Unidad Nacional (National Unity Committee) EJE Eje de Convergencia Patriótica (Axis of Patriotic Accordance) FBA Frente Boliviano Anticomunista (Anti-Communist Bolivian Front) FDR-NA Frente Democrático Revolucionario – Nueva Alternativa

(Revolutionary Democratic Front – New Alternative)FLIN Frente de Liberación de Izquierda Nacional (Liberation Front of

the National Left) FNP Fuerza Nacional Progresista (Progressive National Force) FPU Frente del Pueblo Unido (United People’s Front) FRB Frente de la Revolución Boliviana (Front of the Bolivian

Revolution)FRI Frente Revolucionario de Izquierda (Revolutionary Front of the

Left)FSB Falange Socialista Boliviana (Bolivian Socialist Falange)

Bolivia136

FULKA Frente Único de Liberación Katarista (United KataristaLiberation Front)

IU Izquierda Unida (United Left) LJ Libertad y Justicia (Liberty and Justice) MARC Movimiento Agrario Revolucionario del Campesinado Farmers’

Revolutionary Agrarian Movement) MAS Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism) MBL Movimiento Bolivia Libre (Movement Free Bolivia) MCC Movimiento Ciudadano para el Cambio (Movement Citizen for

Change)MFD Movimiento Federalista Democrático (Democratic Federalist

Movement) MIN Movimiento de la Izquierda Nacional (Movement of the Natio-

nal Left) MIP Movimiento Indígena Pachakuti (Pachakuti Indigenous Movement) MIR Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (Movement of the Re-

volutionary Left) MITKA Movimiento Indio Tupaj Katari (Indian Movement Tupaj Katari)MKN Movimiento Katarista Nacional (National Katarista Movement) MNR Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (Revolutionary

Nationalist Movement) MNR-A Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario – Alianza

(Revolutionary Nationalist Movement – Alliance) MNRA Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario Andrade sector

(Revolutionary Nationalist Movement Sector Andrade) MNRI Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario de Izquierda (Revolu-

tionary Nationalist Movement of the Left) MNRI-1 Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario de Izquierda Uno (Re-

volutionary Nationalist Movement of the Left One) MNRP Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario del Pueblo

(Revolutionary Nationalist Movement) MNR-U Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario Unido (United

Revolutionary Nationalist Movement) MNRV Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario Vanguardia

(Revolutionary Nationalist Movement Vanguard) MPC Movimiento Popular Cristiano (Christian Popular Movement) MPLN Movimiento Popular de Liberación Nacional (Popular

Movement of National Liberation) MRP Movimiento Revolucionario Pazestenssorista (Pazestenssorista

Revolutionary Movement) MRTK Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari (Revolutionary

Movement Tupaj Katari)MRTK-1 Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari Uno (Revolutionary

Movement Tupaj Katari One) MRTKL Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari de Liberación

(Revolutionary Movement of Liberation Tupaj Katari)

Bolivia 137

NFR Nueva Fuerza Republicana (New Republican Force) OID Ofensiva de la Izquierda Democrática (Offensive of the Demo-

cratic Left)ONI Organización Nacional de Independientes (National Organizati-

on of Independents) PCB Partido Comunista de Bolivia (Communist Party of Bolivia) PC-ML Partido Comunista Marxista Leninista (Marxist Leninist Com-

munist Party)PDB Partido Democrático Boliviano (Bolivian Democratic Party) PDC Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) PIR Partido de la Izquierda Revolucionario (Party of the Revolutio-

nary Left) PL Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) PMNRA Partido del Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario Auténtico

(Party of the Authentic National Revolutionary Movement) POR Partido Obrero Revolucionario (Revolutionary Workers’ Party) PRA Partido Revolucionario Auténtico (Authentic Revolutionary Party)PRA-A Partido Revolucionario Auténtico – Alianza (Authentic

Revolutionary Party – Alliance)PRB Partido Revolucionario Barrientista (Barrientista Revolutionary

Party)PRIN-A Partido Revolucionario de la Izquierda Nacional – Alianza

(Revolutionary Party of the National Left – Alliance)PRO Partido Ruralista Oriental (Eastern Rural Party) PRTB Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores de Bolivia (Revolu-

tionary Party of the Workers of Bolivia)PS Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) PS-A Partido Socialista Aponte (Socialist Party Aponte)PS-A Partido Socialista Atahuichi (Socialist Party Atahuichi)PS-1 Partido Socialista Uno (Socialist Party One) PSC Partido Social Cristiano (Christian Social Party) PDC Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) PSD Partido Social Demócrata (Social Democratic Party) PUB Partido de la Unión Boliviana (Party of the Bolivian Unity) PURS Partido de la Unión Republicana Socialista (Party of the

Socialist Republican Union)UCN Unión Cívica Nacional (National Civic Union) UCS Unión Cívica Solidaridad (Civic Union Solidarity) UDP Unidad Democrática y Popular (Democratic and Popular Unity) UNB Unión Nacional Barrientista (Barrientista National Union) UNP Unión Nacionalista del Pueblo (Nationalist Union of the People)VO Vanguardia Obrera (Workers’ Vanguard) VR-9 Vanguardia Revolucionaria 9 de Abril (Revolutionary Vangu-

ard of 9th of April)VSB Vanguardia Socialista de Bolivia (Socialist Vanguard of Bolivia)

Bolivia138

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya

ACB 1951 1 1 FSBb 1951–1962; 1980–1993 8 10MNRc 1951–1964; 1985–2002 9 11 PIR 1951 1 1PCBd 1956–1960 2 2PORe 1956–1960; 1962; 1985 3 2 PSCf 1958; 1962 0 2PMNRA 1960–1962 1 1UCN 1964 1 1AIDg 1966 1 1CDCh 1966 1 1FLINi 1966 1 1FRBj 1966 1 1MNRA 1966 1 1MRP 1966 1 1ADRNk 1978 1 1MITKA 1978–1980 3 3 MNRP 1978 1 1 PDCl 1978–1985 2 2PRBm 1978 1 1PRO 1978 1 1PSn 1978; 2002 2 2 UDPo 1978–1980 3 3UNPp 1978 1 1 FRI 1978 1 1ADNq 1979–2002 7 7APINr 1979 1 1MNR-As 1979–1980 2 2PS-1 1979–1989 4 4PUB 1979–1980 2 2VOt 1980 1 1AFIN 1980 1 1FDR-NAu 1980 1 1MITKA-1 1980 1 1MNR-Uv 1980 1 1PRA-Aw 1980 1 1PRINx 1980 1 1MNRIy 1985 1 1 MNRI-1z 1985 1 1MRTK-Chilaaa 1985 1 1ACP 1985 1 1

Bolivia 139

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentarya

ARENA 1985 1 1AUR 1985 1 1FNP 1985 1 1FPUbb 1985 1 1IUcc 1985–1997 4 4MIRdd 1985–2002 4 4MNRV 1985 1 1MRTKLee 1985–1989 2 2CONDEPA 1989–2002 4 4FULKA 1989 1 1 MINff 1989 1 1MBLgg 1993–1997 2 2 MAS 2002 1 1 NFR 2002 1 1 LJ 2002 1 1 MCC 2002 1 1a Only the number of elections to the lower house is indicated. Total number: 15. b Member of the CDC in 1966, of the UNP in 1978, of the ADN in 1979, and in alliance with the UCS in 2002. The different divisions of the FSB are not taken into account; they kept the same name and took part in several electoral alliances between 1979 and 1980. c Member of the ARDN in 1978 and of the A-MNR in 1979 and 1980. d Member of the FLIN in 1966, of the UDP in 1978, in 1979 and 1980, of the FPU in 1985 and of the IU in 1989. e Includes various factions with the same name. f The party changed its name to PDC in 1965. g Electoral alliance formed by the PURS and the PL. h Electoral alliance formed by the FSB, the ANPD and the ADR. i PCB-dominated electoral alliance. j Electoral alliance formed by the MPC, the PRA, the PIR and the PSD. k Electoral alliance between the MNR and the PRA in 1978. l Its name was PSC until 1965. The PDC was a member of the A-MNR in 1979, and of the FDR-NA in 1980. It formed an alliance with the PRB in 1978 and with the ADN in 1989, 1993, and 1997. m In 1978, the PRB formed an alliance with the PDC. n After 1978, this party contested elections under the label PS-1. o Electoral alliance comprising in 1978 ALIN, MIR, MIN, MNRI, MPLN, MRTK, OID, PCB and PS-Aponte; in 1979 ALIN, MIN, MIR, MNRI, MPLN, MRTK, PCB, PRIN, PRTB and PS-Atahuichi; and in 1980 MIR, MNRI, MPLN, PCB, PS-Atahuichi and VO. p Electoral alliance formed by FSB, PIR, UNB and CUN in 1978. q In 1993, it formed an alliance with the MIR and the PDC. r MARC and a faction of the FSB merged in 1979. s Electoral alliance formed by MNR, MRTK-Chila, PCML, PDC and PRA in 1979, and by MNR, MNRI-1 and PCML in 1980. t Member of the UDP in 1980. u In 1980, electoral alliance comprising the ALIN, the PDC, the PS-Aponte and the OID. v In 1980, the MNR-U formed an alliance with the MIN. w Member of the FRB in 1966, of the ARDN in 1978, of the A-MNR in 1979. Originally, the PMNRA split into the PRA and several other factions. x Member of the FRI in 1978 and of the UDP in 1979.

Bolivia140

y Member of the UDP between 1978 and 1980. z Member of the A-MNR in 1980. aa Member of the MNRA in 1979. bb Electoral alliance between the PCB and the MIR-BL in 1985. cc Electoral alliance formed by Eje de Convergencia, the MBL, MIR-Masas and the PCB in 1989.This alliance changed its internal composition in the following years. dd Member of the UDP between 1978 and 1980. In 1993, it formed an alliance with the ADN.ff Member of the UDP in 1978 and 1979. Formed an alliance with the MNR-U in 1980. ee In 1993, it formed an alliance with the MNR. gg In 2002, it formed an alliance with the MNR.

2.5. Referendums

Year 2004 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 4,458,293 Votes cast 2,678,518 60.1 2,670,131 59.9 Question Ia Question IIb

Invalid votes 324,168 12.1 333,924 12.5 Blank votes 289,914 10.8 260,435 9.8 Valid votes 2,064,436 77.1 2,075,772 77.7 Yes 1,788,694 86.6 1,913,642 92.2 No 275,742 13.4 162,130 7.8 a The first question asked whether the Hydrocarbons Act 1689 should be repealed. b The second question asked if all hydrocarbons at the wellhead should become property of the state again.

Year (continued) 2004 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 4,458,293 Votes cast 2,670,283 59.9 2,670,106 59.9 Question IIIa Question IVb

Invalid votes 286,625 10.7 286,106 10.7 Blank votes 329,454 12.3 457,699 17.1 Valid votes 2,054,204 76.9 1,926,301 72.2 Yes 1,793,594 87.3 1,055,529 54.8 No 260,610 12.7 870,772 45.2 a The third question asked whether (the former state-owned oil company) Yacimientos Petrolífe-ros Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB) should be refounded, recovering state’s ownership of all the sta-kes currently held by Bolivians within capitalized oil companies, so that YPFB could participate in every step of the hydrocarbon production. b The fourth question asked to approve or disapprove president Carlos Mesa’s policy of using gas as a strategic resource to recover a useful and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

Bolivia 141

Year (continued) 2004 Total number % Registered voters 4,458,293 Votes cast 2,669,267 59.9 Question Va Invalid votes 312,918 11.7 Blank votes 445,435 16.7 Valid votes 1,910,914 71.6 Yes 1,179,893 61.7 No 731,021 38.3 a The last question asked whether Bolivia should export gas under a national policy framework that a) allowed the coverage of gas consum of all Bolivians, b) facilitated the industrialization of gas on national territory, c) imposed on foreign oil firms taxes and/or royalties of up to 50% of the production value of oil and gas, and d) reserved the revenues of the export and the industria-lization of gas mainly for education, health, infrastructure, and labor.

2.6. Elections for Constitutional Assembly

The general elections of 1966 were called in order to elect the constitu-tional assembly and the national congress at the same time.


Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1956–2002

Year 1956 1958 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,126,528 – — – Votes cast 958,420 85.0 443,992 —Invalid votes 25,532 2.7 9,053 2.0Valid votes 932,888 97.3 434,939 98.0MNR 787,792 84.4 371,450 85.4FSB 130,494 14.0 53,264 12.2PCB 12,273 1.3 5,343 1.2PSC – – 2,888 0.6Othersa 2,329 0.2 1,994 0.4a Others include in 1956: POR (2,329 votes). In 1958: POR (1,994).

Bolivia142

Year 1960 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,300,000 – — – Votes cast 987,730 76.0 1,064,480 —Invalid votes 21,081 2.1 19,979 1.8Valid votes 966,649 97.9 1,046,636 98.2MNR 735,619 76.1 886,572 84.7PRA 139,713 14.5 44,296 4.2FSB 78,963 8.2 74,178 7.0PCB 10,934 1.1 20,352 1.9PSC – – 19,825 1.8Othersa 1,420 0.1 378 0.0a Others include in 1960: POR (1,420 votes). In 1962: POR (278); PMNRA (100).

Year 1964 Total number % Registered voters 1,411,560 – Votes cast 1,297,319 91.9 Invalid votes 158,162 12.2 Valid votes 1,139,157 87.8 MNR 1,114,717 97.9 FBA 12,245 1.1 UCN 11,142 1.0 Othersa 1,053 0.1 a Others include: FSB (613 votes); PSC (228); PRA (92); PCB (74); PRIN (23); POR (16); ACB (7).

Year 1966 Total number % Registered voters 1,270,611 – Votes cast 1,102,951 86.6Invalid votes 90,503 8.2Valid votes 1,012,448 91.8FRB 680,532 67.2CDC 138,054 13.6MNR-A 88,099 8.7MRP 61,309 6.0FLIN 33,054 3.2AID 11,400 1.1

Bolivia 143

Year 1978 Total numbera %b Registered voters 1,921,556 – Votes cast 1,971,968 103.6Invalid votes 53,330 2.7Valid votes 1,937,341 98.2UNP 986,140 50.9UDP 484,383 25.0ADRN 213,622 11.0PDC / PRB 167,131 8.6MNRP 40,905 2.1FRI 23,459 1.2MITKA 12,207 0.6Othersc 9,494 0.5 a In 1978, the official number of votes cast surpassed the number of registered voters. At the sa-me time, it was still lower than the sum of valid, blank and invalid votes. The elections were an-nulled.b Irregularities in percentages correspond to the irregularities in the numbers of votes. c Others include: PS (8,323 votes); PRO (1,171).

Year 1979 Total numbera %b Registered voters 1,871,070 – Votes cast 1,693,233 90.5Invalid votes 223,856 13.2Valid votes 1,469,377 86.8UDP 528,696 36.0MNR-A 527,184 35.9ADN 218,857 14.9PS-1 70,765 4.8APIN 60,262 4.1MITKA 28,344 1.9PUB 18,976 1.3VO 16,560 1.1a The total amount of party votes (1,469,644) and the number of valid votes do not coincide. b The lack of correlation between the number of valid votes and the sum of votes per party does not affect the results indicated in percentages.

Bolivia144

Year 1980 Total number % Registered voters 2,004,284 – Votes cast 1,489,484 74.3Invalid votes 180,450 12.1Valid votes 1,309,034 87.9UDP 507,173 38.7 MNR-A 263,706 20.2 AD N 220,309 16.8 PS-1 113,959 8.7 MITK-1 17,023 1.3 MITKA 15,852 1.2 PUB 16,380 1.3 FDR-NA 39,401 3.0 P RA-A 36,443 2.8 MNR-U 24,542 1.9 FSB 21,372 1.6 AFIN 17,150 1.3 PRIN-Alianza 15,724 1.2

Year 1985 Total number % Registered voters 2,108,458 – Votes cast 1,728,365 82.0 Invalid votes 224,309 13.0 Valid votes 1,504,056 87.0 ADN 493,735 32.8 MNR 456,704 30.4 MIR 153,143 10.2 MNRI 82,418 5.5 MNRV 72,197 4.8 PS-1 38,786 2.6 FPU 38,124 2.5 MRTKL 31,678 2.1 PDC 24,079 1.6 FSB 19,985 1.3MRTK 16,269 1.1 POR 13,712 0.9 ACP 12,918 0.9 MNRI-1 11,696 0.8 IU 10,892 0.7 FNP 9,635 0.6 AUR 9,420 0.6 ARENA 8,665 0.6

Bolivia 145

Year 1989 Total number % Registered voters 2,137,285 – Votes cast 1,573,790 73.6 Invalid votes 157,921 10.0 Valid votes 1,415,869 89.9 MNR 363,113 25.6 AD N 357,298 25.2 MIR 309,033 21.8 CONDEPA 173,459 12.2 IU 113,509 8.0 PS-1 39,763 2.8 MRTKL 22,983 1.6 FULKA 16,416 1.1 FSB 10,608 0.7 MIN 9,687 0.6

Year 1993 Total number % Registered voters 2,399,197 – Votes cast 1,731,309 72.2 Invalid votes 83,599 4.8 Valid votes 1,647,710 95.2 MNR-MRTKL 585,837 35.6 AP(ADN-MIR) 346,865 21.1 CONDEPA 235,427 14.3 UCS 226,816 13.8 MBL 88,260 5.4 ARBOL 30,867 1.9 ASD 30,286 1.8 VR-9 21,100 1.3 FSB 20,947 1.3 EJE 18,176 1.1 IU 16,173 1.0 MKN 12,627 0.8 Othersa 14,362 0.8 a Others include: MFD (6,269 votes) and independents (8,096).

Bolivia146

Year 1997 Total number % Registered voters 3,252,501 – Votes cast 2,321,117 71.4 Invalid votes 143,946 6.2 Valid votes 2,177,171 93.7 ADN-NFR-PDC 484,705 22.3 MNR 396,235 18.2 CONDEPA-MP 373,528 17.2 MIR-NM 365,005 16.8 UCS 350,728 16.1 IU 80,806 3.7 MBL 67,244 3.1 VSB 30,212 1.4 EJE 18,327 0.8 PDB 10,381 0.5

Year 2002 Total number % Registered voters 4,155,055 – Votes cast 2,994,065 72.1 Invalid votes 215,257 7.2 Valid votes 2,778,808 92.8 MNR-MBL 624,126 22.5 MAS 581,884 20.9 NFR 581,163 20.9 MIR-FRI 453,375 16.3 MIP 169,239 6.1 UCS-FSB 153,210 5.5 ADN 94,386 3.4 LJ 75,522 2.7 PS 18,162 0.7 MCC 17,405 0.6 Othersa 10,336 0.4 a Others include: CONDEPA (10,336 votes).

Bolivia 147



Yeara 1966 1979 1980 Seats % Seats % Seats % 102 100.0 117 100.0 130 100.0 FRB 82 80.4 – – – – CDC 19 18.6 – – – – MNP 1 1.0 – – – – AMNR – – 48 41.0 34 26.2 UDP – – 38 32.4 47 36.2 ADN – – 19 16.2 24 18.5 PS-1 – – 5 4.3 10 7.7 APIN – – 5 4.3 – – MITK – – 1 0.9 1 0.8 PUB – – 1 0.9 – – FDR-NA – – – – 5 3.8 FSB – – – – 3 2.3 PRA – – – – 3 2.3 MNR-U – – – – 2 1.5 MITK-1 – – – – 1 0.8 a No data are available for the period from 1959 to 1964. The 1978 elections were annulled.

Year 1985 1989 1993 1997 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 130 100.0 130 100.0 130 100.0 130 100.0 ADN 41 31.5 38 29.2 – – 32c 24.6 PS-1 5 3.8 – – – – – – MNR 43 33.1 40 30.8 52a 40.0 26 20.0 MIR 15 11.5 33 25.4 – – 23 17.7 MNRI 8 6.2 – – – – – – MNRV 6 4.6 – – – – – – FPU 4 3.1 – – – – – – PDC 3 2.3 – – – – – – FSB 3 2.3 – – – – – – MRTKL 2 1.5 – – – – – – IU – – 10 7.7 – – 4 3.1 CONDEPA – – 9 6.9 13b 10.0 19b 14.6 AP – – – – 35 26.8 – – UCS – – – – 20 15.4 21 16.2 MBL – – – – 7 5.4 5 3.8 ASD – – – – 1 0.8 – – ARBOL – – – – 1 0.8 – – EJE – – – – 1 0.8 – –

Bolivia148

a MNR and MRTKL. b CONDEPA and MP. c ADN, NFR and PDC.

Year 2002 Seats % 130 100.0 UCS-FSB 5 3.8 NFR 25 19.2 ADN 4 3.1 MIR-FRI 26 20.0 MAS 27 20.8 MIP 6 4.6 MNR-MBL 36 27.6 PS 1 0.7

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1966–2002

Yeara 1966 1979 1980 Seats % Seats % Seats % 27 100.0 27 100.0 27 100.0 FRB 18 66.7 – – – – CDC 8 29.6 – – – – MNP 1 3.7 – – – – AMNR – – 16 59.3 10 37.0 UDP – – 8 29.6 10 37.0 ADN – – 3 11.1 6 22.2 PS-1 – – – – 1 3.7 a No data are available for the period between 1959 and 1964. The 1978 elections were annulled.

Year 1985 1989 1993 1997 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 27 100.0 27 100.0 27 100.0 27 100.0 ADN 10 37.0 8 29.6 – – 11c 40.7 MNR 16 59.3 9 33.3 17a 63.0 5 18.5 MIR 1 3.7 8 29.6 – – 6d 22.2 CONDEPA – – 2 7.4 1b 3.7 3 11.1 AP – – – – 8 29.6 – – UCS – – – – 1 3.7 2 7.5 a MNR and MRTKL. b CONDEPA and MP. c ADN, NFR and PDC. d MIR and NM.

Bolivia 149

Year 2002 Seats % 27 100.0 NFR 2 7.4 ADN 1 3.7 MIR-FRI 5 18.5 MAS 8 29.6 MNR-MBL 11 40.7


1951 Total number % Registered voters 204,649 –Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 126,123 61.6Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) 54,129 42.9 Gabriel Gosalvez (PURS) 40,381 32.0 Bernardino Bilbao Rioja (FSB) 13,259 10.5 Guillermo Gutiérrez Vea Murguía (ACB)

6,654 5.3

Tomás Manuel Elío (PL) 6,530 5.2 José Antonio Arze (PIR) 5,170 4.1

1956 Total number % Registered voters 1,126,528 – Votes cast 958,016 85.0 Invalid votes 25,532 3.7 Valid votes 932,484 97.3 Hernán Siles Zuazo (MNR) 787,792 84.4Oscar Unzaga de la Vega (FSB) 130,494 14.0 Felipe Iñíguez Medrano (PCB) 12,273 1.3 Hugo Gonzales Moscoso (POR) 2,329 0.2

1960 Total number % Registered voters 1,300,000 – Votes cast 987,730 76.0 Invalid votes 21,081 2.1 Valid votes 966,649 97.9 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) 735,619 76.1 Walter Guevara Arze (PRA) 139,713 14.5 Mario Gutiérrez Gutiérrez (FSB) 78,963 8.2 Victor Paz Estenssoro (PCB) 10,934 1.1 Hugo Gonzales de Moscoso (POR) 1,420 0.1

Bolivia150

1964 Total number % Registered voters 1,411,560 – Votes cast 1,297,319 91.9 Invalid votes 158,162 12.2 Valid votes 1,139,157 87.8 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) 1,114,717 97.9 Party votesa 24,440 2.1 a Parties that did not present a presidential candidate, but contested parliamentary elections.

1966 Total number % Registered voters 1,270,611 – Votes cast 1,099,994 86.6 Invalid votes 90,503 8.2 Valid votes 1,009,491 91.8 René Barrientos Ortuño (FRB) 680,532 67.2Bernardino Bilbao Rioja (CDC) 138,054 13.6 Víctor Andrade (MNR-A) 88,099 8.7 Mario Diez de Medina (MNP) 60,309 6.0 Felipe Iñíguez (FLIN) 33,054 3.2 Enrique Hertzog (AID) 11,400 1.1

1978a Total number % Registered voters 1,921,556 – Votes cast 1,971,968 102.6 Invalid votes 53,330 2.7 Valid votes 1,937,341 98.2 Juan Pereda Asbún (UNP) 986,140 50.9 Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) 484,383 25.0 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (ADRN) 213,622 11.0 René Bernal Escalante (PDC/PRB) 167,131 8.6 Juan Pereda Asbún (MNRP) 40,905 2.1 Casiano Amurrio (FRI) 23,459 1.2 Luciano Tapia Quisbert (MITKA) 12,207 0.6 Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz (PS) 8,323 0.4 René Bernal (PRO) 1,171 0.1 a In 1978, the official number of votes surpassed that of registered voters, being at the same time lower than the total sum corresponding to the valid, blank and invalid votes. The elections were annulled.

Bolivia 151

1979a Total number % Registered voters 1,871,070 – Votes cast 1,693,233 90.5 Invalid votes 223,856 12.2 Valid votes 1,469,377 86.8 Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) 528,696 36.0 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (A-MNR) 527,184 35.9 Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN) 218,857 14.9 Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz (PS-1) 70,765 4.8 René Bernal Escalante (APIN) 60,262 4.1 Luciano Tapa Quisbert (MITKA) 28,344 1.9 Walter Gonzales Valda (PUB) 18,976 1.3 Ricardo Catoira (VO) 16,560 1.1 a The number of valid votes does not match the sum of votes per party. However, this mismatch does not affect the results indicated in percentages.

1980 Total number % Registered voters 2,004,284 – Votes cast 1,489,484 74.3 Invalid votes 180,450 12.1 Valid votes 1,309,034 87.9 Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) 507,173 38.7 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (A-MNR) 263,706 20.2 Hugo Banzer Suarez (ADN) 220,309 16.8 Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz (PS-1) 113,959 8.7 Luis Adolfo Siles Salinas (FDR-NA) 39,401 3.0 Walter Guevara Arze (PRA) 36,443 2.8 Guillermo Bedregal (MNR-U) 24,542 1.9 Carlos Valverde (FSB) 21,372 1.6 Roberto Jordan Pando (AFIN) 17,150 1.3 Constantino Lima (MITKA-1) 17,023 1.3 Walter Gonzáles (PUB) 16,380 1.3 Luciano Tapia Quisbert (MITKA) 15,852 1.2 Juan Lechín Oquendo (PRIN) 15,724 1.2

Bolivia152

1985 Total number % Registered voters 2,108,458 – Votes cast 1,728,365 82.0 Invalid votes 224,309 13.0 Valid votes 1,504,056 87.0 Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN) 493,735 32.8 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) 456,704 30.4 Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR) 153,143 10.2 Roberto Jordan Pando (MNRI) 82,418 5.5 Carlos Serrate Reich (MNRV) 72,197 4.8 Ramiro Velasco R. (PS-1) 38,785 2.5 Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (FPU) 38,124 2.5 Genaro Flores Santos (MRTKL) 31,678 2.1 Luis Ossio Sanjines (PDC) 24,079 1.6 David Añez Pedraza (FSB) 19,985 1.3 Macabeo Chila Prieto (MRTK) 16,269 1.1 Guillermo Lora Escobar (POR) 13,712 0.9 Raúl Catacora Cordova (ACP) 12,918 0.9 Francisco Figueroa (MNRI-1) 11,696 0.8 Isaac Sandoval Rodríguez (IU) 10,892 0.7 Juan Santa Cruz (AUR) 9,420 0.6 Humberto Cayoja Riart (ARENA) 8,665 0.6 Luis Fernando Mostajo (FNP) 9,635 0.6

1989 Total number % Registered voters 2,137,285 – Votes cast 1,573,790 73.6 Invalid votes 157,921 10.0 Valid votes 1,415,869a 89.9 Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (MNR) 363,113 25.6 Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN) 357,298 25.2 Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR) 309,033 21.8 Carlos Palenque (CONDEPA) 173,459 12.2 Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (IU) 113,509 8.0 Roger Córtez Hurtado (PS-1) 39,763 2.8 Víctor Hugo Cárdenas (MRTKL) 22,983 1.6 Genaro Flores Santos (FULKA) 16,416 1.1 Luis Sandoval Morón (MIN) 9,687 0.6 FSBa 10,608 0.7 a The FSB did not present a presidential candidate, but contested the parliamentary elections.

Bolivia 153

1993 Total number % Registered voters 2,399,197 – Votes cast 1,731,309 72.2 Invalid votes 83,599 4.8 Valid votes 1,647,710 95.2 Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (MNR-MNRKL)

585,837 35.6

Hugo Banzer Suárez (AP: ADN-MIR)

346,865 21.1

Carlos Palenque (CONDEPA) 235,427 14.3 Max Fernández Rojas (UCS) 226,816 13.8 Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (MBL) 88,260 5.4 Casanio Ancalle Choque (ARBOL) 30,867 1.9 Jerjes Justiniano Talavera (ASD) 30,286 1.8 Carlos Serrate Reich (VR-9) 21,100 1.3 Mario Serrate Paz (FSB) 20,947 1.2 Félix C. Aguilar (EJE) 18,176 1.1 Ramiro V. Romero (IU) 16,137 0.9 Fernando Untoja Choque (MKN) 12,627 0.8 Oscar Bonifáz (ONI) 8,096 0.5 Carlos Valverde (MFD) 6,269 0.4

1997 Total number % Registered voters 3,252,501 – Votes cast 2,321,117 71.4 Invalid votes 143,946 6.2 Valid votes 2,177,171 93.8 Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN-NFR-PDC)

484,705 22.2

Juan Carlos Durán (MNR) 396,235 18.2 Remedios Loza alvarado (CONDEPA-MP)

373,528 17.1

Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR-NM) 365,005 16.7 Ivo Kuljis (UCS) 350,728 16.1 Alejandro Véliz Lazo (IU) 80,806 3.7 Miguel Urioste (MBL) 67,244 3.0 Jerjes Justiniano (VSB) 30,212 1.4 Ramiro Barrenechea Z. (EJE PACHAKUTI)

18,327 0.8

Eudoro Galindo(PDB) 10,381 0.5

Bolivia154

2002 Total number % Registered voters 4,155,055 – Votes cast 2,994,065 72.1 Invalid votes 215,257 7.2 Valid votes 2,778,808 92.8 Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (MNR-MBL)

624,126 22.5

Evo Morales (MAS) 581,884 20.9 Manfred Reyes (NFR) 581,163 20.9 Jaime Paz (MIR-FRI) 453,375 16.3 Felipe Quispe (MIP) 169,239 6.1 Johnny Fernández (UCS-FSB) 153,210 5.5 Ronald MacLean (ADN) 94,386 3.4 Alberto Costa (LJ) 75,522 2.7 Rolando Morales (PS) 18,162 0.7 René Blattmann (MCC) 17,405 0.6 Nicolás Valdivia (CONDEPA) 10,336 0.4


Head of State Years Remarks Simón Bolívar 1825–1826 ‘Liberator’, invested with the ‘Supreme Exe-

cutive Power’ from 12/08/1825 to 29/12/1825.

Antonio José deSucre

1826–1828 In charge of the ‘Supreme Executive Power’ from 29/12/1825 to 18/04/1828.

José María Perez de Urdininea

1828 From 12/04/1828 to 02/08/1828. Interim president.

José Miguel de Velasco

1828 From 02/08/1828 to 28/12/1828.

Pedro Blanco 1828–1829 From 28/12/1828 to 01/01/1829; provisional head of state.

José Miguel de Velasco

1829 From 01/01/1829 to 24/05/1829. Interim president.

Andrés de Santa Cruz

1829–1839 From 24/05/1829 to 17/02/1839; provisional until 15/08/1831; also Supreme Protector of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation from 28/10/1836 to 20/02/1839.

José Miguel deVelasco

1839–1841 From 22/02/1839 to 10/06/1841; provisional supreme chief until 16/06/1839; provisional head of state until 15/08/1840.

Sebastián de Ágreda 1841 From 10/06/1841 to 09/07/1841 as provisio-nal chief.

Bolivia 155

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Mariano Enrique Calvo

1841 From 09/07/1841 to 22/09/1841.

José Ballivián 1841–1847 From 22/09/1841 to 23/12/1847; provisional until 15/08/1844.

Eusebio Guilarte 1847–1848 From 23/12/1847 to 02/01/1848 as interim head of state.

Manuel Isidoro Belzu 1848 From 06/01/1848 to 18/01/1848; interim. José Miguel de Velasco

1848 From 18/01/1848 to 06/12/1848; provisional.

Manuel Isidoro Belzu

1848–1855 From 06/12/1848 to 15/08/1855; in rebellion from 13/10/1848; provisional until 15/08/1850.

Jorge Córdova 1855–1857 From 15/08/1855 to 21/10/1857. José María Linares 1857–1861 From 21/10/1857 to 14/01/1861; provisio-

nal; in rebellion from 09/09/1857. Ruperto Fernández, José María de Achá and Manuel Antonio Sánchez

1861 Governing junta from 14/01/1861 to 04/05/1861; Sánchez only until 09/04/1861.

José María de Achá 1861–1864 From 04/05/1861 to 28/12/1864; provisional until 15/08/1862.

Mariano Melgarejo 1864–1871 From 28/12/1864 to 15/01/1871; provisional until 15/08/1870.

Agustín Morales 1871–1872 From 15/01/1871 to 27/11/1872; ‘Supreme Chief of the Revolution’ until 21/01/1871, in rebellion from 26/11/1870; provisional until 25/08/1872.

Juan de Dios Bosque 1872 From 27/11/1872 to 28/11/1872. Tomás Frías 1872–1873 From 28/11/1872 to 09/05/1873. Adolfo Ballivián 1873–1874 From 09/05/1873 to 14/02/1874. Tomás Frías 1874–1876 From 14/02/1874 to 04/05/1876. Hilarión Daza 1876–1879 From 04/05/1876 to 27/12/1879; provisional. Uladislao Silva 1879–1880 President of the junta from 27/12/1879 to

19/01/1880.Narciso Campero 1880 From 19/01/1880 to31/05/1880; provisional. Aniceto Arce 1880 From 31/05/1880 to 19/06/1880; interim. Narciso Campero 1880–1884 From 19/06/1880 to 03/09/1884. Gregorio Pacheco 1884–1888 From 03/09/1884 to 15/08/1888. Aniceto Arce 1888–1892 From 15/08/1888 to 11/08/1892. Mariano Baptista 1892–1896 From 11/08/1892 to 19/08/1896. Severo Fernández Alonso

1896–1899 From 19/08/1896 to 12/04/1899.

Serapio Reyes Ortiz 1899 From 12/04/1899 to 25/10/1899 president of the federal junta; in rebellion from 12/12/1898.

Bolivia156

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Manuel Pando 1899–1904 From 25/10/1899 to 14/08/1904; interim

from 06/08/1904. Ismael Montes 1904–1909 From 14/08/1904 to 12/08/1909. Eliodoro Villazón 1909–1913 From 12/08/1909 to 14/08/1913. Ismael Montes 1913–1917 From 14/08/1913 to 15/08/1917. José Gutiérrez Guer-ra

1917–1920 From 15/08/1917 to 12/07/1920.

José María Escalier, Bautista Saavedra, José Manuel Ramí-rez

1920–1921 Government junta from 13/07/1920 to 28/01/1921.

Bautista Saavedra 1921–1925 From 28/01/1921 to 03/09/1925. Felipe S. Guzmán 1925–1926 From 03/09/1925 to 10/01/1926; provisio-

nal.Hernando SilesReyes

1926–1930 From 10/01/1926 to28/05/1930.

Council of Ministers 1930 Council of Ministers in power from 28/05/1930 to 28/06/1930. Its members were Alberto Diez de Medina, Germán Antelo Arauz, Franklin Mercado, José David Toro, José Aguirre Achá, Fidel Vega, Carlos Ban-zer, and Ezequiel Romecín Calderón. On 17/06/1930, Romecín replaced Antelo.

Carlos Blanco Galindo

1930–1931 Chairman of the military junta from 28/06/1930 to 05/03/1931.

Daniel Domingo Salamanca

1931–1934 From 05/03/1931 to 1/12/1934.

José Luis Tejada Sorzano

1934–1936 From 1/12/1934 to 17/05/1936.

Germán Busch 1936 Provisional chairman of the junta from 17/05/1936 to 20/05/1936.

José David Toro 1936–1937 Chairman of the junta from 20/05/1936 to 13/07/1937.

Germán Busch 1937–1939 From 13/07/1937 to 23/08/1939; until 28/05/1938 chairman of the junta.

Carlos Quintanilla 1939–1940 From 23/08/1939 to 15/04/1940; provisio-nal.

Enrique Peñaranda 1940–1943 From 15/04/1940 to 20/12/1943. Gualberto Villarroel 1943–1946 From 20/12/1943 to 21/07/1946; chairman

of the junta until 05/04/1944; provisional president from 05/04/1944 to 06/08/1944.

Néstor Guillén 1946 From 21/07/1946 to 17/08/1946; senior jud-ge until 22/07/1946, then chairman of the provisional junta.

Bolivia 157

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Tomás Monje Gutiérrez

1946–1947 Chairman of the provisional junta from 17/08/1946 to 10/03/1947.

Enrique Hertzog 1947–1949 From 10/03/1947 to 22/10/1949. MamertoUrriolagoitia

1949–1951 From 22/10/1949 to 16/05/1951; acting for Hertzog from 07/05/1949 to 24/10/1949.

Hugo BalliviánRojas

1951–1952 Army officer; head of the military juntafrom 16/05/1951 to 11/04/1952; annulled the elections of 15/05/1951; the junta was toppled by a revolution.

Hernán Siles Zuazo 1952 Interim president from 11/04/1952 to 15/04/1952; elected vice president in the annulled 1951 elections.

Víctor Paz Estenssoro

1952–1956 From 15/04/1952 to 06/08/1956; elected president in the annulled 1951 elections.

Hernán Siles Zuazo 1956–1960 Constitutional president from 06/08/1956 to 06/08/1960.


1960–1964 From 06/08/1960 to 04/11/1964; resigned af-ter the military uprisign and left the country.

René BarrientosOrtuño

1964–1965 Army officer; presided the military junta that was in power from 05/11/1964 to 26/05/1965.

René Barrientos Ortuño, Alfredo Ovando Candia

1966–1966 Army officers; both generals presided the military junta from 26/05/1965 to 02/01/1966; Barrientos withdrew to contest the presidential elections.

Alfredo Ovando Candia

1966 Army officer; from 02/01/1966 to 06/08/1966.

René BarrientosOrtuño

1966–1969 Army officer; from 06/08/1966 to 27/04/1969; elected in the presidential electi-ons of 03/07/1966; died in an accident.

Luis Adolfo Siles Salinas

1969–1969 Interim president from 27/04/1969 to 26/09/1969; in accordance with the constitu-tion, he took the presidential office as elec-ted vice president. Overthrown by a military coup.

Alfredo Ovando Candia

1969–1970 Army officer; governed at the head of the military junta from 26/09/1969 to 06/10/1970; resigned after a military coup.

Juan José Torres Gonzales

1970–1971 Army officer; from 07/10/1970 to 21/08/1971; overthrown by a military coup.

Hugo Banzer Suárez 1971–1978 Army officer; from 22/08/1981 to 21/07/1978. Overthrown by a military coup.

Juan Pereda Asbún 1978 Army officer; president appointed by the military on 21/07/1978. Overthrown by a military coup on 24/11/1978.

Bolivia158

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks David Padilla Arancibia

1978–1979 Army officer; from 24/11/1978 to 08/08/1979; yielded the post to the interim president.

Walter Guevara Arze 1979 Provisional president elected by congress on 08/08/1979. Overthrown by a military coup on 01/11/1979.

Alberto Natusch Busch

1979 Army officer; from 01/11/1979 to 16/11/1979; resigned after a general strike and due to pressure of the military.

Lidia Gueiler Tejada 1979–1980 Provisional president, elected by congress on 16/11/1979 after the overthrow of the constitutional President Guevara Arze. De-posed by a military coup on 17/07/1980.

Luis García Meza Tejada

1980–1981 Army officer; presided the military juntafrom 18/07/1980 to 04/08/1981; overthrown by a military coup; the military appointed a new government.

Celso Torrelio Villa 1981–1982 Army officer; president appointed by the mili-tary on 04/08/1981; resigned on 20/07/1982.

Guido Vildoso Calderón

1982 Army officer; president appointed by the military junta on 21/07/1982; withdrew on 10/10/1982, after congress had elected a president.

Hernán Siles Zuazo 1982–1985 Constitutional president from 10/10/1982 to 06/08/1985. Won the elections on 29/06/1980 by plurality and was appointed by congress.


1985–1989 Constitutional president from 06/08/1985 to 06/08/1989; elected by congress despite ha-ving obtained the second highest vote in the elections on 14/07/1985.

Jaime Paz Zamora 1989–1993 Constitutional president from 06/08/1989 to 06/08/1993; elected by congress despite ha-ving received the third highest vote in the elections on 07/05/1989.

Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada

1993–1997 Constitutional president from 06/08/1993 to 06/08/1997.

Hugo Banzer Suárez 1997–2001 Constitutional president from 06/08/1997 to 07/08/2001; resigned because of illness.

Jorge QuirogaRamírez

2001–2002 Caretaker president from 07/08/2001 to 06/08/2002; as vice president he took office when Banzer stepped back.

Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada

2002–2003 Elected on 06/08/2002, forced to resign by a national uprising on 17/10/2003.

Carlos Diego Mesa 2003– Former vice president. Succeeded Lozada after his resignation on 17/10/2003.

Bolivia 159

3. Bibliography


Constitución Política del Estado (authorized and published by the Conven-ción Nacional) (1938). La Paz.

Constitución Política del Estado (authorized and published by Dr. Hugo Mealla Caso) (1945). La Paz: Editorial del Estado.

Constitución Política del Estado (published by República de Bolivia) (10th edn. 1960). La Paz: Gisbert y Cia.

Constitución Política del Estado (published by República de Bolivia) (12th edn. 1967). La Paz: Gisbert y Cia.

Constitución Política del Estado, Cámara de Diputados, 1997. Corte Nacional Electoral (1985). Ley Electoral (del 8 de abril de 1980) (2nd

edn.). La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1987). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1991). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1993). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Electoral (1997). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1999). Código Electoral. La Paz. Corte Electoral (2002). Código Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1997). Estadísticas Electorales 1985–1997. La

Paz.Corte Nacional Electoral (1985, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2002). Informe al H.

Congreso Nacional Elecciones Generales. La Paz.Estatuto Electoral (1956). Decreto Supremo No. 04315. La Paz: Subsecretaría

de Prensa, Informaciones y Cultura. Gaceta Oficial de Bolivia (various years). Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1985). Bolivia. Estimaciones y

proyecciones de población. La Paz. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1988). Proyecciones de la Población en

Bolivia. La Paz. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1997). Proyecciones de Población. La Paz. Instituto Nacional de Población (2002). Bolivia, Estimaciones y Proyecciones

de Población. Período,1950–2050. La Paz.Ley Electoral, Edición oficial (1937). La Paz. Ley Electoral, Decreto Ley No. 07137 de 1965 y Decreto Ley No. 07490 de

1966. La Paz: Corte Nacional Electoral. Ley Electoral (1980). La Paz: Senado Nacional. Modificación de la Ley Electoral (del 20 de mayo de 1986), in Gaceta Oficial

de Bolivia, 26/1464.

Bolivia160


Alcoreza, C. and Albó X. (1979). 1978, el nuevo campesinado ante el fraude.La Paz.

Arguedas, A. (1980). Historia general de Bolivia. La Paz. Asamblea Permanente de los Derechos Humanos de Bolivia (ed.) (1979). El

fraude electoral. Un atentado contra la voluntad popular. Elecciones nacionales del 9 de julio de 1978. La Paz.

Costa A. R. (2001). Desarrollo Electoral en Bolivia. 2 vols. La Paz: Corte Nacional Electoral.

Céspedes, M. (1982). ¿Los Bolivianos, estamos maduros para la democra-cia? Las experiencias electorales de 1978, 1979 y 1980. La Paz.

Dunkerley, J. (1984). Rebellion in the Veins. Political Struggle in Bolivia, 1952–1982. London.

— (1990). Political Transition and Economic Stabilisation. Bolivia 1982–1989. London: University of London.

Galindo de Ugarte, M. (1991). Constituciones Bolivianas Comparadas 1826–1967. La Paz: Amigos de Libro.

Guzmán, A. (1976). Historia de Bolivia (3rd edn.). La Paz-Cochabamba. Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems (1964). Bolivia.

Election Fact Book. Washington, D.C.: ICOPS. Klein, C. (1991). Boliviens Weg zur Demokratie. Ph.D. thesis, Heidelberg. Klein, H. S. (1968). Orígenes de la Revolución Nacional boliviana. La crisis

de la generación del Chaco. La Paz. — (1969). Parties and Political Change in Bolivia: 1880–1952. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Lazarte, J. (1993). Certezas e incertidumbre de la democracia. 3 vols.

Amigos del Libro. La Paz.Lora, G. (ed.) (1970). Documentos políticos de Bolivia. La Paz-Cochabamba:

Edit. Los Amigos del Libro. — (1987). Historia de los partidos políticos de Bolivia. La Paz: La Colmena. McDonald, R. H. and Ruhl, J. M. (1989). Party Politics and Elections in La-

tin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Malloy, J. M. (1970). Bolivia. The Uncompleted Revolution. Pittsburgh. Mayorga, R. and D. Nohlen (1992). ‘Bolivien’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nusche-

ler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt. Vol. 2: Südamerika. Bonn: Dietz. Mesa Gisbert, C. D. (2003). Presidentes de Bolivia: Entre urnas y fusiles. La

Paz.Nohlen, D. et al. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de

América Latina. IIDH: San José, Costa Rica. Nohlen, D. (2004). Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos. Mexico:

UNAM.

Bolivia 161

Pinrive, S. (1987). ‘Les elections de 1985 en Bolivie: un tournant pour la jeune démocratie (1982–1987)’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 85.

Rivadeneira Prada, R. (1980). La guerra de los insultos. La propaganda política en Bolivia 1979. La Paz.

— (1984). El laberinto político de Bolivia. La Paz. Rolón Anaya, M. (1966). Política y partidos en Bolivia. La Paz: Edit. Juven-

tud.Romero Ballivián, S. (1998). Geografía Electoral de Bolivia. H. Seidel-

Foundation.Ruddle, K. and P. Gillette (eds.) (1972). Latin American Political Statistics.

Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles. Vaca Díez, H. (ed.) (1998). Derecho Electoral Boliviano. La Paz: Fondo

Editorial de los Diputados. Whitehead, L. (1988). ‘La democratización frustrada en Bolivia, 1977–1980’,

in G. O’Donnell et al. (eds.), Transiciones desde un gobierno autoritario. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

BRAZILby Bolívar Lamounier and Octavio Amorim Neto*

1. Introduction


Brazil has been holding elections since its colonial period. Their fair-ness, inclusiveness, and role in the country’s policy process have changed substantially over time. Elections in Brazil during Getulio Var-gas’s authoritarian regime in 1937–1945 were completely suppressed. Even under the 1964–1985 military regime electoral competition for leg-islative offices and some executive posts was not abolished. However, the competition was not wholly free and fair owing to direct and indirect political manipulation designed to favor the regime’s supporters. With the beginning of democratization in the early 1980s, elections became the main way to determine the distribution of power and were the gov-ernment’s key instrument. However, owing to deep-seated socio-economic differences, the quality of the electoral process varies across Brazil’s five regions. The following is a summary of the evolution of electoral legislation and practices throughout Brazil’s history as an inde-pendent country.

Brazil gained independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. Un-like the majority of the South American republics, the former Portugue-se colony won its independence without an armed conflict, and was thus able to keep the administrative structure set up by its colonial masters. Such a feat was key to the country maintaining the unity of its immense territory despite its sharp economic and social heterogeneity.

Brazil’s first national constitution, enacted in 1824, adopted a parlia-mentary monarchy as its system of government. The emperor, as the head of state, played a key role in the policy process. Based on his con-stitutional prerogatives, the emperor repeatedly dissolved parliament, which allowed him to heavily influence the selection of the prime mini-

* The authors thank Judith Muszynski for her collaboration in an earlier version of this chapter. Ana F. B. Coelho, Juliana Estrella, Rodrigo R. A. Pinto, Marina Vivas, and César Zucco Júnior provided invaluable research assistance.

Brazil164

ster. This significantly reduced the importance of the elections regularly held under the monarchy.

From a politico-institutional point of view, therefore, the main issue of the monarchical period boiled down to the relatively independent role of the monarch, together with a centralization versus decentralization conflict. From the 1870s onwards, the monarchy began to be contested by proponents of a republican regime. In 1889, the monarchy was top-pled and such a regime was founded.

In 1891, a new constitution was enacted. It provided for a presidential system of government. This system was markedly federal, and granted extensive prerogatives to each state of the federation. It is therefore no wonder that the national government fell under the control of state-based parties representing agrarian oligarchies. Patriarchal structures of domi-nation, such as coronelismo (a pattern of control exerted by landlords, the so-called colonels, over the rural population based on the economic dependence of the latter on the former), meant that these oligarchs could stack electoral competition in their favor. The so-called politics of the governors—an arrangement between the state-level political parties and the national executive power—ensured stability for 40 years.

Elections held before 1930 were of some importance for this period’s policy process. Even though direct suffrage was established in 1881, the elections contested under the Empire (1822–1889) and the First Repub-lic (1889–1930) were characterized by the de jure and de facto exclusion of a large part of the population, fraud, and the inefficiency of voters’ registration system. Moreover, under the First Republic the organization of opposition parties was systematically hindered.

The establishment of courts at the national and state levels with juris-diction over elections in 1932 was a landmark in Brazil’s electoral histo-ry. The institutional mechanisms necessary to control and standardize the electoral processes were finally set up in the form of the Superior Court of Electoral Justice (TSE) and the Regional Electoral Courts (TRE). From this time onwards, electoral courts were in charge of orga-nizing voters’ registration, voting booths, vote counting, and the official announcement of winning candidates. However, this did not mean that fraud and other violations of the electoral law were completely elimina-ted.

During the seven decades under the rule of these courts, limited elec-toral participation expanded incrementally until universal suffrage was finally achieved under the 1988 Constitution. The elections for consti-tuent assemblies in 1933, 1945, and 1986 illustrate such a process: the participation of voters went up from 5% in 1933, through 15% in 1945,

Brazil 165

to more than 50% of the total population in 1986. Along with the rem-oval of suffrage restrictions related to personal income, the right to vote was extended to women in 1932. This was very important because even in the 19th century the majority of the population was made up of wo-men. In 1988 the right to vote was further extended to illiterates. Note that the percentage of illiterates in the total population has been continu-ally decreasing over the last decades. The expansion of public schooling coupled with the urbanization process beginning in the 1950s also led to an increase in the number of voters.

From a socio-economic point of view, however, the country failed to bridge the wide gap separating the rich, industrialized south eastern and southern regions of the country from the poor, underdeveloped northern, north eastern and central western regions. Not surprisingly, such a failu-re is at the root of the survival of local practices of coronelismo. The iso-lation of the countryside, which until the early 1960s encompassed the largest share of Brazil’s population also contributed to the success of the coronelismo. Over time, the contrast between the traditional structures of domination found in rural areas and the greater opportunities for poli-tical participation available for the urban masses became even more di-stinct.

In the decades following the creation of electoral courts there were many regime changes and great discontinuity in party systems, which were intimately associated with such changes. The next paragraphs take a brief glance at the impact of each of these regimes on electoral legisla-tion and practices.

The so-called Revolução de 30 (the 1930 Revolution) led to an unpre-cedented expansion of rights for political participation, contained in the 1934 Constitution. Furthermore, a multiparty system began to take sha-pe. The enactment of the authoritarian constitution in 1937, however, put an end to this phase. In the dictatorial period of the Estado Novo (New State, 1937–1945) political parties and elections were banned. On-ly the professional associations and corporatist organizations were allo-wed to participate in politics. However, the Estado Novo collapsed in 1945.

The post-1945 period witnessed the emergence of a new multiparty system. However, as in many democratic transitions, members of the Estado Novo’s ruling elite played a key role in the new regime. Even former dictator Vargas exerted an indirect influence during the post-1945 period, especially on the organization of political parties. Two of the largest parties that came to dominate Brazil’s nascent democracy we-re created on Vargas’ initiative, namely the Partido Social Democrático

Brazil166

(PSD; Democratic Social Party) and the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro(PTB; Brazilian Labor Party). An important opposition party was also founded, the União Democrática Nacional (UDN; National Democratic Union), as well as many small and regional parties.

The 1964 military coup d’état, in stark contrast to the democratizing trends described above, paved the way for a new authoritarian phase, which only ended in 1985. In 1965 the military government banned the existing parties, and created an artificial two-party system. The latter was composed of the pro-government Aliança Renovadora Nacional (ARENA; National Renewing Alliance), and the legal opposition Movi-mento Democrático Brasileiro (MDB; Brazilian Democratic Move-ment). From 1964 on the president and the mayors of state capitals and ‘national security’ cities (those deemed by the military to be of econo-mic and political security relevance) were elected indirectly. In 1966 the popular election of state governors was also abolished. During the libe-ralization process initiated by the government of General Ernesto Geisel in 1974, the opposition began to win more and more congressional elec-tions (which were direct as they were before 1964). By reforming electo-ral laws and party legislation, the military regime tried to keep the MDB’s growth under control. However, manipulations designed to favor the ARENA were enacted mainly at the legal level rather than in terms of openly manipulating electoral results, which remained under the ju-risdiction of the electoral courts. So, in 1977 the direct election of sena-tors was eliminated. Furthermore, to face the MDB’s growing electoral strength, an electoral reform was enacted in 1979 to end elections’ ‘ple-biscitary character’, which was based on the government (ARENA) ver-sus opposition (MDB) dichotomy. Again, a new multiparty system was allowed to emerge. Five parties contested the 1982 elections: the PDS, the Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (PMDB; Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement)—the respective successors of the ARENA and MDB—the Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT; Labor Democratic Party), PTB, and Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT; Workers’ Party). Yet, the latter three parties were able to gather a bit more than 5% of the votes only in four states, namely, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, and Acre.

The following four phases were crucial for the development of the transition process: (1) the 1982 elections; (2) the campaign for direct presidential elections (the so-called Diretas já movement) in 1984; (3) direct elections for mayors of state capitals in 1985 and for all mayoral-ties in 1988; and (4) the 1986 elections for a constituent assembly. Tho-

Brazil 167

se elections gave rise to new parties, thus solidifying the multiparty sy-stem.

The constituent assembly was made up of the deputies and senators directly elected in 1986 (two-thirds) plus the senators directly elected in 1982 (one-third). The assembly promulgated a new constitution on 5 October 1988. In 1989, Brazil’s first direct presidential election since 1960 was held. The winner was Fernando Collor de Melo, whose candi-dacy was supported by the new, tiny Partido da Reconstrução Nacional(PRN; Party of National Reconstruction). Collor’s ambitious economic reforms program failed, to a certain extent, due to his lack of solid legis-lative support.

After two years in office marked by repeated government crises, per-sistent recession, and frequent peaks of high inflation, Collor was remo-ved from office on charges of corruption on 29 September 1992. He was succeeded by his vice president, Itamar Franco.

In April 1993 a plebiscite was held to decide the system of govern-ment (presidentialism versus parliamentarism) and form of government (republic versus monarchy). Presidentialism and republicanism won. In June 1997, the congress approved, for the first time in the history of the Republic, a constitutional amendment allowing presidents, governors, and mayors to run for a second consecutive term. In October 1994 for-mer finance minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso, affiliated with the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB; Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy), riding a wave of popularity caused by his successful anti-inflation program, was elected president for the 1995–1998 period. In October 1998 he was the first president to be re-elected in Brazilian history. He was succeeded four years later by Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Sil-va, leader of the left-wing Partido dos Trabalhadores. He was the first Brazilian president of lower-class origin.


In the course of Brazilian history the rules governing electoral legislati-on and electoral systems were stipulated by the constitutions of 1824, 1891, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967, 1969, and 1988, as well by the electoral laws of 1932, 1945, 1950, 1965, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989, 1993, and 1997.

Since the declaration of the republic, presidents and the two chambers of congress have been directly elected. The president’s constitutional term of office has varied from four to six years (four from 1889 to 1930,

Brazil168

five from 1946 to 1979, six from 1979 to 1985, five from 1985 to 1994, and four since 1995). Re-election was prohibited from 1891 to 1997. Since then, the president has had the right to run for a second term.

Since 1891 the term of lower chamber members (federal deputies) has been four years. Under the Empire, senators served for a life term. From 1891 to 1945 their term was reduced to nine years. From 1946 onwards their term has been eight years. Initially, one-third of the senate was re-newed every three years. From 1950 on it was established that one-third and two-thirds of the senate seats were renewed alternately every four years.

Since the declaration of independence the right to vote has been clo-sely linked to the notion of citizenship in Brazil. Under the empire, ho-wever, economic requirements limited suffrage. Moreover, between 1891 and 1988 illiterates were not allowed to vote. Between 1945 and 1950 voters’ registration was partially dependent on voters’ labor situa-tion, giving employers some influence over registration. Suffrage restric-tions were also related to social position (household employees were not allowed to vote from 1881 to 1890; beggars from 1891 to 1945; soldiers have always been excluded from suffrage). In 1932 the right to vote was extended to women.

Up to 1882, the minimum age required to vote was 25 years, it was reduced to 21 years up to 1932, and from 1932 onwards voting age has been 18 years. Presidential candidates must be over 35 years of age; se-nate candidates had to be over 40 years under the empire, and have had to be over 35 since the inception of republic. Candidates for lower chamber seats and state assemblies had to be over 25 years of age until 1945; since then they have to be over 21.

From 1846, voters had to register at the electoral registrar to vote. The 1932 Electoral Law determined mandatory voting. From 1945 on voters’ registration also became mandatory.

Under the empire, the most common voting method was the voice vo-te, which was taken publicly. The Rosa e Silva Law, enacted in 1904, gave voters the possibility to cast a secret ballot. In 1932 the secret ball-lot was fully established, being later included in the 1934 Constitution.

Since the start of the republic, presidents have been elected by voters, except in 1930–1945 (the Vargas dictatorship) and 1964–1985. Under the latter period the president was selected by an electoral college com-posed of all senators and deputies, and a delegation of representatives from each state assembly.

The elections for deputies were initially indirect. Up to 1881 senators were partly indirectly elected and partly chosen by the monarch. Howe-

Brazil 169

ver, in the same year members of both houses of the legislative branch began to be directly elected. Yet in the 1933 and 1935 elections 40 of the 214 legislative seats were distributed according to a ‘system of pro-fessional representation’. In 1977 indirect elections for one-third of se-nate seats were determined by the so-called Pacote de Abril (April Package). This rule remained in force for only a short period of time.

Up to 1988 presidents were elected by plurality. Deputies were elec-ted by majority rule from the early 19th century up to mid-20th century. In 1932 some elements of proportional representation were introduced. Since 1945 Brazil uses full proportional representation.

Between 1881 and 1889 Brazil adopted single-member constituencies (SMCs). In 1891 multi-member constituencies (MMCs) of different size were drawn up. In 1892 the national territory was divided into 63 MMCs, which elected 205 deputies. The Rosa e Silva Law enacted in 1904 provided for five-member districts. However, owing to concerns about the final distribution of seats, some four-member, six-member, and seven-member districts were also designed. In 1932, the sizes of the district were changed, but they all remained MMCs. Since 1945 the smallest district size was one, and the highest 60.

In the 1880s, when candidates were elected in SMCs, voters cast one vote. From 1892 onwards Brazil used the multiple limited vote. The number of votes cast by each voter was equal to one-third of the number of seats contested in each district. Beginning in 1904 voters had one vote less than the number of seats in their districts. In this same year cumula-tive voting was allowed for the first time. In the 1933 and 1935 elections voters received two ballots. One ballot was for a SMC. The other ballot had open lists, and voters could cast as many votes as the number of di-strict seats. From 1945 on Brazil began to use open lists with voters being allowed to cast only one vote either for an individual candidate or for a party label. In addition, parties were allowed to form electoral coa-litions for chamber of deputies seats. The 1950 Electoral Law stipulated that single-party and coalition lists could field as many candidates as there were seats in each district. In districts with less than 30 seats lists could include as many candidates as there were seats plus one-third.

In the 1982 elections, a special rule was applied: voters had to vote for the same party for all the offices (governor, senator, federal deputy, and state deputy). This was the so-called voto vinculado.

Between 1881 and 1889, an absolute majority of votes was required for a candidate to be elected deputy. If no candidate gained such a majo-rity in the first round, a runoff was held between the two top candidates. With the creation of MMCs in 1891 seats were allocated to candidates

Brazil170

according to their rank-order in terms of votes obtained. In the 1933 and 1935 elections some seats were allocated according to Hare quota. The rest was distributed to single-candidate lists winning a plurality of votes. In 1945, the Hare quota was finally applied for all seats. Until 1950 any seats that could not be allocated in this way were given to the parties with the highest number of votes. From this year on those seats were dis-tributed according to the highest average method.

In the 1986 and 1990 elections, single-party lists could present as ma-ny candidates as the number of district seats multiplied by 1.5. Two-party lists could present as many candidates as twice the number of di-strict seats. Three- or more-than-three-party lists could triple the number of seats. In the 1994 elections single-party lists could only field as many candidates as there were district seats. Coalition lists could multiply the number of seats by 1.5. From 1982 to 1998, members of the chamber of deputies were entitled to be on the ballot for the same position in the next election (this was the so-called candidato nato rule or birth-right candidate rule). This rule, however, was declared unconstitutional by the supreme electoral court in April 2002.

Since the 19th century, plurality system has been applied for senate elections, and since 1891 each state has been represented in the senate by three members. Initially, one-third of senate seats were renewed eve-ry three years. From 1945 on, one-third and two-thirds of the senate seats, alternatively, began to be renewed every four years. That is to say, in the beginning senate districts were SMCs. Later on there were SMCs or two-member constituencies. Party lists for senate elections displayed a single candidate. Voters had one or two votes according to the number of seats contested. When two-thirds of senate seats were up for renewal, voters could vote for different parties in two-seat districts. Under the mi-litary regime a rule similar to Uruguay’s ley de lemas was put into ef-fect: each party could present three candidates for each senate seat. This rule remained in force from 1966 to 1982. In SMCs (one-third renewal of senate seats) a plurality of votes was required for a candidate to be elected. In two-member districts (two-thirds renewal) seats were alloca-ted to the two top candidates.

Brazil 171


Sources: Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, 1988; Elec-toral Law (law no. 9.504, as of 30 September 1997).

Suffrage: The 1988 Constitution provides for direct, universal, and se-cret suffrage. Conscript soldiers, however, are not entitled to vote. For all Brazilian citizens over 18 and under 70 years of age, voting is man-datory. For illiterates and citizens over 16 and below 18 years of age, voting is optional.

Elected national institutions: president of the republic and the bicameral congress. The president is directly elected for a four-year term. The na-tional congress is composed of the chamber of deputies (elected for a four-year term) and the federal senate (eight-year term).

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates for president and vice president must be affiliated with a political party and be over 35 years of age. - parliamentary elections: The minimum age required for lower chamber candidates is 21 years. Illiterates are not entitled to run for public office. Senatorial candidates must be affiliated with a political party and be over 35 years of age. Single-party lists may present as many candidates as the number of seats multiplied by 1.5 in districts with more than 20 seats, and as many as twice the number of seats in districts with 20 seats or less. Coalition lists may have as many candidates as twice the number of seats in districts with more than 20 seats, and triple the number in di-stricts with 20 seats or less. If parties run for presidency in coalitions, they are not allowed to form different coalitions at the district level to compete for legislative seats.

Electoral system- presidential elections: Absolute majority system. If no candidate ob-tains the required majority in the first round, a second round is held bet-ween the two candidates receiving the largest shares of votes in the first round.- parliamentary elections: Proportional representation in MMCs with non-blocked lists. Voters cast one vote either for a candidate on a party list, or for a party label. The geographical design of electoral districts for the chamber of deputies seats is juxtaposed to that of federal states. The number of seats contested in each district is related to the population si-

Brazil172

ze. District size ranges from a constitutionally-defined minimum of eight seats for the smallest states to 70 in São Paulo, Brazil’s largest electora-te. There are 27 MMCs with the following sizes: eleven districts with eight seats; one with nine; two with ten; one with twelve; one with 16; two with 17; one with 18; one with 22; one with 25; one with 30; one with 31; one with 39; one with 46; one with 53; and one district with 70 seats. Seats are distributed at the constituency level by the Hare quota and largest average.

Senators are elected by plurality. Each state elects three senators. However, since senate seats are partially renewed every four years—one-third and two-thirds of the seats alternately—the federal states have SMCs and two-member constituencies respectively. Single-candidate lists are used in senate elections. Voters cast one or two votes depending on whether renewal is for one-third or two-thirds of seats. In SMCs (one-third renewal of the senate) a plurality of votes is required for a candidate to win the seat. In two-member districts (two-thirds renewal) seats are awarded to the two top candidates.


Electoral data before 1945 have been obtained from secondary sources. The establishment of the superior electoral court and the regional courts in each state in 1932 led to regular archiving and organization of elec-toral data. Therefore, post-1945 electoral data were gathered mostly from official sources. Information on the elections held between 1990 and 2002 was collected from Jairo Nicolau’s Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982–2002 (available at www.iuperj.br/deb). It should be noted, how-ever, that data reliability varies from region to region. Owing to prob-lems of electoral organization, data from Brazil’s poorest regions (Northeast, North, and Center-West) on elections held till 1980 are less reliable than data from the most developed regions (Southeast and South).

www.iuperj.br/deb

Brazil 173

2. Tables


Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections Referendums Coups elections Lower

Chamber UpperChamber

for Constit. Assembly

d’état

1889 31/08 1890 15/091894 01/03 01/03 01/03 1896 30/12 30/12 1898 01/03 1899 31/12 31/12 1902 01/03 1903 18/02 18/02 1906 01/03 30/01 30/01 1909 30/01 30/01 1910 01/03 1912 30/01 30/01 1914 01/03 1915 30/01 30/01 1918 01/03 01/03 01/03 1919 13/04 1922 01/03 1926 01/03 1927 24/02 24/02 1930 01/03 01/03 01/03 1933 03/05 03/10 1934 14/10 1937 10/11 1945a 02/12 02/12 02/12 02/121947 19/01 19/01 1950 03/10 03/10 03/10 1954 03/10 03/10 1955 03/10 1958 03/10 03/10 1960 03/10 1962 07/10 07/10 1963 06/011964 31/03 1966 15/11 15/11 1970 15/11 15/11 1974 15/11 15/11 1978 15/11 15/11 1982 15/11 15/11

Brazil174

Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections Referendums Coups (cont.) elections Lower



d’état

1986a 15/11 15/11 15/111989 15/11 (I) 1989 17/12 (II) 1990 03/10 03/10 1993 21/04 1994 03/10 03/10 03/10 1998 04/10 04/10 04/10 2002 06/10 (I) 06/10 06/10 2002 27/10 (II) a The 1945 and 1986 congresses were also constitutional assemblies.



Number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. Voters

%pop.

1889 Pa 14,333,915 — — — — — 1890 CA 14,333,915 — — — — — 1894c Pr 15,583,000 — — 345,097 — 2.21898c Pr 17,145,000 — — 462,188 — 2.71902c Pr 18,782,000 — — 645,531 — 3.41906c Pr 20,427,000 — — 294,401 — 1.41910c Pr 22,216,000 — — 707,651 — 3.21914c Pr 24,161,000 1,212,882 5.0 580,917 47.9 2.41918c Pr 26,277,000 — — 390,131 — 1.51919c Pr 26,835,000 — — 403,315 — 1.51922c Pr 28,542,000 1,305,826 4.6 833,270 63.8 2.91926c Pr 30,953,000 — — 702,580 — 2.31930c Pr 33,568,000 — — 1,892,577 — 5.61933 CA/Pa 39,939,154 1,466,700 3.7 — — —1934 Pad 40,462,000 1,466,700 — — — —1945 Pae 46,200,000 7,499,670 — 6,122,864 81.6 —1945 Pr 46,200,000 7,459,849 — 6,200,805 83.1 —1947 Paf 48,000,000 6,202,415 — 2,635,680 42.5 —1950 Pa 51,944,397 11,455,149 22.1 8,240,996 72.0 15.91950 Pr 51,944,397 11,455,149 22.1 8,254,989 72.1 15.91954 Pa 56,998,000 15,104,604 26.5 9,890,475 65.5 17.41955 Pr 58,383,000 15,243,246 26.1 9,097,014 59.7 15.61958 Paf 63,101,627 13,780,480g 21.8 12,678,997 92.0 20.11960 Pr 70,191,370 15,543,332 22.1 12,586,354 81.0 17.91962 Pa 75,246,000 18,528,847 24.6 14,747,221 79.6 19.6

Brazil 175

Year Type of Populationb Registered voters Votes cast (cont.) electiona Total

Number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. Voters

%pop.

1966 Pa 85,139,000 22,387,251 26.3 17,285,556 77.2 20.31970 Pa 93,139,037 28,966,114 31.1 22,435,521 77.5 24.11974 Pa 102,807,000 35,810,715 34.8 28,981,015 80.9 28.21978 Pa 113,481,000 46,985,446 40.6 37,627,823 81.7 33.21982 Pa 126,898,429 58,871,378 46.4 48,746,803 82.8 38.41986 Pae 138,492,887 69,309,231 50.1 65,823,591 94.9 47.51989 Pr 147,512,000 82,074,718 55.6 70,260,701 85.6 47.61990 Pah 150,368,000 83,820,556 55.7 71,940,913 85.8 47.81993 Ref 151,556,831 90,274,117 59.6 66,965,009 74.2 44.21994 Pr 153,725,670 94,743,043 61.6 77,949,111 82.3 50.71994 Pa 153,725,670 94,743,043 61.6 77,660,795 82.0 50.51998 Pr 161,790,311 106,053,106 65.5 83,274,223 78.5 51.51998 Pa 161,790,311 106,053,106 65.5 83,280,755 78.5 51.52002 Pr (I)/Pa 174,632,960i 115,184,176 66.0 94,741,120 82.3 54.32002 Pr (II) 174,632,960i 115,184,176 66.0 91,620,726 79.5 52.5a Pr = President; CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pa=Parliament. Since elections for the senate and chamber of deputies are concurrent, the total number of registered voters and votes cast are the same; apart from 1982 were the votes cast for the chamber of deputies is given.b Censuses: 1872: 9,930,478; 1890: 14,333,915; 1900: 17,438,434; 1920: 30,636,605; 1940: 41,236,315; 1950: 51,944,397; 1960: 70,070,457; 1970: 93,139,837; 1980: 119,002,706.c Total votes cast not available. Data correspond to valid votes.d Supplementary election for federal deputies in seven states and three territories.e The 1945 and 1986 congresses were also constitutional assemblies.f Supplementary elections for the third senator of each state and also for vacant federal deputies’ chairs.g The electorate diminished because of the revision of the electoral census by the Tribunal Supe-rior Eleitoral (superior electoral court). h Figures for total votes cast refer only to elections for the chamber of deputies.i Estimated population using data from IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics).

Brazil176

2.3 Abbreviationsa

ARENA Aliança Renovadora Nacional (National Renewing Alliance) ED Esquerda Democrática (Democratic Left) LEC Liga Eleitoral Católica (Catholic Electoral League) MDB Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (Brazilian Democratic Movement) MTR Movimento Trabalhista Renovador (Renewing Labor Movement) PAN (1)b Partido Agrário Nacional (National Agrarian Party) PAN (2) Partido dos Aposentados da Nação (Party of the Nation’s Pensioners)PAP Partido de Ação Progressista (Progressive Action Party) PAS Partido da Ação Social (Social Action Party) PASART Partido Socialista Agrário e Renovador Trabalhista (Labor Agrarian

and Renewing Socialist Party) PBM Partido Brasileiro das Mulheres (Women’s Brazilian Party) PC Partido Comunista (Communist Party) PCBc Partido Comunista Brasileiro (Brazilian Communist Party) PCDN Partido Cívico de Desenvolvimento Nacional (National Development

Civic Party) PC do B Partido Comunista do Brasil (Brazil’s Communist Party) PCN Partido Comunitário Nacional (National Community Party) PCO Partido da Causa Operária (Workmen’s Cause Party) PD Partido Democrata (Democratic Party) PDB Partido Democrático Brasileiro (Brazilian Democratic Party) PDC (1) Partido Democrata Cristão (Christian Democrat Party) PDC (2) Partido Democrático Cristão (Christian Democratic Party) PDC (3) Partido Democrata Cristão (Christian Democrat Party) PDC do B Partido Democrata Cristão do Brasil (Brazil’s Christian Democrat

Party)PDI Partido Democrático Independente (Independent Democratic Party) PDN Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party)PDS Partido Democrático Social (Social Democratic Party) PDT Partido Democrático Trabalhista (Labor Democratic Party) PEB Partido Estudantil Brasileiro (Brazilian Student Party) PES Partido Ecológico Social (Social Ecological Party) PFL Partido da Frente Liberal (Party of the Liberal Front) PFS Partido da Frente Socialista (Party of the Socialist Front) PGT Partido Geral dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ General Party) PH Partido Humanista (Humanist Party) PHN Partido Humanista Nacional (National Humanist Party) PJ Partido da Juventude (Youth’s Party) PL (1) Partido Libertador (Liberator Party) PL (2) Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) PLB Partido Liberal Brasileiro (Brazilian Liberal Party) PLC Partido Liberal Cristão (Christian Liberal Party) PLH Partido Liberal Humanista (Humanist Liberal Party)

Brazil 177

PLP Partido Liberal Progressista (Progressive Liberal Party) PLT Partido Liberal Trabalhista (Labor Liberal Party) PMB Partido Municipalista Brasileiro (Brazilian Municipalist Party) PMC Partido Municipalista Comunitário (Communitarian Municipalist

Party)PMDB Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (Party of the Brazilian

Democratic Movement) PMN Partido da Mobilização Nacional (National Mobilization Party) PMSD Partido Municipalista Social Democrático (Social-Democratic

Nationalist Party)PN Partido Nacionalista (Nationalist Party) PNA Partido Nacional dos Aposentados (National Party of the Pensioners)PNAB Partido Nacional dos Aposentados do Brasil (National Party of

Brazil’s Pensioners) PND Partido Nacionalista Democrático (Democratic Nationalist Party) PNR Partido da Nova República (Party of the New Republic) PNT Partido Nacionalista dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Nationalist Party)PNTB Partido Nacionalista dos Trabalhadores Brasileiros (Brazilian

Workers’ National Party) POC Partido Operário Comunista (Communist Labor Party) POR Partido Operário Revolucionário (Revolutionary Labor Party) POT Partido Orientador Trabalhista (Labor-Guiding Party) PP (1) Partido do Povo (People’s Party) PP (2) Partido Popular (Popular Party) PP (3)b Partido Progressista (Progressive Party) PPB (1) Partido do Povo Brasileiro (Brazilian People’s Party) PPB (2) Partido Progressista Brasileiro (Brazilian Progressive Party) PPB (3) Partido Proletário do Brasil (Brazil’s Proletarian Party) PPN Partido Parlamentarista Nacional (National Parliamentarist Party) PPR Partido Progressista Reformador (Reforming Progressive Party) PPS (1)b Partido Popular Sindicalista (Unionist Popular Party) PPS (2)c Partido Popular Socialista (Socialist Popular Party) PR Partido Republicano (Republican Party) PRB Partido Ruralista Brasileiro (Brazilian Ruralist Party) PRD Partido Republicano Democrático (Democratic Republican Party) PRNd Partido da Reconstrução Nacional (Party of National Reconstruction) PRONA Partido de Reedificação da Ordem Nacional (National Order Re-

edification Party) PR. POP (PRP (1))e

Partido de Representação Popular (Popular Representation Party) [1945–1965]

PRP (2) Partido Renovador Progressista (Progressive Renewal Party) [1985–1986]

PRP (3) Partido Republicano Progressista (Progressive Republican Party) [1988–1995]

PRP (4)b Partido Republicano Progressista (Progressive Republican Party) [1945–1946]

Brazil178

PRS Partido das Reformas Sociais (Party of Social Reforms) PRT (1) Partido Reformador Trabalhista (Labor Reforming Party) PRT (2) Partido Republicano Trabalhista (Labor Republican Party) [1948–

1958] PRT (3) Partido Rural Trabalhista (Rural Labor Party) PRTB Partido Renovador Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Renewal

Party) [1962] PS Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) PSB Partido Socialista Brasileiro (Brazilian Socialist Party) PSC Partido Social Cristão (Christian Social Party) PSD (1) Partido Social Democrático (Democratic Social Party) PSD (2) Partido Social Democrático (Democratic Social Party) PSDB Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (Party of the Brazilian

Social Democracy) PSDC Partido Social Democrata Cristão (Christian Democrat Social Party) PS do B Partido Socialista do Brasil (Brazil’s Socialist Party) PSL (1) Partido do Solidarismo Libertador (Party of Liberating Solidarity)PSL (2) Partido Social Liberal (Liberal Social Party) PSN Partido Solidarista Nacional (National Solidarity Party) PSP (1) Partido Social Progressista (Progressive Social Party) [1946–1965] PSP (2) Partido Social Progressista (Progressive Social Party) [1987–1990] PST (1) Partido Social Trabalhista (Social Labor Party) [1947–1965] PST (2) Partido Social Trabalhista (Social Labor Party) [1989–1993] PSTU Partido Socialista dos Trabalhadores Unificado (Unified Workers’

Socialist Party) PSU Partido Socialista Unido (United Socialist Party) PT Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) PTB (1) Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Party) [1945–1965] PTB (2) Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Party) [1980–2002] PTC Partido Trabalhista Comunitário (Communitarian Labor Party) PT do B Partido Trabalhista do Brasil (Labor Party of Brazil) PTN (1) Partido Tancredista Nacional (National Tancredista Party) PTN (2) Partido Trabalhista Nacional (National Labor Party) PTR Partido Trabalhista Renovador (Renewing Labor Party) PTRB Partido Trabalhista Renovador Brasileiro (Brazilian Renewing

Labor Party) PV Partido Verde (Green Party) UDN União Democrática Nacional (National Democratic Union) a The abbreviations refer to parties that have competed since 1945. b After the 1945 elections, the PRP (4), PAN (1), and PPS (1) merged and built the PSP (1).c January 1992 the PCB changed its name into PPS (2).d Formerly known as PJ.e After the 1945 elections, the PR Pop changed its name into PRP (1).

Brazil 179


Empire Period (1837–1889) Party Legal recognition

perioda

Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) 1837–1889Partido Conservador (Conservative Party) 1837–1889Partido Progressista (Progressive Party) 1864–1868PR (Republican Party) 1870–1889PR Paulista (Paulista Republican Party) 1873–1889Partido Católico (Catholic Party) 1880–1889PR do Rio Grande (Republican Party of Rio Grande) 1882–1889Partido Nacional (National Party) 1888–1889PR Mineiro (Miner’s Republican Party) 1888–1889PR de Pernambuco (Republican Party of Pernambuco) 1888–1889Partido Liberal Radical (Radical Liberal Party) 1868–1889Partido Liberal Progressista (Progressive Liberal Party) —a Due to the enormous amount of parties and the regular practice of forming electoral alliances, it is not possible to gather reliable data on the number of contested elections.

First Republic (1889–1930)a

Party / Allianceb Legal recognition periodc

PR Paulista (Paulista Republican Party) 1888–1930PR Rio Grandense (Rio Grandense Republican Party) 1889–1930PR Federal (Federal Republican Party) 1889–1930PR Fluminense (Fluminense Republican Party) 1890–1930Partido Operário de São Paulo (Labor Party of São Paulo) 1890– — Partido Operário do Brasil (Brazil’s Labor Party) 1890– — PR Histórico do Rio Grande do Norte (Historic Republican Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1890– —

Partido Federalista Brasileiro (Brazilian Federalist Party) 1892– — PR Mineiro (Republican Party of Minas Gerais) 1897–1930PR Fluminense (Fluminense Republican Party)d 1890–1930PRD (full name unknown) 1908– — Partido Republicano Democrata da Bahia (Democrat Republican Party of Bahia)

1910–1930

Partido Republicano Conservador (ConservativeRepublican Party)

1910– —

Partido Republicano Liberal (Liberal Republican Party) 1913– — Liga Nacionalista (Nationalist League) 1917– — Partido da Mocidade (Youth’s Party) 1919– — Paraíba’s Republican Party —PCBe (Brazilian Communist Party) 1922; 1927–1930 Partido Democrata de Alagoas (Democratic Party of Alagoas) 1926–1930

Brazil180

Party / Allianceb

(continued)Legal recognition periodc

Partido Democrático de São Paulo (Democratic Party of São Paulo)

1926–1930

Partido Democrático (Democratic Party) 1926– — Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) 1927–1929 Partido Democrático do Distrito Federal (Democratic Party of the Federal District)

1927–1930

Partido Liberal Catarinense (Catarinense Liberal Party) 1927–1930PR Baiano (Baiano Republican Party) 1927–1930Partido Libertador (Liberator Party) 1928–1930Partido Trabalhista do Brasil (Brazil’s Labor Party) 1928–1930PR do Amazonasf (Republican Party of Amazonas) 1930–1930PR do Paranáf (Republican Party of Paraná) 1930–1930PR Federal do Rio Grande do Nortef (Federal Republican Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1930–1930

PR de Santa Catarinaf (Republican Party of Santa Catarina) 1930–1930 Partido Católico (Catholic Party) —Partido Monarquista Brasileiro (Brazilian Monarchist Party) —a Throughout the First Republic, ‘republican’ parties dominated in each state, a situation which is equivalent to a one party system. In 1929 an important national opposition coalition—the Liberal Alliance—was formed to support the Getulio Vargas presidential candidacy.b Includes only legal parties. Therefore, illegal parties, party fronts and political movements are not cited.c Due to the enormous amount of parties and the regular practice of forming electoral alliances, it is not possible to gather reliable data on the number of contested elections before 1945.d The Rio de Janeiro’s Republican Party was also known as the PR Fluminense.e PCB, though founded in 1922, was only legally recognized during short periods. During periods of illegality its members participated in elections through other parties.f The party was founded a little before 1930, but precise information on its foundation date is unavailable.

Second Republic (1930–1937)a

Party / Alliance Legal recognition periodb

Partido Nacionalista Regenerador (National Renewing Party) 1930– — Partido Republicano Federal do Rio Grande do Norte(Federal Republican Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1930– —

Partido Republicano Baiano (Republican Party of Baiano) 1930–1932Partido Democrático do Distrito Federal (Democratic Party of the Federal District)

1930–1933

Partido Democrático do Rio de Janeiro (Democratic Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1930–1933

Partido Democrático de São Paulo (Democratic Party of São Paulo)

1930–1934

Partido Liberal Catarinense (Catarinense Liberal Party) 1930–1937Partido Libertador (Liberator Party) 1930–1937

Brazil 181

Party / Alliance(continued)

Legal recognition periodb

Partido Republicano Democrata da Bahia (Democratic Republican Party of Bahia)

1930–1935

Partido Republicano Mineiro (Miner’s Republican Party) 1930–1937Partido Republicano Paulista (Paulista Republican Party) 1930–1937Partido Republicano Fluminense (Fluminense RepublicanParty)

1930–1937

Partido Republicano Rio-Grandense (Republican Party of Rio Grande)

1930–1937

Partido Trabalhista do Brasil (Labor Party of Brazil) 1930–1937Partido Progressista Piauiense (Piauiense Progressive Party) 1930–1937 Partido União Liberal de Mato Grosso (Liberal Union Party of Mato Grosso)

1931–1933

Partido Liberal do Pará (Liberal Party of Pará) 1931–1937Partido Evolucionista da Bahia (Evolutionist Party of Bahia) 1931– — Partido Nacionalista Brasileiro (Brazilian Nationalist Party)c 1931– —Partido Nacionalista Radical (Radical Nationalist Party) 1931– — Partido Regenerador Paulista (Paulista Renewing Party) 1931– — Partido Popular Paulista (Paulista Popular Party )d 1932–1932 Partido Social Nacionalista do Piauí (Nationalist Social Party of Piauí)

1932–1932

Partido Social Nacionalista (Nationalist Social Party) 1932–1932Partido Constitucionalista do Pará (Constitutionalist Party of Pará)

1932–1933

Partido Constitucionalista de Mato Grosso(Constitutionalist Party of Mato Grosso)

1932–1933

Partido Economista do Brasil ou Econômico Nacional(Economist Party of Brazil or National Economic Party)

1932–1933

Liga de Ação Social e Política da Bahia (Political and Social Action League of Bahia)

1932–1935

Aliança Integralista Brasileira (Brazilian Integralist Alliance)e 1932–1937Partido Economista Democrático de Alagoas (Democratic Economist Party of Alagoas)

1932–1937

Partido Economista de Pernambuco (Economist Party of Pernambuco)

1932–1937

Partido Republicano do Paraná (Republican Party of Paraná) 1932–1937 Partido Republicano Liberal Rio Grandense (Republican Party of Rio Grande)

1932–1937

Partido Social Democrático de Pernambuco(Social-Democratic Party of Pernambuco)

1932–1937

Partido Socialista Brasileiro (Brazilian Socialist Party) 1932–1937Partido Socialista Brasileiro de São Paul/ Partido Socialista de São Paulo (Brazilian Socialist Party of São Paulo or Socialist Party of São Paulo)

1932–1937

Brazil182

Party / Alliance (continued)


Partido Social Democrático do Ceará (Social-Democratic Party of Ceará)

1932–1937

Partido Socialista Fluminense (Fluminense Socialist Party) 1932–1937Partido Socialista do Distrito Federal (Socialist Party of the Federal District)

1932– —

Partido Liberal do Amazonas (Liberal Party of Amazonas) 1932– — Partido Republicano Nacionalista do Ceará (Nationalist Republican Party of Ceará)

1932– —

Partido Socialista Radical do Maranhão (Radical Socialist Party of Maranhão)f

1932– —

Partido Social Liberal do Distrito Federal (Liberal Social Party of the Federal District)

1932– —

Partido Liberal Social Fluminense (Fluminense Social Liberal Party)

1932– —

Partido Nacionalista de São Paulo (Nationalist Party of SãoPaulo)

1932– —

Partido Renovador do Distrito Federal (Federal District’s Renewing Party)

1932– —

Partido Social Progressista do Distrito Federal(Progressive Social Party of the Federal District)

1932– —

Partido Unionista dos Empregados do Comércio(Commerce Employees’ Unionist Party)

1932– —

Liga Eleitoral Católica do Ceará (Catholic Electoral League of Ceará)

1932– —

Partido Social Nacionalista do Paraná (Nationalist Social Party of Paraná)

1934–1937

Partido Economista do Rio de Janeiro (Economist Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1933–1934

Partido 25 de Janeiro (Party of 25 January) 1933–1935 Partido Liberal Mato Grossense (Liberal Party of MatoGrosso)

1933–1936

Partido Acreano Anti-Autonomista (Anti-Autonomist Acrean Party)

1933–1937

Partido Aliancista Renovador do Rio de Janeiro (Renewing Alliancist Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1933–1937

Partido Autonomista do Distrito Federal (Federal District Autonomist Party)

1933–1937

Partido da Lavoura de São Paulo (Farming Party of SãoPaulo)

1933–1937

Partido Democrático Socialista do Distrito Federal(Democratic Party of the Federal District)

1933–1937

Partido Economista Democrático do Distrito Federal(Democratic Economist Party of the Federal District)

1933–1937

Brazil 183



Partido da Lavoura do Espirito Santo (Farming Party of Espírito Santo)

1933–1937

Partido Liberal Paraense (Paraense Liberal Party) 1933–1937Partido Socialista do Piauí (Socialist Party of Piauí) 1933–1937Partido Popular do Acre (Popular Party of Acre) 1933–1937Partido Popular do Rio Grande do Norte (Popular Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1933–1937

Partido Popular Radical do Rio de Janeiro (Radical Popular Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1933–1937

Partido Progressista do Paraíba (Progressive Party of Paraíba)

1933–1937

Partido Republicano de Alagoas (Republican Party of Alagoas)

1933–1937

Partido Progressista de Minas Gerais (Progressive Party of Minas Gerais)

1933–1937

Partido Republicano de Santa Catarina (Republican Party of Santa Catarina)

1933–1937

Partido Republicano do Sergipe (Republican Party of Sergipe)

1933–1937

Partido Republicano do Amazonas (Republican Party of Amazonas)

1933–1937

Partido Republicano do Maranhão (Republican Party of Maranhão)

1933–1937

Partido Republicano Social de Pernambuco (Social Republican Party of Pernambuco)

1933–1937

Partido Social Democrático do Espirito Santo(Social-Democratic Party of Espírito Santo)

1933–1937

Partido Social Democrático do Maranhão(Social-Democratic Party of Maranhão)

1933–1937

Partido Social Democrático do Paraná (Social-Democratic Party of Paraná)

1933–1937

Partido Socialista do Amazonas (Socialist Party of Amazonas)

1933–1937

Partido Social Democrático da Bahia (Social-Democratic Party of Bahia)

1933–1937

Partido Socialista do Maranhão (Socialist Party of Maranhão)

1933–1937

Partido Social Republicano de Goiás (Republican Social Party of Goiás)

1933–1937

União Progressista Fluminense (Fluminense Progressive Union)

1933–1937

União Republicana Maranhense (Republican Union of Maranhão)

1933–1937

Brazil184



Ação Social Política Proletária da Bahia (Proletarian Political Social Action of Bahia)

1933– —

Partido dos Empregados do Comércio da Bahia (Party of Commerce Employees of Bahia)

1933– —

Partido Independente 9 de Julho (9th of July Independent Party)

1933– —

Partido Liberal Carioca (Carioca Liberal Party) 1933– — Partido Liberal de Pernambuco (Liberal Party of Pernambuco) 1933– — Partido Liberal Independente (Independent Liberal Party) 1933– — Partido Liberal Paulista (Paulista Liberal Party) 1933– — Partido Libertador Popular Carioca (Carioca Popular Liberator Party)

1933– —

Partido Monarquista Brasileiro (Brazilian Monarchist Party) 1933– — Partido Nacional de Alagoas (National Party of Alagoas) 1933– — Partido Nacional do Trabalho (National Party of Work) 1933– — Partido Nacional Fluminense (Fluminense National Party) 1933– — Partido Nacional Socialista do Rio Grande do Norte(Socialist National Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1933– —

Partido Operário Camponês do Rio de Janeiro (Peasant Workers’ Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1933– —

Partido Popular do Distrito Federal (Popular Party of the Federal District)

1933– —

Partido Proletário do Rio de Janeiro (Proletarian Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1933– —

Partido Republicano Liberal da Bahia (Liberal Republican Party of Bahia)

1933– —

Partido Republicano Libertador da Paraíba (Republican Party of Paraíba)

1933– —

Partido Social Evolucionista de Santa Catarina(Social-Evolutionist Party of Santa Catarina)

1933– —

Partido Socialista Brasileiro do Ceará (Brazilian Socialist Party of Ceará)

1933– —

Partido Socialista de Pernambuco (Socialist Party of Pernambuco)

1933– —

Partido Social Nacionalista do Rio Grande do Norte(Nationalist Social Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1933– —

Partido Trabalhista Amazonense (Amazonense Labor Party) 1933– — Partido Trabalhista Mineiro (Miner´s Labor Party) 1933– — Partido União Sindical do Brasil (Labor Union Party of Brazil)

1933– —

União Liberal Regeneradora do Piauí (Regenerating Liberal Union of Piauí)

1933– —

União Republicana de Sergipe (Republican Union of Sergipe)

1933– —

Brazil 185



Aliança Trabalhista Liberal do Amazonas (Liberal Labor Alliance of Amazonas)

1933– —

Liga Baiana Pró-Constituinte (Baiana Pro-Constitutional Assembly League)

1933– —

Partido Evolucionista de Mato Grosso (Evolutionist Party of Mato Grosso)

1934–1936

Partido Evolucionista do Rio de Janeiro (Evolutionist Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1934–1937

Partido Constitucionalista de São Paulo (Constitutionalist Party of São Paulo)

1934–1937

Partido Popular do Amazonas (Popular Party of Amazonas) 1934–1937 Partido Social Democrático de Sergipe (Social-Democratic Party of Segipe)

1934–1937

Partido Liberdade e Trabalho (Work and Liberty Party) 1934– — Partido Popular da Bahia (Popular Party of Bahia) 1934– — Partido Republicano Regenerador do Distrito Federal(Regenerating Republican Party of the Federal District)

1934– —

Partido Social Democrático do Rio Grande do Norte(Social-Democratic Party of Rio Grande do Norte)

1934– —

Partido Trabalhista do Pará (Labor Party of Pará) 1934– — União Republicana de Santa Catarina (Republican Union of Santa Catarina)

1934– —

Partido Popular do Pará (Popular Party of Pará) 1935–1935União Popular do Pará (Popular Union of Pará) 1935–1937Aliança Mato-Grossense (Mato-Grossense Alliance) 1936–1937Partido Nacional de Mocidade (Youth’s National Party) 1936–1937Partido Republicano Mato Grossense (Mato GrossenseRepublican Party)

1936–1937

Ação Libertadora (Liberating Action) 1937–1937Partido Liberal Autonomista do Distrito Federal (Federal District’s Autonomist Liberal Party)

1937–1937

Partido Libertador Carioca (Carioca Liberator Party) 1937–1937Partido Nacionalista de Minas Gerais (Nationalist Party of Minas Gerais)

1937–1937

Partido Progressista Democrático (Democratic Progressive Party)

1937–1937

Partido Progressista Radical do Rio de Janeiro (Radical Progressive Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1937–1937

Partido Radical Democrático de São Paulo (Radical Democratic Party of São Paulo)

1937–1937

Partido Republicano Castilhista (Castilhistic Republican Party)

1937–1937

Partido Social Democrata do Pará (Social Democrat Party of Pará)

1937–1937

Brazil186



Partido Socialista Revolucionário (Revolutionary Socialist Party)

1937–1937

Partido Social Republicano do Rio de Janeiro (Republican Social Party of Rio de Janeiro)

1937–1937

União Democrática Brasileira (Brazilian Democratic Union) 1937–1937 União Democrática Nacional (National Democratic Union) 1937–1937Partido Progressista de Alagoas (Progressive Party of Alagoas)

— –1937

Partido Proletário de Espirito Santo (Proletarian Party of Espírito Santo)

— –1937

Partido Republicano Progressista do Ceará (Progressive Republican Party of Ceará)

— –1937

Partido Social Progressista de Sergipe (Progressive Social Party of Sergipe)

— –1937

União Republicana do Paraná (Republican Union of Paraná)

— –1937

Partido Social Agrário do Rio de Janeiro (Social-Agrarian Party of Rio de Janeiro)

—

a The period from the ‘1930 Revolution’ to the 1937 coup is characterized by a incipient multi-party system and the ideological polarization between communists and ‘integralists’. A vast number of parties existed. Many of them were created to participate in the 1933 elections and disappeared soon after. All political parties were suppressed by the decree no. 37 of 2 December 1937.b Due to the enormous amount of parties and the regular practice of forming electoral alliances, it is not possible to gather reliable data on the number of contested elections before 1945.c Also called Partido Nacionalista Associassionista Cooperativista (Cooperativist Associational Nationalist Party).d Also called Partido Popular Progressista (Progressive Popular Party).e Originally AIB was a fascist movement which soon became a party type association. It obtained a very substantive support and prepared itself to present it’s leader, Plinio Salgado, as presiden-tial candidate in the 1938 elections.f Also called Partido Socialista Radical dos Trabalhadores do Brasil (Brazilian Workers’ Radical Socialist Party).

Brazil 187

1945–2002a

Party / Alliance Yearsb Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary PSD (1) 1945–1965 4 6 PTB (1) 1945–1965 4 6 PTN (2) 1945–1965 1 6 UDN 1945–1965 4 6 PRP (1) 1945–1965 3 6 PDC (1) 1945–1965 2 6 PL (1) 1945–1965 3 6 PR 1945–1965 4 6 POT 1945–1951 0 3 PRD 1945–1948 0 2 PCB 1945–1947, 1985–1992 2 4 PRP (4) 1945–1946 0 1 PAN (1) 1945–1946 1 1 PPS (1) 1945–1946 0 1 PSP (1) 1946–1965 2 5 PPB (3) 1946–1947 0 1 ED 1946–1947 0 1 PST (1) 1947–1965 1 5 PSB 1947–1965, 1985–2002 6 10 PRT (2) 1948–1958 0 3 PRB 1950–1952 0 1 PRT (3) 1958–1965 0 2 MTR 1960–1965 1 1 ARENAc 1966–1979 0 4 MDBc 1966–1979 0 4 PMDB 1980–2002 2 6 PDS 1980–1993 1 1 PT 1980–2002 4 6 PDT 1980–2002 4 6 PP (2) 1980–1982 0 1 PTB (2) 1980–2002 4 6 PMB 1985–1990 0 2 PASART 1985–1992 0 2 PC do B 1985–2002 4 5 PCN 1985–1992 1 3 PDC (3) 1985–1993 1 3 PL (2) 1985–2002 2 5PH 1985–1988 0 1

Brazil188

Party / Alliance Yearsb Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentary PFL 1985–2002 3 5PJ 1985–1989 0 1 PMC 1985–1988 0 1 PN 1985–1990 1 2 PND 1985–1986 0 1 PPB (1) 1985–1990 1 2 PRP (2) 1985–1986 0 1 PRT (1) 1985–1986 0 1 PS 1985–1990 0 2 PSC 1985–2002 2 5 PTN (1) 1985–2002 1 5 PTR 1985–1993 0 2 PSD (2) 1987–2002 3 3 PSP (2) 1987–1990 1 1 PNAB 1988–1988 0 0 PHN 1988–1990 0 1 PNA 1988–1988 0 0 PRP (3) 1988–1995 0 2 PSDB 1988–2002 4 4 PRNd 1989–2002 3 4 PDN 1989–1990 1 1 PMN 1985–2002 3 5 PV 1989–2002 3 4 PP (1) 1989–1990 1 1 PDC do B 1989– — — —PMUT — — —PLP 1989–1990 1 1 PRONA 1989–2002 3 4 PST (2) 1989–1993 1 1 PAS 1990–1991 0 1 PPS (2) 1992–2002 3 3 a All parties were suppressed in 1956 by ‘Institutional Act N. 2’.b Though the redemocratization period (1979–1985) witnessed a markedly multi-party system, restrictions to the legalization of marxist parties still existed.c Abolished by Law No. 6.767, enacted on 20 December 1979.d After the 1998 elections the PRN was renamed as PTC (Partido Trabalhista Cristão or Christian Labor Party).

Brazil 189

2.5 Referendums

Year 1963a

Total number % Registered voters 18,565,277 –Votes cast 12,296,175 66.2Blank votes 284,444 2.3Invalid votes 480,701 3.9Valid votes 11,531,030 93.8Presidential system 9,457,448 82.0Parliamentary System 2,073,582 18.0a The referendum was held on the system of government, that is, a presidential versus a parlia-mentarian system.

Year 1993a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 90,274,117 – Question Ib Question IIc

Votes cast 66,965,009 74.2 66,965,009 74.2 Blank votes 7,023,713 10.5 3,464,417 5.2 Invalid votes 6,838,361 10.2 9,865,052 14.7 Valid votes 53,102,935 84.4 53,635,540 80.1 Yes 44,235,550 83.3 37,130,018 69.2 No 8,867,385 16.7 16,505,522 30.8 a The 1993 referendum posed two independent questions on the same ballot, so the numbers of votes cast are the same for both themes.b Question I asked for the preference for a republic (‘yes’) or a monarchy (‘no’).c Question II asked for the preference for a presidential system (‘yes’) or a parliamentary system (‘no’).


Data on the elections for the 1891 and 1933 constitutional assemblies are not available. The members of the 1946 constitutional assembly were the deputies and senators elected in the 1945 parliamentary elec-tion. The members of the 1987–1988 constitutional assembly were all the deputies elected in the 1986 parliamentary election and the senators elected in the 1982 and 1986 parliamentary elections.

Brazil190



Electoral data for elections held between 1834 and before 1945 are not available. Note that in all the tables below invalid votes are the sum of blank and null votes.

Year 1945 1947a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 7,418,930 – 6,202,415 –Votes cast 6,192,158 83.5 2,365,680 42.5Invalid votes 198,209 3.2 — —Valid votes 5,924,616 96.8 2,634,855 —PSD (1) 2,531,944 42.7 — —UDN 1,575,375 26.6 — —PTB (1) 603,500 10.2 — —PCB 511,302 8.6 — —PR 219,562 3.7 — —PPS (1) 107,321 1.8 — —PDC (1) 101,636 1.7 — —PR. POP (PRP (1)) 94,447 1.6 — —PR Prog. 70,675 1.2 — —PL (1) 57,341 1.0 — —PRD 33,647 0.6 — —PSP (1) — — — —ED — — — —PRP (1) — — — —Coalitions — — — —Othersb 17,866 0.3b — —a Data are not completely available.b Others include PAN (1).

Brazil 191

Year 1950 1954 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 11,445,149 – 15,104,604 – Votes cast 8,240,996 72.0 9,890,475 65.5 Invalid votes 578,783 7.0 654,692 6.6 Valid votes 7,662,213 93.0 9,235,783 93.4 PSD (1) 2,068,405 27.0 2,136,220 23.1 UDN 1,301,489 17.0 1,318,101 14.3 PTB (1) 1,262,000 16.5 1,447,784 15.7 PSP 558,792 7.3 863,401 9.3 PSD/PRP (1)/PST (1) 245,543 3.2 – – UDN/PR/PSP (1)/ PDC (1)/PSB

240,537 3.1 – –

PR 216,207 2.8 246,487 2.7 PTN (2) 211,090 2.8 190,839 2.1 UDN/PR/PRP (1)/ PDC (1)/PTB (1)/PL (1)

176,432 2.3 – –

PST (1) 163,341 2.1 32,440 0.4 PSD (1)/PL (1) 144,024 1.9 – – UDN/PST (1) 103,368 1.3 – – UDN/PR 110,733 1.4 – – PSD (1)/PR/PSP (1) 94,630 1.2 – – PTB (1)/PSP (1) 84,467 1.1 – – UDN/PSP (1)/PL (1)/ PST (1)

86,326 1.1 – –

UDN/PR/PST (1)/ PRP (1)/PL (1)

83,530 1.1 – –

PRT (2) 73,501 1.0 65,325 0.7 PRP (1) 72,397 0.9 70,346 0.8 UDN/PSD (1)/PR/ PL (1)/PSP (1)/PTB (1)

67,983 0.9 – –

PDC (1) 56,965 0.7 117,345 1.3 PL (1) 55,338 0.7 114,665 1.2 PSB 36,638 0.5 136,329 1.5 PSD (1)/PTB (1) – – 411,521 4.5 PSD (1)/PRP (1)/PL (1) – – 257,247 2.8 UDN/PTB (1)/PR – – 251,891 2.7 UDN/PR/PL (1) – – 218,503 2.4 PSD (1)/PDC (1)/ PSP (1)/PL (1)/PRP (1)

– – 221,259 2.4

PTB (1)/PST (1) – – 207,757 2.2 PR/PDC (1) – – 151,003 1.6 PSD (1)/PL (1) – – 123,839 1.3 UDN/PSP (1) – – 97,604 1.1 PSD (1)/UDN – – 85,937 0.9

Brazil192

Year (continued) 1950 1954 Total number % Total number % PTB (1)/PR/ PRP (1)/PSP (1)

– – 81,756 0.9

PSD (1)/PRP (1) – – 78,129 0.8 PSP (1)/UDN/PL (1) – – 67,515 0.7 PSD (1)/PTB (1)/ PDC (1)/PSB/PS/PR

– – 53,123 0.6

UDN/PST (1)/PSP (1) – – 50,099 0.5 PSD (1)/PSB/PR – – 48,968 0.5 PSP (1)/PST (1) – – 44,720 0.5 Others 148,477 1.9a 45,630 0.5b

a Others include: PSP (1)/PR/PRT (2)/PRP (1) POT; PSP (1)/PR; PSD (1)/PDC (1); PSP (1)/PTB (1)/ PSB; UDN/PRP (1); POT/PSP (1); PRB and PSD (1)/PST (1)/PTB (1)/PRP (1)/UDN.b Others include: PSD (1)/UDN/PDC (1)/PTN (2); PST (1)/PTN (2); Unidos pelo Maranhão (members not known) and PTN (2)/PR.

Year 1958 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 13,780,480 – 18,528,847 – Votes cast 12,678,997 92.0 14,747,221 79.6 Invalid votes 1,159,939 9.1 2,615,038 17.7 Valid votes 11,519,058 90.9 12,132,183 82.3 PSD (1) 2,296,640 19.9 2,225,693 18.3 PTB (1) 1,830,621 15.9 1,722,546 14.2 UDN 1,644,314 14.3 1,604,743 13.2 PSP (1)/PSD (1)/PRT (2) 897,271 7.8 – – PR 583,220 5.1 269,155 2.2 PTB (1)/PSB – – 778,457 6.4PSD (1)/UDN – – 701,892 5.8PDC (1)/PRT (2)/UDN – – 699,211 5.8PSD (1)/PSP (1) – – 654,835 5.4PSB/PTN (2) 549,302 4.8 – – PSD (1)/PTB (1)/PRP (1) 320,022 2.8 – – PDC (1) 313,635 2.7 54,031 0.4 PSD (1)/PDC (1)/PL (1)/ PRP (1)/PST (1)

307,0792.7

– –

PSP (1) 291,761 2.5 124,337 1.0 PSD (1)/PRP (1) 275,247 2.4 – – UDN/PSP (1)/PRT (2)/ PR/PTN (2)

266,173 2.3 – –

PTB (1)/PSB/PDC (1)/PR 213,015 1.8 – – UDN/PTB (1)/PSP (1)/ PTN (2)/PSB

205,916 1.8 – –

PRP (1) 179,589 1.6 70,435 0.6

Brazil 193

Year (continued) 1958 1962 Total number % Total number % PSD (1)/PSB/PRT (2)/PR/ PTN (2)/ PL (1)

131,324 1.1 – –

PL (1) 120,956 1.1 26,379 0.2PST (1) 115,365 1.0 83,421 0.7UDN/PTB (1) 99,983 0.9 – – PSD (1)/PR/PSP (1)/ PRP (1)

97,215 0.8 – –

UDN/ PL (1) 89,707 0.8 – – UDN/ PST (1)/PTN (2) 87,864 0.8 – – UDN/PDC (1)/PR 90,104 0.8 – – UDN/PR/PSP (1) 85,569 0.7 – – UDN/ PSP (1) 76,331 0.7 – – PSD (1)/PTB (1) 77,454 0.7 – – UDN/ PST (1) 58,434 0.5 – – UDN/PRP (1) 55,529 0.5 – – PTN (2)/MTR – – 366,951 3.0PL (1)/ PRP (1)/PDC (1)/UDN – – 286,155 2.4PSD (1)/ PSP (1)/PDC (1)/ PTN (2)/PSB

– – 294,458 2.4

PTB (1)/PSP (1)/PL (1) – – 273,972 2.3UDN/PDC (1)/PTN (2) – – 241,194 2.0PTB (1)/PR/ PRP (1) – – 236,333 1.9PSD (1)/UDN/PDC (1) – – 135,070 1.1PSD (1)/PDC (1) – – 141,116 1.2PSD (1)/ PST (1) – – 119,841 1.0PTB (1)/UDN/PSP (1)/ PRP (1)

– – 111,371 0.9

PSD (1)/PTN (2) – – 102,959 0.8MTR/PSB/ PST (1) – – 96,308 0.8UDN/PSP (1)/PDC (1) – – 83,779 0.7PTB (1)/PSD (1) – – 83,516 0.7PSP (1)/PTN (2)/PRT (2)/ PR/ MTR/PSB/UDN/PL (1)

– – 83,151 0.7

UDN/PST (1) – – 81,751 0.7MTR – – 71,657 0.6UDN/PTB (1)/ PST (1) – – 66,311 0.5PSB/ PST (1) – – 61,849 0.5PSD (1)/PR – – 59,259 0.5Coalitions – – – – Others 159,418 1.4a 120,047 1.0b

a Others include: PSD (1)/PR/ PSP (1); PDC (1)/PSP (1)/ PST (1)/PSB; PSP (1)/PSB/PR/PSD (1)/ PSP (1)/PDC (1)/PRP (1)/UDN, and PSD (1)/PTB (1)/UDN/PSP (1); PTN (2). Parties and alliances that gained under 5% together achieved 28.6% of the valid votes.

Brazil194

b Others include: PTB (1)/ PSP (1); PDC (1)/UDN/PR/PTN (2); PSB; PSP (1)/PDC (1); PRT (2)/ PSP (1)/PSD (1), and UDN/PSB/PSP (1). Parties and alliances that gained under 5% together achieved 39.2% of the valid votes.

Year 1966 1970 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 22,387,251 – 28,966,114 –Votes cast 17,285,556 77.2 22,435,521 77.5Invalid votes 3,638,448 21.0 6,789,780 30.3Valid votes 13,647,108 79.0 15,645,741 69.7ARENA 8,731,638 64.0 10,867,814 69.5MDB 4,915,470 36.0 4,777,927 30.5

Year 1974 1978 Total number %a Total number %a

Registered voters 35,810,715 – 46,985,466 – Votes cast 28,981,015 80.9 37,627,823 80.1 Invalid votes 6,160,057 21.3 7,770,910 20.7 Valid votes 22,820,958 78.7 29,856,913 79.3 ARENA 11,866,599 52.0 15,053,387 50.4 MDB 10,954,359 48.0 14,803,526 49.6

Year 1982 1986 Total number % Total number %Registered voters 58,871,378 – 69,309,231 – Votes cast 48,455,879 82.3 65,823,591 95.0 Invalid votes 7,330,871 15.1 18,512,433 28.1 Valid votes 41,125,008 84.9 47,311,158 71.9 PDS 17,775,738 43.2 3,731,735 7.9 PMDB 17,666,773 43.0 22,633,805 47.8 PDT 2,394,723 5.8 3,075,429 6.5 PTB (2) 1,829,055 4.4 2,110,467 4.5 PT 1,458,719 3.5 3,253,999 6.9 PFL – – 8,374,709 17.7 PL (2) – – 1,335,139 2.8 PDC (3) – – 565,021 1.2 PSB – – 450,948 1.0 PCB – – 427,618 0.9 PC do B – – 297,237 0.6 Others – – 1,055,051 2.2a

a Others include: PSC; PMB; PH; PMC; PASART; PPB (1); PS; PTR; PND; PMN; PRT (1); PNR; PCN; PTN (1); PN; PJ; PDI; and PRP (2).

Brazil 195

Year 1990 1994 Total number % Total number %Registered voters 83,820,558 – 94,743,043 – Votes cast 71,940,913 85.8 77,660,795 82.0 Invalid votes 31,442,144 43.7 31,966,623 41.2 Valid votes 40,498,769 56.3 45,694,172 58.8 PMDB 7,798,653 19.3 9,287,049 20.3 PFL 5,026,474 12.4 5,873,370 12.9 PT 4,128,052 10.2 5,859,347 12.8 PDT 4,068,078 10.0 3,303,434 7.2 PDS 3,609,196 8.9 – – PSDB 3,515,809 8.7 6,350,941 13.9 PRN 3,357,091 8.3 184,727 0.4 PTB (2) 2,277,882 5.6 2,379,773 5.2 PL (2) 1,721,929 4.3 1,603,330 3.5 PDC (3) 1,205,506 3.0 – – PSB 756,034 1.9 995,298 2.2 PTR 426,848 1.1 – – PCB/PPS (2) 388,564 1.0 256,485 0.6 PST 373,986 0.9 – – PcdoB 352,049 0.9 567,186 1.2 PSC 342,079 0.8 213,734 0.5 PMN 249,606 0.6 257,018 0.6 PRS 243,231 0.6 – – PSD 215,226 0.5 414,933 0.9 PRP (3) 94,069 0.2 207,307 0.5 PTdoB 78,358 0.2 39 0.0 PRONA 12,464 0.0 308,031 0.7 PPR – – 4,307,878 9.4 PP (3) – – 3,169,626 6.9 Others 257,585 0.9a 154,666 0.4b

a Others include: PCN; PAS; PSL (1); PD; PLH; PNT; PSU; PAP; PS; PEB; and PBM.b Others include: PV, PSTU, PCB; and PTRB.

Brazil196

Year 1998 2002a

Total number % Total number %Registered voters 106,053,106 – 115,184,176 – Votes cast 83,280,755 78.5 94,741,120 82.1 Invalid votes 16,668,707 20.0 7,204,996 7.5 Valid votes 66,612,048 80.0 87,532,485 92.5 PSDB 11,684,900 17.5 12,533,893 14.3 PFL 11,526,193 17.3 11,702,029 13.4 PMDB 10,105,609 15.2 11,689,110 13.4 PT 8,786,499 13.2 16,092,411 18.4 PPB (2) 7,558,601 11.3 6,839,436 7.8 PDT 3,776,541 5.7 4,480,385 5.1 PTB (2) 3,768,260 5.7 4,051,278 4.6 PSB 2,273,751 3.4 4,616,349 5.3 PL (2) 1,643,881 2.5 3,778,625 4.3 PPS (2) 872,348 1.3 2,682,135 3.1 PCdoB 869,270 1.3 1,967,135 2.2 PRONA 592,632 0.9 1,804,104 2.1 PSD (2) 503,713 0.8 451,872 0.5 PSC 446,256 0.7 504,571 0.6 PMN 360,298 0.5 282,865 0.3 Others 1,843,296 2.8b 4,056,287 4.6ca Valid votes and invalid votes do not sum up to votes cast. b Others include: PV; PRP (3); PTdoB; PST (2); PSTU; PSL (1); PSN; PTN (1); PAN (2); PSDC; PRN; PRTB; PCB; PGT and PCO. c Others include: PV; PSL (1); PST (2); PRTB; PSN; PRP (3); PGT; PSDC; PTDOB; PSTU; PAN (2); PTN (1); PRN; PCB; and PCO.

2.7.1 a) House of Representatives: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers)

1945 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 198,238 153,089 18,440 134,649 Northeast 1,859,814 1,504,941 46,862 1,458,079 Southeast 3,978,428 3,316,141 96,488 3,219,653 South 1,300,990 1,023,157 31,497 991,660 Center-West 162,200 124,688 4,113 120,575 Total 7,499,670 6,192,158 197,400 5,924,616

Brazil 197

1945 (continued) PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) Others Region North 72,692 34,814 5,198 21,945 Northeast 585,976 585,015 37,138 249,950 Southeast 1,229,128 729,629 473,940 786,956 South 585,090 174,217 87,224 145,129 Center-West 59,058 51,700 – 9,857 Total 2,531,944 1,575,375 603,500 1,213,797

1947a Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 37,488 — — — Northeast 579,687 — — — Southeast 2,877,569 — — — South 261,182 — — — Center-West 74,417 — — — Total 3,830,343 — — — a By-elections to fill the deputy seats of seven states. Data on the party results are not available.

1950 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 380,767 260,337 12,364 247,973 Northeast 3,368,368 2,467,352 152,665 2,314,687 Southeast 5,628,438 4,007,840 318,711 3,688,769 South 1,727,727 1,273,625 75,952 1,197,673 Center-West 349,849 232,202 19,091 232,111 Total 11,455,149 8,240,996 578,783 7,662,213

1950 (continued) PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others RegionNorth 99,931 10,734 278 137,030 Northeast 479,072 98,597 303,297 1,433,721 Southeast 970,361 789,724 774,125 1,154,559 South 429,471 332,749 155,847 279,606 Center-West 89,570 30,196 67,942 25,403 Total 2,068,405 1,262,000 1,301,489 3,030,319

1954 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 514,035 284,806 26,761 258,045 Northeast 4,484,643 2,773,893 176,940 2,596,953 Southeast 7,262,446 4,912,009 338,530 4,573,479 South 2,297,009 1,583,970 84,309 1,499,661 Center-West 546,471 335,797 28,152 307,645 Total 15,104,604 9,890,475 654,692 9,235,783

Brazil198

1954 (continued) PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others RegionNorth 11,537 58,740 17,081 170,687 Northeast 373,062 133,358 349,349 1,741,184 Southeast 1,410,614 810,007 663,894 1,688,964 South 341,007 445,679 240,956 472,019 Center-West – – 46,821 260,824 Total 2,136,220 1,447,784 1,318,101 4,333,678

1958 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 397,069 344,581 28,418 316,163 Northeast 3,502,869 3,086,709 210,211 2,876,498 Southeast 6,893,228 6,468,447 715,243 5,753,204 South 2,483,334 2,334,000 154,554 2,179,446 Center-West 503,980 445,260 51,513 393,747 Total 13,780,480 12,678,997 1,159,939 11,519,058

1958 (continued) PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others Region North 101,568 63,111 58,834 92,650 Northeast 326,474 75,965 270,231 2,203,828 Southeast 1,080,944 775,893 1,010,355 2,886,012 South 644,007 879,538 244,693 411,208 Center-West 143,647 36,114 60,201 153,785 Total 2,296,640 1,830,621 1,644,314 5,747,483

1962 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 610,904 418,984 70,671 348,313 Northeast 4,835,967 3,525,610 404,238 3,121,372 Southeast 9,008,513 7,545,565 1,672,709 5,872,856 South 3,300,326 2,723,844 367,596 2,356,248 Center-West 773,137 533,218 99,824 433,394 Total 18,528,847 14,747,221 2,615,038 12,132,183

1962 (continued) PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others RegionNorth 129,467 84,987 – 133,859 Northeast 330,762 462,171 392,716 1,935,723 Southeast 943,805 256,632 930,027 3,742,392 South 675,169 870,415 206,465 604,199 Center-West 146,490 48,341 75,535 163,028 Total 2,225,693 1,722,546 1,604,743 6,579,201

Brazil 199

1966 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 705,872 431,682 91,738 339,944 Northeast 5,353,929 3,819,040 450,870 3,368,170 Southeast 11,168,031 8,977,985 2,470,937 6,507,048 South 4,191,658 3,381,755 500,983 2,880,772 Center-West 967,761 675,094 123,920 551,174 Total 22,387,251 17,285,556 3,638,448 13,647,108

1966 (continued) ARENA MDB RegionNorth 258,964 80,980 Northeast 2,591,180 776,990 Southeast 3,656,948 2,850,100 South 1,859,983 1,020,789 Center-West 364,563 186,611 Total 8,731,638 4,915,470

1970 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 947,168 551,525 180,136 371,389 Northeast 7,038,467 5,037,414 1,417,291 3,620,123 Southeast 14,193,048 11,389,252 3,896,882 7,492,370 South 5,526,566 4,543,489 1,042,152 3,501,337 Center-West 1,260,865 913,841 253,319 660,522 Total 28,966,114 22,435,521 6,789,780 15,645,741

1970 (continued) ARENA MDB RegionNorth 250,359 121,030 Northeast 2,791,451 828,672 Southeast 5,050,268 2,442,102 South 2,319,685 1,181,652 Center-West 456,051 204,471 Total 10,867,814 4,777,927

1974 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 1,163,881 826,632 198,027 628,605 Northeast 8,719,062 6,370,642 1,295,908 5,074,734 Southeast 17,294,603 14,638,221 3,338,720 11,299,501 South 6,918,656 5,861,066 1,047,708 4,813,358 Center-West 1,714,513 1,284,454 279,694 1,004,760 Total 35,810,715 28,981,015 6,160,057 22,820,958

Brazil200

1974 (continued) ARENA MDB RegionNorth 374,859 253,746 Northeast 3,774,083 1,300,651 Southeast 4,802,982 6,496,519 South 2,268,244 2,545,114 Center-West 646,431 358,329 Total 11,866,599 10,954,359

1978 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 1,686,319 1,271,716 322,953 948,180 Northeast 11,632,041 8,677,047 1,749,073 6,931454 Southeast 21,512,695 18,662,465 338,530 14,480,537 South 9,686,817 7,196,772 84,309 6,033,341 Center-West 2,467,594 1,819,823 28,152 1,463,401 Total 46,985,466 37,627,823 2,523,017 29,856,913

1978 (continued) ARENA MDB Region North 561,273 386,907 Northeast 5,012,430 1,919,024 Southeast 5,541,652 8,938,885 South 3,096,480 2,936,861 Center-West 841,552 621,849 Total 15,053,387 14,803,526

1982 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 2,521,647 1,842,361 278,770 1,563,591 Northeast 15,155,149 11,553,425 1,765,908 9,787,517 Southeast 27,175,397 23,688,126 3,644,653 20,043,473 South 10,640,037 8,827,767 1,288,371 7,539,396 Center-West 3,379,148 2,544,200 353,169 2,191,031 Total 58,871,378 48,455,879 7,330,871 41,125,008

1982 (continued) PDS PMDB PDT PTB (2) RegionNorth 768,752 751,774 348 13,360 Northeast 6,332,405 3,375,693 13,327 8,012 Southeast 6,608,661 8,691,565 1,670,606 1,776,987 South 3,195,810 3,547,394 703,978 30,696 Center-West 870,110 1,300,347 6,464 – Total 17,775,738 17,666,773 2,394,723 1,829,055

Brazil 201

1982 (continued) PT RegionNorth 29,357 Northeast 58,080 Southeast 1,295,654 South 61,518 Center-West 14,110 Total 1,458,719

1986 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 3,108,153 2,742,772 936,309 1,806,463 Northeast 17,772,954 16,683,258 5,776,144 10,907,114 Southeast 32,280,218 31,015,447 8,041,733 22,973,714 South 11,606,405 11,156,898 2,645,326 8,511,572 Center-West 4,541,501 4,225,216 1,112,921 3,112,295 Total 69,309,231 65,823,591 18,512,433 47,311,158

1986 (continued) PMDB PFL PDS PT RegionNorth 964,324 314,174 149,368 125,735 Northeast 5,029,202 3,925,508 774,606 246,997 Southeast 10,205,308 2,494,832 1,576,274 2,238,229 South 4,809,424 1,067,868 1,118,964 500,475 Center-West 1,625,527 572,327 112,523 142,563 Total 22,633,805 8,374,709 3,731,735 3,253,999

1986 (continued) PDT PTB (2) Others RegionNorth 85,921 57,191 109,750 Northeast 362,288 130,432 438,081 Southeast 1,810,260 1,732,984 2,915,827 South 736,566 59,459 218,816 Center-West 80,394 130,401 448,540 Total 3,075,429 2,110,467 4,131,014

1990 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 4,702,321 3,505,142 1,441,375 2,063,767 Northeast 22,312,935 18,013,037 8,335,314 9,677,723 Southeast 37,920,076 33,979,230 14,470,906 19,508,324 South 13,632,356 12,108,491 5,432,441 6,676,050 Center-West 5,252,868 4,335,013 1,762,108 2,572,905 Total 83,820,558 71,940,913 31,442,144 40,498,769

Brazil202

1990 (continued) PMDB PFL PDS PT RegionNorth 470,313 212,980 145,195 158,330 Northeast 1,666,664 2,745,948 522,109 413,519 Southeast 3,316,149 1,121,535 1,871,119 2,612,138 South 1,717,598 707,459 977,506 657,108 Center-West 627,929 238,552 93,267 286,957 Total 7,798,653 5,026,474 3,609,196 4,128,052

1990 (continued) PDT PSDB PRN Others Region North 69,628 120,192 139,392 747,737 Northeast 721,811 910,673 698,328 1,998,671 Southeast 2,294,755 1,979,709 1,652,015 4,660,904 South 850,570 412,020 691,919 661,870 Center-West 131,314 93,215 175,437 926,234 Total 4,068,078 3,515,809 3,357,091 8,995,416

1994 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 5,809,498 4,059,017 1,526,679 2,532,338 Northeast 25,434,565 19,524,203 8,270,165 11,254,038 Southeast 42,174,832 36,123,167 15,129,471 20,993,696 South 15,199,708 13,033,535 5,146,014 7,887,521 Center-West 6,124,440 4,920,873 1,894,294 3,026,579 Total 94,743,043 77,660,795 31,966,623 45,694,172

1994 (continued) PMDB PFL PSDB PT Region North 751,308 214,196 198,233 209,223 Northeast 2,130,278 3,209,400 1,621,263 783,746 Southeast 3,836,157 1,389,927 3,813,663 3,293,133 South 1,800,570 777,344 454,031 1,180,592 Center-West 768,736 282,503 263,751 392,653 Total 9,287,049 5,873,370 6,350,941 5,859,347

1994 (continued) PPR PDT PP (3) PTB (2) Region North 528,796 87,087 217,308 110,460 Northeast 522,784 562,958 561,794 260,823 Southeast 1,859,014 1,454,222 1,434,390 1,166,020 South 1,188,150 1,064,146 502,943 636,811 Center-West 209,134 135,021 453,191 205,659 Total 4,307,878 3,303,434 3,169,626 2,379,773

Brazil 203

1994 (continued) Others Region North 215,727 Northeast 1,600,992 Southeast 2,747,170 South 282,934 Center-West 315,931 Total 5,162,754

1998 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 6,752,249 4,759,767 799,263 3,963,822 Northeast 28,538,613 20,840,617 4,985,329 15,859,515 Southeast 47,024,931 38,389,544 7,241,520 31,148,024 South 16,747,098 13,803,269 2,635,363 11,167,960 Center-West 6,990,215 5,487,558 1,014,840 4,472,727 Total 106,053,106 83,280,755 16,668,707a 66,612,048 a The regional results sum up to 16,682,399.

1998 (continued) PFL PSDB PMDB PT Region North 1,020,364 666,921 634,703 345,899 Northeast 4,249,525 2,565,425 2,997,114 1,458,478 Southeast 4,243,226 6,519,755 2,994,141 4,572,800 South 1,476,879 1,168,039 2,142,108 1,890,487 Center-West 536,199 764,760 1,337,543 518,835 Total 11,526,193 11,684,900 10,105,609 8,786,499

1998 (continued) PPB PDT PTB (2) Others RegionNorth 384,823 219,257 215,572 476,283 Northeast 816,210 484,024 372,640 2,916,099 Southeast 4,056,104 2,049,313 1,941,168 4,771,517 South 1,948,677 951,309 1,034,656 555,805 Center-West 352,787 72,638 204,224 685,741 Total 7,558,601 3,776,541 3,768,260 9,405,445

2002 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes RegionNorth 7,630,413 5,999,760 251,978 5,747,567 Northeast 30,998,109 24,337,993 1,823,985 22,512,594 Southeast 50,696,080 42,553,628 3,622,230 38,931,397 South 17,833,494 15,283,253 1,126,803 14,156,450 Center-West 8,026,080 6,566,486 380,000 6,184,477 Total 115,184,176 94,741,120 7,204,996 87,532,485

Brazil204

2002 (continued) PSDB PFL PMDB PT RegionNorth 795,991 792,499 1,071,166 681,082 Northeast 3,264,680 5,491,436 3,331,016 2,965,298 Southeast 6,095,016 3,425,310 3,301,809 8,304,875 South 1,272,000 1,013,029 2,687,035 3,110,423 Center-West 1,106,206 979,755 1,298,084 1,030,733 Total 12,533,893 11,702,029 11,689,110 16,092,411

2002 (continued) PPB (2) PDT PTB (2) PSB RegionNorth 410,418 286,132 376,907 115,071 Northeast 1,136,392 799,591 918,754 1,359,066 Southeast 2,636,229 1,892,697 1,611,205 2,794,214 South 2,036,815 1,354,083 1,008,106 314,157 Center-West 619,582 147,882 136,306 33,841 Total 6,839,436 4,480,385 4,051,278 4,616,349

2002 (continued) PL (2) PPS (2) PCdoB PRONA RegionNorth 458,469 119,153 282,424 4,613 Northeast 797,879 623,431 770,518 37,651 Southeast 1,948,985 1,257,815 640,145 1,739,889 South 357,140 544,401 104,247 20,340 Center-West 216,152 137,335 169,801 1,611 Total 3,778,625 2,682,135 1,967,135 1,804,104

2002 (continued) PSD (2) PSC PMN Others RegionNorth 66,492 30,273 17,528 239,349 Northeast 133,437 34,300 119,102 730,043 Southeast 210,906 327,287 98,881 2,646,134 South 6,784 52,273 19,282 256,335 Center-West 34,253 60,438 28,072 184,426 Total 451,872 504,571 282,865 4,056,287

Brazil 205

2.7.1 b) House of Representatives: Regional Level (% of Valid Votes)

1945 PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) Others Totala

RegionNorth 56.2 26.9 4.0 12.8 2.2 Northeast 39.6 39.6 2.5 18.3 24.7 Southeast 37.8 22.5 14.6 25.1 54.2 South 57.8 17.2 8.6 16.4 16.9 Center-West 47.3 41.4 0.0 11.2 2.1 Nationwide 42.2 26.3 10.1 21.4 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1950 PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others Totala

Region North 40.3 4.3 0.1 55.3 3.2 Northeast 20.7 4.3 13.1 61.9 30.2 Southeast 26.3 21.4 21.0 31.3 48.1 South 35.9 27.8 13.0 23.3 15.6 Center-West 42.0 14.2 31.9 11.9 2.8 Nationwide 27.0 16.5 17.0 39.5 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.





Brazil206


RegionNorth 37.2 24.4 – 38.4 2.9 Northeast 10.6 14.8 12.6 62.0 25.7 Southeast 16.1 4.4 15.8 63.7 48.4 South 28.7 36.9 8.8 25.6 19.4 Center-West 33.8 11.2 17.4 37.6 3.6 Nationwide 18.3 14.2 13.2 54.2 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1966 ARENA MDB Totala

RegionNorth 76.2 23.8 2.5 Northeast 76.9 23.1 24.7 Southeast 56.2 43.8 47.7 South 64.6 35.4 21.1 Center-West 66.1 33.9 4.0 Nationwide 64.0 36.0 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.


RegionNorth 67.4 32.6 2.4 Northeast 77.1 22.9 23.1 Southeast 67.4 32.6 47.9 South 66.3 33.7 22.4 Center-West 69.0 31.0 4.2 Nationwide 69.5 30.5 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.


Region North 59.6 40.4 2.8 Northeast 74.4 25.6 22.2 Southeast 42.5 57.5 49.5 South 47.1 52.9 21.1 Center-West 64.3 35.7 4.4 Nationwide 52.0 48.0 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil 207


Region North 59.2 40.8 3.2 Northeast 72.3 27.7 23.2 Southeast 38.3 61.7 48.5 South 51.3 48.7 20.2 Center-West 57.5 42.5 4.9 Nationwide 50.4 49.6 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1982 PDS PMDB PDT PTB (2) PT Totala

Region North 49.2 48.1 0.0 0.9 1.9 3.8 Northeast 64.7 34.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 23.8 Southeast 33.0 43.4 8.3 8.9 6.5 48.7 South 42.4 47.1 9.3 0.4 0.8 18.3 Center-West 39.7 59.3 0.3 – 0.6 5.3 Nationwide 43.2 43.0 5.8 4.4 3.5 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1986 PMDB PFL PDS PT PDT PTB (2)

Others Totala

Region North 53.4 17.4 8.3 7.0 4.8 3.2 6.1 3.8 Northeast 46.1 36.6 7.1 2.3 3.3 1.2 4.0 23.1 Southeast 44.4 10.9 6.9 9.7 7.9 7.5 12.7 48.6 South 56.5 12.5 13.1 5.9 8.7 0.7 2.6 18.0 Center-West 52.2 18.4 3.6 4.6 2.6 4.2 14.4 6.6 Nationwide 47.8 17.7 7.9 6.9 6.5 4.5 8.7 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1990 PMDB PFL PDS PT PDT PSDB PRN Others Totala

Region North 22.8 10.3 7.0 7.7 3.4 5.8 6.8 36.2 5.1Northeast 17.2 28.4 5.4 4.3 7.5 9.4 7.2 20.7 23.9Southeast 17.0 5.7 9.6 13.4 11.8 10.1 8.5 23.9 48.2South 25.7 10.6 14.6 9.8 12.7 6.2 10.4 9.9 16.5Center-West 24.4 9.3 3.6 11.2 5.1 3.6 6.8 36.0 6.4Nationwide 19.3 12.4 8.9 10.2 10.0 8.7 8.3 22.2 100.0a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil208

1994 PMDB PFL PSDB PT PPR Region North 29.7 8.5 7.8 8.3 20.9 Northeast 18.9 28.5 14.4 7.0 4.6 Southeast 18.3 6.6 18.2 15.7 8.9 South 22.8 9.9 5.8 15.0 15.1 Center-West 25.4 9.3 8.7 13.0 6.9 Nationwide 20.3 12.9 13.9 12.8 9.4

1994 PDT PP (3) PTB (2) Others Totala

RegionNorth 3.4 8.6 4.4 8.5 5.5 Northeast 5.0 5.0 2.3 14.2 24.6 Southeast 6.9 6.8 5.6 13.1 45.9 South 13.5 6.4 8.1 3.6 17.3 Center-West 4.5 15.0 6.8 10.4 6.6 Nationwide 7.2 6.9 5.2 11.3 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1998 PFL PSDB PMDB PT PPB Region North 25.7 16.8 16.0 8.7 9.7 Northeast 26.8 16.2 18.9 9.2 5.1 Southeast 13.6 20.9 9.6 14.7 13.0 South 13.2 10.5 19.2 16.9 17.4 Center-West 12.0 17.1 29.9 11.6 7.9 Nationwide 17.3 17.5 15.2 13.2 11.3

1998 PDT PTB (2) Others Totala

RegionNorth 5.5 5.4 12.0 6.0 Northeast 3.1 2.3 18.4 23.8 Southeast 6.6 6.2 15.3 46.8 South 8.5 9.3 5.0 16.8 Center-West 1.6 4.6 15.3 6.7 Nationwide 5.7 5.7 40.1 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil 209

2002 PSDB PFL PMDB PT PPB (2) Region North 13.8 13.8 18.6 11.8 7.1 Northeast 14.5 24.4 14.8 13.2 5.0 Southeast 15.7 8.8 8.5 21.3 6.8 South 9.0 7.2 19.0 22.0 14.4 Center-West 17.9 15.8 21.0 16.7 10.0 Nationwide 14.3 13.4 13.4 18.4 7.8

2002 PDT PTB (2) PSB PL (2) PPS (2) Region North 5.0 6.6 2.0 8.0 2.1 Northeast 3.6 4.1 6.0 3.5 2.8 Southeast 4.9 4.1 7.2 5.0 3.2 South 9.6 7.1 2.2 2.5 3.8 Center-West 2.4 2.2 0.5 3.5 2.2 Nationwide 5.1 4.6 5.3 4.3 3.1

2002 PCdoB PRONA PSD (2) PSC PMN Others Totala

Region North 4.9 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.3 4.2 6.6 Northeast 3.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.5 3.2 25.7 Southeast 1.6 4.5 0.5 0.8 0.3 6.8 44.4 South 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.8 16.2 Center-West 2.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 3.0 7.1 Nationwide 2.2 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 4.6 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.


Note that for the elections held in 1945–1998 the total numbers of voters in senate elections are not necessarily identical with the total presented in Table 2.2 above. Voters received different ballots for each office be-ing contested.

Brazil210

Year 1945a 1947b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 7,418,930 – 7,710,504 –Votes cast 11,403,782 76.7 6,607,972 85.7Invalid votes 293,097 2.6 614,184 9.3Valid votes 11,110,685 97.4 5,993,788 90.7PSD (1) 4,225,389 38.0 1,964,779 32.8UDN 2,699,493 24.3 1,040,902 17.4PCB 1,095,834 9.9 151,182 2.5PTB (1) 1,084,553 9.8 776,866 13.0PR 443,654 4.0 35,106 0.6PPS (1) 175,452 1.6 – – PRP (1) 60,820 0.5 65,395 1.1PSP (1) – – 678,958 11.3PPB (3) – – 72,031 1.2ED – – 58,901 1.0PDC (1) – – 20,840 0.3Independents 716,715 6.5 144,751 2.4Othersc 608,775 5.5 984,077 16.4a Election with three senators elected by state. Each citizen can vote for two senators. Total turn-out reached 5,424,062 voters. b Supplementary elections of one senator, except in the state of Santa Catarina, where two sena-tors were elected. c Others include for 1945: PRD: 11,125 votes (0.1%); PL (1): 7,326 (0.1%); PSP (1): 3,584 (0.0%); PAN (1): 3,533 (0.0%), and coalitions of unknown composition; for 1947: mainly coali-tions of unknown composition.

Year 1950 1954a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 11,427,441 – 15,057,722 –Votes cast 8,880,449 77.7 9,890,475 —Invalid votes 1,084,313 12.2 3,809,054 19.5Valid votes 7,796,136 87.8 15,765,366 80.5PSD (1) 1,204,349 15.4 2,102,000 13.3PTB (1) 814,796 10.5 1,333,345 8.5UDN 749,989 9.6 1,758,872 11.2PR 566,520 7.3 134,110 0.9PSP (1) 524,261 6.7 1,843,230 11.7PRP (1) 244,769 3.1 60,814 0.4PST (1) 126,437 1.6 475 0.0PL (1) 88,614 1.1 44,342 0.3POT 56,180 0.7 – – PRT (2) 46,325 0.6 – – PSB 15,458 0.2 70,015 0.4PTN (2) – – 551,549 3.5PDC (1) – – 107,050 0.7

Brazil 211

Year (continued) 1950 1954a

Total number % Total number % Othersb 3,358,438 43.1 7,759,564 49.2a In 1954 two senators were elected in each state. Turnout reached 9,862,892 voters. b Others include mainly coalitions of unknown composition.

Year 1958 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 13,743,677 – 18,496,335 – Votes cast 12,644,667 92.0 29,470,851 —Invalid votes 2,063,614 16.3 8,887,860 30.2Valid votes 10,581,053 83.7 20,582,991 69.8PSD (1) 1,123,574 10.6 2,222,547 9.8UDN 856,846 8.1 2,182,647 9.7PTB (1) 688,880 6.5 2,694,308 11.9PTN (2) 245,872 2.3 431,284 1.9PSP (1) 244,863 2.3 157,029 0.7PST (1) 236,451 2.2 642,801 2.8PSB 59,201 0.6 318,369 1.4PR 21,237 0.2 408,524 1.8PDC (1) – – 269,560 1.2PL (1) – – 191,685 0.8MTR – – 538,789 2.4PRT (3) – – 185,909 0.8Coalitions 7,104,129 67.1 10,339,539 45.8

Year 1966 1970a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 22,335,242 – 28,921,169 –Votes cast 17,259,598 77.3 46,986,492 —Invalid votes 3,628,855 21.0 13,021,147 27.7Valid votes 13,630,743 79.0 33,965,345 72.3ARENA 7,719,382 56.6 20,524,470 60.4MDB 5,911,361 43.4 13,440,875 39.6a The figures for ‘Total number of votes’ were duplicated in 1970 due to the renewal of two-thirds of the senate. Total turnout was of 22,435,521 voters. The same procedure should be re-peated in 1978, but one-third of the senate was indirectly elected, according to the institutional modifications implemented through the ‘April Package’, in 1977.

Brazil212

Year 1974 1978 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 35,736,074 – 45,864,901 – Votes cast 28,925,792 80.9 37,501,281 81.8 Invalid votes 4,371,744 15.1 6,952,139 18.5 Valid votes 24,554,048 84.9 30,549,142 81.5 MDB 14,486,252 59.0 17,432,948 57.1ARENA 10,067,796 41.0 13,116,194 42.9

Year 1982a

Total number % Registered voters 58,871,378 – Votes cast 48,746,803 83.4Invalid votes 6,592,970 13.6Valid votes 42,153,833 86.5PMDB 18,410,338 43.7PDS 17,799,069 42.2PDT 2,496,188 5.9PTB (2) 1,909,452 4.5PT 1,538,786 3.6a Election of one senator per state, except in the State of Rondonia, where three senators were elected.

Note that there is no complete official publication of senate elections in 1986 and 1990.

Year 1994a

Total number % Registered voters 94,743,043 – Votes cast 77,949,111 82.3 Invalid votes 60,075,174 77.1 Valid votes 95,813,507 — PSDB 15,652,182 16.3 PMDB 14,870,466 15.5 PT 13,350,294 13.9 PFL 13,014,066 13.6 PDT 7,299,932 7.6 PL (2) 7,138,405 7.5 PPR 4,473,291 4.7 PP (3) 4,208,013 4.4 PTB (2) 4,015,701 4.2 PPS (2) 2,447,931 2.6 PSB 2,336,549 2.4 PRN 1,628,491 1.7 PRONA 1,150,157 1.2

Brazil 213

Year (continued) 1994a

Total number % PSC 963,615 1.0 PcdoB 751,428 0.8 PSD (2) 737,939 0.8 PSTU 674,856 0.7 PRP (3) 613,761 0.6 PMN 486,430 0.5 a Given that every voter was allowed to vote for two candidates, the total percentage of valid votes is greater than 100 and the number of invalid votes is very high.

Year 1998a 2002b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 106,053,106 – 115,184,176 – Votes cast 83,274,223 78.5 189,483,166 — Invalid votes 21,435,568 25.7 35,861,926 18.9 Valid votes 61,840,361 74.3 153,621,240 81.1 PMDB 13,414,074 21.7 25,199,444 16.4 PT 11,392,662 18.4 33,852,312 22.0 PPB (2) 9,246,089 15.0 6,903,581 4.5 PFL 7,047,853 11.4 28,407,651 18.5 PSDB 6,366,681 10.3 21,359,929 13.9 PSB 3,949,025 6.4 3,389,030 2.2 PDT 3,195,863 5.2 7,932,605 5.2 PTB (2) 2,449,479 4.0 5,189,825 3.4 PPS (2) 1,846,897 3.0 4,720,408 3.1 PCdoB 559,218 0.9 6,199,237 4.0 PSC 371,873 0.6 293,463 0.2 PRONA 376,043 0.6 145,016 0.1 PSTU 371,618 0.6 490,251 0.3 PST 213,643 0.3 1,129,186 0.7 PV 163,425 0.3 962,719 0.6 PL 71,974 0.1 4,857,302 3.2 PSD 18,647 0.0 1,151,901 0.7 Others 785,297c 1.3 1,437,380d 0.9a Each citizen could vote for two senators. b Election of two senators per state. Therefore the total votes cast exceeds the number of regis-tered voters. c Others include: PMN: 144,541 votes (0.2%); PSDC: 114,573 (0.2%); PSN: 110,080 (0.2%); PRN: 99,077 (0.2%); PRP: 76,969 (0.1); PTdoB: 62,086 (0.1); PAN (2): 43,389 (0.1); PTN (1): 42,042: (0.1%); PTRB: 35,328: (0.1%); PRTB: 32,258 (0.1%); PSL (1): 12,870 (0.0%); PGT: 11,810 (0.0%); PCO: 274 (0.0%). d Others include: PMN: 358,062 votes (0.2%); PSDC: 295,807 (0.2%); PCO: 194,112 (0.1%); PTN (1): 107,122 (0.1%); PRP: 90,502 (0.1%); PAN (2): 76,798 (0.1%); PtdoB: 19,175 (0.0%),and 295,802 votes for other parties.

Brazil214

2.7.2 a) Senate: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers)

1945 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 191,343 283,351 21,554 261,797 Northeast 1,859,814 2,913,472 75,747 2,837,726 Southeast 3,974,583 5,163,698 135,459 5,921,194 South 1,230,990 1,195,485 28,459 2,006,224 Center-West 162,200 1,160,553 31,873 449,044 Total 7,418,930 10,716,559 293,092 11,475,985

1945 (continued) PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) Othersa

Region North 140,997 51,307 12,912 56,582 Northeast 939,227 837,137 159,304 902,058 Southeast 2,191,328 1,367,132 822,142 1,540,592 South 828,237 345,057 90,195 742,735 Center-West 125,600 98,860 – 224,584 Total 4,225,389 2,699,493 1,084,553 3,253,233 a The figures for the regions do not sum up to the results given as ‘Total’.

1947a Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 215,089 103,602 4,179 99,423 Northeast 2,016,101 1,463,800 32,290 1,431,510 Southeast 3,998,598 2,390,859 85,659 2,305,200 South 1,289,642 887,618 27,672 859,946 Center-West 191,074 5,096,209 158,758 4,937,451 Total 7,710,504 9,942,088 308,558 9,633,530 a Party results are not available.

1950 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 353,059 240,072 17,266 222,806 Northeast 3,368,368 2,459,042 193,515 2,265,527 Southeast 5,628,438 3,422,093 438,766 2,983,327 South 1,727,727 1,273,625 112,991 1,160,634 Center-West 349,849 1,448,971 325,775 1,123,196 Total 11,427,441 8,843,803 1,088,313 7,755,490

Brazil 215

1950 (continued) PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) Others Region North 89,070 – 17,897 115,839 Northeast 513,750 400,704 – 1,351,073 Southeast 390,840 292,888 282,874 2,016,725 South 191,214 – 488,274 481,146 Center-West 19,475 56,397 25,751 1,021,573 Total 1,204,349 749,989 814,796 4,986,356

1954 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 467,153 257,223 102,799 411,648 Northeast 4,484,643 2,773,893 804,733 4,720,646 Southeast 7,262,446 4,912,009 2,462,093 7,361,926 South 2,297,009 1,583,970 376,897 2,662,074 Center-West 546,471 335,797 62,532 609,062 Total 15,057,722 9,862,892 3,809,054 15,765,356

1954 (continued) PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) Others Region North 176,601 42,468 32,000 160,579 Northeast 659,374 156,734 22,444 3,882,094 Southeast 761,006 1,193,448 510,864 4,896,608 South 298,018 272,445 768,037 1,323,574 Center-West 207,001 93,777 – 308,284 Total 2,102,000 1,758,872 1,333,345 10,571,139

1958 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 360,086 311,071 37,653 273,418 Northeast 3,502,869 3,086,709 450,640 2,636,069 Southeast 6,893,408 6,468,447 1,307,986 5,160,461 South 2,483,334 2,334,000 199,698 2,134,302 Center-West 503,980 445,260 67,637 377,623 Total 13,743,677 12,645,487 2,063,614 10,581,873

1958 (continued) PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others Region North – 37,065 – 236,353 Northeast 530,463 – 106,163 1,999,443 Southeast 87,921 192,033 397,466 4,483,041 South 375,372 346,756 279,416 1,132,758 Center-West 129,818 113,026 73,801 60,978 Total 1,123,574 688,880 856,846 7,912,573

Brazil216

1962 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 578,392 788,230 194,047 593,766 Northeast 4,835,967 7,051,220 1,883,449 5,181,428 Southeast 9,008,513 15,091,130 5,292,022 9,799,108 South 3,300,326 5,447,688 1,259,491 4,188,198 Center-West 773,137 1,066,436 258,851 807,586 Total 18,496,335 29,444,704 8,887,860 20,570,086

1962 (continued) PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Others Region North 243,019 54,610 – 296,137 Northeast 898,906 609,060 90,146 3,583,316 Southeast 454,842 474,578 1,359,128 7,510,560 South 259,923 1,556,060 602,063 1,770,152 Center-West 365,857 – 131,310 310,419 Total 2,222,547 2,694,308 2,182,647 13,470,584

1966 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid Votes Region North 666,739 405,724 63,925 341,799 Northeast 5,353,581 3,819,040 638,375 3,180,665 Southeast 11,174,985 8,977,985 2,322,633 6,655,352 South 4,193,239 3,381,755 488,908 2,892,847 Center-West 946,698 675,094 115,014 560,080 Total 22,335,242 17,259,598 3,628,855 13,630,743


1970 Reg. Voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 902,223 1,045,256 309,357 735,899 Northeast 7,038,467 10,074,828 2,792,695 7,282,133 Southeast 14,193,048 22,778,504 7,251,394 17,058,348 South 5,526,566 9,086,978 2,184,185 6,902,793 Center-West 1,260,865 1,827,682 483,516 1,986,172 Total 28,921,169 44,813,248 13,021,147 33,965,345

Brazil 217

1970 (continued) ARENA MDB Region North 474,298 261,601 Northeast 5,259,092 2,023,041 Southeast 9,171,664 7,886,684 South 4,458,173 2,444,620 Center-West 1,161,243 824,929 Total 20,524,470 13,440,875

1974 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 1,089,240 771,314 136,065 635,249 Northeast 8,719,062 6,370,642 1,003,410 5,367,232 Southeast 17,294,603 14,638,316 2,265,890 12,372,426 South 6,918,656 5,861,066 776,467 5,084,599 Center-West 1,714,513 1,284,454 189,912 1,094,542 Total 35,736,074 28,925,792 4,371,744 24,554,048


1978 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 1,519,219 1,144,427 257,488 886,939 Northeast 11,601,743 8,677,800 1,253,464 7,424,336 Southeast 21,511,567 18,662,465 4,243,031 14,419,434 South 8,762,263 7,196,772 888,452 6,308,320 Center-West 2,470,109 1,819,817 309,704 1,510,113 Total 45,864,901 37,501,281 6,952,139 30,549,142

1978 ARENA MDB Region North 478,551 408,388 Northeast 4,563,946 2,860,390 Southeast 4,460,672 9,958,762 South 2,781,133 3,527,187 Center-West 831,892 678,221 Total 13,116,194 17,432,948

Brazil218

1982 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 2,521,647 2,133,285 253,868 1,879,417 Northeast 15,155,149 11,553,425 1,783,072 9,770,353 Southeast 27,175,397 23,688,126 3,167,934 20,520,192 South 10,640,037 8,827,767 1,097,369 7,730,398 Center-West 3,379,148 2,544,200 290,727 2,253,473 Total 58,871,378 48,746,803 6,592,970 42,153,833

1982 (continued) PDS PDT PT PTB (2) Region North 925,116 0 38,039 13,110 Northeast 6,130,959 13,608 60,000 8,005 Southeast 6,646,610 1,734,554 1,360,625 1,856,616 South 3,205,536 741,529 65,674 31,721 Center-West 890,848 6,497 14,448 0 Total 17,799,069 2,496,188 1,538,786 1,909,452

1982 (continued) PMDB Region North 903,152 Northeast 3,557,781 Southeast 8,921,787 South 3,685,938 Center-West 1,341,680 Total 18,410,338

1994 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 5,809,498 4,059,017 2,908,946 5,209,724 Northeast 25,434,565 19,524,203 16,575,714 22,466,702 Southeast 42,174,832 36,411,483 28,772,531 44,047,225 South 15,199,708 13,033,535 8,761,765 17,304,706 Center-West 6,124,440 4,920,873 3,056,218 6,785,150 Total 94,743,043 77,949,111 60,075,174 95,813,507

1994 (continued) PMDB PFL PSDB PPR Region North 1,218,803 473,068 462,934 652,903 Northeast 2,936,927 6,540,513 5,058,867 559,781 Southeast 2,413,868 4,645,963 8,772,943 954,150 South 6,025,521 914,799 457,367 1,513,741 Center-West 2,275,347 439,723 900,071 792,716 Total 14,870,466 13,014,066 15,652,182 4,473,291

Brazil 219

1994 (continued) PTB (2) PT PDT Others Region North 73,179 719,936 439,177 1,169,724 Northeast 99,706 1,638,173 2,438,629 3,194,106 Southeast 1,714,810 8,209,329 3,194,798 14,141,364 South 1,860,876 2,154,975 896,643 3,480,784 Center-West 267,130 627,881 330,685 1,151,597 Total 4,015,701 13,350,294 7,299,932 23,137,575

1998 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region North 6,752,249 4,758,931 971,816 3,787,344 Northeast 28,538,613 20,837,162 6,831,295 14,004,941 Southeast 47,024,931 38,388,933 9,452,818 28,913,789 South 16,747,098 13,802,347 3,065,238 10,737,026 Center-West 6,990,215 5,486,850 1,089,589 4,397,261 Total 106,053,106 83,274,223 21,410,756 61,840,361

1998 (continued) PMDB PFL PSDB PPB (2) RegionNorth 819,831 749,084 48,153 689,124 Northeast 3,033,322 4,869,199 2,087,752 562,528 Southeast 4,112,915 239,498 780,395 7,994,437 South 3,065,548 1,087,512 2,532,010 – Center-West 2,382,458 102,560 918,371 – Total 13,414,074 7,047,853 6,366,681 9,246,089

1998 (continued) PTB (2) PT PDT Others Region North 134,508 1,109,624 6,119 230,901Northeast 14,426 2,170,382 74,135 1,193,197Southeast 2,300,545 6,718,463 2,516,965 4,250,571South – 977,279 526,395 2,548,282Center-West – 416,914 72,249 504,709Total 2,449,479 11,392,662 3,195,863 8,727,660

2002 Reg. voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votesRegion North 7,630,413 11,999,644 1,798,855 10,803,355Northeast 30,998,109 48,676,086 11,297,605 37,375,653Southeast 50,696,080 85,107,268 15,948,207 69,180,049South 17,833,494 30,566,538 4,701,629 25,866,183Center-West 8,026,080 13,133,630 2,115,670 11,040,510Total 115,184,176 189,483,166 35,861,966 154,265,750

Brazil220

2002 PMDB PT PFL PSDB Region North 1,695,534 1,565,228 1,289,286 1,627,526 Northeast 4,129,903 5,067,941 12,688,439 5,818,670 Southeast 14,194,191 16,150,173 10,232,188 10,847,745 South 2,524,562 9,011,362 1,792,478 2,172,194 Center-West 2,655,254 2,057,608 2,405,260 1,496,794 Total 25,199,444 33,852,312 28,407,651 21,962,929

2002 (continued) PDT Others Region North 814,152 3,811,629 Northeast 2,035,868 7,634,832 Southeast 1,967,035 15,788,717 South 2,971,086 7,394,501 Center-West 144,464 2,281,130 Total 7,932,605 36,910,809

2.7.2 b) Senate: Regional Level (% of Valid Votes)

1945 PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) Totala

RegionNorth 53.9 19.6 4.9 2.3 Northeast 33.1 29.5 5.6 24.7 Southeast 37.0 23.1 13.9 51.6 South 41.3 17.2 4.5 17.5 Center-West 28.0 22.0 0.0 3.9 Nationwide 36.8 23.5 9.5 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.


Region North 50.2 0.0 7.1 2.3 Northeast 31.7 26.9 9.4 21.5 Southeast 31.3 11.4 12.9 58.1 South 35.2 24.2 20.2 16.2 Center-West 47.9 52.1 0.0 2.0 Nationwide 32.8 17.4 13.0 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

Brazil 221


RegionNorth 40.0 – 8.0 2.9Northeast 22.7 17.7 – 29.2Southeast 13.1 9.8 9.5 38.5South 16.5 – 42.1 15.0Center-West 1.7 5.0 2.3 14.5Nationwide 15.5 9.7 10.5 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.



1958 PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Totala


1962 PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN Totala


Brazil222


Region North 74.8 25.2 2.5 Northeast 57.1 42.9 23.3 Southeast 54.3 45.7 48.8 South 59.2 40.8 21.2 Center-West 56.4 43.6 4.1 Nationwide 56.6 43.4 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.







Brazil 223

1982 PDS PDT PT PTB (2) PMDB Totala

Region North 49.2 0.0 2.0 0.7 48.1 4.5 Northeast 62.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 36.4 23.2 Southeast 32.4 8.5 6.6 9.0 43.5 48.7 South 41.5 9.6 0.8 0.4 47.7 18.3 Center-West 39.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 59.5 5.3 Nationwide 42.2 5.9 3.7 4.5 43.7 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1994 PMDB PFL PSDB PPR PTB (2)

PT PDT Totala

Region North 23.4 9.1 8.9 12.5 1.4 13.8 8.4 5.4 Northeast 13.1 29.1 22.5 2.5 0.4 7.3 10.9 23.4 Southeast 5.5 10.5 19.9 2.2 3.9 18.6 7.3 46.0 South 34.8 5.3 2.6 8.7 10.8 12.5 5.2 18.1 Center-West 33.5 6.5 13.3 11.7 3.9 9.3 4.9 7.1 Nationwide 15.5 13.6 16.3 4.7 4.2 13.9 7.6 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1998 PMDB PFL PSDB PPB (2)

PTB(2)

PT PDT Totala

Region North 21.6 19.8 1.3 18.2 3.6 29.3 0.2 6.1 Northeast 21.7 34.8 14.9 4.0 0.1 15.5 0.5 22.6 Southeast 14.2 0.8 2.7 27.6 8.0 23.2 8.7 46.8 South 28.6 10.1 23.6 – – 9.1 4.9 17.4 Center-West 54.2 2.3 20.9 – – 9.5 1.6 7.1 Nationwide 21.7 11.4 10.3 15.0 4.0 18.4 5.2 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

2002 PMDB PT PFL PSDB Region North 15.7 14.5 11.9 15.1 Northeast 11.0 13.6 33.9 15.6 Southeast 20.5 23.3 14.8 15.7 South 9.8 34.8 6.9 8.4 Center-West 24.1 18.6 21.8 13.6 Total 16.3 21.9 18.4 14.2

Brazil224

2002 (continued) PDT Others Totala

Region North 7.5 35.3 7.0 Northeast 5.4 20.4 24.2 Southeast 2.8 22.8 44.8 South 11.5 28.6 16.8 Center-West 1.3 20.7 7.2 Total 5.1 23.9 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

2.8 Composition of Parliament 1945–2002


Year 1945 1947 1950 1954 1958 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 286 100.0 304 100.0 326 100.0 326 100.0PSD (1) 151 52.8 7 36.8 112 36.8 114 35.0 69 21.2UDN 77 26.9 – – 81 26.6 74 22.7 43 13.2PTB (1) 22 7.7 1 5.3 51 16.8 56 17.2 46 14.1PCB 14 4.9 – – – – – – – – PR 7 2.4 – – 11 3.6 19 5.8 14 4.3UDN/PR 6 2.1 – – – – – – – – PPS (1) 4 1.4 – – – – – – – – PDC (1) 2 0.7 – – 2 0.6 2 0.6 6 1.8PSP (1) 2 0.7 – – 24 7.9 32 9.8 7 2.1PL (1) 1 0.3 – – 5 1.6 8 2.4 2 0.6PST (1) – – – – 9 3.0 2 0.6 2 0.6PTN (2) – – – – 5 1.6 6 1.8 – – PRP (1) – – – – 2 0.6 3 0.9 2 0.6PRT (2) – – – – 1 0.3 1 0.3 – – PSB – – – – 1 0.3 3 0.9 – – Othersa – – 11 57.9 – – 6 1.8 135 41.4a Including coalitions.

Year 1962 1966 1970 1974 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 409 100.0 409 100.0 310 100.0 364 100.0 PSD (1) 79 19.3 – – – – – –UDN 55 13.4 – – – – – –PTB (1) 63 15.4 – – – – – – PSP (1) 6 1.5 – – – – – – PR 6 1.5 – – – – – – PSB – – – – – – – –

Brazil 225

Year 1962 1966 1970 1974 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % PDC (1) 1 0.2 – – – – – – PTN (2) – – – – – – – – PL (1) 2 0.5 – – – – – – PRP (1) 1 0.2 – – – – – – PRT (2) – – – – – – – – PST (1) 2 0.5 – – – – – – MTR 1 0.2 – – – – – – ARENA – – 277 67.7 223 71.9 203 55.8MDB – – 132 32.3 87 28.1 161 44.2Othersa 193 47.2 – – – – – – a Including coalitions.

Year 1978 1982 1986 1990 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 420 100.0 479 100.0 487 100.0 502 100.0ARENA 231 55.0 – – – – – – MDB 191 45.0 – – – – – – PDS – – 235 49.1 33 6.8 42 8.4 PMDB – – 200 41.7 260 53.4 109 21.7 PDT – – 23 4.8 24 4.9 46 9.2 PT – – 8 1.7 16 3.3 35 7.0 PFL – – – – 118 24.2 83 16.5 PTB (2) – – – – 17 3.5 34 6.8 PL (2) – – – – 6 1.2 15 3.0 PCdoB – – – – 3 0.6 5 1.0 PDC (3) – – – – 5 1.0 22 4.4 PCB – – – – 3 0.6 3 0.6 PSB – – – – 1 0.2 11 2.2 PRN – – – – – – 41 8.2 PSDB – – – – – – 37 7.4 PSC – – – – 1 0.2 5 1.0 PTR – – – – – – 5 1.0 PRS – – – – – – 4 0.8 PST (2) – – – – – – 2 0.4 PMN – – – – – – 1 0.2 PRB – – – – – – 1 0.2 PRT (1) – – – – – – 1 0.2 Others – – 13 2.7 – – – –

Brazil226

Year 1994 1998 2002 Seats % Seats % Seats % 513 100.0 513 100.0 513 100.0 PMDB 107 20.9 83 16.2 74 14.4 PFL 89 17.3 105 20.5 84 16.4 PSDB 62 12.1 99 19.3 71 13.8 PPR 52 10.1 – – – – PT 49 9.6 58 11.3 91 17.7 PP (3) 36 7.0 – – – – PDT 34 6.6 25 4.9 21 4.1 PTB (2) 31 6.0 31 6.0 26 5.1 PSB 15 2.9 19 3.7 – – PL (2) 13 2.5 12 2.3 26 5.1 PCdoB 10 1.9 7 1.4 12 2.3 PMN 4 0.8 2 0.4 1 0.2 PSD (2) 3 0.6 3 0.6 4 0.8 PSC 3 0.6 2 0.4 1 0.2 PPS (2) 2 0.4 3 0.6 15 2.9 PRN 1 0.2 – – – – PV 1 0.2 1 0.2 5 1.0 PRP (3) 1 0.2 – – – – PPB (2) – – 60 11.7 49 9.6 PST – – 1 0.2 3 0.6 PSL (1) – – 1 0.2 1 0.2 PRONA – – 1 0.2 6 1.2 PSB – – – – 22 4.3 Others – – – – 1 0.2

Brazil 227


Year 1945 1947 1950 1954 Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % 42 100.0 22 100.0 22 100.0 42 100.0PSD (1) 26 61.9 10 45.5 6 27.3 16 28.1UDN 10 23.8 4 18.2 4 18.2 10 23.8PTB (1) 2 4.8 1 4.5 5 22.7 10 23.8UDN/PR 2 4.8 – – – – – –PPS (1) 1 2.4 – – – – – –PSB 1 2.4 – – – – – –PPB (3) – – 1 4.5 – – – –PSP (1) – – 1 4.5 3 13.6 2 4.8PR – – – – 2 9.0 1 2.4PSB – – – – 1 4.5 – –PST (1) – – – – 1 4.5 – –UDN/PTB (1) – – 1 4.5 – – – –PSD (1)/UDN – – 1 4.5 – – – –PSD (1)/UDN/ PL (1)/PDC (1)

– – 1 4.5 – – – –

PR/PTB (1)/UDN – – 1 4.5 – – – – PSD (1)/PDC (1)/ PTB (1)/PPRB/ PR/PTN (2)

– – 1 4.5 – – – –

PTN (2) – – – – – – 1 2.4PL (1) – – – – – – 2 4.8a Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Year 1958 1962 1966 1970 Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % 21 100.0 45 100.0 23 100.0 46 100.0 PSD (1) 6 28.6 16 35.6 – – – – PTB (1) 6 28.6 12 26.7 – – – – UDN 8 38.1 8 17.8 – – – – PL (1) – – 1 2.2 – – – – PSP (1) – – 1 2.2 – – – – PR – – 1 2.2 – – – – PTN (2) – – 2 4.4 – – – – PSB 1 4.8 1 2.2 – – – – MTR – – 1 2.2 – – – – PDC (1) – – 1 2.2 – – – – Independents – – 1 2.2 – – – – ARENA – – – – 19 82.6 40 87.0MDB – – – – 4 17.4 6 13.0

Brazil228

a Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Year 1974 1978 1982 1986 Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % 22 100.0 23 100.0 25 100.0 49 100.0

ARENA 6 27.3 15 65.2 – – – – MDB 16 72.7 8 34.8 – – – – PDS – – – – 15 60.0 2 4.1PDT – – – – 1 4.0 1 2.0PMDB – – – – 9 36.0 38 77.6PFL – – – – – – 7 14.3PMB – – – – – – 1 2.0a Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Year 1990 1994 1998 2002 Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % Seatsa % 31 100.0 54 100.0 27 100.0 54 100.0

PMDB 8 25.8 14 25.9 12 44.4 9 16.7 PFL 8 25.8 11 20.4 5 18.5 14 25.9 PSDB 1 3.2 9 16.7 4 14.8 8 14.8 PTB (2) 4 12.9 3 5.6 – – 2 3.7 PDT 1 3.2 4 7.4 – – 4 7.4 PRN 2 6.5 – – – – – – PDS/PPR 2 6.5 2 3.7 2 7.4 1 1.9 PDC (2) 2 6.5 – – – – – – PMN 1 3.2 – – – – – – PSB – – 1 1.9 1 3.7 3 5.6 PST (2) 1 3.2 – – – – – – PT 1 3.2 4 7.4 3 11.1 10 18.5

PP (3) – – 4 7.4 – – – – PL (2) – – 1 1.9 – – 2 3.7 PPS (2) – – 1 1.9 – – 1 1.9 Independents 1 1.2 – – – – – – a Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Brazil 229


Note that in Tables 2.9, 2.9a, and 2.9b, votes cast by Brazilians living abroad were not included in the totals of the 1989, 1994, and 1998 presidential elections.

1894a Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 345,097 — Prudente de Moraes (PR Paulista) 276,583 80.1 Afonso Pena (PR Mineiro) 38,291 11.1 Cesário Alvim (PR Mineiro) 3,719 1.1 Rui Barbosab (PR Baiano) 3,718 1.1 José Luiz de A. Couto 3,437 1.0 Lauro Sodré (PR do Paraná) 1,983 0.6 Others 17,366 5.0 a Throughout the First Republic (1889–1930), there was no requirement for candidates to be af-filiated with or officially endorsed by parties. b Rui Barbosa did not have any effective link with the Bahia’s Republican Party.

1898 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 462,361 — Campos Salles (PR Paulista) 420,286 90.9 Lauro Sodré (PR do Paraná) 38,929 8.4 Others 3,146 0.7

1902 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 645,531 — Rodrigues Alves (PR Paulista) 592,039 91.7 Quintino Bocaiuva (PR Fluminense) 42,542 6.6 Ubldino Fontoura (PR Fluminense) 5,371 0.8 Others 5,579 0.9

Brazil230

1906 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 294,401 — Afonso Pena (PR Mineiro) 288,285 97.9 Lauro Sodré (PR do Paraná) 4,865 1.7 Others 1,251 0.4

1910 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 707,651 — Hermes da Fonsecaa 403,867 57.1 Rui Barbosa (Civilist Campaign)b 222,822 31.5 Others 80,962 11.4 a Supported by several of the most important republican parties. Received support from the Con-servative Republican Party after his election.b Political movement which opposed Hermes da Fonseca's candidature.

1914 Total number % Registered voters 1,212,882 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 580,917 — Wenceslau Braz (PR Mineiro) 532,107 91.6 Rui Barbosa (Partido Republicano Liberal)

47,782 8.2

Others 1,028 0.2

1918 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 390,131 — Rodrigues Alves (PR Paulista) 386,467 99.1 Nilo Peçanha (PR Fluminense) 1,258 0.3 Rui Barbosa (Independent) 1,014 0.2 Others 1,392 0.4

Brazil 231

1919 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 403,315 — Epitácio Pessoa (Paraíba’s Republican Party)a

286,373 71.0

Rui Barbosa (Independent) 116,414 28.9 Others 528 0.1 a Supported by PR Paulista and PR Mineiro.

1922 Total number % Registered voters 1,305,826 –Votes cast — —Invalid votes — —Valid votes 833,270 —Arthur Bernardes (PR Mineiro) 466,877 56.0Nilo Peçanha (Republican Reaction) 317,714 38.1Others 48,679 5.8

1926 Total number % Registered voters — –Votes cast — —Invalid votes — —Valid votes 702,580 —Washington Luís (PR Paulista) 688,528 98.0Assis Brasil (Partido Federalista Brasileiro)

1,116 0.2

Others 12,936 1.8

1930 Total number % Registered voters — –Votes cast — —Invalid votes — —Valid votes 1,892,577 —Júlio Prestes (PR Paulista) 1,091,709 57.7Getúlio D. Vargas (Liberal Alliance)a 742,794 39.2Others 58,074 3.1a Movement opposed to São Paulo's political hegemony.

Brazil232

1945a Total number % Registered voters 7,459,849 –Votes cast 6,200,805 83.1Invalid votes 330,138 5.3Valid votes 5,870,667 97.7Eurico Gaspar Dutra (PSD (1)) 3,251,507 55.4Eduardo Gomes (UDN) 2,039,341 34.7Yeddo Fiúza (PC do B) 569,818 9.7Rolim Teles PAN (1) 10,001 0.2a Since 1945 candidates have to be officially linked to parties.

1950 Total number % Registered voters 11,455,149 –Votes cast 8,254,989 72.1Invalid votes 356,906 4.3Valid votes 7,898,083 95.7Getúlio D. Vargas (PTB (1)) 3,849,040 48.7Eduardo Gomes (UDN) 2,342,384 29.7Cristiano Machado (PSD (1)) 1,697,193 21.5João Mangabeira (PSB) 9,466 0.1

1955 Total number % Registered voters 15,243,246 –Votes cast 9,097,014 59.7Invalid votes 471,085 5.2Valid votes 8,625,366 94.8Juscelino Kubitschek (PSD (1)) 3,077,582 35.7Juarez Távora (UDN) 2,610,534 30.3Adhemar de Barros (PSP (1)) 2,222,897 25.8Plínio Salgado (PRP (1)) 714,353 8.3

1960 Total number % Registered voters 15,543,332 –Votes cast 12,586,354 81.0Invalid votes 907,197 7.2Valid votes 11,678,857 92.8Jânio da Silva Quadros (UDN/PDC (1)) 5,636,323 48.3Henrique de Texeira Lott (PSD (1)/PTB (1))

3,846,825 32.9

Adhemar de Barros (PSP (1)) 2,195,709 18.8

Brazil 233

1989 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 82,056,226 –Votes cast 72,277,408 88.1Invalid votesa 4,664,071 6.5Valid votes 67,613,337 93.5Fernando Collor de Mello (PRN) 20,607,936 30.5Luís Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) 11,619,816 17.2Leonel Brizola (PDT) 11,166,016 16.5Mário Covas (PSDB) 7,786,939 11.5Paulo Salim Maluf (PDS) 5,986,012 8.9Guilherme Afif Domingues (PL (2)) 3,271,986 4.8Ulysses Guimarães (PMDB) 3,204,853 4.7Roberto Freire (PCB) 768,803 1.1Aureliano Chaves (PFL) 600,730 0.9Ronaldo Caiado (PSD (2)) 488,872 0.7Afonso Camargo (PTB (2)) 379,262 0.6Othersb 1,732,112 2.6a Includes 4,363 votes cast for Correa whose candidature was annuled by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (electoral superior court).b Enéas Carneiro, Marronzinho, Paulo Gontijo, Zamir, Lívia Maria, Eudes Mattar, Fernando Gabeira, Celso Brandt, Antônio Pedreira, Manoel Horta.

1989 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 82,056,226 –Votes cast 70,250,194 85.6Invalid votes 4,094,003 5.8Valid votes 66,156,191 94.2Fernando Collor de Mello (PRN) 35,085,457 53.0Luís Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) 31,070,734 47.0

1994 Total number % Registered voters 94,743,043 – Votes cast 77,949,111 82.3 Invalid votes 14,638,118 18.8 Valid votesa 63,305,971 81.2 Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB)b 34,362,726 54.3 Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva – PT (PSB/PcdoB/PPS (2)/PV/PSTU)

17,116,579 27.0

Enéas Carneiro (PRONA) 4,671,474 7.4 Orestes Quércia (PMDB)c 2,773,497 4.4 Leonel Brizola (PDT) 2,015,843 3.2 Espiridião Amin (PPR) 1,739,780 2.7 Carlos Antônio Gomes (PRN) 387,815 0.6 Hernani Fortuna (PSC (2)) 238,257 0.4 a According to the official data published by the superior electoral tribunal there is a difference of 5,022 votes in the total number of valid votes presented in Table 2.9 relative to the same number

Brazil234

in Table 2.9a.b F.H. Cardoso was also supported by the PFL and PTB (2).c O. Quércia was also supported by the PSD (2).

1998 Total numbera % Registered voters 106,053,106 – Votes cast 83,274,223 78.5 Invalid votes 15,971,978 17.7 Valid votes 67,701,559 82.3 Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB) 35,922,692 53.1 Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) 21,470,333 31.7 Ciro Ferreira Gomes (PPS (2)) 7,424,783 11.0 Enéas Ferreira Carneiro (PRONA) 1,446,783 2.1 Ivan Moacyr da Frota (PMN) 251,276 0.4 Alfredo Hélio Syrkis (PV) 212,866 0.3 José Maria de Almeida (PSTU) 202,614 0.3 João de Deus (PtdoB) 198,830 0.3 José Maria Eymael (PSDC) 171,814 0.3 Thereza Tinajero Ruiz (PTN (1)) 166,053 0.2 Sérgio Bueno (PSC) 124,546 0.2 Vasco Azevedo Neto (PSN) 108,969 0.2 a The figures published by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral as valid votes and invalid votes do not sum up to the number of votes cast.

2002 (1st round) Total numbera % Registered voters 115,184,176 – Votes cast 94,741,120 82.3 Invalid votes 9,846,847 10.4 Valid votes 84,891,284 89.6 Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) 39,425,283 46.4 José Serra (PSDB) 19,690,252 23.2 Anthony Garotinho (PSB) 15,172,101 17.9 Ciro Gomes (PPS (2)) 10,163,308 12.0 José Maria de Almeida (PSTU) 401,834 0.5 Rui Costa (PCO) 38,506 0.0 a The figures published by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral as valid votes and invalid votes do not sum up to votes cast.

2002 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 115,184,176 – Votes cast 91,620,726 79.5 Invalid votes 5,498,011 6.0 Valid votes 86,122,715 94.0 Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) 52,769,723 61.3 José Serra (PSDB) 33,352,992 38.7

Brazil 235

2.9 a) Presidential Elections: Regional Results (Absolute Numbers)

Data for presidential elections before 1945 are not available.

1945 Registered Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region voters North 205,178 158,300 16,254 142,046 Northeast 1,859,814 1,515,599 45,593 1,470,006 Southeast 3,974,583 3,338,383 235,044 3,103,339 South 1,230,990 1,038,425 26,882 1,011,543 Center-West 189,284 150,098 6,365 143,733 Total 7,459,849 6,200,805 330,138 5,870,667

1945 (cont.) Eurico Dutra Eduardo Yeddo Fiúza Rolim Teles Region Gomes North 81,262 53,928 6,601 255 Northeast 697,423 669,336 103,141 106 Southeast 1,676,033 1,027,437 391,281 8,588 South 720,921 230,781 58,812 1,029 Center-West 75,868 57,859 9,983 23 Total 3,251,507 2,039,341 569,818 10,001


1950 (cont.) Getúlio Eduardo Cristiano João Region Vargas Gomes Machado Mangabeira North 91,797 66,132 94,789 121 Northeast 977,343 781,693 587,446 816 Southeast 2,056,626 1,121,406 649,426 7,616 South 626,232 290,310 32,1749 845 Center-West 97,042 82,843 43,783 68 Total 3,849,040 2,342,384 1,697,193 9,466

Brazil236


1955 (cont.) Jucelino Juarez Távora Adhemar de Plínio Region Kubitschek Barros Salgado North 117,096 32,720 89,167 8,330 Northeast 853,551 818,619 256,602 142,242 Southeast 1,425,675 1,215,905 1,443,937 329,952 South 570,332 483,412 360,743 228,527 Center-West 110,928 59,878 72,448 5,302 Total 3,077,582 2,610,534 2,222,897 714,353


1960 (cont.) Jânio Quadros Henrique Lott Adhemar de Region Barros North 137,474 134,690 23,563 Northeast 1,117,230 1,021,848 253,119 Southeast 3,034,005 1,719,054 1,466,999 South 1,137,138 775,670 420,479 Center-West 210,476 195,563 31,549 Total 5,636,323 3,846,825 2,195,709

1989 (1st round) Registered Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region voters North 4,424,718 3,278,265 212,258 3,066,007 Northeast 21,529,617 17,502,296 2,023,179 15,479,117 Southeast 37,538,389 34,755,121 1,671,812 33,083,309 South 13,476,003 12,405,481 510,006 11,895,475 Center-West 5,087,499 4,336,245 246,816 4,089,429 Total 82,056,226 72,277,408 4,664,071 67,613,337

Brazil 237

1989 (cont.) Fernando Collor de Mello

Luiz Inácio. ‘Lula’ da Silva

Othersa

North 1,549,050 573,204 943,753 Northeast 5,970,369 3,534,285 5,974,463 Southeast 8,544,940 5,883,965 18,654,404 South 2,786,048 958,984 8,150,443 Center-West 1,757,529 669,378 1,662,522 Total 20,607,936 11,619,816 35,385,585 a PDT, PSDB, PDS, PL, PMDB, PCB, PFL, PSD, PTB, PRONA, PSP, PP, PCN, PN, PLP, PV, PMN, PPB, and PDC do B.

1989 (2nd round) Registered Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Region voters North 4,424,718 3,173,801 128,998 3,044,803 Northeast 21,529,617 17,033,369 1,105,332 15,928,037 Southeast 37,538,389 33,854,465 1,969,366 31,885,099 South 13,476,003 12,070,695 699,228 11,371,467 Center-West 5,087,499 4,117,864 191,079 3,926,785 Total 82,056,226 70,250,194 4,094,003 66,156,191 a Including blank votes.

1989 (cont.) Region

FernandoCollor de Mello

Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva

North 2,147,032 897,771 Northeast 8,872,228 7,055,809 Southeast 16,088,738 15,796,361 South 5,493,941 5,877,526 Center-West 2,483,518 1,443,267 Total 35,085,457 31,070,734

1994 Registered Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region voters North 5,809,498 4,059,017 723,824 3,335,561 Northeast 25,434,565 19,524,203 5,149,962 14,371,244 Southeast 42,174,832 36,411,483 6,073,581 30,336,297 South 15,199,708 13,033,535 1,898,094 11,135,423 Center-West 6,124,440 4,920,873 792,657 4,127,446 Total 94,743,043 77,949,111 14,638,118 63,305,971

Brazil238

1994 (cont.) F. Henrique Luiz Inácio Othersa

Region Cardoso ‘Lula’ da Silva North 1,964,126 850,429 521,006 Northeast 8,276,545 4,352,818 1,741,881 Southeast 17,033,689 7,759,837 5,542,771 South 4,593,484 3,139,609 3,402,330 Center-West 2,494,882 1,013,886 618,678 Total 34,362,726 17,116,579 11,826,666 a PRONA, PMDB, PDT, PPR, PRN, and PSC

1998 Registered Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Region voters North 6,752,249 4,758,931 779,601 3,979,196 Northeast 28,538,613 20,837,162 5,336,946 15,500,216 Southeast 47,024,931 38,388,933 6,545,985 31,842,948 South 16,747,098 13,802,347 2,038,862 11,763,485 Center-West 6,990,215 5,486,850 870,584 4,616,266 Total 106,053,106 83,274,223 15,571,978 67,702,111

1998 (cont.) F. Henrique Luiz Inácio Ciro Ferreira Enéas Region Cardoso ‘Lula’ da Silva Gomes Carneiro North 2,292,488 1,055,448 453,841 76,932 Northeast 7,397,880 4,904,760 2,485,094 221,152 Southeast 17,624,780 9,932,687 2,935,049 799,175 South 5,784,589 4,559,102 931,491 278,217 Center-West 2,822,955 1,018,336 619,308 71,307 Total 35,922,692 21,470,333 7,424,783 1,446,783

1998 (cont.) Region

Ivan Moacyr J. Maria de Almeida

Alfredo Hélio Syrkis Gomes

João de Deus

North 19,820 15,801 12,923 12,621 Northeast 99,428 74,301 64,869 70,576 Southeast 81,178 75,741 88,070 72,298 South 33,968 24,820 33,377 33,143 Center-West 16,882 11,951 13,627 10,192 Total 251,276 202,614 212,866 198,830

1998 (cont.) Thereza José Maria Sérgio Bueno Vasco Region Tanajero Eymael Azevedo North 12,217 10,979 10,227 6,195 Northeast 37,300 55,673 46,802 41,546 Southeast 76,238 72,382 44,618 40,798 South 27,693 25,047 16,722 15,237 Center-West 12,605 7,733 6,177 5,193 Total 166,053 171,814 124,546 108,969

Brazil 239

2002 (1st round)Region

Registered voters

Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

North 7,630,413 5,999,762 546,605 5,453,000 Northeast 30,998,109 24,337,993 3,911,782 20,424,847 Southeast 50,696,080 42,553,626 3,612,939 38,940,695 South 17,833,494 15,283,253 1,274,420 14,008,849 Center-West 8,026,080 6,566,486 501,101 6,063,893 Total 115,184,176 94,741,120 9,846,847 84,891,284

2002 (cont.) Luiz Inácio José Serra Anthony Ciro Gomes Region ‘Lula’ da Silva Garotinho North 2,421,690 1,235,162 1,133,036 643,109 Northeast 9,370,565 4,039,108 3,816,215 3,138,965 Southeast 18,098,903 8,840,740 8,025,814 3,721,881 South 6,927,518 3,987,809 1,806,025 1,215,390 Center-West 2,617,423 1,592,024 1,072,364 769,729 Total 39,436,099 19,694,843 15,853,454 9,489,074

2002 (cont.) J. Maria Rui Pimenta Region de Almeida Costa North 18,659 1,344 Northeast 52,299 7,695 Southeast 242,246 20,951 South 6,6508 6,196 Center-West 22,316 2,331 Total 402,028 38,517

2002 (2ndround)Region

Registered voters

Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

North 7,630,413 5,507,310 222,625 5,284,685 Northeast 30,998,109 23,029,728 1,579,364 21,450,364 Southeast 50,696,080 41,852,270 2,315,223 39,537,047 South 17,833,494 14,945,503 1,108,229 13,837,274 Center-West 8,026,080 6,285,915 272,570 6,063,345 Total 115,184,176 91,620,726 5,498,011 86,122,715

2002 (cont.) Luiz Inácio José Serra Total Region ‘Lula’ da Silva North 3,075,829 2,208,856 5,284,685 Northeast 13,196,421 8,253,943 21,450,364 Southeast 24,911,031 14,626,016 39,537,047 South 8,141,465 5,695,809 13,837,274 Center-West 3,444,977 2,568,368 6,063,345 Total 52,769,723 33,352,992 86,122,715

Brazil240

2.9. b) Presidential Elections: Regional Results (% of Valid Votes)

1945 Eurico Dutra Eduardo Totala

Region Gomes North 57.2 38.0 2.4 Northeast 47.4 45.5 25.0 Southeast 54.0 33.1 52.9 South 71.3 22.8 17.2 Center-West 52.8 40.3 2.4 Nationwide 55.4 34.7 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1950 Getúlio Eduardo Cristiano João Totala

Region Vargas Gomes Machado Mangabeira North 36.3 26.2 37.5 0.0 3.2 Northeast 41.6 33.3 25.0 0.0 29.7 Southeast 53.6 29.2 16.9 0.2 48.6 South 50.5 23.4 26.0 0.1 15.7 Center-West 43.4 37.0 19.6 0.0 2.8 Nationwide 48.7 29.7 21.5 0.1 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1955 Jucelino Juarez Adhemar Plínio Totala

Region Kubitschek Távora de Barros Salgado North 47.3 13.2 36.1 3.4 2.9 Northeast 41.2 39.5 12.4 6.9 24.0 Southeast 32.3 27.5 32.7 7.5 51.2 South 34.7 29.4 22.0 13.9 19.0 Center-West 44.6 24.1 29.1 2.1 2.9 Nationwide 35.7 30.3 25.8 8.3 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1960 Jânio Quadros Henrique Lott Adhemar de Totala

Region Barros North 46.5 45.5 8.0 2.5 Northeast 46.7 42.7 10.6 20.5 Southeast 48.8 27.6 23.6 53.3 South 48.7 33.2 18.0 20.0 Center-West 48.1 44.7 7.2 3.7 Nationwide 48.3 32.9 18.8 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil 241

1989 (1st round) Fernando Collor Luiz Inácio Others Totala

Region de Mello ‘Lula’ da Silva North 50.5 18.7 30.8 4.5 Northeast 38.6 22.8 38.6 22.9 Southeast 25.8 17.8 56.4 48.9 South 23.4 8.1 68.5 17.6 Center-West 43.0 16.4 40.7 6.0 Nationwide 30.5 17.2 52.3 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1989 (2nd round) Regi-on

Fernando Collor de Mello


Totala

North 70.5 29.5 4.6 Northeast 55.7 44.3 24.1 Southeast 50.5 49.5 48.2 South 48.3 51.7 17.2 Center-West 63.2 36.8 5.9 Nationwide 53.0 47.0 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1994 F. Henrique Luiz Inácio Totala

Region Cardoso ‘Lula’ da Silva North 58.9 25.5 5.3 Northeast 57.6 30.3 22.7 Southeast 56.1 25.6 47.9 South 41.3 28.2 17.6 Center-West 60.4 24.6 6.5 Nationwide 54.3 27.0 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1998 F. Henrique Luiz Inácio Ciro Ferreira Region Cardoso ‘Lula’ da Silva Gomes North 57.6 26.5 11.4 Northeast 47.7 31.6 16.0 Southeast 55.3 31.2 9.2 South 49.2 38.7 7.9 Center-West 61.1 22.1 13.4 Nationwide 53.1 31.7 11.0

Brazil242

1998 (cont.) Enéas Ivan Alfredo Hélio Region Carneiro Moacyr Syrkis Gomes North 1.9 0.5 0.3 Northeast 1.4 0.6 0.4 Southeast 2.5 0.3 0.3 South 2.4 0.3 0.3 Center-West 1.5 0.4 0.3 Nationwide 2.1 0.4 0.3

1998 (cont.) José Maria de João de Deus José Maria Region Almeida Eymael North 0.4 0.3 0.3 Northeast 0.5 0.5 0.4 Southeast 0.2 0.2 0.2 South 0.2 0.3 0.2 Center-West 0.3 0.2 0.2 Nationwide 0.3 0.3 0.3

1998 (cont.) Thereza Sérgio Bueno Vasco Totala

Region Tanajero Azevedo North 0.3 0.3 0.2 5.9 Northeast 0.2 0.3 0.3 22.9 Southeast 0.2 0.1 0.1 47.0 South 0.2 0.1 0.1 17.4 Center-West 0.3 0.1 0.1 6.8 Nationwide 0.2 0.2 0.2 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

2002 (1st round) Region


José Serra Anthony Ga-rotinho

Ciro Gomes

North 44.4 22.7 20.8 11.8 Northeast 45.9 19.8 18.7 15.4 Southeast 46.5 22.7 20.6 9.6 South 49.5 28.5 12.9 8.7 Center-West 43.2 26.2 17.7 12.7 Total 46.4 23.2 17.9 12.0

2002 (cont.) José Maria Rui Pimenta Totala

Region De Almeida Costa North 0.3 0.0 6.4 Northeast 0.3 0.0 24.1 Southeast 0.6 0.1 45.9 South 0.5 0.0 16.5 Center-West 0.4 0.0 7.1 Total 0.5 0.0 100.0

Brazil 243

a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

2002 (2nd round)Region


José Serra Totala

North 58.2 41.8 6.1 Northeast 61.5 38.5 24.9 Southeast 63.0 37.0 45.9 South 58.8 41.2 16.1 Center-West 57.3 42.7 7.0 Nationwide 61.3 38.7 100.0 a Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil244


Head of State Years Remarks Dom Pedro I 1822–1831 Monarch. Declared Brazil independent from

Portugal on 07/09/1822, and became the coun-try’s first emperor. Abdicated on 07/04/1831 to his five-year-old son, who was not able to as-sume office.

Provisional Trinal Regency

1831–1831 Marquis José Joaquim Carneiro Campos, Sena-tor Niclolau de Campos Vergueiro, and Briga-dier Francisco de Lima e Silva were appointed provisional regents, and held office from 07/04/1831 to 17/06/1831.

Permanent Trinal Regency

1831–1835 Brigadier Francisco de Lima e Silva, Deputy José da Costa Carvalho, and Deputy João Bráulio Muniz were elected permanent regents by parliament, and held office from 17/06/1831 to 12/10/1835.

Diogo Antônio Feijó 1835–1837 Elected regent in April 1835. He began to hold the office on 12/10/1835, and resigned on 18/09/1837.

Araújo Lima 1837–1840 He became head of the state as interim regent after the resignation of Diogo Antônio Feijó on 22/04/1838. Elected regent in 1938. He held office until 22/07/1840.

Dom Pedro II 1840–1889 Monarch. He became Brazil’s second emperor on 23/07/1840, and was removed from office by Deodoro da Fonseca on 15/11/1890.

Deodoro da Fonseca 1889–1891 Military. He became head of the provisional government on 15/11/1889. Was elected presi-dent of the Republic by the constitutional as-sembly on 25/02/1891. Renounced on 23/11/1891.

Floriano Peixoto 1891–1894 Military. Originally elected vice president un-der Deodoro da Fonseca. Sworn in as his sub-stitute on 23/11/1891.

Prudente José de Moraes Barros


Manoel Ferraz de Campos Salles


Francisco de Paula Rodrigues


Afonso Augusto Moreira Pena


Brazil 245

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Nilo Peçanha 1909–1910 Elected as Afonso Pena’s vice president. Sworn

in as his legal substitute on 14/06/1909. Left office on 15/11/1910.

Hermes da Fonseca 1910–1914 Military. Constitutional president from 15/11/1910 through 15/11/1914.

Wenceslau BrazPereira de Gomes

1914–1918 Military. Constitutional president from 15/11/1914 through 15/11/1918.

Delfim Moreira 1918–1919 Elected as Rodriges Alves’ vice president, who was not able to take office due to fatal illness. Sworn in on 15/11/1918. Left office on 28/07/1919.

Epitácio Lindolfo da Silva Pessoa

1919–1922 Constitutional president elected in substitution to Rodrigues Alves, who died in January 1919. Sworn in on 28/07/1919. Left office on 15/11/1922.

Arthur da SilvaBernardes


Washington Luiz Pereira de Sousa

1926–1930 Constitutional president. Sworn in on 15/11/1926. Overthrown by the 1930 Revolu-tion on 10/10/1930.

Military Junta 1930 Composed of Augusto Tasso Fragoso, João de Deus Mena Barreto and José Isaias Noronha.

Getulio Dornelles Vargas

1930–1945 He took office as chief of the provisional gov-ernment on 03/11/1930, after the 1930 Revolu-tion. Was elected constitutional president on 17/07/1934. Staged a coup d'état on10/11/1937. Remained president until 29/10/1945, when he was overthrown by the military.

José Linhares 1945–1946 President of the constitutional court. Took of-fice on 10/10/1945. Remained president until the election of a new president. Left office on 31/01/1946.

Eurico Gaspar Dutra 1946–1951 Military. Constitutional president from 31/01/1946 through 31/01/1951.

Getulio Dornelles Vargas

1951–1954 Constitutional president. Sworn in on 31/01/1951. Committed suicide on 24/08/1951.

João Café Filho 1954–1955 Elected as Getúlio Vargas’ vice president, as-sumed office on 24/08/1951 and resigned on 03/11/1955 due to illness.

Brazil246

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Carlos Coimbra da Luz

1955 President of the chamber of deputies. Sworn in as Café Filhos’ temporary substitute on 03/11/1955, and officially declared president on 09/11/1955. Was overthrown by a military coup on 11/11/1955.

Nereu de Oliveira Ramos

1955–1956 President of the senate. Sworn in as Carlos Luz’s legal substitute on 11/11/1955.

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira


Jânio da Silva Quadros

1961 Constitutional president. Sworn in on 31/01/1961. Resigned on 25/08/1961.

João Belchior Marques Goulart

1962–1964 Elected as Jânio Quadros’ vice president. Sworn in as his legal substitute on 07/09/1961 under a parliamentary system established by congress. On 06/01/1963 a plebiscite decided for a return to the presidential system. Over-thrown by a military coup on 31/03/1964.

Ranieri Mazzilli 1964 President of the chamber of deputies. Declared chief of government when the presidency be-came vacant.

Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco

1964–1967 Military president chosen by the high military commanders and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 14/04/1964 and left office on 15/03/1967.

Artur da Costa e Silva

1967–1969 Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 15/03/1967. Left office on 08/08/1969 due to illness.

Military Junta 1969 Composed of Aurelio de Lira Tavares, Augusto Rademaker and Marcio de Sousa e Melo. They replaced Costa e Silva on 31/08/1969 and trans-ferred power to the next president on 30/10/1969.

Emílio Garrastazu Medici

1969–1974 Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Took office on 30/10/1969. Left of-fice on 15/03/1974.

Ernesto Geisel 1974–1979 Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 15/03/1974. Left office on 15/03/1979.

João Batista de Oliveira Figueiredo

1979–1985 Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 15/03/1979. Left office on 15/03/1985.

José Sarney 1985–1990 Elected indirectly as Tancredo Neves’s vice president, who died without taking office. Sworn in on 15/03/1985. Left office on 15/03/1990.

Brazil 247

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Fernando Collor de Mello

1990–1992 Constitutional president. Sworn in on 15/03/1990. Was suspended by congress on 29/09/1992 on corruption charges. Resigned on 28/12/1992 a few moments before the senate voted his impeachment.

Itamar Franco 1992–1995 Elected as Collor de Mello’s vice president. Sworn in as the previous incumbent's legal sub-stitute on 28/12/1992. Left office on 01/01/1995.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso

1995–2002 Constitutional president. Elected on 03/10/1994. Sworn in on 01/01/1995. Re-elected in 03/10/1998. Initiated his second term on 01/01/1999. Left office on 01/01/2002


2002– Elected on 27/10/2002. Sworn in on 01/01/2002.

3. Bibliography


Almeida, F. H. M. (ed.) (1961). Constituições do Brasil. São Paulo: Ed. Saraiva.

Anais do Congresso Nacional. Rio de Janeiro (Sittings of 18 June 1894, 25 June 1898, and 25 September 1898).

Anais do Senado Federal. Rio de Janeiro (Sittings from 22 June to 30 June 1914).

Annuaire Statistique du Brésil 1908–1912. (Publisher unknown). Brazil. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil 1969. Brasília: Câmara dos

Deputados.Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil 1988. Brasília: Câmara dos

Deputados.Diário do Congresso Nacional. Rio de Janeiro (de 12. a 14/06/1919 e de

06/06/1926).Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística 1940. Censo

demográfico, Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1950). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1960). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1960). O Brasil em números. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1970). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1980). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (1936). Anuário estatístico do Brasil. Rio de

Janeiro.

Brazil248

— (1937). Anuário estatístico do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro. Senado Federal (1978). Legislação eleitoral e partidária. Brasília. — (1980). Legislação eleitoral e partidária do Brasil (1822–1980). Brasília:

Centro de Informática e Processamento de Dados do Senado Federal. — (1982). Legislação eleitoral e partidária. Instruções do TSE para las

eleições de 1982. Brasília. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (without year). Dados estatísticos. Eleições

federais, estaduais e municipais realizadas no Brasil em 1952, 1954 e 1955, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional.

— (1961). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e estaduais realizadas no Brasil em 1958, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional.

— (1963). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e estaduais realizadas no Brasil em 1960, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional.

— (1964). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federal. estadual e municipal realizadas no Brasil a partir de 1945. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional.

— (1964). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e estaduais realizadas no Brasil em 1950, Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional.

— (1964). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e municipais realizadas no Brasil em 1962, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional.

— (2003). Eleições 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 e 2002. Website of the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. <http://www.tse.gov.br>.


Abranches, D. (1918). Governos e congressos da República dos Estados Unidos do Brasil (1809–1819), 2 vols. São Paulo: M. Abranches.

Abreu, A., Beloch, I., Lattman-Weltman, F., and Lamarão, S. (eds). (2001). Dicionário histórico-biográfico brasileiro, 5 vols. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.

Alves, M. H. M. (1984). Estado e oposição no Brasil 1964–1984. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes.

Ames, B. (1994). ‘The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election’. American Political Science Review, 88/1: 95–111.

— (1995a). ‘Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress’. Journal of Politics, 75/2: 324–343.

http://www.tse.gov.br

Brazil 249

— (1995b). ‘Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation’. American Journal of Political Science, 39/2: 406–433.

— (2001). The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan University Press.

Anglade, C. (1987). ‘The Brazilian Elections of November 1986’. ElectoralStudies, 6/2: 164–169.

Ansaldi, W. (1990). ‘Las elecciones de 1989 en Brasil: La fiesta de la democracia entre las perplejidades del presente y las angustias del futuro’. Cuadernos del CLAEH, segunda serie, 15/53: 23–37.

Britto, L. N. (1980). ‘As eleições nacionais de 1978’. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos, 51: 7–36.

Cardoso, F. H. and Lamounier, B. (eds.) (1978). Os partidos e as eleições no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Carone, E. (1971). A República Velha: Evolução política (1899–1930). São Paulo: DIFEL.

Carvalho, N. R. (2003). E no início eram as bases: Geografia política do voto e comportamento legislativo no Brasil. Ph.D. thesis, Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro.

Fleischer, D. V. (ed.) (1981). Os partidos políticos no Brasil, 2 vols. Brasília: Ed. Universidade de Brasília.

— (1984). ‘Constitutional and Electoral Engineering in Brazil: A Double-Edged Sword (1964–1982)’, in D. Nohlen (ed.), Wahlen und Wahlpolitik in Lateinamerika. Heidelberg: Esprint, 189–214.

Franco, A. A. M. (1980). História e teoria dos partidos políticos do Brasil.São Paulo: Ed. Alfa-Ômega.

Fundação Milton Campos (1979). As eleições nacionais de 1978, 2 vols.Brasília: Ed. Fundação Milton Campos.

German, C. (1983). Brasilien – Autoritarismus und Wahlen. Munich/ Cologne/London: Weltforum.

Jobim, N. and Porto, W. C. (1996). Legislação eleitoral no Brasil: Do século XVI a nossos dias. Vol. I, II, and III. Brasília: Senado Federal.

Jornal do Comércio. Rio de Janeiro (08/06/1922). Kinzo, M. D. (1980). Representação política e sistema eleitoral no Brasil.

São Paulo: Ed. Símbolo. — (1985). An Opposition Party in an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of the

MDB (Movimento Democrático Brasileiro) in Brazil, 1966–1979.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford: Oxford University.

Lamounier, B. (ed.) (1980). Voto de desconfiança. Eleições e mudança política no Brasil 1970–1979. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes.

— (ed.) (1986). 1985: O voto em São Paulo. São Paulo: Vértice. — (ed.) (1990). De Geisel a Collor: O balanço da transição. São Paulo: Ed.

Sumaré.

Brazil250

Lamounier, B. and Kinzo, M. D. (1978). ‘Partidos políticos, representação e processo eleitoral no Brasil’. Revista Dados, 19: 11–32.

Lamounier, B. and Marques, A. H. (1993). ‘Tendances électorales des années 1980 aux années 1990’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine, 9, Avril-Juin: 15–26.

Lamounier, B. and Menguello, R. (1987). Partidos políticos e consolidação democrática. São Paulo: Ed. Brasiliense.

Lamounier, B. and Muszynski, J. (1983). São Paulo 1982: A vitória do (P)MDB. São Paulo: IDESP.

— (1987). ‘Estatísticas eleitorais’. IBGE: Estatísticas históricas do Brasil.Rio de Janeiro.

— (1989). O processo eleitoral brasileiro: Da Velha á Nova República. São Paulo: IDESP.

— (1990). De Geisel a Collor: O balanço da transição. São Paulo: Editora Sumaré.

Lamounier, B. and Nohlen, D. (1993). Presidencialismo ou parlamentarismo (2nd edn.). São Paulo: IDESP.

Lavareda, A. (1991). A democracia nas urnas: O processo partidário-eleitoral brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Rio Fundo Editora.

Lima Júnior, O. B. (1983). Os partidos políticos no Brasil: A experiência federal e regional: 1945-1964. Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal.

— (ed.) (1991). Sistema eleitoral brasileiro: Teoria e prática. Rio de Janeiro: Iuperj/Rio Fundo.

— (1993). Democracia e instituições políticas no Brasil dos anos 80. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.

Love, J. L. (1970). ‘Political Participation in Brazil 1881–1969’. Luso–Brazilian Review, 7/2: 3–24.

Löwenstein, K. (1944). Brazil under Vargas. New York: Macmillan. Lyra, C. T. (1976). Instituições políticas do Império. Brasília. Mainwaring, S. (1986). The Transition to Democracy in Brazil. Notre Dame,

Ind.: Kellog Institute Working Paper 66. — (1991). ‘Politicians, Parties and Electoral Systems: Brazil in Comparative

Perspective’. Comparative Politics, 24/1: 21–43. — (1999). Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Demoratization:

the Case of Brazil. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Malheiros, A. and Manso, G. C. (1955). Legislação eleitoral e organização

partidária. São Paulo: Ed. Revista dos Tribunais. Moisés, J. A. and Albuquerque, J. A. G. (1989). Dilemas da consolidação da

democracia. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Nicolau, J. M. (1996). Multipartidarismo e democracia. Rio de Janeiro: FGV. — (1998). Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982-1996. Rio de Janeiro: REVAN. — (2000). Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982-1998. Rio de Janeiro: REVAN. — (2002). História do voto no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.

Brazil 251

— (2003). Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982–2002. <http://www.iuperj.br/deb> (as of 15/08/2003).

Nohlen, D., Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Parahyba, M. A. (1970). ‘Abertura social e participação política no Brasil (1870–1920)’. Revista Dados, 7: 89–102.

Pereira, C. and Rennó, L. (2001). ‘O que é que o reeleito tem? Dinâmicas político-institucionais e nacionais nas eleições de 1988 para a Câmara dos Deputados’. Revista Dados, 44/2: 323–362.

Pinto, M. A. P. (1985). Direito político do sufrágio no Brasil (1822–1982).Brasília: Ed. Thesaurus.

Porto, W. C. (1989). O voto no Brasil. Brasília: Senado Federal. — (2000). Dicionário do voto. Brasília: Editora UnB. Ramos, A. G. (1961). A crise do poder no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro. Reis, F. W. (ed.) (1978). Os partidos e o regime: a lógica do processo

eleitoral brasileiro. São Paulo: Ed. Símbolo. Sadek, M. T. (ed.) (1989). Eleições 1986. São Paulo: Vértice. Samuels, D. (1999). ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Party Vote in Candidate-

Centric Electoral Systems: Evidence from Brazil’. Comparative Political Studies, 32/4: 487–518.

— (2000a). ‘The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil’. Journal of Politics, 62/1: 240–253.

— (2000b). ‘Concurrent Elections, Discordant Results: Presidentialism, Federalism, and Governance in Brazil’. Comparative Politics, 33/1: 1–20.

— (2001a). ‘When Does Every Penny Count: Intra-Party Competition and Campaign Finance in Brazil’. Party Politics, 7/1: 89–102.

— (2001b). ‘Money, Elections, and Democracy in Brazil’. Latin American Politics and Society, 43/2: 27–48.

— (2001c). ‘Incumbents and Challengers on a Level Playing Field: Assessing the Impact of Campaign Finance in Brazil’. Journal of Politics, 63/2: 569–584.

— (2001d). ‘Does Money Matter? Credible Commitments and Campaign Finance in New Democracies: Theory and Evidence from Brazil’. Comparative Politics, 34/1: 23-42.

— (2002). ‘Pork Barreling is not Credit Claiming or Advertising: Campaign Finance and the Sources of the Personal Vote in Brazil’. Journal of Politics 64/3: 845–863.

— (2003). Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Santos, W. G. (1977). ‘As eleições de 1976 e a dinâmica do processo político brasileiro’. Revista Dados 14: 211–239.

http://www.iuperj.br/deb

Brazil252

— (1986). Sessenta e quatro: Anatomia da crise. São Paulo: Vértice. — (1987). Crise e castigo: Partidos e generais na política brasileira. São

Paulo: Vértice. — (2002). Votos e partidos: Almanaque de dados eleitorais: Brasil e outros

países. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora. Santos, W. G., Monteiro, V. M., and Caillaux, A. M. L. (1990). Que Brasil é

este? Manual de indicadores políticos e sociais. São Paulo: Edições Vértice.

Schmitt, R. (1999). Coligações eleitorais e sistema partidário no Brasil.Ph. D. thesis, Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro.

— (2000). Partidos políticos no Brasil (1945–2000). Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.

Silva, L. V. A. (1999). Sistemas eleitorais: Tipos, efeitos jurídico-políticos e aplicação ao caso brasileiro. São Paulo: Malheiros Editores.

Skidmore, T. (1967). Politics in Brazil: An Experiment in Democracy.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— (1988). Brasil: De Castelo a Tancredo. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Soares, F. B. S. (1979). O sistema eleitoral de 1872. Brasília: Senado

Federal.Soares, G. A. D. (1973). Sociedade e política no Brasil. São Paulo: DIFEL. — (1984). Colégio eleitoral, conversões partidárias e eleições diretas.

Petrópolis: Vozes. — (2001). A democracia interrompida. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV. Souza, M. C. C. (1976). Estado e partidos políticos no Brasil (1930–1964).

São Paulo: Ed. Alfa-Ômega. — (1979). Instituições políticas do Império. Brasília: Senado Federal. Stepan, A. (ed.) (1973). Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Taunay, A. E. (1978). O Senado do Império. Brasília: Senado Federal. Trinidade, H. (ed.) (1992). Reforma eleitoral e representação política. Porto Alegre: Editora da Universidade.

CHILEby Dieter Nohlen

1. Introduction


Chile declared independence for the first time in 1810 under an assem-bly called Cabildo Abierto. The Chilean congress was created in 1811, and its members were appointed by the Junta de Gobierno. This period, known as Patria Vieja, ended in 1814 when Spain regained control over the country. In 1818 Spain was defeated by the Creoles and independen-ce was proclaimed; this was the beginning of the second period or PatriaNueva. Several constitutional texts (1811, 1812, 1814, 1818, 1823, 1826, 1828) were written in an attempt to create a political framework for the country, but the fact that they only survived for a brief period reflects the intense disputes between the caudillos and the factions that dominated political life at the time. A long period of conservative rule began when the military defeated the liberal faction.

1831 witnessed the beginning of a long period of political stability, characterized by four consecutive ten-year governments. In 1833, a con-stitution was promulgated that remained in force, with small modificati-ons, until 1925. A strong executive was established, which effectively dominated the political scene and implemented numerous reforms (ela-boration of a modern legal system, road infrastructure, urbanization of the main cities, etc.). However, when immediate re-election of the presi-dent was prohibited in 1871, parliament’s importance increased. This development culminated in the 1891 civil war, in which the forces loyal to the Chilean congress, formed mainly by the navy, defeated the army, which supported the president. Without modifying the constitution, a de facto pre-eminence of the parliament over the executive was established, a fact that hampered the effectiveness of the government during this pe-riod. The 1925 Constitution put an end to this situation, and re-established the power of the president.

The Chilean political parties developed slowly throughout the 19th century. Initially, there were two main movements: conservative and li-

Chile254

beral. In the second half of the century, Radicals and Democrats entered the political arena. The latter split in 1912 and one of its factions created the Partido Obrero Socialista (POS; Workers’ Socialist Party), which in 1922 came to be known as the Partido Comunista de Chile (PCCh; Chi-lean Communist Party). Two other significant forces stand out amidstthe very varied Chilean party system: Socialists (1933) and Christian Democrats (1935 and 1957). In the 1960s the right wing organized, andLiberals, Conservatives and Nationalists merged into one single party, the Partido Nacional (PN; National Party).

The period between 1924 and 1932, during which the military inter-vened on several occasions, broke the traditional stability. During the authoritarian government of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1927–1931) the state was reorganized, and the road, port and education infra-structures were developed. In 1932 a new period of government began, originating in competitive elections. An estado de compromiso was established, which guaranteed the stability of the political system despite severe political disputes. This period, which ended in 1973, was charac-terized by very different governments, parties and movements from all over the ideological spectrum, from Conservatives to Communists. The presidents reflected this plurality: Arturo Alessandri (1938–1952), libe-ral; Pedro Aguirre Cerda, Juan Antonio Ríos and Gabriel González Vi-dela (1938–1952), radicals; Carlos Ibáñez del Campo and Jorge Alessandri (1952–1964), independents, the former a center-left populist and the latter a right-wing populist; Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964–1970), christian democrat; and Salvador Allende (1970–1973), socialist. The Communist Party was prohibited from 1948 to 1958. Women obtai-ned full civil rights in 1949; in 1958, the electoral system underwent substantial reform.

The growing political polarization perceived during the 1960s culmi-nated in the coup d’état of 1973 led by General Augusto Pinochet Ugar-te, who established an authoritarian government that lasted until 1990.

Between 1973 and 1990, several constitutional acts were passed, which gradually eroded the 1925 Constitution. In 1980, a referendum was held and a new, clearly authoritarian constitution was ratified and put into effect at the start of the following year. With regard to electoral provisions, the main innovations were a) the introduction of a runoff if no candidate obtained an absolute majority in the first round, and b) the introduction of the binominal system for parliamentary elections; that is the establishment of constituencies where the two candidates who gain the most votes are elected.

Chile 255

The transition to democracy began with the referendum of 1988 in which the democratic opposition overcame its fragmentation and man-aged to defeat Pinochet with 54% of the vote. Pinochet had intended to continue in government until 1998. During the transition, the constitu-tional text underwent numerous reforms, which were negotiated between Pinochet’s government and the democratic opposition, as a way to pre-pare for the establishment of democracy. Among other modifications, the restrictions applied to political pluralism were abolished. Yet, not every authoritarian element disappeared: With regard to political repre-sentation the electoral system imposed by the military regime, the bi-nominal system, remained unaltered. This system, which requires the formation of electoral alliances in order to compete efficiently, favors the second party in terms of the percentage of the vote and not the strongest. This effect was primarily intended and interpreted as a meas-ure in favor of right-wing parties as they supposedly achieved fewer votes than the parties of the democratic opposition, the Christian De-mocrats and the socialist groups; that is, the center-left block. In addi-tion, some senators were appointed, not elected. The 1989 constitutional reforms were ratified in a referendum by an overwhelming majority of the population.

In the elections held on 14 December 1989, the Christian Democratic candidate, Patricio Aylwin Azócar, was elected president, with 55.2% of the valid vote. He headed the Concertación de Partidos por la Demo-cracia (Coalition of Parties for Democracy), formed by Partido De-mócrata Cristiano (PDC; Christian-Democratic Party), Partido Socialista de Chile (Socialist Party), and Partido por la Democracia (PPD; Party for Democracy), as well as 13 minor political groups. The Concertación maintained its position in the following presidential elec-tions of 1993 and 1999. The 1993 election was won by the christian de-mocrat Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle with 58% of the valid vote, the 1999 election by the socialist and PPD member Ricardo Lagos. When the Concertación candidate only won 48% of the vote, failing to gain the majority for the first time in Chilean history, the decision was taken by the electorate in a runoff, where Lagos gained 51.3% of the vote.

The vote shares for the governing coalition and the main opposition parties tended to be very close to each other in parliamentary elections. The Concertación never gained a majority in both chambers, the house of deputies and the senate. The main opposition is formed by two parties on the right, the Partido de Renovación Nacional (RN; National Rene-wal) and Unión Democrática Independiente (UDI; Independent Demo-cratic Union). Together with some independents and minor groups they

Chile256

have formed an electoral alliance at each of the elections since 1989. The alliance was called Democracy and Progress in 1989, then Union for the Progress of Chile in 1993, and Union for Chile in 1999. Since then it has been called Alliance for Chile. On the left, the Communist Party of Chile also tried to bring about an electoral alliance in 1989, cal-led Partido Amplio de la Izquierda Socialista (PAIS; Broad Party of the Socialist Left), but it did not obtain parliamentary representation in 1989 or 1993, nor in 1999 when the party competed alone again.

Although the electoral competition tends to be bipolar between the two main electoral alliances as a consequence of the electoral system, the Chilean party system of the new democracy continues to be a multi-party system with six main parties, three standing for the center and cen-ter-left, two for the center-right and right, one for the left and radical-left. Traditionally, the Christian Democratic Party is the strongest party in Chile, but its vote share has declined since 1989. In 1999, the PDC’s two socialist partners in the Concertación together won more votes. On the right, RN, a center-right party, initially outstripped the UDI, regar-ded as the party closest to the earlier military regime. But the balance of electoral power changed. While the popularity of the RN diminished, the UDI developed as the leading opposition party and in 1999, its share of vote came near to that of the PDC. The bipolar system, therefore, seems to enhance centrifugal tendencies within the alliances.

On the other hand, compared with pre-authoritarian political practi-ces, the coalition government received a lot of support from the legisla-tive, a fact that was very much related to the depolarization of the post-authoritarian party system; the parties’ recovered organizational ability and the relevant political actors decided not to repeat the experiment that had led to the breakdown of democracy in 1973.

A major role in the restructuring of the party system can be attributed to the electoral system. In order to understand this relationship, we have to trace its main mechanisms. The binominal system combines personal voting with a list element to structure the vote along party or party alli-ance lines. Each electoral district has two seats. Candidacy is organized in closed, non-blocked party or party alliance lists. The decision rule is plurality. The party or party alliance that receives the most votes gets the first seat, the party or party alliance coming in second wins the second seat. Only if the party that receives the most votes wins double the a-mount that the second-strongest party wins, does the strongest party get both seats in the constituency. When voting for a party or party-alliance list, voters have the option of choosing between two candidates. The candidate within one list who wins the most votes is elected. Usually,

Chile 257

the strongest and the second-strongest list each gain one seat. In this way the binominal system protects—as was the initial intention—the second strongest party or alliance. At the aggregate level the theoretical effect is similar to that of proportional representation in small constituencies with an even number of seats, which also favors the second strongest party. Hence, it is misleading to call the binominal system a majority system. As the parties are allowed to form electoral alliances, the binominal sy-stem tends to restructure party competition in such a way that parties compete in two main alliances for strategic electoral reasons.

A number of effects result from the binominal system: first, the bino-minal system reduces the number of parties that can enter parliament. It locks out smaller parties that are unable to form or enter an electoral al-liance. Second, the binominal system can distribute the seats proportio-nally among the parties forming an electoral alliance. Small parties are able to enter parliament if they are part of an alliance. Therefore, we ha-ve to distinguish between the number of parties with parliamentary re-presentation, which can be high, and the number of alliances, which will usually be only two. Hence, the composition of parliament might be fragmented while at the same time competition at the alliance level is bipolar. That means that even a fragmented party system does not pre-vent the formation of parliamentary majorities and a strong opposition.

However, a very elitist process for nominating candidates and a pre-electoral distribution of seats by the parties forming an alliance are so-mewhat problematic. Party leaders decide who runs in the different con-stituencies. The process of selecting candidates needs to be more democratic. Voters may not find a candidate from their preferred party on the ballot and may be forced to vote for a candidate of another party within the electoral alliance. These effects of the binominal system may, in the long run, widen the gap between voters and their political repre-sentatives. The representative function of congress must be strengthened in terms of ideological party alignment and representation of interests. Another problem may occur when the main alliances win a similar share of votes, especially if their voters are distributed evenly over the whole country. In this case, the binominal system tends to produce a parliamentary stalemate.

Chile258


Chilean suffrage is based on the constitutions of 1833, 1925 and 1980 as well as on the electoral laws and Decretos Leyes from 1874, 1925, 1948, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1970, and 1980.

With regard to active suffrage, the electoral history of Chile can be divided into five periods. In the first period (1833–1874), elections were indirect and suffrage was limited to literate men and people with certain amounts of real estate and income. In the second period (1874–1925), elections continued to be indirect, but suffrage was extended regardless of economic qualifications. During the third period (1925–1973), direct and secret suffrage was extended to an even greater electorate. Women can vote since 1949 and illiterates since 1970. Registration was still not automatic, however, so not all entitled citizens were actually inscribed. This effect continued to be significant. The fourth period (1973–1988) began with the suspension of suffrage and the register of voters was de-stroyed. Elections were not held, and some referenda on the basis of ad-hoc regulations were of dubious quality and legitimacy. In the fifth peri-od, beginning with redemocratization in 1989, universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage was re-established.

According to Chilean tradition, the president and the two houses of parliament, the chamber of deputies and the senate, are elected. Under the Pinochet regime (1973–1990) no elections were held except the one in 1989, which can be seen as the first election under the new democra-cy. Under the Pinochet regime, four referenda (1978, 1980, 1988, and 1989) were held, marked by enormous differences in quality and rele-vance.

With regard to presidential elections, the term of the president origi-nally lasted five years. Immediate re-election was allowed between 1831 and 1871. The term was changed to six years in 1925, immediate re-election continued to be prohibited. The constitution of 1980 established a term of eight years. The authoritarian regime and the political opposi-tion agreed to shorten the first presidential term after redemocratization to four years. Immediate re-election remained prohibited. According to the constitutional reform of 3 March 1994, the term was lowered to six years. This final norm had one drawback, however: it separated the pre-sidential elections from the parliamentary elections. The chamber of de-puties is traditionally elected for four years, so that parliamentary elections are traditionally held separately from the presidential elections. The senate was elected for an eight-year term, with half of the members being renewed every four years. The constitution of 1980 contains the

Chile 259

same terms. Elections of the chamber of deputies and the senate were held on the same day.

Under the constitution of 1925, the presidential elections used the ab-solute majority system. If no candidate won an absolute majority of the valid votes, the congress (both the senate and the chamber of deputies) had to decide between the two candidates who received the most votes. This system lasted until 1973. One of the most striking electoral reforms implemented by the military regime was the introduction of a runoff if no candidate was able to obtain an absolute majority of votes.

The traditional electoral system for both houses of parliament since 1925 has been proportional representation. The constituencies for the chamber of deputies corresponded to the province boundaries. For the senate, the other constituencies consisted at least of two provinces with the exception of Santiago. Originally, 132 deputies were elected in 28 constituencies of different sizes. The number of seats varied between one and 18. In 1932, the number of deputies was increased to 142, in 1947 to 147, and in 1969 to 150. The senate had 45 members. As the number of representatives for the constituencies did not change accor-ding to demographic developments, the urban sections of the country became more and more underrepresented. Between 1932 and 1958, par-ties could form alliances for nomination and determine the type of party lists individually: closed or semi-closed. Furthermore, alliances could be formed either on constituency level or national level. In 1958, party alli-ances were prohibited at constituency level, and in 1961 at national le-vel. From this year onwards, party lists were exclusively semi-closed. Voters had only one vote. From 1925 to 1973, the d’Hondt formula was applied for the distribution of seats in both chambers of congress.


Sources: Electoral provisions are fixed in the 1980 Constitution and the Leyes Orgánicas Constitucionales (Constitutional Organic Laws), enac-ted between 1985 and 1989, which regulate diverse issues such as the Tribunal Calificador de Elecciones (15/10/1985; Qualifying Tribunal of Elections), the Servicio Electoral (10/10/1986; Electoral Service), the Partidos Políticos (23/03/1987; Political Parties) as well as Votaciones and Escrutinios (06/05/1988; Voting and Count of the votes). After-wards, a few ad hoc norms were introduced.

Chile260

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, direct and secret. Every Chileancitizen of at least 18 years of age is entitled to be registered to vote. Fo-reigners may obtain voting rights if they have lived in Chile for more than five years. Voting is compulsory for all registered citizens.

Elected national institutions: The 1980 Constitution establishes a presi-dent as head of state, elected for a six-year term. The immediate re-election of the president is prohibited.

The congress consists of the chamber of deputies and the senate. The chamber of deputies has 60 seats and is elected for four years. The sena-te has 38 members who are elected for eight years. There is a partial re-newal of the senate members every four years. Furthermore, there are nine appointed senators. Former presidents become lifetime senators if they complete their term in office.

Nomination of candidates: Candidacy is organized in closed, non-blocked lists.

Electoral system - presidential elections: absolute majority. If none of the candidatesreach an absolute majority of the valid votes, a runoff is held between the top two candidates. - parliamentary elections: chamber of deputies: binominal system. All 30 electoral districts have two seats. The decision rule is plurality and it is applied twice: first with regard to the decision between parties or party alliances, second within a list with regard to the decision between the individual candidates. The party or alliance with the most votes gets the first seat, the party or alliance with the second highest number of votes wins the second seat. As candidacy is organized in closed, non-blocked lists, voters have the option of choosing between the two candidates within one list, and the candidate who gets the most votes is elected.

Senate: binominal system. All 19 electoral districts have two seats. The distribution of seats is the same as that for the chamber of deputies.

Organizational context of elections The constitution of 1980 establishes two main electoral bodies, indepen-dent of the government and with full responsibility for the elections. Themost important are the Tribunal Calificador de Elecciones (Qualifying Tribunal of Elections) and the Servicio Electoral. (Electoral Service). The tribunal consists of five members: three members or ex-members of the supreme court, elected by its members in secret elections by absolute

Chile 261

majority; a lawyer, elected by the supreme court in the same way; and an ex-president of the senate or the chamber of deputies who had exercised this function for at least three years, elected by lot. Its main functions are to supervise the electoral process, deal with and decide on complaints and announce the result of the election or announce the winning candi-dates. The electoral service is a legal, independent body. Its director is appointed by the president in agreement with the senate and it is respon-sible for organizing and managing the electoral process, from the regi-stration of voters in the Padrón Electoral; that is, the register of voters, to counting the ballots.


Chile has a long tradition of free and fair elections. The independence of its electoral authorities played a crucial role in the re-establishment of democracy, starting with the referendum in 1988. There is no reliable data for elections earlier than 1915. The electoral data presented in the following tables come from the Dirección del Registro Electoral (Direc-tion of Register of Voters) until 1973 and have been collected during the early 1970s; that is, before the destruction of this electoral body and of the register of voters by the Pinochet regime. The data covering elec-tions since 1988/1989 come from the electoral service. Percentages have been calculated by the author. Population data are taken from the UN and from the Chilean national statistical office (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE).

Chile262

2. Tables


Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Referendums Coups d’état elections Lower cham-

berUpper cham-ber

1925 22/10 22/11 22/11 1925 1927 22/05 1930 xx/xx 1931 04/10 1932 30/10 30/10 30/10 1937 07/03 07/03 1938 25/10 1941 02/03 02/03 1942 01/02 1945 04/03 04/03 1946 04/09 1949 06/03 06/03 1952 04/09 1953 01/03 01/03 1957 03/03 03/03 1958 04/09 1961 05/03 05/03 1964 04/09 1965 07/03 1969 02/03 1973 04/03 11/09 1978 04/01a

1980 11/09 1988 05/10 1989 14/12 14/12 14/12 30/06 1993 11/12 11/12 11/12 1997 11/12 11/12 1999 12/12 (I) 2000 16/01 (II) 2001 16/12 16/12 a It was not officially called ‘referendum’ but ‘national consultation’. It was not legally binding and had only political significance.

Chile 263



number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1915 Pa 3,550,000 184,807 5.2 150,297b 81.3 4.21918 Pa 3,690,000 341,872 9.3 181,550b 53.1 4.91920 Pr 3,790,000 370,314 9.8 166,917 45.1 4.41921 Pa 3,850,000 370,314 9.6 196,537b 53.1 5.11925 Pa 4,070,000 302,307 7.4 261,779b 86.6 6.41925 Pr 4,070,000 302,142 7.4 260,895b 86.3 6.41927 Pr 4,190,000 328,700 7.8 231,372b 70.4 5.51931 Pr 4,430,000 388,959 8.8 285,810b 73.5 6.51932 Pa 4,500,000 429,772 9.6 328,207b 76.4 7.31932 Pr 4,500,000 464,879 10.3 345,892 74.4 7.71937 Pa 4,840,000 495,648 10.2 412,230b 83.1 8.51938 Pr 4,910,000 503,871 10.3 445,411 88.4 9.41941 Pa 5,150,000 575,625 11.2 457,489b 82.6 8.91942 Pr 5,240,000 581,486 11.1 466,507 80.2 8.91945 Pa 5,540,000 624,495 11.3 449,916b 72.0 8.11946 Pr 5,640,000 631,257 11.2 479,310 75.9 8.81949 Pa 5,960,000 591,994 9.9 470,376 79.5 7.91952 Pr 6,300,000 1,105,029 17.5 957,102 86.6 15.21953 Pa 6,460,000 1,100,027 17.0 779,621b 70.9 12.11957 Pa 7,140,000 1,284,159 17.9 878,229b 68.5 12.31958 Pr 7,320,000 1,497,493 20.5 1,250,350 83.5 17.11961 Pa 7,760,000 1,858,980 24.0 1,385,676 74.5 17.91964 Pr 8,330,000 2,915,121 35.0 2,530,697 86.8 30.41965 Pa 8,510,000 2,920,615 34.3 2,353,123 80.6 27.71969 Pa 9,200,000 3,244,892 35.3 2,406,129 74.2 26.21970 Pr 9,370,000 3,539,747 37.8 2,954,799 83.5 31.51973 Pa 9,860,000 4,510,060 45.7 3,687,105 81.8 37.41980 Ref 11,147,000 — c — 6,271,368 — 56.3 1988 Ref 12,667,000 —c — 7,251,943 — 57.3 1989 Pr 12,961,000 7,556,613 58.3 7,157,727 94.7 55.2 1989 Pa 12,961,000 7,556,613 58.3 7,158,646 94.7 55.2 1989 S 12,961,000 7,556,613 58.3 7,158,442 94.7 55.2 1989 Ref 12,961,000 7,556,641 58.3 7,082,084 93.7 55.2 1993 Pr 13,771,000 8,085,493 58.7 7,376,691 91.2 53.6 1993 Pa 13,771,000 8,085,493 58.7 7,385,016 91.3 53.6 1993 Sd 13,771,000 — — 2,045,681 — 14.9 1997 Pa 14,622,354 8,077,743 55.2 7,046,351 87.2 48.2 1997 Sd 14,622,354 — — 5,102,906 — 34.9 1999 Pr (1st) 15,017,760 8,084,476 53.8 7,271,584 89.9 48.4

Chile264

Year Type of Population Registered voters Votes cast (cont.) electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

2000 Pr (2nd) 15,211,308 8,084,476 53.1 7,316,310 90.5 48.1 2001 Pa 15,401,952 8,075,446 52.4 7,034,293 87.1 45.7 2001 Sd 15,401,952 — — 1,975,017 — 12.8 a Pa = Parliament; Pr = President, S = Senate, Ref = Referendum. Given that most elections to the senate were mid-term elections, they have not been included in this table.b Valid votes; the total number of registered voters is not available. c No official data on registered voters available. d Partial renovation only. Information on registered voters is omitted.

2.3 Abbreviations

AH-V Alianza Humanista-Verde (Humanist-Green Alliance) ALP Alianza de Liberación Popular (People’s Liberation Alliance) AN Avanzada Nacional (National Vanguard) ANI Alianza Nacional de los Independientes (National Alliance of

Independents)API Acción Popular Independiente (Independent Popular Action)AR Acción Republicana (Republican Action) CDa Confederación Democrática (Democratic Confederation) CODEa Confederación Democrática (Democratic Confederation) Concertación Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia (Concertation of

Parties for Democracy) CP Comandos Populares (Popular Commands) DAL Democracia Agrario Laboral (Agrarian and Labor Democracy) DN Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) DR Partido Democracia Radical (Radical Democracy Party) FN Falange Nacional (National Falange)IC Izquierda Cristiana (Christian Left) MAPU Movimiento de Acción Popular Unitaria (Popular Unitarian

Action Movement) ME Movimiento Ecologista (Ecological Movement) MNDP Movimiento Nacional del Pueblo (National People’s Movement) MNI Movimiento Nacional Ibañista (National Ibañista Movement) MR Movimiento Republicano (Republican Movement) MSC Movimiento Social Cristiano (Social Christian Movement) NAN Nueva Acción Napista (New Napista Action) NAP Nueva Alianza Popular (Popular New Alliance) PA Partido Agrario (Agrarian Party) PAC Partido Acción de Centro (Center Action Party) PADENA Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) PAIS Partido Amplio de la Izquierda Socialista (Ample Party of the

Socialist Left)

Chile 265

PAL Partido Agrario Laborista (Agrarian and Labor Party) PAN Acción Nacional (National Action) PC Partido Conservador (Conservative Party) PCCh (PPN) Partido Comunista de Chile (Comunist Party of Chile) (Partido

Progresista Nacional)PCT Partido Conservador Tradicionalista (Traditionalist Conservative

Party)PCU Partido Conservador Unido (United Conservative Party) PD Partido Demócrata (Democratic Party) PDC Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) PDD Partido Democrático Doctrinario (Doctrinaire Democratic Party) PDdP Partido Democrático del Pueblo (Democratic People’s Party) PDP Partido Democrático Popular (Popular Democratic Party) PDT Partido del Trabajo (Labor Party) PH Partido Humanista (Humanist Party) PIR Partido de Izquierda Radical (Radical Left Party) PL Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) PLD Partido Liberal Democrático (Liberal Democratic Party) PN Partido Nacional (National Party) PNC Partido Nacional Cristiano (Christian National Party) PND Partido Nacional Demócrata (National Democratic Party) PNP Partido Nacional Popular (National Popular Party) PPD Partido por la Democracia (Party for Democracy) PPN Partido Progresista Nacional (National Progressive Party) PR Partido Radical (Radical Party) PRD Partido Radical Doctrinario (Radical Doctrinaire Party) PRS Partido Radical Socialista (Radical Socialist Party) PRSD Partido Radical Socialdemócrata (Radical Social-democratic

Party)PRSDem Partido Radical Socialista Democrático (Radical Socialist

Democratic Party) PRSP Partido Radical Socialista Popular (Popular Radical Socialist

Party)PS Almeyda Partido Socialista Almeyda (Socialist Party Almeyda) PSA Partido Socialista Auténtico (Authentic Socialist Party) PSCh Partido Socialista Chileno (Chilean Socialist Party) PSD Partido Socialista Demócrata (Socialist Democratic Party) PSDC Partido Social Demócrata de Chile (Social Democratic Party of

Chile)PSDCh Partido Socialdemocracia Chilena (Chilean Social-democratic

Party)PSN Partido Socialista Nacional (National Socialist Party) PSP Partido Socialista Popular (Popular Socialist Party) PSR Partido Social Republicano (Republican Social Party) PSUR Partido del Sur (Southern Party) PV Partido Verde (Green Party)

Chile266

RN Renovación Nacional (National Renovation) UCC Unión de Centro-Centro (Center-Center Union) UCCP Unión de Centro-Centro Progresista (Progressive Center-Center Union) UDI Unión Democrática Independiente (Independent Democratic Union) UN Unión Nacional (National Union) UNI Unión Nacional de Independientes (National Union of Independents) UP Unidad Popular (Popular Unity) USOPO Unión Socialista Popular (Popular Socialist Union) USP Unión Socialista del Pueblo (People’s Socialist Union) USRACH Unión Social-Republicana de Asalariados de Chile (Social-

Republican Union of Wage Earners of Chile) VN Vanguardia Nacional (National Vanguard) VNP Vanguardia Nacional del Pueblo (National Vanguard of the People) a CD is the name of the party, while CODE is the name of the alliance.



PC 1915–1957; 1965; 1973 13PD 1915–1965 13PL 1915–1918; 1925–1965

1973–1989; 2001 15PLD 1915–1921 3PN 1915–1921 3PR 1915–1993 17PSC 1915–1921; 1932–1989 15PLD (Aliancistas) 1918–1921 2Partido Nacionalista 1918 1PL (Aliancistas) 1921 1PL (Unionistas) 1921 1PA 1932–1945 4PCCh (PPN) 1932–1945; 1961–2001 12Partido Democrático 1932–1949 5PRS 1932; 1941 2AR 1937 1Partido Nacista 1937 1ALP 1941–1945 2FN 1941–1957 5PSA 1945–1949; 1989 3DR 1949; 1973–1989 3MSC 1949 1PAL 1949–1957 3PCT 1949–1961 4PDdP 1949–1953 2

Chile 267

Party / Alliance (cont.) Years Elections contesteda

PSP 1949–1957; 1969 4MNDP 1953–1957 2MNI 1953 1PA 1953 1Partido Laborista 1953–1957 2PNC 1953–1957 2PRD 1953–1957 2UNI 1953–1957 2UP 1953 1MR 1957 1PDD 1957 1PDT 1957 1CP 1961–1965 2PADENA 1961–1969; 1989 4PDC 1961–2001 8UN 1961 1AN 1965; 1989 2DAL 1965 1VNP 1965 1PN 1969–1993 4PSD 1969 1API 1973 1 CODE 1973 1IC 1973–1989 2UP 1973 1USOPO 1973 1AN 1989 1Los Verdes 1989–1993b 2PAIS 1989 1 PH 1989–2001c 4PPD 1989–2001 4PRSDem 1989 1 PSUR 1989–1997 3RN 1989–2001 4UDI 1989–2001 4MAPU 1993 1 Movimiento Ecologista 1993 1 Nueva Alianza Popular 1993 1 PSDCh 1993 1 UCC/UCCP 1993–1997 2 PRSD 1997–2001 2 a Only the number of elections for the lower house is indicated. Total number of parliamentary elections is 19. b Formed an alliance with the PH in 1993. c Formed an alliance with the Greens (Los Verdes) in 1993.

Chile268

2.5 Referendums

Yeara 1980b 1988c

Total number % Total number % Registered Voters —d – — – Votes cast 6,271,368 — 7,251,943 — Blank Votes 83,312 1.3 70,660 1.0 Invalid Votes 173,569 2.8 94,594 1.3 Valid Votes 6,014,487 95.9 7,086,689 97.7 Yes 4,121,067 68.5 3,967,579 56.0 No 1,893,420 31.5 3,119,110 44.0 a Due to the lack of reliable information, both the 1925 referendum and the officially called ‘Na-tional Consultation’ held on 04/01/1978 are excluded from this table. The latter appealed for support in favor of General Pinochet’s government. It was meant as a response to the UN General Assembly’s condemnation of the human rights violations after the coup d’état. It had no legal effects. b A draft of the 1980 Constitution was subjected to approval. c A popular consultation was held to decide whether Augusto Pinochet should continue in office for another eight-year term. The term would have started on 11/03/1989.d There was no electoral roll.

Year 1989a Total number % Registered Voters 7,556,641 – Votes cast 7,082,084 93.7 Blank Votes 106,747 1.5 Invalid Votes 324,283 4.6 Valid Votes 6,651,054 93.9 Yes 6,069,449 91.3 No 581,605 8.7 a The amendments to the 1980 Constitution were subject to approval.

Chile 269



Year 1915 1918 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 184,807 – 341,872 – Votes cast — — — — Invalid Votes — — — — Valid Votes 150,297a 81.3b 181,550a 53.1b

PC 32,264 21.5 35,066 19.3 PR 31,755 21.1 44,915 24.7 PLD 26,022 17.3 23,833 13.1 PL 23,428 15.6 35,901 19.8 PN 14,530 9.7 19,911 11.0 PD 11,882 7.9 11,828 6.5 PSC 509 0.3 548 0.3 PLD (Aliancistas) – – 2,751 1.5 Partido Nacionalista – – 1,758 1.0 Others 629 0.4 153 0.4 Independents 9,787 6.5 4,886 2.7 a Total sum corresponding to the votes received by each party. It cannot be assured that the in-formation is complete. b Percentage of registered voters.

Year 1921 1925 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 370,314 – 302,307 – Votes cast — — — — Invalid Votes — — — — Valid Votes 196,537a 53.1b 261,779 86.6b

PC 37,722 19.1 51,902 19.8 PR 60,095 30.5 56,001 21.4 PD 24,469 12.4 58,658c 22.3 PLD 16,750 8.5 – – PN 8,361 4.2 – – PSC 2,084 1.4 – – PLD (Aliancistas) 3,146 1.6 – – PL (Aliancistas) 24,104 12.2 – – PL (Unionistas) 17,378 8.8 – – PL – – 84,895 32.4 Others 344 0.2 – – Independents 2,084 1.1 10,323 4.1 a Total sum corresponding to the votes received by each party. It cannot be assured that the in-formation is complete. b Percentage of registered voters. c Together with the Asalariado-Comunista group.

Chile270

Year 1932 1937 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 429,772 – 495,648 – Votes cast — — — — Invalid Votes — — — — Valid Votes 328,207 76.4a 412,230 83.1a

PL 59,859b 18.2 85,515 20.7 PD 19,819 6.0 20,026 4.9 PR 59,413 18.1 76,941 18.7 PC 55,260 16.8 87,845 21.3 Partido Democrático 25,221 7.7 18,676 4.5 PSC 18,642c 5.7 46,050 11.2 PRS 18,174 5.5 – – PA 6,580 2.0 9,721 2.4 PCCh (PPN)d 3,350 1.0 17,162 4.2 Partido Nacista – – 14,235 3.5 AR – – 9,802 2.4 Others 28,773e 8.8 9,217 2.2 Independents 33,116f 10.1 17,040 4.1 a Percentage of registered voters. b Union of different liberal groups: Liberal (32,645 votes); Liberal Unificado (18,885); LiberalDoctrinario (5,643); PLD (1,686). c Several socialist groups participated, among them Nueva Acción Pública (9,760 votes) and So-cialistas de Chile (5,352). d The Communists participated as PPN in 1937. e Includes Partido Social Republicano: (7,009 votes); Partido Democracia Social: (3,029) and others.f Three of the four independent candidates joined the Communist parliamentary group after the elections.

Year 1941a 1945 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 575,625 – 624,495 – Votes cast — — — — Invalid Votes — — — — Valid Votes 457,489 82.6b 449,916 72.0b

PR 98,296 21.5 89,922 20.0 PSC 86,675c 18.9 32,314 7.2 PC 77,243 16.9 106,264 23.6 PCCh 65,671 14.4 46,133 10.3 PL 63,118d 13.8 80,579 17.9 Partido Democrático 19,202 4.2 21,463 4.8 FN 15,553 3.4 11,565 2.6 PA 7,723 1.7 8,750 1.9 PD 6,389 1.4 2,565 0.6 PRS 5,076 1.1 – – ALP 2,268 0.5 6,297 1.4

Chile 271

Year 1941a 1945 (cont.) Total number % Total number % PSA – – 25,104 5.6 Others 9,217 2.0 14,931e 3.3 Independents 1,058 0.2 4,029 0.9 a These numbers have not been verified.b Percentage of registered votes. c Agrupación de Socialistas de Chile (75,500 votes) and Vanguardia Popular Socialista(11,175).d Several liberal groups.e Includes the Liberal Progresista (9,849 votes) and other parties.

Year 1949 1953 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 591,994 – 1,100,027 – Votes cast 470,376 79.5 — — Invalid Votes 5,504 1.0 — — Valid Votes 464,872 1.0 779,621 70.9a

PR 100,869 21.7 103,650 13.3 PC 98,118 21.1 78,833 10.1 PL 83,582 18.0 84,924 10.9 PAL 38,742 8.3 118,483 15.2 DR 23,248 5.0 – – PSP 22,631 4.9 68,218 8.8 Partido Democrático 20,682 4.5 – – FN 18,221 3.9 22,353 2.9 PSC 15,676 3.4 41,676 5.3 PDdP 8,536 1.8 31,961 4.1 PCT 7,485 1.6 33,332 4.3 PSA 5,125 1.1 – – PD 1,994 0.4 11,570 1.5 UNI – – 39,877 5.1 MNI – – 28,976 3.7 PNC – – 21,381 2.7 MNDP – – 19,238 2.5 PRD – – 17,882 2.3 Partido Laborista – – 8,171 1.0 PA – – 8,125 1.0 UP – – 2,344 0.3 Others 19,963b 4.3 40,971c 5.2 a Percentage of registered voters. b Includes: Partido Liberal Progresista (6,431 votes), PRD (4,424), MSC (2,018), Acción Reno-vadora de Chile (1,985), and others. c Includes UP (2,344 votes) and others.

Chile272

Year 1957 1961 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 1,284,159 – 1,858,980 – Votes cast — — 1,385,676 74.5 Invalid Votes — — 45,780 3.3 Valid Votes 878,229 68.5a 1,339,896b 96.7 PR 188,526 21.5 296,828 22.2 PL 134,741 15.3 222,485 16.6 PC 121,223 13.8 – – FN 82,710 9.4 – – PAL 68,602 7.8 – – PSP 55,004 6.2 – – PD 44,213 5.0 772 0.1 PSC 38,783 4.4 149,122 11.1 UNI 37,975 4.3 – – PCT 33,654 3.8 198,260 14.8 PDT 17,785 2.0 – – MR 10,393 1.2 – – PNC 9,085 1.0 – – Partido Laborista 8,010 0.9 – – PRD 5,577 0.6 – – PDC – – 213,468 15.9 PCCh – – 157,572 11.8 PADENA – – 95,179 7.1 Others 4,644 0.6c 6,980d

Independents 17,304 2.0 2,720 0.2 a Percentage of registered voters. b The sum of all votes exceeds the official total by 3,490 votes. c PDD (3,302 votes) and MNDP (1,342). d Includes UN (3,394 votes), CP (96) and others.

Year 1965 1969 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 2,920,615 – 3,244,892 – Votes cast 2,353,123 80.6 2,406,129 74.2 Invalid Votes 70,680 3.0 98,617 4.1 Valid Votes 2,282,443 97.0 2,307,512 95.9 PDC 995,187 43.6 716,547 31.1 PR 312,912 13.7 313,559 13.6 PCCh 290,635 12.7 383,049 16.6 PSC 241,593 10.6 294,448 12.8 PL 171,979 7.5 – – PC 121,882 5.3 – – PADENA 74,585 3.3 44,818 1.9 DAL 22,552 1.0 – – PD 21,518 0.9 – –

Chile 273

Year 1965 1969 (cont.) Total number % Total number % AN 15,173 0.7 – – PN – – 480,523 20.8 PSP – – 51,904 2.3 PSD – – 20,560 1.0 Others 8,758 0.4a – – Independents 5,669 0.3 2,104 0.1 a Others include VNP: 5,637 votes (0.3%) and CP: 3,121 (0.1%).

Year 1973 Total number % Registered Voters 4,510,060 – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 3,575,115 — CODE 2,001,549 56.0 PDC 1,043,815 29.2 PN 776,190 21.7 DR 72,027 2.0 PIR 64,977 1.8 DN 12,776 0.4 CODE list 31,764 0.9 UP 1,562,677 43.7 PSCh 663,259 18.6 PCCh 578,695 16.2 PR 129,615 3.6 MAPU 93,965 2.6 IC 37,767 1.1 API 27,108 0.8 Partido UP list 32,268 0.9 Non-pact parties 10,889 0.3 USOPOa 10,889 0.3 a USOPO did not formally belong to the alliance UP, but supported the government coalition.

Chile274

Year 1989 1993 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 7,556,613 – 8,085,493 – Votes cast 7,158,646 94.7 7,385,016 91.3 Invalid Votes 361,524 5.1 646,157 8.7 Valid Votes 6,797,122 94.9 6,738,859 91.3 Concertation PDC 1,766,347 26,0 1,827,373 27.1 PPD 778,501 11.5 798,206 11.8 PR 268,103 3.9 200,837 3.0 PH 52,225 0.8 a a

PSDCh – – 53,377 0.8 PSCh 803,719 11.9 Independents 619,595 9.1 49,764 0.7 Democracy andProgress

Union for the Progress of Chile

RN 1,242,432 18.3 1,098,852 16.3 UDI 667,369 9.8 816,104 12.1 UCC – – 216,639 3.2 PSUR 13,422 0.2 PN 2,688 0.0 Independents 413,780 6.1 324,084 4.8 Unity for Democracy PAIS 297,897 4.4 – – PRSDem 1,330 0.0 – – Independents 61,374 0.9 – – Center Alliance AN 57,574 0.9 – – DR 28,575 0.4 – – Independents 91,793 1.4 – – Chilean Liberal-Socialist

PL 47,237 0.7 – – PSCh 10,398 0.2 Independents 148,503 2.2 – – Left Democratic Alternative

PCCh – – 336,034 5.0 MAPU – – 6,644 0.1 NAP – – – – Independents – – 87,817 1.3 The New Left AH-V – – 67,733 1.0 ME – – 2,215 0.0 Independents – – 26,247 0.4

Chile 275

Year 1989 1993 (cont.) Total number % Total number % Chile 2000 UCCP – – Independents – – – – Non-pact parties PN 53,819 0.8 PSUR 47,387 0.7 PV 14,942 0.2 b

Independents 127,941 1.9 7,104 0.1 a Ran in an alliance with the PV, see below under AH-V. b Ran in an alliance with the PH, see above under AH-V.

Year 1997 2001 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 8,077,743 – 8,075,446 – Votes cast 7,046,351 87.2 7,034,293 87.1 Invalid Votes 1,250,578 17.7 890,290 12.7 Valid Votes 5,795,773 82.3 6,144,003 87.3 Concertación PDC 1,331,745 23.0 1,162,210 18.9 PPD 727,293 12.6 782,333 12.7 PSCh 640,397 11.0 614,434 10.0 PRSD 181,538 3.1 248,821 4.0 Independents 46,719 0.8 135,191 2.2 Union for Chile Alliance for Chile RN 971,903 16.8 845,865 13.8 UDI 837,736 14.5 1,547,209 25.2 PSUR 20,813 0.4 – – Independents 270,940 4.7 327,121 5.3 Left Democratic Alter-native

PCCh 398,588 6.9 NAP 8,971 0.2 – – Independents 26,589 0.5 – – Non-pact parties PH 168,597 2.9 69,692 1.1 PCCh 320,688 5.2 PL – – 3,475 0.1 Independents 40,022 0.7 86,964 1.4

Chile276


Yeara 1937 1941 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 495,648 – 575,625 – Votes cast 191,706 38.7 238,485 41.4 Invalid Votes — — — — Valid Votes 148,920b 30.0 233,575b 40.6 PL 46,223 31.0 37,965 15.8 PC 41,473 27.8 52,540 21.9 PR 26,193 17.6 49,719 20.7 PCCh (PPN) 7,543 5.1 28,449 11.8 PD 7,004 4.7 2,399 1.0 PSC 6,103 4.1 37,857 15.8 Partido LiberalDemócrata

5,758 3.9 – –

Partido Nacista 3,858 2.6 – – PA 2,187 1.5 3,855 3.4 Partido Democrático – – 12,924 3.3 Partido Laborista – – 5,877 2.4 FN – – 1,228 1.6 AP Libertadora – – 762 0.3 Independents 2,578 1.7 – – a Only partial information was available. Not all of the registered voters listed here were actually eligible to vote at a given election as renovation was only partial. b The sum is based on the available data. It cannot be assured that the information is complete.

Yeara 1945 1949 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 624,495 – 316,186 – Votes cast 216,329 34.6 252,903 80.0 Invalid Votes — — 2,351 0.9 Valid Votes 208,109b 33.3 250,552 99.1 PL 35,730 17.9 42,930 17.1 PC 48,941 24.5 55,825 22.3 PR 43,819 21.9 42,125 16.8 PCCh (PPN) 25,708 12.8 – – PL (Progresistas) 16,854 8.4 – – PSC 12,625 6.3 6,818 2.7 Partido Democrático 8,105 4.0 9,252 3.7 FN 7,959 3.8 2,222 0.8 Partido Demócrata Nacionalista

2,120 1.1 – –

AP Libertadora 1,531 0.8 – – PA 688 0.3 – – PAL – – 42,230 16.9

Chile 277

Yeara 1945 1949 (cont.) Total number % Total number % PSA – – 15,318 6.1 PR Democrático – – 10,445 4.2 PSP – – 8,772 3.5 PRD – – 8,613 3.4 Partido LiberalProgresista

– – 6,002 2.4

Independents 4,029 2.0 – – a Not all of the registered voters listed here were actually eligible to vote at a given election as renovation was only partial. b The sum is based on the available data. It cannot be assured that the information is complete.

Year 1953 1961 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 484,064 – 847,505 – Votes cast — — 639,707 75.5 Invalid Votes — — 24,335 2.9 Valid Votes 336,359 69.5a 615,372 97.1 PR 59,270 17.6 146,373 23.8 PAL 55,775 16.6 – – PL 42,993 12.8 103,688 16.8 PCT 41,278 12.3 – – PSP 31,608 9.4 – – MNI 29,861 8.9 – – PC 19,123 5.7 79,303 12.9 PDdP 17,138 5.1 – – UNI 11,342 3.4 – – MNDP 10,556 3.1 – – ARCh 6,915 2.1 – – Partido Democrático 3,840 1.1 – – FN 3,276 1.0 – – PNC 1,931 0.6 – – PDC – – 90,211 14.7 PSC – – 83,456 13.6 PCCh – – 75,123 12.2 PADENA – – 17,325 2.8 VNP – – 17,299 2.8 Others 1,453 0.4b 2,594c 0.4 a Percentage of registered voters. b Others include PRD: 1,230 votes (0.4%); Partido Laborista: 205 (0.1%) and Movimiento Na-cional de Jubilados: 18 (0.0%). c PD.

Chile278

Year 1969 1973 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 3,223,892 – 2,740,703 – Votes cast — — 2,240,019 81.8 Invalid Votes — — 38,164 1.6 Valid Votes 1,006,049 31.2a 2,201,855 98.4 PDC 345,248 34.3 — — PCCh 181,488 18.0 — — Partido LiberalDemócrata

173,386 17.2 — —

PN 160,875 16.0 — — PSC 120,629 12.0 — — USOPO 24,423 2.4 – – CODEb – – 1,259,343 57.2 UPb – – 942,512 42.8 a Percentage of registered voters. b The shares of the parties within these alliances were not available.

Year 1989 1993a

Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 7,556,613 – 8,085,493 – Votes cast 7,158,442 94.7 2,045,681 25.3 Invalid Votes 358,032 5.0 171,554 8.4 Valid Votes 6,800,410 95.0 1,874,127 91.6 Concertation PDC 2,188,329 32.2 378,987 20.2 PPD 820,393 12.1 275,727 14.7 PR 147,364 2.2 119,459 6.4 PH 35,534 0.5 –b – PSCh 238,405 12.7 Independents 523,369 7.7 27,253 1.5 Democracia yProgreso

Unión por elProgreso de Chile

RN 731,678 10.8 279,580 14.9 UDI 347,445 5.1 190,283 10.2 PSUR 52,509 2.8 UCC 46,455 2.5 Independents 1,290,886 19.0 130,587 7.0 Liberal-SocialistaChileno

PSCh 4,254 0.1 PL 10,129 0.2 – – Independents 199,618 2.9 – – Alianza de Centro DR 28,695 0.4 – – AN 697 0.0 – –

Chile 279

Year 1989 1993a

(cont.) Total number % Total number % Independents 62,015 0.9 – – Alternativa Democrática de Izquierda

MAPU – – 3,030 0.2 PCCh 65,073 3.5 Independents – – 13,278 0.7 Non-pact parties PAIS 288,397 4.2 – – PSUR 45,584 0.7 PN 43,741 0.6 – – PCCh 65,073 3.5 UCC – – Alianza Humanista- Verde

– – 8,528 0.5

Independents 32,282 0.5 41,233 2.2 a Partial renovation only. b Ran in an alliance with the Greens. See Alianza Humanista-Verde under ‘others’.

Year 1997a 2001a

Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 8,077,743 – 8,075,446 – Votes cast 5,102,906 – 1,975,017 – Invalid Votes 863,540 16.9 242,602 12.3 Valid Votes 4,239,366 83.1 1,732,415 87.7 Concertation PDC 1,238,540 29.2 395,728 22.8 PSCh 617,947 14.6 254,905 14.7 PPD 182,076 4.3 219,335 12.7 PRSD 76,091 1.8 19,025 1.1 Unión por Chile Alianza por

Chile UDI 728,680 17.2 263,035 15.2 RN 629,394 14.9 342,045 19.7 Independents 195,118 4.6 157,639 9.1 La Izquierda PCCh 357,825 8.4 Independents 8,406 0.2 – – Chile 2000 UCCP 18,023 0.4 – – Independents 93,150 2.2 – – Non-pact parties PH 94,116 2.2 PCCh 45,735 2.6 Others – – 7,872 b 0.5

Chile280

a Partial renovation only. b Others include PH: 6,465 votes (0.4%) and PL: 1,407 (0.1%).



Year 1925 1932 1937 1941 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 132 100.0 142 100.0 146 100.0 147 100.0 PL 43 32.6 27a 19.0 35 20.8 22 15.0 PR 39 29.5 34 23.9 29 18.7 44 29.9 PC 28 21.2 34 23.9 35 21.3 32 21.8 PD 22 16.7 7 4.9 7 4.9 2 1.4 PartidoDemocrático

– – 13 9.2 5 4.5 6 4.1

PRS – – 8 5.6 – – 1 0.7 PSC – – 5b 3.5 19 11.2 17 11.6 PA – – 4 2.8 2 1.4 3 2.0 PCCh (PPN) – – 1 0.7 6 4.2 17 11.6 Partido Nacista – – – – 3 4.0 – – AR – – – – 2 2.3 – – FN – – – – – – 3 2.0 Others – – 5c 3.5 – – – – Independents – – 4d 2.8 3 4.0 – – a The seats were allocated in the following way: Liberales 18, Liberal Unificado 6, Liberal Doc-trinario 2, Liberal Demócrata 1.b The seats were distributed among the different socialist groups.c Social Republicanos: 4 seats; Social Demócratas: 1 seat.d Three of the four independent candidates joined the communist parliamentary group after the elections.

Year 1945 1949 1953 1957 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 147 100.0 147 100.0 147 100.0 147 100.0 PR 39 26.5 34 23.1 18 12.2 36 24.5 PC 36 24.5 31 21.1 2 1.4 2 1.4 PL 31 21.1 33 22.4 23 15.6 30 20.4 PCCh 15 10.2 – – – – – – PSC 6 4.1 5 3.4 9 6.1 7 4.8 PartidoDemocrático

6 4.1 6 4.1 – – – –

PA 3 2.0 – – 2 1.4 – – FN 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 17 11.6 PSA 3 2.0 1 0.7 – – – –

Chile 281

Year (cont.) 1945 1949 1953 1957 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % PD 1 0.7 – – 1 0.7 5 3.4 PAL – – 14 9.5 26 17.7 10 6.8 DR – – 8 5.4 – – – – PSP – – 6 4.1 20 13.6 5 3.4 PCT – – 2 1.3 16 10.9 21 14.3 PDdP – – 1 0.7 5 3.4 – – MNI – – – – 6 4.1 – – UNI – – – – 5 3.4 7 4.8 PNC – – – – 4 2.7 – – PRD – – – – 3 2.0 – – MNDP – – – – 1 0.7 – – UP – – – – 1 0.7 – – PartidoLaborista

– – – – 1 0.7 – –

PDT – – – – – – 4 2.7 MR – – – – – – 1 0.7 Others 4a 2.7 3b 2.0 1 0.7 – – Independents – – – – – – 2 1.4 a Includes three seats for the Partido Liberal Progresista.b Includes two seats for the Partido Liberal Progresista.

Year 1961 1965 1969 1973 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 147 100.0 147 100.0 150 100.0 150 100.0 PR 39 26.5 20 13.6 24 16.0 5 3.3 PL 28 19.0 6 4.1 – – – – PDC 23 15.6 82 55.8 56 37.3 50 29.1 PCT 17 11.6 – – – – – – PCCh 16 10.9 18 12.2 22 14.7 24 16.2 PSC 12 8.2 – – – – – – PADENA 12 8.2 3 2.0 – – – – PS – – 15 10.2 15 10.0 28 18.7 PC – – 3 2.0 – – – – PN – – – – 33 22.0 34 21.3 API – – – – – – 2 2.3 DR – – – – – – 2 2.3 IC – – – – – – 2 2.3 MAPU – – – – – – 2 2.3 PIR – – – – – – 1 1.8

Chile282

Year 1989 1993 1997 2001 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 120 100.0 120 100.0 120 100,0 120 100.0 Concertation PDC 38 31.7 37 30.8 38 31.7 23 19.2 PPD 16 13.3 15 12.5 16 13.3 20 16.7 PR 5 4.2 2 1.7 – – – – PH 1 0.8 – – – – – – PSCh 0 0.0 15 12.5 11 9.2 10 8.3 PRSD – – – – 4 3.3 6 5.0 Independents 9 7.5 1 0.8 – – 3 2.5 Democracia y Progreso

Unión por el Pro-gresodeChile

Unión porChile

Alian-za por Chile

RN 29 24.2 29 24.2 23 19.2 18 15.0 UDI 11 9.2 15 12.5 17 14.2 31 25.8 UCC – – 2 1.7 – – – – PSUR 0 0.0 1 0.8 – – Independents 8 6.7 4 3.3 6 5.0 8 6.7 Non-pactparties

PAIS 2 1.7 – – – – – – UCCP – – – – 2 1.7 – – Independents 1 0.8 0 0.0 2 1.7 1 0.8

Chile 283


Year 1932 1937 1941 1945 Total

seats% Elect.

seats% Elect.

seats% Elect.

seats%

45 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0 25 100.0 PR 13 28.9 3 15.0 6 30.0 7 28.0 PC 10 22.2 6 30.0 5 25.0 5 20.0 PL 5 11.1 6 30.0 3 15.0 6 24.0 PRS 5 11.1 – – – – – – PartidoDemocrático

4 8.9 – – – – 1 4.0

PD 3 6.7 2 10.0 – – – – NAN 2 4.4 – – – – – – PL(Doctrinarios)

1 2.2 1 5.0 – – – –

PL (Unido) 1 2.2 – – – – – – PSR 1 2.2 – – – – – – PCCh (PPN) – – 1 5.0 3 15.0 3 12.0 PSC – – – – 2 10.0 2 8.0 PA – – – – 1 5.0 – – PL(Progresistas)

– – – – – – 1 4.0

Others – – 1 5.0 – – – –

Year 1949 1953 1961 Elect.

seats% Elect.

seats% Total

seatsElect. seats

%

20 100.0 25 100.0 45 24 100.0 PR 5 25.0 4 16.0 12 7 29.2 PL 6 30.0 5 20.0 9 6 5.0 PC 3 15.0 4 16.0 5 2 8.3 PCCh (PPN) – – – – 3 3 12.5 PSC – – – – 8 4 16.7 PDC – – – – 4 1 4.2 PAL 3 15.0 3 12.0 – – – DR 1 5.0 – – – – – FN 1 5.0 – – – – – PSP 1 5.0 3 12.0 – – – MNI – – 2 8.0 – – – MNDP – – 1 4.0 – – – NAN – – 1 4.0 – – – PDdP – – 1 4.0 – – – Others – – – – 4 3 12.5 Independents – – 1 4.0 – – –

Chile284

Year 1965 1969 1973 Total

seatsElect. seats

% Total seats

Elect. seats

% Elect. seats

%

45 21 100.0 50 30 100.0 25 100.0 PDC 13 12 57.1 12 22 40.0 10 40.0 PR 9 2 9.5 5 9 16.6 1 4.0 PSC 7 3 14.3 4 4 13.3 5 20.0 PCCh 5 2 9.5 3 6 10.0 5 20.0 PL 4 – – – – – – – PC 3 1 4.8 – – – – – PN – – – 5 5 16.6 4 16.0 Others 4 1 4.8 1 4 1.5 – –

Year 1989 1993 1997 2001 Total

seats% Seats % Seats % Seats %

38a 100.0 18 100.0 20 100.0 18 100.0 Concertation PDC 13 34.2 4 22.2 10 50.0 2 11.1 PPD 4 10.5 2 11.1 0 0.0 3 16.7 PR 2 5.3 0 0.0 – – – – PSCh – – 3 16.7 1 5.0 4 22.2 Independents 3 7.9 0 0.0 – – – – Democracia y Progreso RN 5 13.2 5 27.8 2 10.0 4 22.2 UDI 2 5.3 2 11.1 3 15.0 3 16.7 Independents 9 23.7 2 11.1 4 20.0 2 11.1 a Plus nine appointed senators.

Chile 285


1920 Total number % Registered Voters 370,314 – Votes cast 166,917 45.1 Invalid Votes 802 0.5 Valid Votes 166,115 99.5 Luis Barros Borgoño (UN) 83,100 50.0 Arturo Alessandri (Alianza Liberal) 82,083 49.4 Others 932a 0.6 a Others includes Emilio Recabarren (PCCh): 681 votes (0.4%) and others.

1925 Total number % Registered Voters 302,142 – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 260,895 — Emiliano Figueroa Larraín (independent)

186,187 71.4

José Santos Salas (USRACH) 74,091 28.4 Others 617 0.2

1927 Total number % Registered Voters 328,700 – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 231,372 70.4a

Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) 223,741 96.7 Others 7,631 3.3 a Percentage of registered voters.

1931 Total number % Registered Voters 388,959 – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 285,810 73.5a

Juan Esteban Montero Rodríguez (PR)

182,177 63.7

Arturo Alessandri Palma (PL) 99,075 34.7 Elías Lafferte Gaviño (PCCh) 2,434 0.9 Manuel Hidalgo Plaza (PSC) 1,263 0.4 Othersb 861 0.3 a Percentage of registered voters. b Includes blank votes.

Chile286

1932 Total number % Registered Voters 464,879 –Votes cast 345,892 74.4Invalid Votes 902 0.3Valid Votes 344,990 99.7Arturo Alessandri Palma (PL) 189,914 55.1Marmaduque Grove V. (PS) 60,856 17.6Héctor Rodríguez de la Cotta (PC) 47,207 13.7Enrique Zañartu Prieto (PLU) 42,885 12.4Elías Lafferte Gaviño (PCCh) 4,128 1.2

1938 Total number % Registered Voters 503,871 –Votes cast 445,411 88.4Blank Votes 1,523 0.3Invalid Votes 2,447 0.6Valid Votes 441,441 99.1Pedro Aguirre Cerda (PR) 222,720 50.5Gustavo Ross Santa María (PL) 218,609 49.5Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) 112 0.0

1942 Total number % Registered Voters 581,486 –Votes cast 466,507 80.2Invalid Votes 1,714 0.4Valid Votes 464,793 99.6Juan A. Ríos Morales (PR) 260,034 56.0Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) 204,635 44.0Others 124 0.0

1946 Total number % Registered Voters 631,257 –Votes cast 479,310 75.9Invalid Votes 1,509 0.3Valid Votes 477,801 99.7Gabriel González Videla (PR) 192,207 40.2Eduardo Cruz-Coke L. (PC) 142,441 29.8Fernando A. Rodríguez (PL) 131,023 27.4 Bernardo Ibáñez Aguila (PSC) 12,114 2.5Others 16 0.0

Chile 287

1952 Total number % Registered Voters 1,105,029 –Votes cast 957,102 86.6Invalid Votes 2,971 0.3Valid Votes 954,131 99.7Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) 446,439 46.8Arturo Matte Larraín (PL) 265,357 27.8Pedro Enrique Alfonso (PR) 190,360 20.0Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) 51,975 5.5

1958 Total number % Registered Voters 1,497,493 –Votes cast 1,250,350 83.5Invalid Votes 14,798 1.2Valid Votes 1,235,552 98.8Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez(independent)

389,909 31.6

Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) 356,493 28.9Eduardo Frei Montalva (PDC) 255,769 20.7Luis Bossay Leiva (PR) 192,077 15.6Antonio Zamorano Herrera (indep.) 41,304 3.3

1964 Total number % Registered Voters 2,915,121 –Votes cast 2,530,697 86.8Invalid Votes 18,550 0.7Valid Votes 2,512,147 99.3Eduardo Frei Montalva (PDC) 1,409,012 56.1Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) 977,902 38.9Julio Durán Neumann (PR) 125,233 5.0

1970 Total number % Registered Voters 3,539,747 –Votes cast 2,954,799 83.5Invalid Votes 31,505 1.1Valid Votes 2,923,294 98.9Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) 1,070,334 36.6Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez(independent)

1,031,159 35.3

Radomiro Tomic Romero (PDC) 821,801 28.1

Chile288

1989 Total number % Registered Voters 7,556,613 –Votes cast 7,157,725 94.7Invalid Votes 178,833 2.6Valid Votes 6,978,892 97.5Patricio Aylwin Azócar (Concertación)

3,850,023 55.2

Hernán Büchi Buc (Democracia y Progreso)

2,051,975 29.4

Francisco J. Errázuriz Talavera (UCC)

1,076,894 15.5

1993 Total number % Registered Voters 8,085,493 – Votes cast 7,376,691 91.2 Invalid Votes 407,741 5.5 Valid Votes 6,968,950 94.5 Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle(Concertación)

4,040,497 58.0

Arturo Alessandri Besa (Uniónpara el Progreso)

1,701,324 24.4

José Piñera Echeñique (indep.) 430,950 6.2 Manfred Max-Neef (indep.) 387,102 5.6 Eugenio Pizarro Poblete (PCCh) 327,402 4.7 Cristián Reitze Campos (PH) 81,675 1.2

1999 (1st) Total number % Registered Voters 8,084,476 – Votes cast 7,271,584 89.9 Invalid Votes 216,456 3.0 Valid Votes 7,055,128 97.0 Ricardo Lagos Escobar(Concertación)

3,383,339 48.0

Joaquín Lavín Infante (Alianza por Chile)

3,352,199 47.5

Gladys Marín Millie (PCCh) 225,224 3.2 Tomás Hirsch Goldschmidt (indep.) 36,235 0.5 Othersa 58,131 0.8 a Others include Sara M. Larraín Ruiz-Tagle: 31,319 votes (0.4%) and Arturo Frei Bolívar: 26,812 (0.4%).

Chile 289

2000 (2nd) Total number % Registered Voters 8,084,476 – Votes cast 7,316,310 90.5 Invalid Votes 147,781 2.0 Valid Votes 7,168,529 98.0 Ricardo Lagos Escobar(Concertación)

3,677,968 51.3

Joaquín Lavín Infante (Alianza por Chile)

3,490,561 48.7


Head of State Years Remarks Arturo Alessandri Palma

1920–1925 Assumed office on 23/12/1920. Military coup on 08/09/1924.

Luis Altamirano 1924–1925 Assumed office on 08/09/1924. Emilio Bello Codesido 1925 Presided the Junta de Gobierno; assumed of-

fice on 23/01/1925. Arturo Alessandri Palma

1925 Summoned by the military to complete his term of office; re-assumed office on 20/03/1925.

Luis Barros Borgaño 1925 Vice president. Emiliano Figueroa Larraín

1925–1927 Assumed office on 23/12/1925.

Carlos Ibáñez del Campo

1927–1931 Army officer; assumed office on 04/05/1927.

Pedro Opazo Letelier 1931 Chairman of the senate. Vice president since 26/07/1931.

Juan Esteban Montero 1931 Vice president since 27/07/1931. Manuel TruccoFranzini

1931 Vice president since 22/10/1931.

Juan Esteban Montero 1931–1932 Assumed presidency on 04/12/1931. Consti-tutionally elected.

Junta de Gobierno 1932 Military coup on 04/06/1932. The junta was formed by Arturo Puga, Eugenio Matte and Carlos Dávila.

Junta de Gobierno 1932 Military coup on 16/06/1932. The junta was formed by Carlos Dávila, Alberto Cabero and Nolasco Cárdenas.

Carlos Dávila 1932 Assumed office on 25/06/1932. Governed as ‘interim president’.

Bartolomé Blanche 1932 Military coup on 13/09/1932. Abraham Oyanedel 1932 Assumed office on 02/10/1932 as vice presi-

dent.

Chile290

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Arturo Alessandri 1932–1938 Assumed office on 24/12/1932. Pedro Aguirre Cerda 1938–1941 Assumed office on 24/12/1938. Jerónimo Méndez Arancibia

1941–1942 Vice president under Aguirre Cerda. Assu-med office on 25/11/1941 after Aguirre’s death.

Juan Antonio Ríos 1942–1946 Elected president. Died in office. Alfredo Duhalde 1946 Vice president under Ríos. Assumed office

after Ríos’ death. Gabriel GonzálezVidela

1946–1952 Elected president, assumed office on 04/11/1946.

Carlos Ibáñez del Campo


Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez


Eduardo Frei Montalva 1964–1970 Elected president, assumed office on 04/11/1964.

Salvador Allende Gos-sens

1970–1973 Elected president. Assumed office on 04/11/1970. Overthrown by a coup d’état on 11/09/1973. Committed suicide on 11/09/1973.

Augusto Pinochet Ugarte

1973–1990 Commander in chief of the armed forces, Jefe de la Junta de Gobierno, later appointed pre-sident.

Patricio AylwinAzócar


Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle


Ricardo Lagos Escobar 2000– Elected president. Assumed office on 11/03/2000.

Chile 291

3. Bibliography


100 Primeros Decretos Leyes dictados por la Junta de Gobierno de la República de Chile 1973. Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile.

101 al 200 Decretos Leyes dictados por la Junta de Gobierno de la Repúbli-ca de Chile 1979. Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile.

Dirección del Registro Electoral (1969). Diputados elegidos en la elección ordinaria de parlamentarios, Domingo, 2 de marzo 1969. Santiago de Chile.

— (1969). Senadores elegidos en la elección ordinaria de parlamentarios, Domingo, 2 de marzo 1969. Santiago de Chile.

— (1969). Variación porcentual de partidos políticos 1957–1969. Santiago de Chile.

— (1970). Elección ordinaria del Presidente de la República, Viernes, 4 de septiembre de 1970. Santiago de Chile.

(1906) Ley de Elecciones. Edición Oficial. Santiago de Chile. (1988). ‘Ley No. 18.700, Ley Orgánica Constitucional sobre votaciones po-

pulares y escrutinios’, in Diario Oficial de la República de Chile,06.05.1988.

Ley No. 18.733, Modificación de Ley Orgánica Constitucional sobre vota-ciones populares y escrutinios (1988), in Diario Oficial de la República de Chile, 13.08.1988.

República de Chile, Junta de Gobierno de las Fuerzas Armadas y Carabineros de Chile (1973). Decreto Ley No. 1, Acta de Constitución de la Junta de Gobierno. Santiago de Chile.

Servicio Electoral Chile (without year). Resultados. Plebiscitos y elecciones, 1988–1989. Santiago de Chile.


Aldunate, A. et al. (1985). Estudios sobre el sistema de partidos en Chile.Santiago de Chile.

Angell, A. and Pollack, B. (2000). ‘The Chilean Presidential Elections of 1999–2000 and Democratic Consolidation’. Bulletin of Latin American Research 19 (3): 357–378.

Bernaschina, G. M. (1958). Cartilla electoral. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica.

Browning, D. Lea et al. (1989). Chile. The Plebiscite and Beyond. Washing-ton, D.C.: International Human Rights Law Group.

Chile292

Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Contemporánea (CERC) (1987). La cam-paña electoral de General Pinochet. Las giras a regiones. Informe Nr. 1, Santiago de Chile: CERC.

Cortés, L. and Fuentes, J. (1967). Diccionario político de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Orbe.

Donoso, R. (1967). Las ideas políticas en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Andrés Bello.

Encina, F. A. (1952). Historia de Chile. (10 volumes). Santiago de Chile: Nacimineto.

Fernández Baeza, M. (1981). ‘Presidencialismo, principio de gobierno de la mayoría y sistema electoral. Relaciones conceptuales y aplicación al ca-so de Chile 1972–1973’. Estudios Sociales (Santiago de Chile) 30: 53–67.

— (1986). ‘Sistemas electorales. Sus problemas y opciones para la democra-cia chilena’. Cuadernos de CAPEL (San José), 8.

— (1989). ‘Elecciones generales. Chile, 14 de diciembre de 1989’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano (San José) 2: 56–65.

— (2000). ‘El sistema electoral chileno. Dilucidando equívocos y adaptando fórmulas’, in A. Squella and O. Sunkel (eds.), Democratizar la demo-cracia. Reformas pendientes. Santiago de Chile, 105–119.

Fortín Bajardo, C. (ed.) (1967). Historia general de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Pedro Medeiro y Cía.

Froehling, H. (1969). Las elecciones parlamentarias chilenas del 2 de marzo de 1969. Santiago de Chile: ILDIS.

Garces, J. E. (1971). 1970. La pugna política por la presidencia en Chile.Santiago de Chile: Universitaria.

Garretón, M. A. (2000). ‘Chile’s Elections: Change and Continuity’. Journal of Democracy 11 (2): 78–84.

Gil, F. (1967). The Political System of Chile. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Godoy, H. (ed.) (1971). Estructura social de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Uni-versitaria.

Heise González, J. (1954). Historia constitucional de Chile. Santiago de Chi-le: Universitaria.

Huneeus, C. (1985). ‘La política de la apertura y sus implicancias para la inauguración de la democracia en Chile’. Revista de Ciencia Política(Santiago de Chile) 7 (1): 25–84.

Lagos, R. (1985). Democracia para Chile. Santiago de Chile: Pehuén. Lechner, N. (1970). La democracia en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Signos. León Echaíz, R. (1971). Evolución histórica de los partidos políticos chile-

nos. Buenos Aires/Santiago de Chile: Francisco de Aguirre. López Pintor, R. (1969). Algunos aspectos de la participación política en

Chile. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Administración.

Chile 293

Miranda, H. M. T. (1982). ‘El sistema electoral y el multipartidismo en Chile 1949–1969’. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago de Chile) 4 (1): 59–69.

Morodo, R. (1968). Política y partidos en Chile. Madrid: Taurus. Moulián, T. and Torres Dujisin, I. (1986). Las candidaturas presidenciales

de la derecha. Ross e Ibañez. Santiago de Chile: FLACSO. Noguiera Alcalá, H. (1989). Manual del ciudadano elector. (without place). Nohlen, D. (1973). Chile. Das sozialistische Experiment. Hamburg: Hoff-

mann und Campe. — (1973). ‘Warum scheiterte Allende?’. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 42:

3–21.— (1974). Feuer unter der Asche. Chiles gescheiterte Revolution. Baden-

Baden: Signal. — (1985). ‘Sistemas electorales comparados. El caso chileno’. Estudios

Públicos (Santiago de Chile) 18: 69–86. — (2001). ‘Tendencias recientes en el desarrollo de los sistemas electorales

y el caso chileno’. Política (Santiago de Chile) 41: 9–25. — (2003). Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos (3rd edn.). Mexico City:

F.C.E.Nohlen, D., Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de Derecho

Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: F.C.E. Siavelis, P. M. (1997). ‘Continuity and Change in the Chilean Party System.

On the Transformation Effects of Electoral Reform’. Comparative Poli-tical Studies 30 (6): 651–674.

— (2002). ‘Coalitions, Voters and Party System Transformation in Post-Authoritarian Chile’. Government and Opposition 37 (1), 76–105.

Urzúa Valenzuela, G. (1968). Los partidos políticos chilenos. Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile.

— (1986). Historia política electoral de Chile (1931–1973). Santiago de Chi-le: Jurídica de Chile.

Valdés Larraín, L. (1940). El sufragio. Santiago: Ercilla. Valenzuela, A. and Siavelis, P. (1991). ‘Ley electoral y estabilidad demo-

crática’. Estudios Públicos 43: 27–88. Valenzuela, J. S. and Scully, T. R. (1997). ‘Electoral Choices and the Party

System in Chile. Continuities and Changes at the Recovery of Democra-cy’. Comparative Politics 29 (4): 511–527.

COLOMBIA by Juan Jaramillo and Beatriz Franco-Cuervo

1. Introduction


Colombia, the former Vice Royalty of New-Grenada, gained its inde-pendence from Spain in 1819. The unification with Venezuela, Great Colombia, joined by Panama (1821) and Ecuador (1822), already failed in 1830 due to conflicts with regard to the political organization of the state and to the differences among the departamentos. The new Colom-bian state was founded as a republic, based on the principle of represen-tative and centralized government.

In the process of national organization, which was accompanied by instability and political conflict, the Liberal and Conservative parties took an hegemonic position in Colombia‘s nineteenth-century political life, which they have retained ever since. After the Liberal Party as-sumed power in 1849, it pursued a reform process that transformed the economic and social structure of the country, which had been a product of colonial legacy up to this point. These reforms included the extension of civil rights and the introduction of universal, direct, and secret suf-frage, as provided by the 1853 Constitution. In 1858, universal suffrage brought a Conservative-Church alliance to government, which enacted a new constitution. This government was toppled by a liberal-led insurrec-tion, which led to a period of liberal domination up to 1885, known as the Olimpo Radical. In 1863 the Liberals passed a clearly federal-inspired constitution in the line of the two previous constitutions: it rec-ognized the extreme regionalization of political power and the absence of a national ruling elite. However, unlike the 1853 Constitution, the new document left the regulation of suffrage to the sovereign states. In the light of past experiences, many states reintroduced restricted suf-frage.

During the 1880s, in view of the regional armed struggles and the ef-fects of the economic crisis, a section of the Liberals formed an alliance with the Conservatives to overthrow the ruling Liberals. This episode

Colombia296

introduced the next period, known as Regeneración. Conservative-dominated, in 1886 it saw the passing of a centralist and authoritarian constitution establishing restricted suffrage and the indirect election of both president and senators. Political violence continued during this pe-riod: the Liberals started two civil wars (1895 and 1899–1902), and were defeated in both. In 1905 and 1910 two new constitutional reforms were introduced; intended to prevent new armed struggles, they made provi-sions for minority representation in parliament. The domination of the Conservative Party ended in 1930, brought about by the consequences of the international Great Depression, the social dissatisfaction and the di-visions among the Conservatives.

One important constitutional reform was introduced in 1936, within the framework of the República Liberal, a period that lasted until 1946. This reform established universal and direct suffrage for presidential and house of representatives elections (direct election to the senate was in-troduced in 1945). This and other measures enabled new social sectors to integrate into the political system. The Conservative Party won the 1946 elections, bringing about an alternation in presidency that was ac-companied by a worsening of the traditional political violence. In fact, since 1948, after the assassination of the Liberal leader Jorge E. Gaitán, the country was racked with violence, hence the name of this period, La Violencia, a non-declared civil war whose effects stretched well into the 1970s. In 1953, General Rojas Pinilla led a coup against the conserva-tive president Laureano Gómez, but his government soon came up against general opposition. Faced with the dictatorship, the two tradi-tional parties agreed to form the so-called Frente Nacional (NationalFront), a political agreement established constitutionally by a plebiscite in 1957. After 1958, the Frente Nacional provided for a system of parity in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It also established a majority quorum of two-thirds of Congress votes to pass laws, in an attempt to promote inter-party consensus. The Frente Na-cional succeeded in guaranteeing the peaceful alternation in the execu-tice between the two traditional groups every four years, at the same time as it ensured their political hegemony and continuance. Yet, the lack of competitiveness of the system led to an alarming increase in electoral abstention. Moreover, the system encouraged clientelism and factionalism within the traditional parties.

The Frente Nacional was meant to be in force from 1958 to 1974. Therefore, in 1974 both the system of parity in Congress and the alterna-tion in the presidency were abolished. However, the 1968 constitutional reform established that the parity system be maintained in governmental

Colombia 297

offices until 1978. From that year, the major party would allocate an ‘adequate and equitable’ number of offices to the second party. This sy-stem of distribution of political power remained in force until the 1991 Constitution was introduced, bar the period 1986–1990, when the Con-servative Party declared itself opposed to this process. The Frente Na-cional was based on a tradition of joint liberal-conservativegovernments, parallel to the constant inter-party wars. The system brought peace to the liberal-conservative relations and neutralized the Church’s power in politics, thereby depriving it of its leading role. This role was taken on by the military, which since La Violencia had seen its influence increase at a regular pace. On the one hand, the Frente Nacio-nal guaranteed peace between the two political parties and their joint po-litical supremacy; on the other, the State and the parties lost control over, and moved further away from, society and its different forms of organization. Electoral abstention increased alarmingly and clientelism and factionalism plagued the parties. Furthermore, the government nee-ded to resort to the state of emergency with increasing frequency. To add to the problems, the marked two-party domination thwarted the at-tempts of many new parties that were appearing at this time to consoli-date; the clearest example was the performance of ANAPO, the party created around former dictator Rojas Pinilla: In the 1970 elections, when only an extremely narrow margin separated its candidate from the win-ner Misael Pastrana, the candidate of the Frente Nacional, many thought that ANAPO would succeed in breaking the political supremacy of the Liberals and Conservatives. However, it steadily lost electoral support in the following elections.

In this context, several guerrilla groups were created and consolidated in the 1960s. During the early 1980s, paramilitary groups were estab-lished to counteract them, and these groups also consolidated. The 1980s were also witness to the emergence of powerful drug cartels. The forma-tion of and confrontation among all these forces plunged the country into a climate of acute violence, characterized by the common violation of human rights and humanitarian international law and the forced dis-placement of over two million people. Of course, violence translated into electoral politics, as proved by the assassination of three presiden-tial candidates in the run-up to the 1990 elections, the assassination of more than 100 mayors since 1992 and the increasing number of threats, kidnaps, murders, and acts of terror in electoral campaigns.

Aimed at putting an end to political violence, peace talks with the guerrilla started in the 1980s. They began during Belisario Betancur’s government (1982–1986), but failed after a promising start. The subse-

Colombia298

quent government of Virgilio Barco (1986–1990) signed a peace agree-ment with the guerrilla group M-19. At this time, in accordance with the old perception of the need to reach a new fundamental political agree-ment in order to achieve peace and institutional stability, a Constituent Assembly was formed. It enacted the 1991 Constitution, which is still in force to date. The assembly included delegates of other demobilized guerrilla groups; however, the two most important organizations—the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, Colombian Armed Revolutionary Forces) and the ELN (Ejército de Liberación Na-cional, Popular Liberation Army)—have refused to participate.

The Constitution of 1991 introduced important institutional reforms, some relating to the electoral and party systems. However, despite the expectations it awoke, the political system did not change substantially: to a large extent, the Liberal and Conservative parties have kept their hold on Colombia’s political life, and abstention, clientelism and fac-tionalism are the order of the day. However, since the introduction of the new constitution, parties and political movements have adopted an elec-toral tactic called ‘operation wasp’—an atomization of electoral lists. This strategy has substantially increased the number of lists, as can be seen in the tables. The traditional parties (Liberals and Conservatives) have become the patrons of a large majority of these lists, for example in the 1991 parliamentary elections, when the Liberal Party vouched for 237 lists and the Conservative Party for 64 lists out of a total of 486 lists. This tactic caused a distortion in the form of candidature, so that candi-datures became virtually individual. Not only had this fact repercussions in the practical distortion of the electoral system as such, but also in the effectiveness, the transparency of the vote count, and the publication of results, as can be seen in the data delivered and partially published by the Registry. In view of the increasing fragmentation and disintegration of parties and the party system and of the loss of governability, a discussion of an electoral reform began in 1995. Several reform proposal had failed before the new electoral provisions were adopted in 2003.

Restoring the peace has been one of the main targets of recent go-vernments. President Samper’s government (1994–1998) achieved little in this respect, because charges of illicit campaign financing undermined much of its political strength. Surrounded by warfare, Pastrana’s go-vernment began peace talks with the FARC and ELN, in a process marked by the distrust of both parties and by national and international pressure to humanize war and achieve peace. The situation was not the most suitable for a peace process, due to the serious economic crisis it was facing—the worst in the 20th century—as well as the involvement

Colombia 299

of the FARC in drug trafficking, the uncertainty about the best way to deal with paramilitary groups, and the constant acts of violence.

Benefiting from the failure of the peace process, Alvaro Uribe Vélez, who had promised to restore civil order and security, won the presiden-tial elections of 2002. Uribe decided to fight the guerilla until they were forced to negotiate. At the same time, Uribe began peace talks with the rightist paramilitary forces. Nevertheless, these talks suffered serious set backs due to the internal division of these groups and to their close ties to drug trafficking. Uribe enjoyed high popularity which led him to pro-pose the constitutional reform permitting his direct re-election. At that point, the end of the armed conflict was not in sight.

Despite Colombia’s long electoral tradition, the competitiveness of elections was limited. Almost all presidents were elected, but electoral freedom and fairness were limited due to the conflicts of the civil wars, fraud, electoral boycotts, the suspension of party competition, and the Frente Nacional agreement.


Since 1821, all constitutions and most of its reforms have dealt with electoral issues. The constitution of 1853 introduced universal, direct, and secret suffrage. In 1886 the constitution was reformed to allow uni-versal suffrage for municipal councils and departmental assemblies only. For presidential elections the indirect census suffrage was reintroduced, while Chamber of Deputies elections remained direct but were again based on census. The senate was elected indirectly by the departmental assemblies.

The electoral provisions of the 1886 Constitution were reformed slowly and progressively. In 1910 the direct vote was re-established for presidential elections and in 1936 universal suffrage was introduced for presidential elections and for elections to the Chamber of Deputies. In 1945 senatorial elections were made direct and universal. Female suf-frage was introduced in 1957, and in 1975 the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 years. Suffrage has never been compulsory. Since law No. 72 of 1930 and the constitutional reform of 1945, members of the armed forces and the national police have not been allowed to vote during ac-tive service.

Until 1853, with the exception of the 1821 Constitution, the president and the vice president were elected separately by absolute majority. The 1821 Constitution established a quorum of two-thirds of the vote. If

Colombia300

neither candidate obtained the necessary majority, Congress chose the president from the top three candidates. The constitution of 1853 intro-duced the plurality system and the 1858 Constitution replaced the elec-ted vice president with an appointee chosen by Congress. The 1863 Constitution substantially changed the rules and stated that each state would have one vote determined by the relative majority of its voters. Absolute majority of these state votes was required and Congress deci-ded if the quorum was not met.

The 1886 Constitution reintroduced the post of vice president and es-tablished the joint election of president and vice president on one ticket with plurality through departmental electoral assemblies. From 1910 on, Congress again chose the appointee, the president being directly elected by relative majority. This regulation remained until 1991. During the liberal-conservative Frente Nacional the presidency alternated between the parties for the four terms from 1958 to 1974 without considering the number of votes for each party.

For the parliamentary elections the majoritarian system was replaced by a proportional system in 1932. For senatorial elections up to 1908 the constituencies corresponded to the territorial entities prescribed by the different constitutions. Between 1908 and 1930 a political electoral cri-terion was applied for the formation of these constituencies, in which three or more senators were elected. In 1930 the political-administrative division of the departments was re-enacted for this election and it was determined that the vote of intendancies and commissaries should be added to those of certain departments. The different constitutions and its corresponding reforms determined the size of the senatorial constituen-cies, ranging from small (1–5) to medium (6–9). In some cases a mini-mum and a maximum of seats per constituency were determined. From 1968 to 1991, each department had a basic representation of two sena-tors in addition to its share according to the size of the population.

Between 1821 and 1863 the constituencies for the elections to the house of representatives corresponded to the territorial entities pre-scribed by the different constitutions and magnitudes varied between one and several members according to population size. In 1863, when legislation on this issue was transferred to the states, some states chose political electoral criteria for the internal establishment of their constitu-encies. In 1886 the constitution established plurality vote in single-member constituencies and stated that each territorial entity (depart-ment) was to be divided into as many constituencies as corresponded to the number of representatives according to the population. In 1910, after two reforms relating to the issues in 1905 and 1908, plurality was defi-

Colombia 301

nitely abolished for this type of election and it was determined that the law would determine the division of the constituencies and that they should have at least three seats. In 1930, the political administrative cri-terion of the departments was re-established for the elections to the House of Representatives. In 1986 it was determined that the intendan-cies and commissaries should not be added to the departmental constitu-encies anymore but would instead be additional constituencies, some joint and some on their own. The basis on which the number of representatives of each constituency was calculated had always been the size of the population. In 1968 it was determined that the departmental constituencies should have a minimum of two representatives plus their share according to the size of the population. In compliance with the 1991 Constitution, five special constituencies were established. They are reserved for the representation of blacks, natives, other political minori-ties, and Colombians living abroad.

From 1853, the year in which voting was made secret, to 1932 lists were open; that is, each citizen could vote for whom he wanted and could set up his own list with printed or hand-written ballots. Neverthe-less, political practice led to the situation that voters generally accepted the lists of candidates presented by the parties. During this period differ-ent methods of multiple vote were in use. In 1905 the limited multiple vote was established, according to the constitutional reform of 1905, which declared the right of ‘representation of minorities’ for the first time at the national level. According to this system, the party that gained the majority of the votes obtained two-thirds of the seats while the re-maining third was reserved for the party with the second highest number of votes. During the period of ‘incomplete votes’ the voter had a number of votes corresponding approximately to two-thirds of the number of seats. Since 1932 lists were closed and blocked. They could contain as many names as the number of seats. Voters only had one vote. Until 1990 parties produced and distributed the ballots. From then on the Reg-istraduría Nacional del Estado Civil was charged with this task.

Seats were distributed according to majority rule from 1821 until 1932, when the Hare quota formula was introduced for all elections to public entities. One exception was the period from 1951 to 1953, when the system of majoritarian representation was re-established, determi-ning that in each constituency the party with the most votes obtained the absolute majority of seats and the rest were distributed among the re-maining parties according to the Hare quota. Another notable exception was the Frente Nacional from 1958 to 1970/74 when it was agreed that the senate and the house were to be composed of the same numbers of

Colombia302

seats of the Liberal and the Conservative parties, ignoring the share of votes each party received. The electoral coefficient was used to distribu-te seats among the different factions of each party. This amount was ob-tained from the votes of the lists of the corresponding party. Nevertheless, in the constituencies with no more than two seats the plu-rality system was applied. The Legislative Act no. 1 of 1968 first redu-ced the period of the Frente Nacional from 1974 to 1970, and secondly determined that for all elections to public entities the method of the Hare quota formula would be applied and that the Hagenbach-Bischoff formula must be used in all constituencies with no more than two seats. Since 1986, blank votes are taken into consideration to calculate the electoral quota.


Sources: Constitution of the Republic of Colombia; Electoral law (de-creto 2241/86); Political Parties Law 130/94). In 2003, some of the regu-lations of the constitution concerning the electoral system and the parties were changed (Legislative Act No. 001 of July 2003).

Suffrage: Universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage is applied. The members of the armed forces and the police are not entitled to vote. Vot-ing is not compulsory; instead, Laws 403 of 1997 and 815 of 2003 state that people who cast a vote shall be granted material benefits.

Elected national institutions: The 1991 Constitution provides for the si-multaneous election of the president and the vice president for a four-year term. The re-election of the president is not allowed.

The bicameral National Congress, consisting of the House of Repre-sentatives and the Senate, is elected for a four-year term, but not on the same day as the president. The House of Representatives is composed of 166 members and the senate of 102.

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates must be Colombian by birth, citi-zens, and over 30 years old. For all elected posts candidates who are not presented by a recognized party or political movement, have to pay a deposit at registration. The amount is determined by the Consejo Na-cional Electoral. A number of signatures is also required: it must not be

Colombia 303

higher than 50,000 for presidential candidates or candidates for the sen-ate.- parliamentary elections: Candidates running for senate must be Co-lombians by birth, citizens and over 30 years old on election day. For the House of Representatives, candidates must be citizens and over 25 years old on election day. Independent candidates need an insurance police and a number of signatures corresponding to the number of voters in the given constituency divided by the number of seats in that constituency, divided by five, but no more than 50,000.

Electoral system - presidential elections: The president and the vice president are elected by an absolute majority of the valid vote. If no one candidate reaches this majority, a second round is held between the top two candidates.- parliamentary elections: Proportional Representation in multi-member constituencies of different size is applied for the election to the House of Representatives. The constitution distinguishes two kinds of constituen-cies: territorial and special. The departments and the Distrito Capital areterritorial constituencies; each one has two deputies, and one more every 250,000 additional inhabitants or section of 125,000 over the initial 250,000. Thus, among the 33 territorial constituencies there are three large constituencies (more than ten seats), six medium-sized (from six to ten seats), twelve small (from three to five seats) and twelve two-member constituencies. The special constituencies may be established by law in order to ensure the representation in the House of Representa-tives of ethnic groups, political minorities or Colombian citizens resid-ing abroad. No more than five deputies may be elected in these constituencies (in 2002: one for Colombians living abroad, two for blacks, one for the natives, and one for other political minorities, reach-ing a total of 166 seats).

The senate is composed of 102 members. From these, 100 are elected in a nationwide constituency and the other two in a special national con-stituency reserved for indigenous communities.

Candidates are presented on closed lists. The parties decide whether their lists shall be blocked or if the voter may cast a preferential vote. There can be as many candidates on one list as there are seats in the con-stituency. In constituencies with more than two seats, seat allocation fol-lows the d’Hondt formula.

For the election of the house of representatives a legal threshold of 50% of the quotient obtained by dividing the total number of valid votes

Colombia304

by the number of contested seats is applied. The legal threshold for the senate is two percent of the votes cast in the nationwide constituency.

In two-member constituencies seats are allocated according to Hare quota, with a legal threshold of 30% of the quotient obtained from divid-ing the total number of valid votes by the number of seats contested. Elections have to be repeated once if an absolute majority of votes are cast as blank votes.

Organizational Context of Elections: The Consejo Nacional Electoral(National Electoral Council) and the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil (National Registry) are responsible for organizing the elections. The council is made up of nine members elected by the Congress for a four-year term. The presidents of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Justice and the State Council choose the national registrar (reg-istrador nacional), who carries out the actual organization of elections during a four-year term.

1.4. Commentary on the Electoral Statistics

The electoral data presented in the following tables are essentially taken from statistics presented by the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil—created in 1948—and the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas (DANE). Before the creation of the Registraduría the task of broadcasting electoral data had not been assigned to a specific entity and therefore data before 1948 are incomplete and there are sub-stantial deviations between some of the different publications.

It is also necessary to indicate that the statistics used and delivered by the Registraduría since 1948 do not always explain its criteria of classi-fication, which vary ostensibly from one administration to another, as well as from publication to publication. This makes it impossible to pre-sent the data in a consistent form and to verify its exactness. From 1998 onwards the Registraduría only delivers the results electronically—Internet and CD—which further hinders its analysis and verification.

Since 1985, official publications of electoral data have listed blank votes under valid votes, because the quota is calculated on the basis of blank and party votes. In the following tables, however, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed separetely, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes.

Colombia 305

2. Tables


Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections for Referen- Coups elections Lower

ChamberaUpperChamberb

ConstitutionalAssembly

dums d’état

1914 10/02c 1918 10/02 1922 xx/02 1926 14/02 1930 09/02 1931 10/05 10/05 1933 14/05 14/05 1934 11/02 1935 26/05 26/05 1937 04/04 04/04 1938 01/05 1939 xx/02 xx/02 1941 16/03 16/03 1942 03/05 1943 xx/02 xx/02 1945 xx/02 xx/02 1946 05/05 1947 16/03 16/03b 1949 05/06 05/06 1949 27/11 1951 16/09 16/09 1953 15/03 15/03 13/071957 01/121958 04/05d 16/03d 16/03d 1960 20/03 20/03 1962 06/05 18/03 18/03 1964 15/03 15/03 1966 01/05 20/03 20/03 1968 17/03 17/03 1970 19/04d 19/04d 19/04d 1974 21/04 21/04 21/04 1978 26/02 26/02 1978 04/06 1982 30/05 14/03 14/03 1986 25/05 09/03 09/03

Colombia306

Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections for Referen- Coups (cont.) elections Lower

ChamberaUpperChamberb

ConstitutionalAssembly

dums d’état

1990 27/05 11/03 11/03 09/12 27/05 1990 09/12 1991 27/10 27/10 1994 29/05 (1st) 13/03 13/03 1994 19/06 (2nd) 1998 31/05 (1st) 08/03 08/03 1998 21/06 (2nd) 2002 26/05 10/03 10/03 2003 25/10 a The available data for the elections to the House of Representatives start in 1931.b The 1945 constitutional reform extended direct suffrage to the election of senators. This was put into practice for the first time in 1947. c First direct election of the president.d The Frente Nacional agreement remained in force in the elections held from 1958 to 1970.


Year Type of Populationb Registered voters Votes cast Electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1914 Pr — — — 337,597c — — 1918 Pr 5,855,000 — — 401,175c — 6.9 1922 Pr — — — 670,053c — — 1926 Pr — — — 370,926c — — 1930 Pr 7,425,000 — — 824,530c — 11.1 1931 R — — — 787,157c — — 1933 R — — — 967,866c — — 1934 Pr — — — 942,009c — — 1935 R 8,199,000 1,288,441 15.9 430,728c 33.4 5.3 1937 R — — — 550,726c — — 1938 Pr 8,641,801 1,700,171 19.7 513,520 30.2 5.9 1939 R — 1,812,636 — 919,569c 50.7 — 1941 R 9,315,000 — — 885,525c — 9.5 1942 Pr 9,540,000 2,056,366 21.6 1,147,806 55.8 12.0 1943 R 9,774,000 — — 882,647c — 9.0 1945 R 10,152,000 2,279,510 22.5 875,856 38.4 8.6 1946 Pr 10,528,000 2,450,596 23.3 1,366,272 55.8 13.0 1947 R 10,800,000 2,613,586 24.2 1,472,686c 56.0 13.6 1947 S 10,800,000 2,613,586 24.2 1,466,012c 56.0 13.6 1949 R 11,373,000 2,773,804 24.4 1,751,804c 63.1 15.4 1949 Pr 11,373,000 2,866,339 25.2 1,140,646 39.8 10.0

Colombia 307

Year Type of Populationb Registered voters Votes cast (cont.) Electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1951 R 11,962,360 — — 934,580 — 7.8 1951 S 11,962,360 — — 935,138 — 7.8 1953 R 12,693,000 — — 1,028,323 — 8.1 1957 Ref 14,223,000 — — 4,397,090d — — 1958 R 14,627,000 5,365,191d 36.7 3,693,939 69.0 25.2 1958 S 14,627,000 5,365,191 36.7 3,655,474 68.1 25.7 1958 Pr 14,627,000 5,386,981 36.8 3,108,567 57.7 21.2 1960 R 15,538,000 4,397,541 28.3 2,542,651 57.8 16.4 1962 R 16,956,000 5,338,868 31.5 3,090,203 57.9 18.2 1962 S 16,956,000 5,338,868 31.5 3,080,055 58.0 18.2 1962 Pr 16,956,000 5,404,765 31.8 2,634,840 48.8 15.5 1964 R 17,484,509 6,135,628 35.1 2,261,190 36.9 12.9 1966 R 19,333,000 6,609,639 34.2 2,939,222 44.5 15.2 1966 S 19,333,000 6,609,639 34.2 2,917,863 44.1 15.0 1966 Pr 19,333,000 6,611,352 34.2 2,649,258 40.1 13.7 1968 R 20,662,000 6,696,723 32.4 2,496,455 37.3 12.1 1970 R 20,803,000 7,666,716 36.8 3,980,201 51.9 19.1 1970 S 20,803,000 7,666,716 36.8 3,967,006 51.7 19.1 1970 Pr 20,803,000 7,683,785 36.9 4,036,458 52.5 19.4 1974 R 22,692,000 8,925,330 39.3 5,100,099 57.1 22.5 1974 S 22,692,000 8,925,330 39.3 5,106,775 51.0 22.5 1974 Pr 22,692,000 8,964,472 39.5 5,212,133 58.1 23.0 1978 R 24,714,000 12,519,719e 50.7 4,180,121 33.4 16.9 1978 S 24,714,000 12,519,719e 50.7 4,169,834 33.3 16.9 1978 Pr 24,714,000 12,580,851 50.9 5,075,719 40.3 20.5 1982 R 26,931,000 13,721,607 51.0 5,584,037 40.7 20.7 1982 S 26,931,000 13,721,607 51.0 5,579,357 40.7 20.7 1983 Pr 26,931,000 13,734,093e 50.9 6,840,392 49.8 25.4 1986 R 29,323,000 15,839,754 54.0 6,909,838 43.6 23.6 1986 S 29,323,000 15,839,754 54.0 6,869,435 43.4 23.4 1986 Pr 29,323,000 15,839,754e 54.0 7,229,937 45.6 24.7 1990 R 30,062,000 13,793,566 45.9 7,631,694 54.6 25.0 1990 S 30,062,000 13,793,566 45.9 7,654,150 55.5 25.5 1990 Pr 30,062,000 13,903,324 46.2 6,047,576 43.5 20.1 1990 CP 30,062,000 13,903,324 46.2 5,891,117 42.4 19.6 1990 Ref f 30,062,000 13,903,324 46.2 3,063,018 21.5 10.2 1990 CA 30,062,000 14,237,110 47.4 3,710,557 26.1 12.3 1991 R 30,063,000 15,037,526 50.0 4,794,340g 31.9 15.9 1991 S 30,063,000 15,037,526 50.0 5,486,422h 36.5 18.2 1994 R 33,109,840b 17,028,961 51.4 5,576,174 32.7 16.8 1994 S 33,109,840 17,028,961 51.4 5,516,574 32.4 16.7

Colombia308

Year Type of Populationb Registered voters Votes cast (cont.) Electiona Total

number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1994 Pr (1st) 33,109,840 17,146,597 51.8 5,821,331 33.9 17.6 1994 Pr (2nd) 33,109,840 17,147,023 51.8 7,427,742 43.3 22.4 1998 R 40,773,000 20,729,473 50.8 9,471,113 45.7 23.2 1998 S 40,773,000 20,767,388 50.9 9,478,377 45.6 23.2 1998 Pr (1st) 40,773,000 20,856,150 51.2 10,751,465 51.5 26.4 1998 Pr (2nd) 40,773,000 20,857,801 51.2 12,310,107 59.0 30.2 2002 R 43,776,000 23,998,685 54.8 10,407,737 43.4 23.8 2002 S 43,776,000 23,998,685 54.8 10,297,403 42.9 23.5 2002 Pr 43,776,000 24,208,311 55.3 11,249,734 46.5 25.7 2003 Ref 44,000,000 25,069,773 57.0 6,673,050 26.6 15.2 a CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pr = President; R = House of Representatives (Lower House), Ref = Referendum; S = Senate (Upper House). b The 1918, 1938, 1951, and 1964 data correspond to census results; other censuses: 1912: 5,473,000, 1928: 7,380,000, 1973: 22,915,229, 1985: 27,867,326, 1993: 33,109,840. The other data are based on official estimates and projections. c This figure corresponds to the valid vote. The total number of votes is not available.d Since 1957 women have been entitled to vote. e Since the new citizenship documents (cédula de ciudadanía) were introduced in 1952 all the citizens whose certificates were approved by the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil were considered registered (the so called ‘potential electorate’). Nevertheless, the automatic inscripti-on of the certificates brought about problems: in 1982, the national registrar himself declared that between 1949 and 1982 the registry had canceled only 600,000 certificates due to the death of their bearer, whereas the actual number of deaths was estimated at three million. In recent years, the registry has taken on the task of correcting the figures of the potential electorate by calcula-ting the number of certificates that should have been canceled after their bearer’s death. After this calculation, the national registrar declared that the actual potential electorate for the parlia-mentary elections had been 11,220,529, rather than 12,519,719. As a result, the electoral turnout rose from 33% to 37%. Likewise, the potential electorate estimated for the 1982 presidential e-lections (15,295,511) sank to 13,734,093. For the 1986 elections, the registry calculated, on the basis of the 1985 census, a potential electorate of 15,839,754, a figure lower than the estimated one, which was 16,126,665. In order to clean up the register, it was agreed that the 1990 electoral census would be made up of the 1986 voters and the registered certificates. After the 1990 elec-tions, the old system of automatic registration was reintroduced.f See below 2.5, Iniciativa ciudadana (IC) - 1990g This figure corresponds exclusively to the valid votes; blank votes are excluded.h This figure does not include the blank and invalid votes cast in the Special Indian Constituency.

2.3 Abbreviations

AD/M-19 Alianza Democrática M-19 (Democratic Alliance M-19) AICO Autoridades Indígenas de Colombia (Indigenous Authorities of

Colombia) ALAS Movimiento Alternativa de Avanzada Social (Alternative

Movement of Social Vanguard)

Colombia 309

ANAPO Alianza Nacional Popular (Popular National Alliance) ANP Acción Nacional Popular (Popular National Action) ANUPAC Movimiento Politico ANUPAC Colombia (Political Movement

ANUPAC Colombia) AP Andrés Presidente / Coalición 1998 (Andrés for President/

Coalition 1998)APEN Acción Patronal Económica Nacional (National Economic

Patronal Action)ASI Movimiento Alianza Social Indígena (Indigenous Social Alliance)C4 Movimiento Compromiso Cívico Cristiano con la Comunidad

(Movement of Christian Civic Commitment to the Community)CC Compromiso Colombia (Commitment Colombia)CCN Movimiento Político Concertación Cívica Nacional (Political

Movement National Civic Concertation)CDPR Comités Democráticos Populares Revolucionarios (Revolutio-

nary Popular Democratic Committees)CI Movimiento Conservatismo Independiente (Movement

Independent Conservatism)CN Convergencia Nacional (National Convergence)CPC Movimiento Convergencia Popular Cívica (Movement Civic

Popular Convergence) Crea Crea - No a la Guerra (Believe - No to the War)FD Frente Democrático (Democratic Front)FE Movimiento Independiente Frente de Esperanza (Independent

Movement Front of Hope)FM Frente Moral (Moral Front)FP Frente Popular (Popular Front)FSP Frente Social y Político (Social and Political Front)FUP Frente por la Unidad del Pueblo (Front for the People’s Unity)IR Movimiento de Integración Regional (Movement for Regional

Integration)JEGA Movimiento Jorge Eliecer Gaitan (Movement Jorge Eliecer Gaitan)LFD Liberal Frente Democrático (Liberal Democratic Front)LIDER Movimiento Liberalismo Independiente de Restauración

(Movement Independent Restauration Liberalism)LPC Movimiento Político Laicos por Colombia (Political Movement

Laicists for Colombia)M-19 Movimiento 19 de abril (Movement of 19th April)MAC Movimiento Amplio Colombiano (Colombian Broad Movement)MACN Movimiento de Acción Cívica Nacional (Movement of National

Civic Action)MAD Movimiento Alternativa Democrática (Movement Democratic

Alternative)MAL Movimiento Apertura Liberal (Movement of Liberal Opening)MB Movimiento Bolivariano por la Nueva Colombia (Bolivarian

Movement for the New Colombia)

Colombia310

MCCN Movimineto Concertación Cívica Nacional (Movement ofNational Civic Concertation)

MDC Movimiento de Defensa Ciudadana (Movement of Civic Defense)MID Movimiento de Izquierda Democrática (Movement of the

Democratic Left)MIL Movimiento Independiente Liberal (Liberal Independent

Movement)MIPOL Movimiento Integración Popular (Movement Popular

Integration)MIRA Movimiento Independiente de Renovación Absoluta

(Independent Movement of Total Renovation) MN Movimiento Nacional (National Movement)MNC Movimiento Nacional Conservador (Conservative National

Movement)MNDP Movimiento Nacional Democrático Popular (Popular National

Democratic Movement)MNP Movimiento Nacional Progresista (Progressive National

Movement)MOE Movimiento Orientación Ecologica (Movement Ecological

Orientation)MOIR Movimiento Obrero - Independiente y Revolucionario (Labor

Movement – Independent and Revolutionary)MPC Movimiento de Participación Comunitaria (Movement of

Participation of the Community)MPD Movimiento Progresismo Democrático (Movement Democratic

Progress)MPN Movimiento de Participación Nacional (Movement of National

Participation)MPP Movimiento de Participación Popular (Movement of Popular

Participation)MRC Movimiento de Reintegración Conservadora (Movement of

Conservative Reintegration)MRD Movimiento de Renovación Democrática (Movement of

Democratic Renovation)MRL Movimiento Revolucionario Liberal (Liberal Revolutionary

Movement)MRLdP Movimiento Revolucionario Liberal del Pueblo (People’s

Liberal Revolutionary Movement)MRN Movimiento de Renovación Nacional (Movement of National

Renovation)MSN Movimiento de Salvación Nacional (Movement of National

Salvation)MUC Movimiento Unión Cristiana (Movement Christian Union)MUM Movimiento Unitario Metapolítico (Metapolitical Unitary

Movement)

Colombia 311

MURCO Movimiento Único de Renovación Conservadora (SoleMovement of Conservative Renovation)

NC Movimiento Nueva Colombia (Movement New Colombia)NFD Nueva Fuerza Democrática (New Democratic Force)NL Nuevo Liberalismo (New Liberalism)OCR Organización Comunista Ruptura (Communist Organization

Rupture)ONIC Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia (National

Indigenous Organization of Colombia)OPN Organización para la Paz Nacional (Organization for National

Peace)P Protestemos (Let’s Protest)PCa Partido Conservador Colombiano (Colombian Conservative Party)PCC Partido Comunista de Colombia (Communist Party of Colombia)PDCb Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party)PH Partido Humanista (Humanist Party)PIC Partido Indígena Colombiano (Colombian Indigenous Party)PL Partido Liberal Colombiano (Colombian Liberal Party)PLC Partido Laborista Colombiano (Colombian Labor Party)PNC Partido Nacional Cristiano (Christian National Party)PPC Partido Popular Colombiano (Colombian Popular Party)PRT Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (Workers’

Revolutionary Party) PSCa Partido Social Conservador Colombiano (Colombian

Conservative Social Party)PSD Partido Social Democrático (Social Democratic Party)PSOC Partido Socialdemócrata de Colombia (Social Democratic Party

of Colombia)PSR Partido Socialista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Socialist Party)PST Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (Socialist Workers’ Party)RALM Renovación Acción Laboral Moral (Renovation Moral Labor

Action)RDN Movimiento de Reconstrucción Democrática Nacional

(Movement of National Democratic Reconstruction)RP Reivindicación Popular (Popular Claim)SL Somos Libres (We are Free)UCR Unión Comunista Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Communist

Union)UD Unidad Democrática (Democratic Unity)UNAMONOS Movimiento Unión Nacional por la Seguridad Social

(Movement National Union for Social Security)UNIOS Unión Obrera y Socialista (Labor and Socialist Union)UNIR Unión Nacional Izquierdista Revolucionaria (Revolutionary

Leftist National Union)UNO Unión Nacional de Oposición (National Opposition Union)UNV Unidad Norte Vallecaucana (Unity North from Vallecauca)

Colombia312

UP Unión Patriótica (Patriotic Union)UR Unión Republicana (Republican Union)URS Unión Revolucionaria Socialista (Socialist Revolutionary

Union)VamosColombia

Vanguardia Moral y Social de Colombia (Moral and Social Vanguard of Colombia)

a In 1987, the Partido Conservador Colombiano (PC; Colombian Conservative Party) changed its name to Partido Social Conservador (PSC; Conservative Social Party). b Former PSDC: Partido Social Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Social Democratic Party).


Party / Alliancea Years Elections contested Presidential Parliamentaryb

PC (PSC)c 1914–1933; 1939–1953 1958–2002

17 28

PL 1914; 1922; 1930–1949 1958–2002

17 27

UR 1914 1 0 PCCd 1934; 1945–1951;

1974–19915 10

FP (1) 1947 0 1 ANAPOe 1962–1982; 1990 5 9 MRLf 1960–1962 0 2 MRL línea blanda 1964–1966 0 2 MRL línea dura 1964 0 1 MRLdPg 1968–1970 0 2 PDCh 1974–1982; 1990–1991 4 2 UNOi 1974–1982 3 3 MUM 1978; 1986–1994 3 3 FUPj 1978–1982 1 2 MNk 1978–1982; 2002 2 1 PSTl 1978; 1990–1991 2 1 MACN 1978 1 0 MRN 1978 1 0 PLC 1978 1 0 UNIOSm 1978 1 0 NL 1982–1986; 2002 1 2 FDn 1982; 1990–1991 2 2 LFDo 1982 0 1 MC 1982 0 1 MID 1982 0 1 RP 1982 1 0 UD 1982 0 1 UPp 1986–1994 1 4

Colombia 313

Party / Alliancea Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentaryb

PH 1986 1 0 MPN 1986 1 0 FP(2) 1986–1991 1 3 AD/M-19q 1990–1994 1 2 MSN 1990–2002 1 4 PNC 1990–1994 1 2 Amor por Colombia

1990 1 0

MOE 1990; 1998 1 1 Movimiento Encuentro 88

1990 1 0

Partido Natural 1990 1 0 MNC 1990–1994 0 3 AICO 1991–2002 0 4 ASI 1991–2002 0 4 CI 1991 0 1 CívicoIndependiente

1991–2002 0 4

Cívico por Caldas 1991 0 1 ConservadorHumbertista

1991 0 1

Mov. FuerzaProgresista

1991; 1998–2002 0 3

IntegraciónPopular

1991 0 1

IR 1991–2002 0 4 LIDER 1991–1994 0 2 MNP 1994–2002 0 4 Movimiento DepartamentalConservador

1991 0 1

Movimiento Humbertista

1991; 1998–2002 0 3

NC 1991 0 1 Movimiento Uni-dos por Colombia

1991 0 1

MRC 1991 0 1 MRD 1991–1998 0 3 MUC 1991–1994 0 2 MURCO 1991–1994 0 2 NFD 1991; 1998–2002 0 3 Nueva Colombia 1991–2002 0 4 ONIC 1991 0 1

Colombia314


Quindianos por Colombia

1991 0 1

Quintín Lame 1991 0 1 Transformación 1991 0 1 UNV 1991 0 1 CI 1994–2002 0 3 LPC 1994–2002 0 3 MAD 1994–1998 0 2 Mov. Nacional de Comunidades Negras

1998–1998 0 1

C4 1998–2002 0 2 Cívico Ecológico 1998 0 1 Comunista Colombiano

1998 0 1

Corriente deRenovación Socialista

1998 0 1

CPC 1998–2002 0 2 Educación y Cambio Social

1998 0 1

FE 1998 0 1 FrenteIndependiente Cívico Popular

1998 0 1

M-19 1998–2002 1 2 Mov. 98 1998 0 1 MAL 1998–2002 0 2 MB 1998 0 1 MCCN 1998 0 1 MDC 1998 0 1 MOIR 1998 0 1 Mov. Agropecuario Colombiano

1998 0 1

Mov. Ciudadano 1998–2002 0 2 Mov. Ciudadano en Formación

1998 0 1

Mov. CívicoSeriedad porColombia

1998–2002 0 2

Mov.Colombia mi País

1998–2002 0 2

Mov.El Colectivo

1998 0 1

Colombia 315


Mov. FuerzaColombia

1998–2002 1 2

Mov. Indígena Colombiano

1998 0 1

Mov. Integración Democratica

1998 0 1

Mov. Nacional de Pensionados

1998 0 1

Mov. Político Ac-titud Renovadora

1998 0 1

Mov. Político Manos Unidos

1998 0 1

Mov. Arena 1998 0 1 Mov. Colombia Misión Colectiva

1998 0 1

Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana

1998–2002 0 2

Mov. Opción So-lidaridad

1998 0 1

Mov. Oxigeno Liberal

1998–2002 1 1

Mov. Participación Ciudadana

1998 0 1

Mov. Político Comunal

1998 0 1

Mov. Político Mujeres

1998 0 1

MPP 1998–2002 0 2 Por la Recreación y el Deporte

1998 0 1

PPC 1998–2002 0 2 RDN 1998–2002 0 1 Unitario Metro-politano

1998 0 1

Vamos Colombia 1998–2002 0 2 MIRA 2002 0 1 Mov. Cambio Radical

2002 0 1

Mov. Colombia Siempre

2002 0 1

FSP 2002 1 1 MIPOL 2002 0 1

Colombia316


Mov. EquipoColombia

2002 0 1

Mov. Huella Ciudadana

2002 0 1

Mov. Popular Unido

2002 0 1

Mov. Republicano 2002 0 1 Mov. Unionista 2002 0 1 Mov. Voluntad Popular

2002 0 1

MPC 2002 1 1 MPD 2002 0 1 RALM 2002 0 1 Vía Alterna 2002 1 1 a This table is a summary of Tables 2.7 and 2.9. It only includes the parties that appear in these tables. This means that several political groups that did contest elections do not appear in this chart, while others appear to have contested on fewer occasions than they actually did. There are two possible reasons for this: either their vote has been grouped under the headings ‘others’ or ‘coalitions’ in the official statistics, or the party simply supported candidates of a different group. In addition, those parties which were members of coalitions are only considered if they have also contested elections individually. Otherwise their name only appears in the explanatory footnote of the given alliance.b Only the number of elections to the Lower House is indicated. Total number: 28. c The party changed its name from Partido Conservador Colombiano (PC) to Partido SocialConservador (PSC) in 1987. In 1978 and 1982 it merged with other groups in what came to be known as the MN. In 1986 it founded the MPN.d Contested under the label Partido Socialista Democrático from 1944–1947. The PCC has con-tested very few elections on its own. In the period 1935–1946 it supported several PL presidenti-al candidates and presented lists to Parliament in conjunction with fractions of that party. The party was prohibited from 1954 to 1957. In 1958 it supported the PL presidential candidacy. In the period 1960–1966 the party formed a coalition with the MRL and in 1968 and 1970 with the MRLdP. Member of the UNO coalition from 1972 to 1978; member of the FD alliance from 1980 to 1984. Finally, from 1986 to 1991 it contested the elections with the UP. e During the Frente Nacional, the ANAPO contested as a fraction of the PC and of the PL. f Initially called Movimiento de Renovación Liberal. g Contested the 1968 and 1970 elections in coalition with the PCC.h Initially called Partido Social Demócrata Cristiano. In 1966 it contested the elections under the conservative banner. In 1970, 1978, and 1982 it supported Belisario Betancur’s candidacy, be-coming a member of the MN in the last two years.i Alliance made up of the PCC, the MOIR, the MAC, and the PDC, in 1972. The latter withdrew immediately and the MOIR and the MAC withdrew in 1975. However, the PCC and some orga-nizations attached to it, together with a sector of the ANAPO and one fraction of the MIL, main-tained this name. j Electoral front composed of the MOIR, the MAC, the CDPR, the MNDP, the UCR, one fraction of the MIL, and one sector of the ANAPO.k Movement formed by the PC, the largest sector of the ANAPO, the PDC and independent libe-rals.

Colombia 317

l Member of the UNIOS coalition in 1978. Supported the FD presidential candidacy in 1982 and the UP’s in 1986.m Electoral alliance formed in 1977 by the PST, the URS, the OCR and the Liga Comunista Re-volucionaria.n Electoral front made up of the UNO, the FIRMES movement, other leftist movements, and in-dependent groups.o Coalition with activity in two departments, formed by different PL and FD sectors. p Formed by the FARC guerrilla group and merged immediately with the PCC. Furthermore, in the 1986 and 1990 parliamentary elections the party reached agreements at the regional level with fracti-ons of the PL, the PSC and the A Luchar movement, as well as with the FP (2), the PSR (2), the PST, the FAMM (Frente Amplio del Magdalena Medio) and with other political and social movements. q Political movement formed by the M-19 (party which arose from the M-19 guerrilla group), the FD, the FP (2), splinter groups of the UP, and other political and social movements as ColombiaUnida, Socialismo Democrático, the Inconformes movement, etc. Later on the Esperanza, Paz y Libertad movement, created by the demobilized EPL guerrilla group (Ejército Popular de Lib-eración), and the PRT, another demobilized guerrilla group, joined the movement.

2.5 Referendums

Year 1957a 1990b

Total number % Total number % Registered Voters — – 13,903,324 – Votes cast 4,397,090 — 5,891,117 42.4 Blank Votes 20,738 0.5 363,656 6.2 Invalid Votes 194 0.0 60,518 1.0 Valid Votes 4,376,158 99.5 5,830,599 98.9 Yes 4,169,294 95.3 5,236,863 89.8 No 206,864 4.7 230,080 3.9 a The 1957 referendum had provided that only the Congress could tackle the constitutional reform. b In the elections of 11 March 1990 the Colombians put a so-called ‘seventh ballot’ in the ballot boxes on the suggestion of a student movement, in order to vote for or against the summoning of a Constitutional Assembly to reform the Constitution. The electoral laws prohibited publishing the result of this vote but according to the press it received considerable support given the short time of two weeks the movement had had to promote its idea. The vote had no legal implications but, politically, the massive support generated demands for an official referendum on the issue. President Vergilio Barco Vargas called a referendum by the decree 927 of 3 May 1990. The refe-rendum on 27 May 1990 authorized an exception by approving the call for a Constitutional As-sembly. This referendum responded to the initiative of the millions of voters who, in the presidential elections of that year, had expressed their wish in favor of it (5,236,863 versus 230,080).

Colombia318

Year 1990a Total number % Registered Voters 13,903,324 – Votes cast 3,063,018 21.5 Blank Votes — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 3,063,018 — Yes 2,988,963 97.6 No 74,055 2.4 a The vote from 27 May had made it clear that the citizens wanted a Constitutional Assembly, but it lacked precise details: how it should be convened and when, which attributions it should have and which issues it should deal with. As a consequence, a difficult legal and political debate followed, which culminated in a Supreme Court decision on 10 October. The Court determined that the agenda proposed by the government was impracticable and that an Assembly could be summoned without a predefined set of issues. The problem was solved with the same constitu-tional theory that had been used for decree 927, but this time not with the aim that the population should vote for an abstract idea but for an assembly with firmly defined characteristics.

Year 2003a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 25,069,773 – Votes casta 6,673,050 26.6 Question Ib Question IIc

Votes cast 6,293,807 25.1 6,222,688 24.8 Blank votes 379,243 1.5 450,362 1.8 Invalid votes 125,266 0.5 119,213 0.5 Yes 5,874,193 95.2 5,871,354 96.2 No 294,348 4.8 232,121 3.8

Question IIId Question IVe


Question Vf Question VIg


Colombia 319

Year 2003a

(cont.) Total number % Total number % Question VIIh Question VIIIi


Question IXj Question XIk

Votes cast 6,136,837 24.5 6,107,282 24.4 Blank votes 536,213 2.1 565,768 2.3 Invalid votes 117,946 0.5 109,104 0.4 Yes 5,557,950 92.3 5,714,738 95.3 No 460,941 7.7 283,440 4.7 Question XIIl Question XIIIm


Question XIVn Question XVo

Votes cast 6,112,705 24.4 5,994,025 23.9 Blank votes 560,345 2.2 679,025 2.7 Invalid votes 141,545 0.6 115,300 0.5 Yes 4,907,283 82.2 5,457,866 92.8 No 1,063,877 17.8 420,859 7.2

Question XVIIIp

Votes cast 5,843,397 23.3 Blank votes 829,653 3.3 Invalid votes 97,197 0.4 Yes 5,475,951 95.3 No 270,249 4.7 a Convoked by President Uribe as an ‘anti-corruption initiative’ (‘contra la politiquería y la cor-rupción’), the referendum initially consisted of 18 questions concerning corruption, public finan-ces, political reform, privatization, and the reform of the public sector. Three questions had been annulled by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the questions are not continously numbered. The constitution establishes the following requirements: a majority of the valid votes is needed and turnout has to be higher than one-fourth of the registered voters in order for the referendum to be adopted (here: 6,267,443 voters). The Constitutional Court decided that this threshold ap-plies for each of the questions independently. This criterion was only met for the first question. b Deny of several political and civil rights to officials guilty of having defrauded the govern-ment.

Colombia320

c Public voting and voting by name in legislative bodies. d Abolition of the substitution of representatives by the following candidates of the respective list.e Public participation in budgetary procedures. f Independence of the parliamentary administration. g Reduction of the number of members of the Congress; modification of the electoral system h Loss of mandate. i Limit on pensions. j Abolition of municipal and regional audit courts. k Prohibition of public funds administered by members of parliament. l Investment of funds economized by the abolition of municipal and regional audit courts into the sectors of health and education. m Reform of the distribution and application of royalties. n Freezing of officials’ wages and pensions, which exceed twice the minimum wage, during two years.o Reform of political parties regime. p Entry into force of the referendum.


Year Votes Seats 1990a Total number % Total % Registered voters 14,237,110 – Votes cast 3,710,557 26.1 Blank votesb 37,735 1.0 Invalid votes 24,467 0.7 Valid votesb 3,648,355 98.3 75 100.0 PL 1,070,193 29.0 24 32.0 AD/M-19 992,613 26.9 19 25.0 MSN 574,411 15.6 11 15.0 PSC 423,775 11.5 9 12.0 UP 95,088 2.6 2 2.7 MUM 20,225 0.6 0 0.0 PST 5,153 0.1 0 0.0 Independents 466,897 12.7 6c 8.0 Additional seats 4d 5.3 a The elections were held in a nationwide constituency. The lists were closed and blocked. Each voter was entitled to a single vote. The seat allocation followed the method of the simple elec-toral quota and the largest remainder. The number of seats was fixed at 70. In addition, it was stipulated that the government would allocate additional seats to those guerrilla groups which, within the bounds of peace talks, decided to lay down their arms. b The sum of blank votes has been added to the initial sum of valid votes because since 1985 these are considered valid to obtain the electoral quota. Officially, since 1985 the number of blank votes has been added to the sum of valid votes in order to obtain the electoral quota. Here, the results are reported according to the systematic of the handbook (valid votes = sum of votes cast for parties or candidates).

Colombia 321

c The following lists gained seats in the Assembly: Movimiento Cristiano Evangélico: 115,201 votes and two seats; Movimiento Unido Estudiantil: 64,711 votes and one seat; ONIC: 31,783 votes and one seat; Movimiento para un Nuevo País para los Niños: 24,625 votes and one seat;Autoridades Indígenas de Colombia: 22,443 votes and one seat.d The guerrilla groups which received these seats were: Ejército Popular de Liberación (EPL): 2; PRT: 1; Movimiento Quintín Lame: 1. The representatives of these groups had only advisory vote.



Year 1931a 1933 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — – — – Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 787,157 — 967,866 — PL 401,993 51.1 604,372 62.4 PC 384,948 48.9 361,571 37.4 Others 216 0.0 1,923 0.2 a The available information about the electoral results of the elections to the House of Represen-tatives in the present century begins in 1931.

Year 1935 1937 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,288,441 – — – Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 430,728 — 550,726 — PL 420,547 97.6 550,726 100.0 Others 10,181 2.4 – –

Colombia322

Year 1939 1941 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,812,636 – — – Votes cast — 50.7 — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 919,569 — 885,525 — PL 592,283 64.4 565,237 63.8 PC 322,825 35.1 316,185 35.7 Others 4,461 0.5 4,103 0.5

Year 1943 1945 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — – 2,279,510 – Votes cast — — 875,856 38.4 Invalid votes — — 177 0.0 Valid votes 882,647 — 875,679 99.9 PL 568,317 64.4 551,224 62.9 PC 298,644 33.8 294,237 33.6 PCCa – – 27,696 3.2 Others 15,686 1.8 2,522 0.3 a The PCC changed its name during the interval 1944–1947 to Partido Socialista Democrático.

Year 1947 1949a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,613,586 – 2,773,804 – Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 1,472,686 — 1,751,804 — PL 805,732 54.7 937,600 53.5 PC 653,986 44.4 806,759 46.1 PCCb 11,577 0.8 6,747 0.4 FP 1,391 0.1 – – Others – – 698 0.0 a President Ospina dissolved Parliament on 09/11/1949. b From 1944 to 1947 it contests as Partido Socialista Democrático.

Colombia 323

Year 1951 1953 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — — — — Votes cast 934,580 – 1,028,323 – Invalid votes 3,111 0.3 2,914 0.3 Valid votes 931,469 99.7 1,025,409 99.7 PL 5,681a 0.6 –b –b

PC 921,370 98.9 1,025,409 100.0 PCC 4,418 0.5 –b –b

a The small share of votes received by the PL is due to the latter’s appeal for abstention. Only a small group of them—the liberales populares—decided to take part in the elections.b Liberals and Communists abstain.

Year 1958a 1960 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 5,365,191 – 4,397,541 – Votes cast 3,693,939 69.0 2,542,651 57.8 Blank votes 3,710 0.1 2,372 0.1 Invalid votes 1,215 0.0 2,506 0.1 Valid votes 3,689,014 99.8 2,537,773 99.8 PL 2,132,741 57.7 1,478,403 58.3 Oficialistas – – 1,106,678 43.6 MRL – – 354,560 14.0 Others – – 17,165 0.7 PC 1,556,273 42.2 1,059,370 41.7 Unionistas(Ospinistas)

446,894 12.1 – –

Alzaospinistas – – 567,087 22.3 Doctrinarios(Laureanistas)

925,856 25.1 446,393 17.6

Alzatistas 150,155 4.1 – – ANAPO – – – – Leyvistas – – 37,020 1.5 Others 33,368 0.9 8,870 0.3 a The Frente Nacional regulations on the election of the members of Congress were binding throughout the period 1958–1970. According to this, only Liberals and Conservatives were al-lowed to present lists in the elections, and each party was entitled to one half of the seats in Con-gress. For this reason, the struggle for seats took place at the center of the two parties.

Colombia324

Year 1962 1964 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 5,338,868 – 6,135,628 – Votes cast 3,090,203 57.9 2,261,190 36.9 Blank votes 1,057 0.0 3,916 0.2 Invalid votes 829 0.0 3,811 0.2 Valid votes 3,088,317 99.9 2,253,463 99.6 PL 1,685,531 54.6 1,157,998 51.4 Frentenacionalistas (Oficialistas)

– – 738,437 32.8

MRL (línea blanda) – – 284,952 12.6 MRL (línea dura) – – 96,895 4.3 ANAPO – – 16,495 0.7 MIL – – 7,129 0.3 Oficialistas 1,081,103 35.0 – – MRL 601,926 19.4 – – Others 2,502 0.1 14,090 0.6 PC 1,402,786 45.4 1,095,465 48.6 Frentenacionalistasa – – 794,000 35.2 Alzaospinistas 794,688 25.7 – – Doctrinarios(Laureanistas)

487,733 15.8 – –

ANAPO 115,587 3.7 293,183 13.0 Others 4,778 0.2 8,282 0.4 a Unionistas and Doctrinarios together.

Colombia 325

Year 1966 1968 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 6,609,639 – 6,696,723 – Votes cast 2,939,222 44.5 2,496,455 37.3 Blank votes 7,096 0.2 4,027 0.2 Invalid votes 2,855 0.1 3,354 0.1 Valid votes 2,929,271 99.7 2,489,074 99.7 PL 1,630,644 55.7 1,328,626 53.4 Oficialistas 1,120,824 38.3 988,540 39.7 Oficialistas disidentes – – 196,457 7.9 MRL (línea blanda) 369,956 12.6 – – MRLdP – – 55,984 2.2 ANAPO 100,898 3.4 82,294 3.3 Independents 24,026 0.8 – – Others 14,940 0.5 5,351 0.2 PC 1,298,627 44.3 1,160,448 46.6 Unionistas 474,397 16.2 578,485 23.2 ANAPO 422,204 14.4 319,609 12.8 Lauro–Alzatistas 346,664 11.8 48,087 1.9 Independents 40,106 1.4 199,330 8.0 Others 15,256a 0.3 14,937 0.6 a Others include: Leyvistas: 7,485 votes and 7,771 votes for other parties

Colombia326

Year 1970 1974 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 7,666,716 – 8,925,330 – Votes cast 3,980,201 51.9 5,100,099 57.1 Blank votes 8,519 0.2 7,761 0.2 Invalid votes 4,978 0.1 3,450 0.1 Valid votes 3,966,704 99.7 5,088,888 99.7 PL 2,034,542 51.3 2,835,245 55.7 L. Pastranistas 1,051,666 26.5 — — L. Rojistas (ANAPO) 563,614 14.2 — — Sourdistas 156,877 4.0 — — L. Belisaristas 137,069 3.5 — — MRLdP 34,491 0.9 — — Others 90,825 2.3 — — PC 1,932,162 48.7 1,631,926 32.0 C. Rojistas (ANAPO) 849,138 21.4 — — C. Pastranistas 589,234 15.0 — — C. Belisaristas 300,223 7.6 — — Sourdistas 185,686 4.7 — — ANAPO – – 458,424 9.0 UNO – – 155,855 3.1 Others 7,881 0.2 7,438a 0.1 a Others include: PDC: 5,674 votes and 1,764 votes for other parties.

Year 1978 1982 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 12,519,719 – 13,721,607 – Votes cast 4,180,121 33.4 5,584,037 40.7 Blank votes 3,956 0.1 5,092 0.1 Invalid votes 5,090 0.1 5,476 0.1 Valid votes 4,171,075 99.7 5,573,469 99.8 PL 2,302,230 55.2 3,141,426a 56.4 PC 1,645,496 39.4 2,248,796 40.3 UNO 128,516 3.0 – – FUP 50,008 1.2 21,081 0.4 FD – – 83,838 1.5 MC – – 25,888b 0.5 Others 44,825 1.1 52,440c 0.9 a The registry provides one single vote for the PL. Nevertheless, even in the electoral campaign the NL, a sector of the PL, began to break away from the party. The NL split in the presidential elections. The NL won 581,074 votes. b Only in Valle. c Others include: LFD: 17,609 votes; DU: 11,460; MID: 4,169, and 19,202 votes for other parties.

Colombia 327

Year 1986a 1990 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 15,839,754 – 13,793,566 – Votes cast 6,909,838 43.6 7,631,694 55.3 Blank votesa 13,189 0.2 11,220 0.1 Invalid votes 11,657 0.2 18,081 0.2 Valid votes 6,884,992b 99.6 7,602,393 99.6 PL 3,290,980 47.7 4,500,985 59.2 PSC 2,558,050 37.0 2,381,898 31.3 NL 455,554 6.6 – – UP 137,134c 2.0 26,682d 0.4 MNC – – 148,046 1.9 Coalitions – – 301,659e 4.0 Others 443,210 6.4 243,123f 3.2 a Since 1985 blank votes have officially been considered valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Yet, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed seperately, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes. In 1986 the number of votes of non-registered lists (66) were added to the total.b The official electoral results data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) is 6,884,992. However, the total sum of party votes amounts only to 6,884,928. c Number of votes received by the lists of the UP and PCC. However, the UP made several re-gional alliances at the constituency level with different political forces, among them the PCC, sectors of the PL, the NL, the ANAPO, and other movements. Thanks to these alliances, whose lists obtained in all a higher share of votes than the UP lists, the UP gained several Members of Parliament. d Only in Cundinamarca and Huila. e Coalitions formed in nine departments. No information is provided in the statistics of the regi-stry about the parties which made up the different alliances. Among them are UP, PCC, FD, FP (2) and sectors of PL.f Others include: MUM: 22,571 votes; ANAPO: 601, and 219,951 votes for other parties.

Year 1991a 1994 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 15,037,526 – 17,028,961 – Votes cast 5,386,736 35.8 5,576,174 32.7 Blank votes 543,662 10.1 194,968 3.5 Invalid votes 153,130 2.8 283,750 5.1 Valid votes 4,689,944b 87.1 5,097,456 91.4 PL 2,425,304 51.6 2,621,201 51.4 PSC 792,153 16.8 1,099,436 21.6 AD/M-19 483,382 10.3 153,185 3.0 MSN 327,845 7.0 51,446 1.0 MNC 107,951 2.3 103,899 2.0 UP 94,393 2.0 39,891 0.8 MUC 75,977 1.6 40,324 0.8 LIDER 43,338 0.9 17,097 0.3

Colombia328

Year (continued) 1991a 1994 Total number % Total number % Mov. Unidos porColombia

41,011 0.9 – –

FP 40,969 0.9 77,767 1.5 Mov. Nueva Colombia 28,354 0.6 76,843 1.5 MUM 23,882 0.5 35,020 0.7 PNC 22,808 0.5 26,881 0.5 MNP – – 29,686 0.6 CI – – 39,116 0.8 LPC – – 60,968 1.2 C-45 – – 60,834 1.2 Special Constituency for Black Communities

– – 131,207 2.6

Coalitions 21,742 0.5 43,927 0.9 Others 174,796d 3.7 388,728e 7.6 a The National Constitutional Assembly decided—through an agreement between its leaders and the President—to call general elections to Congress for 27 October 1991 (Acto Constituyente de Vigencia Inmediata) of 18 June 1991: ‘While the new Congress constitutes on 1 December 1991 the current Congress and its commissions withdraw and will not be able to exercise any of its competences neither on its own initiative nor on the request of the President.’ See: Art. Transito-rio Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of 1991. For this election, 486 lists were registered—237 backed by the Liberal Party, of which 87 got curul, and 64 backed by the Conservative Par-ty, of which 25 got curul. On the general level 15 curules were obtained by coefficient and 146 by residue. b The official electoral results data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) is 4,689,944. However, the total sum of party votes amounts to 4,703,905. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. c 12 lists were inscribed for this special constituency. d AICO: 21,103 votes; Mov. Cívico por Caldas: 16,177; Cívico Independiente: 15,748; UNV: 15,586; MRD: 14,320; Unión Democratica Galanista: 13,936; Quindianos por Colombia: 10,679; Integración Popular: 10,199; Quintín Lame: 8,412; PDC: 7,908; IR: 5,722; PST: 5,487, and 29,519 votes for other small parties. e MURCO: 15,869 votes; ASI: 10,743; MAD: 10,096; ANAPO: 6,721; AICO: 6,048; MRD: 5,761; IR: 4,338; Civico Independientes: 4,294; CCN: 124, and 324,734 votes for other small parties.

Year 1998 2002 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 20,729,473 – 23,998,685 – Votes cast 9,471,113 45.7 10,407,737 43.4 Blank votes 436,784 4.6 526,567 5.1 Invalid votesa 554,382 5.9 845,785 8.1 Valid votes 8,479,947b 89.5 9,035,385 86.8 PL 4,022,739 50.0 2,628,490 29.1 PSC 1,212,419 15.1 971,381 10.8 NFD 140,810 1.8 25,978 0.3

Colombia 329

Year (continued) 1998 2002 Total number % Total number % CI 116,221 1.4 61,513 0.7 Mov. FuerzaProgresista

110,648 1.4 88,788 1.0

CPC 109,573 1.4 193,214 2.1 Mov. Ciudadano 90,927 1.1 20,503 0.2 Mov. Cívico Seriedad por Colombia

80,528 1.0 42,284 0.5

Nueva Colombia 73,348 0.9 22,552 0.2 IR 65,507 0.8 102,002 1.1 MAD 64,695 0.8 4,300 0.0 LPC 54,177 0.7 24,884 0.3 MSN 53,074 0.7 162,452 1.8 Mov. Fuerza Colombia 46,370 0.6 1,448 0.0 PPC 44,322 0.6 21,063 0.2 Unitario Metropolitano 44,258 0.6 – – Mov. Colombia mi País 43,673 0.5 1,180 0.0 MPP 41,059 0.5 123,364 1.4 Mov. Oxigeno Liberal 39,706 0.5 – – MAL 39,194 0.5 168,621 1.9 Vamos Colombia 33,598 0.4 67,850 0.8 Mov. Humbertista 30,641 0.4 41,106 0.5 C4 20,930 0.3 67,062 0.7 M-19 10,722 0.1 43,293 0.5 RDN 4,278 0.0 47,587 0.5 Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana

1,205 0.0 91,969 1.0

MIRA – – 55,121 0.6 Mov. Cambio Radical – – 352,547 3.9 Mov. Colombia Siempre

– – 111,742 1.2

Colombia330

Year (continued) 1998 2002 Total number % Total number % Mov. EquipoColombia

– – 208,514 2.3

FSP – – 84,143 0.9 Mov. Huella Ciudadana

– – 50,309 0.6

MIPOL – – 106,624 1.2 MN – – 143,592 1.6 NL – – 111,255 1.2 MPC – – 66,372 0.7 Mov. Popular Unido – – 177,622 2.0 MPD – – 73,397 0.8 RALM – – 122,869 1.4 Mov. Republicano – – 60,539 0.7 Mov. Unionista – – 88,036 1.0 Vía Alterna – – 85,110 0.9 Mov. Voluntad Popular – – 91,192 1.0 Coalitions 825,166 10.3 886,883 9.8 Others 625,086c 8.1 1,136,634 12.6 a With the introduction of electoral cards at the 1990 elections a new type of votes was introdu-ced corresponding to the non-marked cards which in principle were considered invalid, but which later appeared in the statistics as ‘non-marked cards’ (‘tarjetas no marcadas’) given that they did not comply with the specifications for invalid votes. These votes are only counted for electoral participation. Therefore, from that election on ‘tarjetas no marcadas’ appear. Here, invalid votes include 348,215 tarjetas no marcadas (3.7%) cast in 1998 and 441,690 cast in 2002.b The official electoral results published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes is 8,479,947. However, the total sum of party votes amounts only to 8,044,874. This latter figure has been used to calculate party percentages. c Others include: FE: 34,829 votes; MRD, 32,499; Corriente de Renovación Socialista, 29,265; Mov. Político Actitud Renovadora, 28,279; Cívico Independiente, 26,674; Mov. Participación Ciudadana, 23,749; Mov. Arena, 21,043; ASI, 21,294; AICO, 20,377; Mov. Integración Demo-cratica, 19,084; Por la Recreación y el Deporte, 18,565; MCCN, 18,046; MB: 16,474; MDC, 14,628; Mov. Político Comunal, 14,019; Educación y Cambio Social, 13,342; Mov. Nacional de Pensionados, 12,933; Frente Independiente Cívico Popular, 10,923; Mov. 98, 8,840; MOIR, 8,755; Mov. Indígena Colombiano, 7,930; Mov. El Colectivo, 7,582; Nacional Comunidades Negras, 7,402; Cívico Ecológico, 7,431; Mov. Ciudadano en Formación, 7,093; Mov. Colombia Misión Colectiva, 5,294; Mov. Político Mujeres 2000, 3,404; Mov. Opción Solidaridad, 3,271; Mov. Agropecuario Colombiano, 1,503; Mov. Político Manos Unidas, 955; MOE, 858; Comuni-sta Colombiano, 484, and 179,119 votes for parties not distinguished in the publication.

Colombia 331


Year 1947a 1951 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,613,586 – — – Votes cast — — 935,138 — Blank votes — — 3,089 0.3 Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 1,466,012 — 932,049 99.7 PL 805,874 55.0 5,586b 0.6PC 653,716 44.6 922,607 99.0 PCCc 6,422 0.4 3,856 0.4 a The collecting of electoral data begins with the first direct elections to the Senate in the 20th century. The 1947-elected Senate was dissolved by President Ospina on 09.11.1949.b The small share of votes received by the PL is due to the latter’s call for an electoral boycott. Only a small group of them—the liberales populares—decided to take part in the elections. c From 1944–1947 the PCC bore the name Partido Socialista Democrático.

Year 1958a 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 5,365,191 – 5,338,868 – Votes cast 3,655,474 68.1 3,080,055 58.0 Blank Votes 3,823 0.1 1,208 0.03 Invalid Votes 1,218 0.0 906 0.02 Valid Votes 3,650,433 99.8 3,077,941 99.9 PL 2,105,171 57.7 1,679,590 54.6 Oficialistas — — 1,076,151 35.0 MRL — — 601,063 19.5 Others — — 2,376 0.1 PC 1,545,262 42.3 1,398,351 45.4 Unionistas — — 797,341 25.9 Doctrinarios — — 491,731 16.0 ANAPO — — 104,829 3.4 Others — — 4,450 0.1 a The Frente Nacional regulations were binding throughout the period 1958–1970 (see Overview).

Colombia332

Year 1966 1970 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 6,609,639 – 7,666,716 – Votes cast 2,917,863 44.1 3,967,006 51.7 Blank Votes 3,119 0.1 8,939 0.2 Invalid Votes 5,550 0.2 6,470 0.2 Valid Votes 2,909,194 99.7 3,951,597 99.6 PL 1,529,490 52.6 1,849,425 46.8 Oficialistas 1,120,394 38.5 – – MRL – – – – MRL (línea blanda) 367,457 12.6 – – ANAPO 10,283 0.4 – – Pastranistas – – 1,074,059 27.2 Rojistas – – 382,777 10.0 Belisaristas – – 131,430 3.3 Sourdistas – – 152,506 3.9 Independientes 31,009 1.1 – – Others 347 0.0 108,653 2.7 PC 1,379,704 47.4 2,102,172 53.1 Unionistas 472,876 16.2 – – Lauro–Alzatistas 339,809 11.6 – – ANAPO 474,489 16.3 – – Leyvistas 6,984 0.2 – – Pastranistas – – 586,131 14.8 Rojistas – – 1,036,650 26.2 Belisaristas – – 294,185 7.4 Sourdistas – – 185,206 4.7 Independents 81,586 2.8 – – Others 3,960 0.1 – –

Year 1974 1978 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 8,925,330 – 12,519,719 – Votes cast 5,106,775 57.2 4,169,834 33.3 Blank Votes 8,594 0.2 4,710 0.1 Invalid Votes 3,629 0.1 5,278 0.1 Valid Votes 5,094,552 99.7 4,159,846 99.7 PL 2,840,315 55.8 2,297,534 55.2 PC 1,631,115 32.0 1,650,429 40.0 ANAPO 458,745 9.0 – – UNO 155,158 3.0 126,553 3.0 PDC 7,909 0.2 – – FUP – – 49,058 1.2 Others 1,310 0.0 36,272 0.9

Colombia 333

Year 1982 1986a

Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 13,721,607 – 15,839,754 – Votes cast 5,579,357 40.7 6,869,435 43.4 Blank Votes 5,183 0.1 14,801a 0.2 Invalid Votes 6,976 0.1 11,790 0.2 Valid Votes 5,567,198 99.7 6,842,834a 99.6 PL 3,149,716b 56.3 3,382,406 49.4 PC 2,252,601 40.3 2,541,094 37.1 NL – – 453,550 6.6 UP – – 103,001c 1.5 FD 75,615 1.3 – – Others 89,266d 1.6 362,783 5.3 a Since 1985 blank votes have officially been considered valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Yet, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed seperately, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes. Here, official data are inconsistent: the sum of party votes, blank votes, and invalid votes amounts to 6,869,425, ten votes less than the official number of votes cast. b The Registry provides one single number of votes for the PL. Nevertheless, already in the electoral campaign the NL, a sector of the PL, began to break away gradually from the party. The NL split in the presidential elections. The votes ascribable to NL for the elections to the Senate were 567,600. c Number of votes received by the lists of the UP and PCC. However, the UP made several regio-nal alliances at the constituency level with different political forces, among them the PCC, sectors of the PL, the NL, the ANAPO and other movements. Thanks to these alliances, whose lists obtai-ned in all a higher share of votes than the UP lists, the UP gained several members of Parliament. d Others include: MC: 24,890 votes; FUP: 18,741; LFD: 17,427; UD: 10,978, and 17,230 votes for other small parties.

Year 1990a 1991 Total number % Total number % Registered Voters 13,793,566 – 15,037,526 – Votes cast 7,654,150 55.5 5,486,394 36.5 Blank Votes 10,242b 0.1 461,184c 8.4d

Invalid Votes 17,005 0.2 163,550c 3.0d

Valid Votes 7,626,903b 99.6 4,861,660c 88.6PL 4,470,853 58.6 —e — PSC 2,383,363 31.2 —e — UP – – 79,753 1.6 PCC 35,274f 0.5 – – MUM 23,264 0.3 31,080 0.6 MNC 147,953 1.9 58,012 1.2 ANAPO 492g 0.0 – – AD/M-19 – – 454,467 9.3 NFD – – 436,562 9.0 MSN – – 234,358 4.8 MUC – – 67,885 1.4

Colombia334

Year (continued) 1990a 1991 Total number % Total number % Fuerza Progresista – – 49,902 1.0 LPC – – 49,789 1.0 MNP – – 44,693 0.9 CI – – 43,172 0.9 LIDER – – 40,990 0.8 MRC – – 37,027 0.8 AICO – – 30,312 0.6 ONIC – – 30,020 0.6 PNC – – 27,276 0.6 Mov. Unidos porColombia

– – 27,267 0.6

ASI – – 26,493 0.5 Coalitions 358,246h 4.7 – – Others 207,458 2.7 3,092,644e, i 63.6 a The 1991 Constitution provided for the dissolution of Parliament which had resulted from these elections and called for new elections. b Since 1985 blank votes have officially been considered valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Yet, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed seperately, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes. c 80,907 votes of the total valid votes were cast in the Special Indian Constituency. Yet, only the blank and invalid votes for the national constituency are included, because there is no informati-on on the number of blank and invalid votes corresponding to the Special Indian Constituency. The great amount of blank and invalid votes derives from the fact that these were the first par-liamentary elections where the single and official electoral ballot was used. Furthermore, official data is inconsistent: The number of valid votes cast is (without blank votes) 4,861,660, while the party votes amount to 4,861,702. d These percentages do not consider the amount of blank and invalid votes cast in the Indian Constituency. e Given that the PL and PSC presented numerous lists, as is customary, and that the registry only specified the party affiliation of elected senators, the total share of votes of these parties cannot be provided. The lists of the PL for the Senate received 2,263,398 votes and those of the PSC 346,749.f Only in Cundinamarca. g Only in Antioquia.h Coalitions formed in eleven departments. No information is provided by the statistics of the registry about the parties which made up the different alliances. Among them are UP, PCC, FD, FP(2) and sectors of PL.i This high percentage is due to the inclusion of the PL and PSC votes. The exact number of vo-tes is not available.

Colombia 335

Year 1994 1998 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 17,028,961 – 20,767,388 – Votes cast 5,566,407 32.4 9,478,377 45.6 Blank votes 148,307 2.7 362,860 3.8 Invalid votes 346,274 6.2 777,538a 8.2Valid votes 5,071,826b 91.1 8,337,979c 88.0PL 2,648,731 54.0 3,897,373 49.3 PSC 979,097 20.0 1,000,032 12.6 AD/M-19 140,819 2.9 13,166 0.2 MSN 100,385 2.0 82,687 1.0 Coaliciones 79,553 1.6 609,973 7.7 Laícos por Colombia 51,177 1.0 38,412 0.5 Partido Comunista Colombiano

51,032 1.0 23,613 0.3

Anapo 49,732 1.0 111,531 1.3 Nueva Colombia 45,783 0.9 8,707 0.1 LIDER 45,732 0.9 36,194 0.5 AICO 40,779 0.8 18,224 0.2 MNP 40,085 0.8 108,607 1.3 ASI 36,626 0.7 95,523 1.2 MURCO 31,589 0.6 – – Cívico Independiente 31,455 0.6 25,387 0.3 Nacional Conservador 31,304 0.6 442,767 5.6 Mov. Unitario Metro-polítano

27,082 0.6 16,363 0.2

CI 26,341 0.5 43,908 0.6 PNC 21,325 0.4 – – MUC 58 0.0 53,753 0.7 Oxigeno Liberal – – 158,184 2.0 MDC – – 127,248 1.6 Mov. Ciudadano – – 107,680 1.4 CPC – – 104,836 1.3 NFD – – 100,643 1.3 ReconstrucciónDemocrática

– – 83,715 1.1

MB – – 70,581 0.9 Vamos Colombia – – 65,824 0.8 Mov. 98 – – 46,648 0.6 Mov. Compromiso Cívico Independiente

– – 44,859 0.6

Fuerza Colombia – – 44,587 0.6

Colombia336

Year (continued) 1994 1998 Total number % Total number % Mov. Educación Tra-bajo y Cambio Social

– – 44,347 0.6

FE – – 41,608 0.5 Colombia mi País – – 40,661 0.5 ParticipaciónCiudadana

– – 39,276 0.5

Mov. Humbertista – – 37,782 0.5 Mov. ActitudRenovadora

– – 36,194 0.5

Mov. Cívico Seriedad por Colombia

– – 7,276 0.1

Others 424,882d 8.7 67,380e 0.9a With the introduction of electoral cards at the 1990 elections a new type of votes was introdu-ced corresponding to the non-marked cards which in principle were considered invalid, but which later appeared in the statistics as ‘non-marked cards’ (‘tarjetas no marcadas’) given that they did not comply with the specifications for invalid votes. These votes are only counted for electoral participation. Therefore, from that election on ‘tarjetas no marcadas’ appear. Here, 524,894 tarjetas no marcadas are included. b The official data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) provided is 5,071,826. However, the total sum of party votes amounts to 4,903,567. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. c The official electoral results data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) provided is 8,337,979. However, the total sum of party votes amounts to 7,912,598. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. d Others include: PNC: 21,325 votes (0.4%); MRD: 19,640 (0.4%); MAD: 18,501 (0.4%); Co-munidades Indígenas: 14,245 (0.3%); Consertación Cívico Nacional: 4,326 (0.1%); C4: 2,748 (0.1%).e Others include: MOIR: 35,856 (0.4%); El Colectivo: 32,459 (0.4%); Opción Solidaridad:30,952 (0.4%); Consertación Cívico Nacional: 25,967 (0.3%); Mov. Fuerza Progresista 23,961(0.3%); MRD: 20,888 (0.3%); Mov. Alianza de Reservas Nacionales: 20,512 (0.2%); Mov. Po-lítico Mujers 2.000: 19,791 (0.2%); Partido Comunal y Comunitario: 19,510 (0.2%); ManosUnidas: 17,797 (0.2%); Colombia Misión Colectiva: 17,677 (0.2); Mov. Indígena Colombiano:17,381 (0.2%); Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana: 15,312 (0.2%); Comunidades Negra Palenque:13,797 (0.2%); Corriente de Renovación Socialista: 13,254 (0.2%); Mov. Ciudadano en Forma-ción: 12,845 (0.2%); Mov. Por la Recreación y el Deporte: 8,965 (0.1%); Mov. Integración De-mocrática: 8,472 (0.1%); Mov. Integración Nal.: 7,737 (0.1%); M-19: 5,459 (0.1%); CívicoEcologíco: 3,915 (0.0%); Mov. Agropecuario Colombiano: 3,381 (0.0%); MPP: 3,241 (0.0); MOE: 1,642 (0.0%), and 17,049 (0.2%) vost cast by citizens living abroad.

Colombia 337

Year 2002 Total number % Registered voters 23,998,685 – Votes cast 10,297,403 42.9 Blank votes 454,740 4.4 Invalid votesa 1,011,228 9.8 Valid votes 8,831,435 85.8 PL 2,710,599 30.7 PSC 885,263 10.0 Coalicion 565,222 6.4 MN 411,029 4.7 Mov. Equipo Colombia 297,538 3.4 Mov. Colombia Siempre

255,691 2.9

Mipol 254,616 2.9 Mov. Cambio Radical 222,484 2.5 Mov. Popular Unido 172,717 2.5 Mov. Renov. Acc. Laboral Moral

152,481 1.7

FSP 128,079 1.5 NFD 124,130 1.4 ANAPO 119,022 1.3 ASI 103,370 1.2 Partido Socialdemócrata Colombiano

101,660 1.2

Mov. Fuerza Progresista 96,787 1.1 Mov. NuevoLiberalismo

93,987 1.1

Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana

91,131 1.0

CPC 85,764 1.0 Mov. Unionista 85,713 1.0 MIRA 81,061 0.9 MNP 80,300 0.9 MSN 78,080 0.9 Mov. Alternat. de Ava. Soc. ALAS

77,916 0.9

Mov. Dejen Jugar al Moreno

71,623 0.8

Mov. Politico por la Seguridad Social

70,704 0.8

C4 65,294 0.7

Colombia338

Year (continued) 2002 Total number % Mov. Voluntad Popular 63,533 0.7 Mov. Huella Ciudadana 63,165 0.7 Mov. Somos Colombia 70,699 0.8 Vamos Colombia 66,512 0.8 Mov. Pol. Comunal y Comuni. Col.

56,363 0.6

Mov. Si Colombia 55,835 0.6 Mov. Ciudadano 51,504 0.6 UD 48,939 0.6 FE 46,298 0.5 Mov. Obr. Independ. Revol. MOIR

45,703 0.5

Mov. Cívico Indepen-diente

43,265 0.5

Movimiento Politico Ciudadanos por Boyaca

42,954 0.5

MPD 41,672 0.5 PNC 40,460 0.5 Othersb 612,272 6.9 a Including 656,158 Tarjetas no Marcadas.b Others include: LPC: 37,125 votes (0.4%); MUC: 36,675 (0.4%); AICO: 35,215 (0.4%); MRD: 34,049 (0.4%); UNAMONOS: 29,430 (0.3%); MPC: 28,319 (0.3%); Mov. Colombia mi País:23,770 (0.3%); MAD: 23,271 (0.3%); MCCN: 21,191 (0.2%); CI: 20,503 (0.2%); Mov. Humber-tista: 19,868 (0.2%); ANUPAC: 13,387 (0.2%); RDN: 12,693 (0.1%); MDC: 12,015 (0.1%); PSD: 11,279 (0.1%); PIC: 11,266 (0.1%); Mov. Autonomia Ciudadana: 6,845 (0.1%); MPP: 6,762 (0.1%); Mov. Fuerza Colombia: 4,707 (0.1%); Mov. Revolucion Democratica: 3,899 (0.0%); LIDER: 1,442 (0.0%); PPC: 1,400 (0.0%), and 217,161 votes (2.5%) for other small parties.

Colombia 339



Year 1931 1933 1935 1937 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 118 100.0 118 100.0 119 100.0 119 100.0 PL — — 74 62.7 — — — — PC — — 44 37.3 — — — — PCC — — – – — — 1 0.8

Year 1939 1941 1943 1945 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 119 100.0 131 100.0 131 100.0 131 100.0 PL — — — — — — 80 61.1 PC — — — — — — 47 35.9 PCC — — — — 3 2.3 4a 3.0 a From 1944 to 1947 the name of the PCC was Partido Socialista Democrático.

Year 1947 1949 1951 1953 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 131 100.0 132 100.0 132a 100.0 132a 100.0 PL 73 55.7 69 52.2 – – – – PC 58 44.3 63 47.8 71 – 76 – a As the Partido Liberal did not contest the elections and none of the other contenders reached the required half quota, the seats corresponding to minorities were left vacant.

Colombia340

Year 1958a 1960 1962 1964 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 148 100.0 152 100.0 184 100.0 184 100.0 PL 74 50.0 76 50.0 92 50.0 92 50.0 Oficialistas – – 58 38.1 59 32.1 – – MRL – – 18 11.8 33 18.0 – – Frente-nacionalistas

– – – – – – 59 32.1

MRL línea blanda

– – – – – – 23 12.5

MRL línea dura – – – – – – 8 4.3 ANAPO – – – – – – 1 0.5 MIL – – – – – – 1 0.5 PC 74 50.0 76 50.0 92 50.0 92 50.0 Unionistas(Ospinistas)

19 12.8 – – – – – –

Doctrinarios(Laureanistas)

49 33.1 38 25.0 36 19.6 – –

Alzatistas 6 4.1 – – – – – – Alzaospinistas – – 37 24.3 50 27.2 – – Leyvistas–Independientes

– – 1 0.7 – – – –

ANAPO – – – – 6 3.3 26 14.1 Frente-nacionalistas

– – – – – – 65 35.3

Independents – – – – – – 1 0.5 a The Frente Nacional system remained in force from 1958 to 1970.

Colombia 341

Year 1966 1968 1970 1974 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 190 100.0 204 100.0 210a 100.0 199b 100.0 PL 95 50.0 102 50.0 105 50.0 113 56.7 Oficialistas 69 36.3 77 37.7 – – – – dissidentOficialistas

– – 17 8.3 – – – –

MRL línea blanda

21 11.1 – – – – – –

MRLdP – – 2 1 – – – – ANAPO 4 2.1 6 2.9 – – – – Independents 1 0.5 – – – – – – Pastranistas – – – – 57 27.1 – – Rojistas(ANAPO)

– – – – 28 13.3 – –

Sourdistas – – – – 9 4.3 – – Belisaristas – – – – 6 2.9 – – Others – – – – 5 2.4 – – PC 95 50.0 102 50.0 105a 50.0 66 33.1 Unionistas 35 18.4 49 24.0 – – – – ANAPO 33 17.4 28 13.7 – – – – Lauro–Alzatistas

25 13.1 5 2.5 – – – –

Leyvistas 1 0.5 – – – – – – Independents 1 0.5 19 9.3 – – – – Pastranistas – – – – 30 14.3 – – Rojistas(ANAPO)

– – – – 43 20.5 – –

Belisaristas – – – – 19 9.0 – – Sourdistas – – – – 13 6.2 – – Others – – 1 0.5 4 2.0 – – ANAPO – – – – – – 15 7.5 UNO – – – – – – 5 2.5 a Figures are inconsistent. The sum of seats allocated to the parties amounts to 214 (109 for the conservative parties). b The end of the Frente Nacional brought about a reduction in the number of House representati-ves, in that it eliminated the seats created to allow parity in those constituencies with an odd number of representatives.

Colombia342

Year 1978 1982 1986 1990 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 199 100.0 199 100.0 199 100.0 199 100.0 PL 111 55.7 115a 57.8 98 49.2 119 59.8 NL – – – – 7 3.5 – – PC/PSC 83 41.7 82 41.2 80 40.2 62 31.2 FD – – 1 0.5 – – – – Movimiento Cívico

– – 1 0.5 – – – –

UP – – – – 3b 1.5 1 0.5 MNC – – – – – – 3 1.5 UNO 4 2.0 – – – – – – FUP 1 0.5 – – – – – – Coalitions – – – – – – 10 5.0 Others – – – – 11 5.5 4 2.0 a Considering the later division of the PL, a difference must be made between PL seats and NL seats. The latter received eleven seats.b The UP received these seats with its own independent lists. It also gained representatives through several coalitions in which it took part.

Year 1991 1994 1998 Seats % Seats % Seats % 161a 100.0 163 100.0 161 100.0 PL 87 54.0 88 53.7 84 51.5 PSC 27b 16.7 40 24.4 28 17.2 UP 3 1.9 – – – – MNC 4b 2.5 6 0.6 4 2.5 AD/M-19 13 8.1 1 3.7 – – MSN 11b 6.8 1 0.6 1 0.6 Cívico Independiente 1 1.0 – – – – Conservador Humbertista 1 1.0 – – – – FP 1 1.0 – – – – IR 1 1.0 1 0.6 2 1.2 LIDER 1 1.0 – – – – Movimiento Humbertista 1 1.0 – – 1 0.6 MURCO 1 1.0 1 0.6 – – Mov. Nueva Colombia 1 1.0 2 1.2 1 0.6 MUM 1 1.0 1 0.6 – – MRD 1 1.0 – – – – Transformación 1 1.0 – – – – MUC 1 1.0 – – – – UNV 1 1.0 – – – – Unidos por Colombia 1 1.0 – – – – AICO 1 1.0 – – – – MNP – – 1 0.6 1 0.6

Colombia 343

Year (continued) 1991 1994 1998 Seats % Seats % Seats % PNC – – 1 0.6 1 0.6Mov. ConservadorIndependiente

– – 1 0.6 2 1.2

MAL – – – – 1 0.6Mov. Fuerza Progresista – – 4 2.4 4 2.5Mov. Cívico Independiente – – – – 1 0.6FE – – – – 1 0.6CPC – – – – 2 1.2Mov. Cuidadano – – – – 1 0.6NFD – – – – 2 1.2MAD – – – – 1 0.6MPP – – – – 1 0.6Mov. Cívico deriedad por Colombia

– – – – 1 0.6

Special Constituency for Black Communities

– – 1 0.6 2 1.2

ASI – – 1 0.6 2 1.2 Mov. Nacional deComunidades Negras

1 0.6 0 0.0

Coalitions 1 1.0 1 0.6 16 9.8 Others (other lists) 8b 5.0 12 7.3 3 1.8 a The decrease in the number of House representatives is due to the provisions of the 1991 Con-stitution. b For these four cases, the figures correspond to the list of elected members drawn up by the regi-stry. Yet, the registry also offers a table with the number of Chamber representatives for each party. According to the latter, the PSC would have received 25, the MNC 6, the MSN 10 and ‘Others’ would comprise 9 seats.

Colombia344

Year 2002 Seats % 166 100.0 PL 54 32.5 PSC 21 12.7 Coalicion 11 6.6 Cambio Radical 7 4.2 MAL 5 3.0 CPC 4 2.4 Mov. Equipo Colombia 4 2.4 Mov. Colombia Siempre 3 1.8 Convergencia Ciudadana 2 1.2 Fuerza Progresista 2 1.2 FSP 2 1.2 IR 2 1.2 Mov. Popular Unido 2 1.2 Mov. Voluntad Popular 2 1.2 MPD 2 1.2 MPP 2 1.2 MSN 2 1.2 RALM 2 1.2 MNP 1 0.6 MPC 1 0.6 NFD 1 0.6 Mov. Republicano 1 0.6 CI 1 0.6 Cívico Seriedad Colombia 1 0.6 MN 1 0.6 PNC 1 0.6 PPC 1 0.6 RDN 1 0.6 Vía Alterna 1 0.6 Others 22 13.3 AICO 1 0.6 MPU 1 0.6 PL 1 0.6 Others 1 0.6

Colombia 345


Year 1947 1951 1958b 1962 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 63 100.0 62a 100.0 80 100.0 98 100.0 PL 34 53.9 – – 40 50.0 49 50.0 Oficialistas – – – – – – 37 37.8 MRL – – – – – – 12 12.3 PC 29 46.1 40 40 50.0 49 50.0 Ospinistas – – – – 10 12.5 – – Laureanistas – – – – 28 35.0 – – Independientes y Alzatistas

– – – – 2 2.5 – –

Unionistas – – – – – – 31 31.6 Doctrinarios – – – – – – 16 16.3 ANAPO – – – – – – 2 2.0 a In the elections to the Senate held in 1953, the only party which presented candidates was the Partido Conservador, hence the seats corresponding to minorities were left vacant. b The Frente Nacional system was in force from 1958 to 1970.

Year 1966 1970 1974 1978 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 106 100.0 118 100.0 112a 100.0 112 100.0 PL 53 50.0 59 50.0 66 58.9 62 55.3 Oficialistas 46 43.3 – – – – – – MRL (línea blanda)

7 6.6 – – – – – –

Pastranistas – – 39 33.1 – – – – Rojistas(ANAPO)

– – 12 10.2 – – – –

Sourdistas – – 5 4.2 – – – – Belisaristas – – 3 2.5 – – – – PC 53 50.0 59 50.0 37 33.0 49 43.7 Unionistas 20 18.9 – – – – – – Lauro–Alzatistas

14 13.2 – – – – – –

Independientes 1 0.9 – – – – – – ANAPO 18 17.0 – – 7 6.3 – – Rojistas(ANAPO)

– – 26 22.0 – – – –

Pastranistas – – 18 15.3 – – – – Belisaristas – – 9 7.7 – – – – Sourdistas – – 6 5.0 – – – – UNO – – – – 2 1.8 1 0.9

Colombia346

a The end of the Frente Nacional brought about a reduction in the number of House representati-ves, in that it eliminated the seats created to allow parity in those constituencies with an odd number of representaties.

Year 1982 1986 1990 1991 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 114 100.0 114 100.0 114 100.0 102a 100.0 PL 63b 55.2 58 50.8 66 57.9 56 54.9PCc 49 42.9 43 37.7 38 33.3 9 8.8MC 1 0.9 – – – – – – FD 1 0.9 – – – – – – NL – – 6 5.2 – – – – MNC – – – – 1 0.9 1 1.0UP – – 2d 1.8 – – 1 1.0AD/M-19 – – – – – – 9 8.8NFD – – – – – – 8 7.8MSN – – – – – – 5 4.9CI – – – – – – 1 1.0Fuerza Progre-sista

– – – – – – 1 1.0

LPC – – – – – – 1 1.0LIDER – – – – – – 1 1.0MNP – – – – – – 1 1.0Mov. Unidos por Colombia

– – – – – – 1 1.0

MUM – – – – – – 1 1.0PNC – – – – – – 1 1.0ReintegraciónConservadora

– – – – – – 1 1.0

MUC – – – – – – 1 1.0AICO – – – – – – 1e 1.0ONIC – – – – – – 1e 1.0ASI – – – – – – 1e 1.0Coalitions – – – – 7 6.1 – – Others – – 5 4.4 2 1.8 – – a The 1991 Constitution fixed the number of senators at 102. b Considering the PL division, which became definite in the presidential elections, a difference must be made between PL seats and NL seats. The latter received eight seats. c Since 1987: PSC d The UP received these seats with its own independent lists. It also gained representatives through several coalitions in which it took part.e The ONIC and ASI senators were elected for the Special Indian Constituency. AICO’s senator had also registered for this constituency; however the share of votes for each of these three lists surpassed the number required to receive a residual seat in the national constituency. Conse-quently, the Electoral Nacional Council decided to consider AICO’s list within the national con-stituency.

Colombia 347

Year 1994 1998 2002 Seats % Seats % Seats % 102 100.0 102 100.0 102 100.0 PL 56 54.9 48 47.1 29 28.4 PSC 20 19.6 15 14.7 13 12.7 Mov. Unitario Metropolitano

1 1.0 – – – –

ANAPO 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 MNC 1 1.0 7 6.9 – – MNP 1 1.0 2 2.0 1 1.0 MUC 1 1.0 – – – – MSN 2 1 1.0 1 1.0 Mov. NuevaColombia

1 1.0 – – – –

LIDER 1 1.0 – – 0 0.0 Mov. Conservador Independiente

1 1.0 1 1.0 – –

LPC 1 1.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 Comunidad Cívico Cristiana

1 1.0 – – – –

Mov. CivicoIndependiente

1 1.0 – – 1 1.0

MURCO 1 1.0 – – – – P. Comunista Colombiano

1 1.0 – –

ASI – – 1 1.0 1 1.0 C4 – – 1 1.0 1 1.0 EducaciónTrabajo y Cambio

– – 1 1.0 – –

FE – – 1 1.0 – – MDC – – 2 2.0 – – CPC – – 1 1.0 1 1.0 Mov. Ciudadano – – 1 1.0 1 1.0 MB – – 1 1.0 – – NFD – – 1 1.0 1 1.0 PPC – – 1 1.0 0 0.0 Vamos Colombia – – 1 1.0 1 1.0 Mov. 98 – – 1 1.0 – –

Colombia348

Year 1994 1998 2002 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Mov. Oxigeno Liberal

– – 2 2.0 – –

Mov. Recon-strucción Demo-crática

– – 1 1.0 0 0.0

Mov. Colombia mi País

– – 1 1.0 – –

MN – – – – 6 6.0 MIPOL – – – – 4 4.0 Mov. EquipoColombia

– – – – 4 4.0

Mov. Colombia Siempre

– – – – 2 2.0

Mov. Cambio Radical

– – – – 2 2.0

Mov. Popular Unido

– – – – 2 2.0

RALM – – – – 1 1.0 FSP – – – – 1 1.0 Partido Social-demócrata Co-lombiano

– – – – 1 1.0

Mov. Fuerza Progresista

– – – – 1 1.0

NL – – – – 1 1.0 Mov.ConvergenciaCiudadana

– – – – 1 1.0

Mov. Unionista – – – – 1 1.0 MIRA – – – – 1 1.0 ALAS – – – – 1 1.0 Mov. DejenJugar al Moreno

– – – – 1 1.0

Mov. Politico por la Seguridad Social

– – – – 1 1.0

Mov. Somos Co-lombia

– – – – 1 1.0

Colombia 349

Year 1994 1998 2002 (continued) Seats % Seats % Seats % Mov. Voluntad Popular

– – – – 1 1.0

Mov. Huella Ciudadana

– – – – 1 1.0

Mov. SíColombia

– – – – 1 1.0

UD – – – – 1 1.0 FE – – – – 1 1.0 MOIR – – – – 1 1.0 Mov. Politico Ciudadanos por Boyaca

– – – – 1 1.0

MPD – – – – 1 1.0 PNC – – – – 1 1.0 SpecialConstituency for IndigenousCommunities

2 2.0 2 2.0 – –

AICO 1 1.0 – – 1 1.0 Mov. Indigena Colombiano

1 1.0 – – – –

Coalitions 2 2.0 7 6.9 6 – Others 8 7.8 – – 2 –


1914a, b Total number % Registered Voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 337,597 — José Vicente Concha (PC) 300,735 89.1 Nicolás Esguerra(Republicano/Liberal)

36,763 10.9

Others 99 0.0 a The collecting of electoral data begins with the first direct presidential elections held in the 20th century.b Each candidate enjoyed the support of one sector of the PL and the PC.

Colombia350

1918 Total number % Registered Voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 401,175 — Marco Fidel Suárez (PC) 216,594 54.0 Guillermo León Valencia (PC)a 160,498 40.0 José M. Lombana 24,041 6.0 Others 42 0.0 a The PL supported his candidacy.

1922a Total number % Registered Voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 670,053 — Pedro Nel Ospina (PC) 413,619 61.7 Benjamín Herrera (PL)b 256,231 38.2 Others 203 0.0 a The PL reported blatant electoral fraud. b The Partido Socialista supported his candidacy.

1926 Total number % Registered Voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 370,926 — Miguel Abadía Méndez (PC) 370,494 99.9 Others 432 0.1

1930 Total number % Registered Voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 824,530 — Enrique Olaya Herrera (PL) 369,934 44.9 Guillermo León Valencia (PC) 240,360 29.2 Alfredo Vásquez Cobo (PC) 213,470 25.9 Othersa 766 0.1 a Among them Alberto Castrillón, the candidate of the PSR.

Colombia 351

1934a Total number % Registered Voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 942,009 — Alfonso López Pumarejo (PL) 938,608 99.6 Eutiquio Timoté (PCC) 1,974 0.2 Others. Blank and invalid votes 1,427 0.2 a The PC appealed for abstention.

1938a Total number % Registered Voters 1,700,171 – Votes cast 513,520 30.2 Invalid Votes 1,573 0.3 Valid Votes 511,947 99.7 Eduardo Santos (PL) 511,947 100.0 a The PC did not contest the elections.

1942 Total number % Registered Voters 2,056,366 – Votes cast — — Invalid Votes — — Valid Votes 1,147,806 — Alfonso López Pumarejo (PL)a 673,169 58.6 Carlos Arango Vélez (PL)b 474,637 41.4 a Received the PCC’s support.b Received the PC’s support.

1946 Total number % Registered Voters 2,450,596 – Votes cast 1,366,272 55.8 Invalid Votes 177 0.0 Valid Votes 1,366,095 99.9 Mariano Ospina Pérez (PC) 565,939 41.4 Gabriel Turbay (PL)a 441,199 32.3 Jorge Eliécer Gaitán (PL)b 358,957 26.3 a Received the support of the Partido Socialista Democrático (which is the same as PCC). b Assassinated on 09/04/1948. This sparkled the uprising known as ‘El Bogotazo’ which marked the beginning of the so called Violencia period.

Colombia352

1949a Total number % Registered Voters 2,866,339 – Votes cast 1,140,646 39.8 Invalid Votes 501 0.0 Valid Votes 1,140,145 100.0 Laureano Gómez (PC) 1,140,122 100.0 Others 23 0.0 a The PL appealed for abstention. After a failed attempt against its candidate Darío Echandía, the party withdrew his candidacy.

1958 Total number % Registered Voters 5,386,981 – Votes cast 3,108,567 57.7 Blank Votes 8,303 0.3 Invalid Votes 2,165 0.1 Valid Votes 3,098,099 99.7 Alberto Lleras Camargo (PL)a 2,482,948 80.1 Jorge Leyva (PC) 614,861 19.8 Others 290 0.0 a The Acto Legislativo No. 1 of 1959 constitutionalised the liberal-conservative alternation in power. Yet, these two parties had already agreed to this alternation in the 1958 elections. In order to put it into practice they decided to support a liberal candidate. Leyva’s candidacy responded to dissidence within the PC. Lleras’ candidacy received also the PCC’s support.

1962a Total number % Registered Voters 5,404,765 – Votes cast 2,634,840 48.8 Blank Votes 5,822 0.2 Invalid Votesb 683,436 25.9 Valid Votes 1,945,582 73.8 Guillermo León Valencia (PC) 1,636,081 84.1 Jorge Leyva (PC) 308,992 15.9 Othersc 509 0.0 a In compliance with the Frente Nacional agreement, only the Conservatives presented candidates. b The Electoral Court did not calculate the votes cast in favor of these two candidates. The reason for the first case was that, in compliance with the constitutional provisions, only Conservative candidates could contest the 1962 elections. For the second, after the downfall of the military regime, the Senate of the Republic had punished Rojas by depriving him of political rights. He recovered his rights in 1966.c Alfonso López Michelsen (PL): 625,630; Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (Conservador/ANAPO): 54,562; other invalid votes: 3,244.

Colombia 353

1966a Total number % Registered Voters 6,611,352 – Votes cast 2,649,258 40.1 Blank Votes 9,824 0.4 Invalid Votes 5,529 0.2 Valid Votes 2,633,905 99.4 Carlos Lleras Restrepo (PL) 1,891,175 71.8 José Jaramillo Giraldo (PL/ANAPO) 742,133 28.2 Antonio Goyeneche (PL) 597 0.0 a In accordance with the Frente Nacional agreement, only the Liberals presented candidates.

1970a, b Total number % Registered Voters 7,683,785 – Votes cast 4,036,458 52.5 Blank Votes 36,892 0.9 Invalid Votes 5,426 0.1 Valid Votes 3,994,140 99.0 Misael Pastrana B. (PC) 1,625,025 40.7 Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (PC/ANAPO)c

1,561,468 39.1

Belisario Betancur C. (PC)c 471,350 11.8 Evaristo Sourdís J. (PC) 336,286 8.4 Rafael Corredor 11 0.0 a In accordance with the Frente Nacional agreement, only the Conservatives presented candidates. b Rojas Pinilla’s followers questioned the reliability of the results, they argued that the figures had been altered in favor of candidate Pastrana.c The Partido Social Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Social Democratic Party), later renamed PDC, supported his candidacy.

1974a Total number % Registered Voters 8,964,472 – Votes cast 5,212,133 58.1 Blank Votes 6,722 0.1 Invalid Votes 5,869 0.1 Valid Votes 5,199,542 99.8 Alfonso López Michelsen (PL) 2,929,719 56.3 Alvaro Gómez Hurtado (PC) 1,634,879 31.4 María Eugenia Rojas de Moreno (ANAPO)

492,166 9.5

Hernando Echeverri Mejía (UNO) 137,054 2.6 Hermes Duarte Arias (PDC) 5,718 0.1 José M. Córdoba (Independent) 6 0.0 a The three top candidates were sons and daughters of former Presidents of the Republic: López was the son of Alfonso López Pumarejo; Gómez was the son of Laureano Gómez and María Eu-genia Rojas was the daughter of Moreno de Gustavo Rojas Pinilla.

Colombia354

1978 Total number % Registered Voters 12,580,851 – Votes cast 5,075,719 40.3 Blank Votes 9,923 0.2 Invalid Votes 7,871 0.2 Valid Votes 5,057,925 99.6 Julio César Turbay Ayala (PL) 2,503,681 49.5 Belisario Betancur C. (PC/MN) 2,356,620 46.6 Julio César Pernía (UNO) 97,234 1.9 Alvaro Valencia Tovar (MRN) 65,961 1.3 Jaime Piedrahita Cardona (FUP) 27,059 0.5 Luz del Socorro Ramírez (UNIOS) 6,643 0.1 Víctor Julio Gómez Hoyos (MACN) 587 0.0 Regina B. de Liska (MUMa) 126 0.0 Jesús Arenas Fajardo (P. Laborista) 14 0.0 a At that time under the name MUR.

1982 Total number % Registered Voters 13,734,093 – Votes cast 6,840,392 49.8 Blank Votes 8,996 0.1 Invalid Votes 9,594 0.1 Valid Votes 6,821,802 99.7 Belisario Betancur C. (PC/MN) 3,189,278 46.8 Alfonso López Michelsen (PL) 2,797,627 41.0 Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento (NL) 745,738 10.9 Gerardo Molina Ramírez (FD) 82,858 1.2 Florentino Porras Pardo (RP) 159 0.0 Others 6,142 0.1

1986a Total number % Registered Voters 15,839,754 – Votes cast 7,229,937 45.6 Blank Votes 42,205 0.6 Invalid Votes 8,119 0.1 Valid Votes 7,179,613 99.3 Virgilio Barco (PL) 4,214,510 58.7 Alvaro Gómez (PC/MPN) 2,588,050 36.0 Jaime Pardo Leal (UP) 328,752 4.6 Regina Betancur de Liska (MUM) 46,811 0.7 Juan David Pérez Gaviria (PH) 229 0.0 Others 1,261 0.0 a As in parliamentary elections, official numbers of valid votes include blank votes since 1985, because the latter are counted as valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Here, the number of valid votes corresponds to the sum of party votes, which is the basis for the percentages.

Colombia 355

1990a Total number % Registered Voters 13,903,324 – Votes cast 6,047,576 43.5 Blank Votes 77,727 1.3 Invalid Votes 45,302 0.7 Valid Votes 5,924,547b 99.3César Gaviria T. (PL)c 2,891,808 48.2 Alvaro Gómez H. (MSN) 1,433,913 23.9 Antonio Navarro Wolf (AD/M-19) 754,740 12.6 Rodrigo Lloreda C. (PSC)d 735,374 12.3 Regina Betancur de Liska (MUM) 37,537 0.6 Claudia Rodríguez (PNC) 33,645 0.6 Otherse 37,520 0.6 a Violence tarnished the electoral campaign: Luis Carlos Galán, the Liberal pre-candidate with the highest chance to run as candidate for his party and win the elections, was assassinated on 18 August 1989. On 22 March 1990 Bernardo Jaramillo, the UP candidate, was assassinated. In light of these events, the UP decided not to present a candidate for the presidential elections. Fi-nally, on 26 April 1990 the candidate of AD/M-19, Carlos Pizarro León-Gómez, was assassina-ted. The AD/M-19 replaced him with the M-19’s second man, Navarro Wolf. b Official data are inconsistent. The sum of party votes (5,924,537) slightly differs from the num-ber of valid votes (5,924,547). c By means of the new 3rd Act of 1989, the PL candidate was elected through a popular vote carried out on the same day as the parliamentary elections. The PL agreed with the registry that the latter should count the votes.d In 1987, the PC changed its name into PSC. e Six candidates: Oscar Loaiza (P. Natural) 9,468 votes; José Agustín Linares (PDC) 9,048 votes; Luis Carlos Valencia (PST) 8,168 votes; Guillermo Alemán (MOE) 7,429 votes; Jesús García P. (Amor por Colombia) 2,411 votes; Jairo H. Rodríguez (Mov. Encuentro 88) 996 votes.

Colombia356

1994 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 17,146,597 – Votes cast 5,821,331 34.0 Blank votes 65,116 1.1 Invalid votes 29,999 0.5 Valid votes 5,726,216a 98.4Ernesto Samper Pizano (PL) 2,623,210 45.3 Andres Pastrana Arango/ Andres Presdiente. Coalición.

2,604,771 45.0

Antonio Navarro Wolf (Compromiso Colombia )

219,241 3.8

Regina Betancur de Liska (MUM) 64,131 1.1 Miguel Alfredo Maza Marquez (CCN)

55,190 1.0

Alberto Mendoza Morales (CN/ Unión Patriotica)

34,437 0.6

Enrique Parejo Gonzalez (ADN) 29,246 0.5 Votación en el exterior 27,620 Othersb 95,990 1.6 a Official data are inconsistent. The sum of party votes (5,753,836) differs from the given num-ber of valid votes. b Eleven candidates: Guillermo Alemán (MOE) 22,923 votes; Gloria Gaitán (JEGA) 17,397 votes; José Antonio Cortes Huertas (C-4) 11,704 votes; Miguel A. Zamora Avila (P) 9,059 votes; José Galat (FM) 9,055 votes; Doris de Castro (Mov. Cristiano Independiente) 6,020 votes; Luis E. Rodríguez Orjuela (MNP) 5,711 votes; Oscar Rojas Masso (SL) 4,368 votes; José Guillermo Barbosa Millan (Organización para la Paz Nacional) 3,797 votes; Mario Díazgranados Llinas (C.G.T. Cristiana) 3,319 votes; Efraín Torres Plazas (Crea) 2,637 votes.

1994 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 17,146,597 – Votes cast 7,427,742 43.3 Blank votes 72,536 1.0 Invalid votes 45,089 0.6 Valid votes 7,310,117 98.4 Ernesto Samper Pizano (PL) 3,733,336 51.1 Andrés Pastrana Arango (coalición) 3,576,781 48.9

Colombia 357

1998 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 20,856,150 – Votes cast 10,751,465 51.6 Blank votes 122,431 1.1 Invalid votesa 122,842 1.1 Valid votes 10,506,192 97.7 Horacio Serpa Uribe 3,696,334 34.4Andres Pastrana Arango 3,653,048 34.0Noemí Sanin Posada 2,845,750 26.4Harold Bedoya 193,037 1.8Othersb 118,023 1.1a Including 43,446 ‘targetas no marcadas’. Since the implementation of the electoral cards at the presidential elections in 1990 the phenomenon of non-marked cards appeared, which were first added to the invalid votes but are now counted separately, as this phenomenon has increased. b Nine candidates: Beatríz Cuellar: 30,832 votes; Germán Rojas Niño: 16,072; Jorge Hernán Betancur: 13,892; Jesús Antonio Lozano: 11,834; Jorge Pulido: 11,500; Guillermo Alemán: 9,885; Efraín Díaz Valderrama: 9,255; Guillermo Nanneti: 8,862; Francisco Cordoba Zartha: 5,891.

1998 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 20,857,801 –Votes cast 12,310,107a 59.0Blank votes 373,659 3.0 Invalid votes 108,794 0.8 Valid votes 11,773,270 95.6Andres Pastrana Arango 6,114,752 51.9Horacio Serpa Uribe 5,658,518 48.1a Official data are inconsistent. The provided number of votes cast differs from the sum of inva-lid, blank, and valid votes (12,255,723).

Colombia358

2002 Total number % Registered voters 24,208,311 – Votes cast 11,249,734 46.5 Blank votes 196,116 1.7 Invalid votes 198,089a 1.8Valid votes 10,855,529 96.5 Alvaro Uribe Velez (Primero Colombia)

5,862,655 54.0

Horacio Serpa (Partido Liberal Colombiano)

3,514,779 32.4

Luis Eduardo Garzón (Polo Demócraticob)

680,245 6.3

Noemí Sanín (Mov. Sí Colombia) 641,884 5.9Ingrid Betancourt (Partido Verde Oxigeno)

53,922 0.5

Othersc 102,044 0.9a Including 48,966 tarjetas no marcadas.b Alliance consisting of FSP, Vía Alterna, UD, ANAPO, PSD, ASI, and PSOC. c Six candidates: Harold Bedoya (Mov. Fuerza Colombia) 52,710 votes; Francisco Tovar (MDC) 16,396; Augusto Guillermo Lora (M-19) 12,724; Alvaro Cristancho (MPC) 10,117; Guillermo Antonio Cardona (Mov. Pol. Comunal y Comuni. Col.) 8,464; Rodolfo Rincon (MPC) 6,588.


Head of State Years Remarks José Vicente Concha 1914–1918 Elected President. Assumed office on

07/08/1914.Marco Fidel Suárez 1918–1922 Elected President. Assumed presidency on

07/08/1918. Left his office on 11/11/1921 after several debates against him in the Congress.

Jorge Holguín 1921–1922 As First Designado appointed by the Con-gress, replaced President Suárez when the latter resigned.

Pedro Nel Ospina 1922–1926 Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1922.

Miguel Abadía Méndez

1926–1930 Elected President (only candidate). Took office on 07/08/1926.

Enrique OlayaHerrera

1930–1934 Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1930.

Alfonso López Pumarejo


Eduardo Santos 1938–1942 Elected President (only candidate). Took office on 07/08/1938.

Colombia 359

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Alfonso López Pumarejo

1942–1945 Elected President. Assumed Presidency on 07/08/1942. Survived a failed coup d’état on 10/06/1944. Tendered his resignation on 19/07/1945.

Alberto Lleras Camargo

1945–1946 Assumed Presidency on 07/08/1945 as Designado elected by the Congress.

Mariano Ospina Pérez


Laureano Gómez Castro

1950–1951 Elected President (only candidate). Took office on 07/08/1950. Resigned temporar-ily due to health problems.

Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez

1951–1953 Took office on 05/11/1951, as first Desig-nado elected by the Congress.

Laureano Gómez Castro

1953 Re-assumed the presidential office on 13/06/1953. Deposed that same day by a coup d’état headed by General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla.

Gustavo Rojas Pinilla

1953–1957 Army officer. Legitimized as President un-til the end of the term (1954) by the Na-tional Constitutional Assembly, called by the Congress following the request of President Gómez. Afterwards elected for the period 1954–1958. In the face of in-creasing opposition to his government, on 10/05/1957 Rojas handed over power to a military Junta.

Military Junta 1957–1958 Formed by Gabriel París, Deogracias Fon-seca, Rubén Piedrahita, Rafael Navas Par-do and Luis E. Ordóñez. Called a referendum on 01/12/1957, which appro-ved the Frente Nacional agreement. Survi-ved a coup attempt on 02/05/1958.

Alberto Lleras Camargo

1958–1962 President elected during the Frente Nacional.Assumed Presidency on 07/08/1958.

Guillermo León Valencia

1962–1966 President elected during the Frente Na-cional. Took office on 07/08/1962.

Carlos Lleras Res-trepo


Misael Pastrana Borrero


Alfonso LópezMichelsen


Julio César Turbay Ayala


Colombia360

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Belisario Betancur 1982–1986 Elected President. Took office on

07/08/1982.Virgilio Barco Vargas


César Gaviria Trujillo

1990 Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1990.

César Gaviria Trujillo


Ernesto Samper Pizano

1994–1998 First elected president under the 1991 Con-stitution. Took office on 07/08/1994.

Andres Pastrana Arango


Alvaro Uribe Velez 2002– Elected President. In office since 07/08/2002.

3. Bibliography


Código Electoral de la República de Colombia 1988. Ed. by Jorge Ortega. Bogotá: Ed. Temis.

Constitución Política de Colombia 1991. Ed. by Jorge Ortega Torres. Santa Fe de Bogotá: Ed. Temis.

DANE (Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística) (1972). Co-lombia política. Estadísticas 1935–1970. Bogotá.

DANE (1995). Proyecciones municipales de población por areas de 1995 a 2002, estudios censales del DANE – banco de datos. Bogotá.

— (1986). Colombia. Censo 1985. Vol. 1. Bogotá. ‘Decretos–Leyes 1037 de 1951’, in Decretos extraordinarios y decretos re-

glamentarios de leyes, expedidos por el Gobierno Nacional del 1 de Enero al 30 de Junio de 1951. Vol 1. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional.

‘Decreto No. 2830 de 1952’, in Decretos reglamentarios de leyes. Expedidos por el Gobierno Nacional del 1 de julio al 31 de diciembre de 1952. Vol. 2. (1953) Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional.

‘Ley 7 de 1888’, in Leyes de la República de Colombia. Expedidas por el Consejo Nacional Legislativo en sus sesiones de 1888. Bogotá: Imprenta de Vapor de Zalamea Hermanos.

‘Ley 119 de 1892’, in Leyes de Colombia de 1892. Colección de las que ex-pidió el Congreso en este año. Edición oficial. Hecha bajo la dirección del Consejo de Estado. Bogotá: Imprenta de Vapor de Zalamea Hermanos.

Colombia 361

‘Ley 42 de 1910’, in Actos Legislativos y Leyes de Colombia expedidas por la Asamblea Nacional de 1910. (2nd edn. 1939). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional.

‘Ley 85 de 1916’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1916. (2nd edn. 1940). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional.

‘Ley 96 de 1920’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1920 (2nd edn. 1940). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional.




‘Ley 39 de 1946’, in Leyes de 1946 y Acto Legislativo, sesiones ordinarias. Edición oficial. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional.

‘Ley 89 de 1948’, in Leyes de 1948 y Ley 91 de 1947. Edición revisada y confrontada con sus originales por el Consejo de Estado. Bogotá: Im-prenta Nacional.

Organización Electoral/Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil (1998). 50años 1948–1998. Bogotá.

— (1998). Elecciones presidenciales 1914–1994. Bogotá: Oficina de publi-caciones.

Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil (1988). Historia electoral colombiana. Bogotá.

— (various years). Estadísticas electorales. Bogotá.


Alexander, R. (1957). Communism in Latin America. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Angulo, A. and Santana, P. (1980). ‘La miseria de los partidos. Análisis de las elecciones de 1980’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 84: 1–100.

Arizmendi, I. (1983). Gobernantes colombianos: 1819–1983 (2nd edn.). Bogotá: Interprint.

Barbosa, F. (1969). Legislación electoral colombiana (1830–1888). Ph.D.thesis, Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Historia (mimeo).

— (1977). ‘El sistema mayoritario y la representación proporcional en Colombia’. Revista de la Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá (Bogotá), 28: 9–29.

Blanquer, J.-M. (1990). ‘Les élections colombiennes en 1990’. Problèmesd’Amérique Latine (Paris), 98/4: 49–72.

Colombia362

Calle Lombana, H. de la (1982). Comentario introductorio al coloquio “Sistema electoral y régimen de partidos en Colombia”. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 29.11.1982.

— (1991). ‘La reforma electoral en Colombia’, in H. de la Calle Lombana et al. (1991), La reforma electoral en Latinoamérica. Memorias del IV Curso Anual Interamericano de Elecciones, Vol. 3, San José: IIDH–CAPEL, 171–191.

Castro, J. (1982). Constitución política de Colombia. Concordancias, refe-rencias históricas, índices y compilación. Bogotá: Ed. Oveja Negra.

CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina) (1966). Boletínestadístico de América Latina. March 1964, 1/1. Santiago de Chile.

— (1975–1987). Anuario estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe. Santia-go.

CINEP (Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular) (1976). ‘La izquierda y la participación electoral’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 43: 1–111.

— (1977). ‘La izquierda colombiana y las elecciones de 1978’. Revista Con-troversia (Bogotá), 57/58: 1–125.

Delgado, O. (1986). Colombia elige: Mitaca/84 – Perspectivas/86. Bogotá: Universidad Javeriana.

— (1991). ‘Régimen y sistema electoral en la Constitución de 1991’. RevistaJaveriana (Santa Fe de Bogotá), 579: 237–275.

— (2002). ‘Los sistema electorales para el Congreso en Colombia (1821-2002)’. Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos (Bogotá),4/2: 67–128.

Dix, R. (1967). Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

— (1987). The Politics of Colombia. N.Y.: Praeger. Eastman, J. M. (1982). Seis reformas estructurales al régimen político. Re-

sultados electorales de 1930 a 1982. Bogotá: Colección Legislación, Doctrina y Jurisprudencia del Ministerio de Gobierno.

Equipo CINEP (1978). ‘El abanico político–ideológico en 1978’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 64/65: 60–92.

Fernández Botero, E. (1964). Las constituciones colombianas comparadas. Medellín: Ed. Univ. de Antioquia.

Gallón, G. (ed.) (1989). Entre movimentos y caudillos. Bogotá: CINEP – CEREC.

Gilhodes, P. (1983). ‘Les élections colombiennes de mars et mai 1982’. Pro-blèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 67/1: 37–68.

— (1987). ‘Les élections colombiennes de 1986: Contexte, résultats, perspec-tives’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 84/2: 29–44.

González, F. (1978). ‘Legislación y comportamiento electorales: Evolución histórica’. Revista Controversia (CINEP, Bogotá), 64/65: 1–59.

Colombia 363

Heinz, W. (1989). ‘Guerrillas, Friedensprozeß und politische Gewalt in Ko-lumbien (1980–1988)’. Lateinamerika. Analysen–Daten–Dokumentation (Hamburg), Beiheft Nr.6. Iberoamerika–Kunde.

Henao, J. and Arrubla, G. (1967). Historia de Colombia. Bogotá: Ed. Volun-tad.

Hernández Becerra, A. (1986). Las elecciones en Colombia (análisis jurídi-co–político). San José: IIDH/CAPEL.

— (1986). Régimen electoral colombiano. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Jaramillo, J. (111987). ‘Etapas y sentido en la historia de Colombia’, in M. Arrubla et al. (eds.), Colombia hoy. Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores, 15–52.

Jaramillo, J. F. and Franco-Cuervo, B. (1999). ‘Las elecciones presidenciales en Colombia, 1998’, in F. Priess and F. Tuesta (eds.), Campañas electo-rales y medios de comunicación en América Latina. Konrad-Adenauer Foundation/CIEDLA, Buenos Aires, 197–289.

Jaramillo, J. F. and Tickner, A. (1999). ‘Colombia: El largo camino hacia la renovación política’, in F. Tuesta (ed.), Sistemas electorales en la región andina (mecanismos, efectos y reformas). Parlamento Andino, Bogotá, 43–64.

Kline, H. (1983). Colombia: Portrait of Unity and Diversity. Boulder, Col.: Westiew Press.

Krumwiede, H. W. (1980). Politik und Katholische Kirche im gesellschaftli-chen Modernisierungsprozeß. Tradition und Entwicklung in Kolumbien.Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.

— (1992). ‘Kolumbien’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 2: Südamerika. Bonn: Dietz, 380–416.

Kurtenbach, S. (1992). ‘Die Wahlen und die neue Verfassung in Kolumbien’. Lateinamerika. Analysen–Daten–Dokumentation (Hamburg), Nr.18.

Lanzetta, M. et al. (1987). Colombia en las urnas. ¿Qué pasó en 1986?. Bo-gotá: Carlos Valencia Editores.

League of Nations (1928–1939). International Statistical Yearbook. Geneva. Manrique Reyes, A. (1987). Consulta popular y circunscripción nacional:

dos intentos de renovación democrática. Bogotá: FESCOL. — (1991). La Constitución de la nueva Colombia. Con comentarios y con-

cordancias. Bogotá: CEREC. Martz, J. (1962). Colombia. A contemporary political survey. Chapel Hill,

N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Medina, M. (1980). Historia del Partido Comunista de Colombia. Bogotá: CEIS. — (1989). ‘Los terceros partidos en Colombia 1900–1960’, in (various eds.),

Nueva historia de Colombia. Historia política 1946–1986. Bogotá: Edit. Planeta.

Melo, J. O. (1987). ‘La república conservadora’, in M. Arruola et al. (eds.), Colombia hoy. Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores, 52–101.

Colombia364

Meyer, H. (2003). ‘Ein neues politisches Panorama? Kolumbien nach dem Referendum vom 25. Oktober 2003 und nach den Gouverneurs- und Kommunalwahlen vom 26. Oktober 2003’. KAS Auslandsinformationen,12/03: 83–99.

Murillo Castaño, G. (1991). ‘El abanico electoral colombiano de 1990’, in R. Espinal et al. (eds.), Análisis de los procesos electorales en América La-tina. Memorias del IV Curso Anual Interamericano de Elecciones, Vol. 4, San José: IIDH–CAPEL, 359–370.

Partido Comunista de Colombia (1960). Treinta años de lucha del Partido Comunista de Colombia. Bogotá: Ed. Paz y Socialismo.

Payne, J. (1971). Patterns of conflict in Colombia. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Pécaut, D. (1987). ‘Crise, guerre et paix en Colombie’. Problèmesd’Amérique Latine (Paris), 84: 3–28.

— (1990). ‘La Colombie dans la tempete’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 98/4: 3–30.

Pombo, M. A. and Guerra, J. J. (1911). Constituciones de Colombia. Bogotá. Ramírez, S. and Restrepo, L. A. (1988). Actores en conflicto por la paz. El

proceso de paz durante el gobierno de Belisario Betancur 1982–1986.Bogotá: CINEP–Siglo XXI Editores.

Restrepo Abondano, I. (1980). ‘Cincuenta años de elecciones en Colombia’.Revista Universitas Ciencias Jurídicas y Socioeconómicas, 58: 245–273.

Restrepo Piedrahita, C. (1976). 25 años de evolución político–constitucional.Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Sánchez, G. (ed.) (1987). Colombia: violencia y democracia. Bogotá: Uni-versidad Nacional de Colombia – Colciencias.

— (1990). ‘Guerre et politique dans la société colombienne’. Problèmesd’Amérique Latine (Paris), 98/4: 31–48.

Sánchez David, R. (ed.) (1991). Los nuevos retos electorales. Colombia 1990: antesala del cambio. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes.

Tirado Mejía, A. (1987). ‘Colombia: siglo y medio de bipartidismo’, in M. Arrubla et al. (eds.), Colombia hoy. Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores, 102–186.

Torres V. J. (1978). Los partidos políticos en Colombia. Bogotá: ANIF. Uribe, H. (1984). ‘La democracia y el sistema electoral colombiano’, in

Prensa, radio y TV en mitaca 84. Memoria del Seminario Nacional de Periodismo Político. C.P.B. (Sasaima).

Vives Echavarría, J. (1984). Tratado de derecho electoral colombiano. Bogo-tá: Ed. Temis.

Weiss, A. (1967). Tendencias de la participación electoral en Colombia 1936–1966. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Zelinsky, U. (1978). Parteien und politische Entwicklung in Kolumbien unter der Nationalen Front. Meisenheim a.G.

ECUADORby Dieter Nohlen and Simon Pachano

1. Introduction


On declaring independence in 1822, Ecuador became a part of Great Co-lombia. Complete political independence was achieved in 1830, when the country separated from Great Colombia. Political development in the following years was marked by a conflict of interests between the trade-oriented liberal forces of the coastal areas and the conservative land-owners of the mountain regions. These regional and political differ-ences, combined with the high profile of the Catholic Church, exerted a remarkable influence on the country’s political life. In fact, politics in the early days of independence were determined by the conflict among the different military and civilian regional caudillos. Differences be-tween these groups were not so much based on conflicting ideologies, but rather each group’s desire to protect and defend its own economic interests.

Political parties as such had not really existed before the early 19th century. Political life was dominated by groups and political currents gathered around the caudillos. Therefore, politics was noticeably per-sonalist. Nonetheless, two distinct traditional political currents began to emerge, namely Liberal and Conservative. The most prominent cleavage separating the two was the difference in their stances towards secular and clerical matters.

Towards the end of the 19th century, the political arena remained dominated by the conservative tendencies. It was not until the 1895 Lib-eral Revolution that liberal groups, opposed to the conservative suprem-acy, burst onto the scene. In the following thirty years the so-called ‘Radical Liberalism’ led by General Eloy Alfaro and Leonidas Plaza played an important role in political life.

We would like to thank María Victoria Juárez and Xiomara Navas for their study of this topic,

published in D. Nohlen (ed.) (1993). Handbuch der Wahldaten Lateinamerikas und der Karibik.Opladen. Some parts of this contribution are based on it.

Ecuador366

In contrast to Ecuador’s long-standing formal democratic tradition, complete suffrage came relatively late. It was not until 1978, when the right to vote was extended to illiterates, that universal suffrage was offi-cially established. However, Ecuador was the first Latin American coun-try to introduce suffrage for women in 1929. During the first years of the republic, elections were held regularly, in accordance with constitutional regulations. However, they cannot be viewed as competitive. In 1945, the Supreme Electoral Court (Tribunal Supremo Electoral, TSE) was created as an institutional base to ensure an effective electoral process.

The ‘Julian Revolution’ of 1925 was the first institutionalized military coup d'état, and marked the starting point of a series of military inter-ventions in national politics: The military intervened in the revolutions of 1937, 1963, and 1972. The inauguration as president of José María Velasco Ibarra in 1933, whose leadership strengthened the personalist character of national politics, marked the beginning of a populist period. Backed by several parties and movements, and using both elections and authoritarian mechanisms, Velasco Ibarra secured his power and exerted a central political influence for the next forty years. Political instability characterized the years between 1925 and 1948: During this period, 23 presidents succeeded each other in office. In regard to international rela-tions the situation was hardly better due to the war with Peru, which led to the loss of a considerable amount of territory in 1941.

The party system became more complex in the first decades of the 20th century. New parties emerged, and those already in existence gained a more ideological profile and a better organizational structure. The Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) was founded in 1926 and the Partido Comunista (Communist Party) in 1931. More parties were formed in the following decades. Frequently, they were based on dissi-dent factions that had split from the traditional parties. Yet sometimes they were the result of new cleavages. In general, the party system re-mained in flux. It was characterized by a high degree of personalism and caudillismo, with Velasco Ibarra being archetypal for the latter.

The military dictatorship that began in 1972 was the longest in Ecua-dor’s history, and coincided with the 1970s oil boom. During this period, the good economic situation promoted a process of modernization. Fur-thermore, it triggered economic and political integration of new social groups. In the beginning, the military’s reform policy enjoyed certain support among the population. Later, however, the desire to return to democratic constitutional life resurfaced. From 1976 onwards, certain dissident military factions promoted a process of re-democratization.

Ecuador 367

In accordance with the ‘Plan for the Constitutional Restructuring of the State’ three commissions were formed. The first one was responsible for reforming the 1945 Constitution, the second for elaborating a new con-stitution, and the third for preparing a law on political parties and a new electoral law. This process, designed to draw up a constitution without a constituent assembly, faced opposition from political forces on both the left and the right. The final step in this renewal of the constitution was a referendum in January 1978, in which 44% of the voters opted for a new constitution, 31% for the reformed constitution of 1945 and 23% of the votes were invalid, mainly as a political protest. Moreover, a new elec-toral law and, for the first time in Ecuadorian history, a Law on Political Parties came into effect. The process was concluded with the presiden-tial elections of July 1978 and April 1979, leading to the longest period of fully legitimate democratic institutions in Ecuador’s history.

The constitution of 1978 maintained the traditional institutional ar-rangements, especially the presidential system that had been established after independence. This included the type of presidential elections and the concentration of executive power in the presidential office. Never-theless, congress was given new functions of control in order to put into practice the division of power and corresponding checks and balances, a system designed to counteract the problems encountered in the past. These functions proved to be very important in governing the country. Among other duties, congress had to approve the state budget, take part in the nomination of various authorities of control (superintendents of banks and companies, general controller), send representatives to vari-ous state institutions. Moreover, until the new constitution of 1998, con-gress could control or even depose ministers of the presidential cabinet.

Initially, the presidential and vice presidential term of office was lim-ited to five years. However, during the first legislature (1983) the terms were shortened to four years. The terms of parliamentarians underwent similar cuts. Legislature was limited to four years for the national repre-sentatives and to two years for the provincial representatives. This re-form went beyond the usual limits of the design of electoral systems. On these terms, Ecuador had a proportional system in MMCs with an addi-tional list at national level. Now, two different categories of deputies were created: national and provincial ones. On the one hand, the cuts in the terms of office were thought to reflect the loss of authority of the president, due to the fact that at this time, presidents never held office for long because of the difficult economic and social situation. On the other hand, the reformers hoped that timely elections would channel so-cial protest, which might otherwise have erupted outside constitutional

Ecuador368

boundaries. These considerations were also taken into account when the parliamentary term was limited to two years. Since mid-term elections normally result in the removal of the incumbent executive, governability was challenged whereas participation was given a higher priority. The constitution of 1998 abolished these mid-term elections.

Instead of a congress consisting of two chambers as was usual during the 20th century, the constitution of 1978 established a unicameral par-liament formed by two types of deputies: national and provincial. This provision is considered a special characteristic of Ecuadorian political representation. The twelve national deputies (twenty in 1998) were elected in a national district, while the others were elected in the prov-inces, one for each province and an additional number according to the changing demographic pattern of the country. The electoral reform of 1996 increased the minimum number of deputies for each province to two. These provisions led to some inequalities of representation of the different regions of Ecuador. In 1990, the Costa had a share of 49.7% of the total electorate but only a share of 33.1% of the parliamentary seats, whereas the Sierra had a share of 46.7% of the electorate and a share of 38.0% of the seats. Amazonia was the most favored province with a share of 3.4% of the electorate and a share of 10.7% of the seats. This bias was increased by the reform of 1996. Originally, the re-election of parliamentarians for the same office, either national or provincial dep-uty, was not permitted, but they were allowed to stand for election as the other type of deputy (from national to provincial and vice versa). Since 1996, re-election is permitted without any restrictions (see Mejía Acosta 2003).

Between 1978 and 2003, the Ecuadorian electorate has voted on five referendums (1978, 1986, 1994, 1995, and 1997) and in seven presiden-tial elections (1978/79, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2002). At the same time, three constitutional reinstatements of presidents (1981, 1997, and 2000) and two coups d’état (1997 and 2000) took place. Constitu-tional solutions were found for these problems. The electorate also par-ticipated in seven parliamentary elections for total renewal of the congress and three for partial renewal (plus eleven elections of local au-thorities and various elections of partial renewal of these). In total, in 25 years, Ecuadorians have participated in 24 elections, which they had to attend due to compulsory voting.

A fragmented party system emerged from these elections. However, at the beginning of the period, there was a clear tendency to focus on four major parties at parliamentary level: the Partido Social Cristiano(PSC; Social Christian Party), the Izquierda Democrática (IID; Democ-

Ecuador 369

ratic Left), the Democracia Popular (DP; Popular Democratic Party), and the Partido Roldosista Ecuatoriano (PRE; Roldosist Ecuadorian Party). This was caused by the significant disproportional effect of the small and medium-sized constituencies. The first three parties were founded before the return to democracy, while the last one can be con-sidered as a product of the new period. The first three have to be distin-guished from the traditional parties, the Liberal Party (PL) und the Conservative Party (PC), which can trace their origins back to the be-ginning of the 20th century. Each of the three parties emerged in the 1950s or 60s as alternatives to the two traditional parties. It was particu-larly young politicians who split from the traditional parties. At the same time, the Concentración de Fuerzas Populares (CFP; Concentration of Popular Forces) was founded, a party which won the first presidential election of the new period (1979). It was only short-lived but it can be considered as the socio-electoral basis from which the PRE emerged.

According to the law on political parties, political parties have to en-rol in the corresponding register of the Supreme Electoral Court. In or-der to do that, they have to fulfill various requirements. The following are the most important ones: a minimum number of members equivalent to 1.5% of the registered voters, an organizational structure in at least ten provinces, declaration of ideological principles, and a governmental program.

In order to repress personalism, there had to be a change in party leadership every two years and former party leaders could only be re-elected once. Furthermore, a party had to gain at least 5% of the votes to remain on the party register. However, when enforced for the first time, two parties appealed to the Corte Suprema de Justicia, which suspended the provision on the basis of different concepts of thresholds in the con-stitution and the party law. Because of this unwillingness to apply the threshold, this suspension remained in force until an extremely low hur-dle of 0.04% of the valid votes was established in 1992. In 1995, the barrier was raised again to 5% by popular vote. However, its function was completely undermined by a provision that had already been ap-proved by referendum in 1994. This provision allowed for the electoral participation of independents. Until then, party affiliation had been re-quired for those who wanted to stand as a candidate for a popularly elected office. This obligation, established after a long period of person-alist populism, was intended to contribute to the consolidation of strong parties, but in practice, it did not have the required effect. The party sys-tem presented an average of 16 registered parties recognized by the Su-preme Electoral Court. These parties were better structured and

Ecuador370

modernized to a certain degree, but some personalist and populist traits still remained in Ecuador’s political culture. On the whole, all attempts to solve the structural problems of the party system by institutional means failed: In nine elections between 1979 and 1998, the number of parties in parliament was never lower than ten, and three times amounted to 13. According to Sanchez López (1999), in total, and not-withstanding the strong disproportional effects of the small and medium-sized constituencies, the four parties with the most votes only gained 62.8% and the strongest party only 20.7% of the seats. It is important to notice that despite the simultaneous election of the president and parlia-ment, there was no effect of arrastre (straight voting) to be observed or concentration on the presidential election at the expense of the parlia-mentary one.

In the first election after 1978, the favored parties were no longer the traditional Liberal Party and Conservative Party, but the Democratic Left, and, of course, CFP with Jaime Roldós as its presidential candi-date. These two parties with the most votes gained more than 65% of the seats with less than 50% of the votes. This change was interpreted as a sign of the ideological renewal of the political landscape. However later on, the evolution of the party system contradicted this assumption, as other parties of pragmatic (PSC) and clearly populist orientation (PRE) were established among the parties considered typically ideological (so-cial-democratic ID and Christian-democratic DP). This demonstrates that the Ecuadorian electorate did not favor one type of party, but rather a mixture of alternatives. On the other hand, a process of deconcentra-tion of political preferences took place. At its lowest point, in 1986, the two major parties together only received 27.1% of the votes. In particu-lar the party from which the incumbent president had emerged suffered a loss of votes in the following elections, so that there was a continuous change in the two parties that gained the most votes. Finally, electoral support for parties remained based on regional strongholds. This was true for both the larger and smaller parties. For example, between 1979 and 1998, the ID gained 59% of its deputies in the Sierra, the PRE 67% in the Costa. All these conditions, especially the existence of provincial strongholds for minor parties restricted the efficiency of institutional means in order to consolidate the structure of the party system.

Jaime Roldós won the presidential elections held in 1978 (first round) and 1979 (second round). He ran for a populist and Christian-democratic coalition that obtained 68.5% of the votes in the second round. In 1984, the victory went to León Febres Cordero, candidate of the centre-right parties (with 51.5% of the votes in the second round versus 48.5% for

Ecuador 371

the other candidate Rodrigo Borja). This change in government intro-duced a neo-liberal policy of economic stabilization. A combination of internal and external factors led to a recession and social tensions, which culminated in 1988 with the victory of the social-democratic candidate of the ID party, Rodrigo Borja. Backed also by the Christian Democrats, he received 54.0% of the votes in the second round. Borja was commit-ted to introduce a program of far-reaching economic, social and political reforms, but was unable to meet all these expectations. The 1992 elec-tions therefore meant a comprehensive defeat for the ID, and the Con-servative candidate Sixto Durán Balién won. The right-wing parties obtained approximately 58% of the votes and the highest percentage of parliamentary seats since 1979. However, Durán’s government had to face difficulties due to the lack of co-operation from the PSC and to a congress dominated by small, disciplined parties. Abdalá Bucaram, de-feated in 1988 and 1992, won the 1996 elections leading the PRE, a populist movement that failed to win a majority in Parliament (20 seats out of 82). The PSC, led by Jaime Nebot, became the second-ranking force with 26 deputies. Once in government, Bucaram launched an ad-justment plan which faced harsh opposition from parliament and impor-tant sectors of society. In the midst of increasing political turmoil and evident corruption in government, congress dismissed the president on grounds of mental incompetence at the beginning of 1997, before he could serve out his first term of office. In order to avoid a power vac-uum, parliament appointed its president Fabián Alarcón as interim presi-dent of Ecuador; a political solution which was not foreseen in the constitution, which formally requires the vice president to take this posi-tion. Alarcón was endorsed by a referendum held on 25 May 1997 to de-cide on the institutionalization of a constitutional assembly. Parliamentary and presidential elections were held in May 1998, but none of the candidates obtained the majority of vote in the first round of the presidential elections. Alvaro Noboa, of the Ecuadorian Roldosista Party (PRE) and Jamil Mahuad of the Popular Democracy Party, the mayor of Quito, competed in a second round, Mahuad won by a narrow margin.

In the same year (June), a new constitution was adopted by the consti-tutional assembly. With regard to the electoral provisions, the type of electoral system was changed from proportional representation in small and medium-sized constituencies to the plurality system in MMCs with individual voting. The voter was given as many votes as deputies to be elected in a constituency, which was to ensure greater participation, but disregarded fundamental aspects of governability. It was argued that the

Ecuador372

new electoral system would lead to greater atomization of political rep-resentation.

During Mahuad’s term of office the economic and fiscal situation de-teriorated rapidly, not only because of the devastating effects of El Niño,but also due to the low prices of oil and a massive exodus of capital from the country. On 9 January 2000, the Mahuad administration de-cided to dollarize the Ecuadorian economy, while the demonstrations against the government continued. On 21 January, the demonstrators—a coalition of indigenous (CONAIE) and members of the organized civil society (in particular Coordinadora de Movimientos Sociales; CMS)—entered parliament and the Supreme Court buildings with the support of junior officers. A three-person junta forced Mahuad to flee the presiden-tial palace. Vice President Gustavo Noboa Bejanaro took charge the same day; he was sworn in as the new president by parliament in an emergency session.

In 2002, the former army officer Lucio Gutiérrez, supported by the indigenous movements and the organized social movements (CMS), won the presidential elections against his populist opponent Álvaro No-boa. Gutiérez had played a major role in ousting the former president Mahuad and in the brief junta regime that succeeded Mahuad. Gutiérez surprised the observers of the election by obtaining 54% of the votes in the second round of the presidential elections. As to the parliamentary elections, the expectations of an even more chaotic representation were fully confirmed: 1,505 candidates stood on their own, notwithstanding their party affiliation or were backed by an alliance of parties at con-stituency level. The votes were dispersed among numerous parties, a lower concentration of votes on the four main parties, which together achieved a share of only 38.4% of the votes, but an astonishing 65% of the seats, which indicates not only a high degree of disproportionality, but that a great number of votes were not successful. In the end, an ex-treme number of parties entered the national assembly. It is even diffi-cult to get a statistics on the national electoral results: There was no official aggregation of votes. This was due to the nature of the multiple-votes system and the weak relationship between the votes (individual and multiple ones) and the parties’ shares of seats in parliament. The party backing the new president won only 21 out of 100 seats, in general a significant indicator of the problems of governability a president could encounter. Lucio Gutiérrez now has to face up to serious economic and social problems in order to be able to introduce a new era of stability and economic growth.

Ecuador 373


The most important sources are the constitutions of 1830, 1861, 1884, 1929, 1946, and 1978 as well as the electoral laws of 1830, 1832 (Addi-tional Law), 1861, 1869, 1896, 1900 (with amendments in 1901 and 1909), 1929, 1945, 1947, 1968, 1978, and 1998 plus the Decretos Re-glamentarios from 1830 and 1883. All constitutions provided for the election of the president and that of representatives for the unicameral or bicameral legislature. With the exceptions of the constitutions of 1851, 1878, 1906, 1929, 1945, and 1946, the method for electing the vice president was also included in the constitution.

The term of the president generally lasted four years. Exceptions are: 1843 with an eight-year term, 1869 with a six-year term, and 1978 with a five-year term until the reform of 1983, in which the presidential term was reduced to four years. Immediate re-election was prohibited, it was only allowed after a full intermediate presidential term had passed (1835–1861; 1878; 1945–1967). The constitutions of 1830, 1884, and 1897 to 1906 demanded an intermediate interval of two terms of office for re-election. Only the constitution of 1869 permitted the direct and repeated re-election. In contrast, only the constitutions of 1929 and 1978 prohibited re-election under any circumstances.

In regard to the structure of parliament, bicameralism prevailed. A single chamber was prescribed by the constitutions of 1830 (30 depu-ties), 1851 (42 deputies), 1945 (two types of deputies: representatives of the provinces and functional deputies). The constitution of 1978 intro-duced a dual structure to the chamber, as seen by Ecuadorians, on the basis of national and provincial deputies. This was abolished by the con-stitution of 1998. In fact there were 12 (1998: 20) deputies elected at na-tional level, and the great majority, initially 57 (1979) deputies, were elected in MMCs at provincial level. Until 1884, the term of deputies was four years; later on only two years. The term of office for senators was always four years, the only exception being 1843, when it was ex-tended to twelve years similar to the term of deputies. The majority of constitutions and electoral laws allowed the re-election of representa-tives. The constitution of 1978 prescribed a term of two years for depu-ties elected in provincial constituencies, and of four years for those elected at national level. Both types of deputies could not be re-elected immediately after their two or four-year terms, with the exception of an interchange: that is a nomination for the other type of deputy. The re-form of 1994, which was approved by referendum, reintroduced imme-diate re-election.

Ecuador374

The first constitution of 1830 prescribed ‘the equal right for all to vote and be elected’ (‘opción igual a elegir y ser elegido’). In practice how-ever, suffrage was bound to patrimony or to receiving a pension and was, therefore, restricted. In the constitution of 1861 active suffrage was granted for the first time to all literate and male persons. The proof of a patrimony or pension was abolished for voters, but not for candidates. From 1930 onwards, electoral provisions were made step-by-step, en-acted for each particular election, and were an expression of both the low regard for elections during a period of political instability and the unimportance of political institutions within the scope of an oligarchical regime. The first electoral law was enacted in 1861 by the National Convention of Ecuador. The carta negra introduced by President García Moreno in 1869 (valid until 1878), prescribed that the prerequisite for Ecuadorian citizenship and, therefore, for the right to vote was affiliation to the Catholic Church. Women were not excluded explicitly from vot-ing in the constitutions from 1830 to 1906 (except 1884).

In 1896, after the Liberal Revolution, the Jefe Supremo of the Repub-lic, Eloy Alfaro, issued a new electoral law and nearly four years later, as constitutional president, promulgated a renewed one. From 1900 this electoral law served as the legal basis for the liberal governments during the first quarter of the 20th century and which were constantly accused of using fraud as a means to keep the Liberal Party in power. Therefore, after the ‘Revolución Juliana’ of 1925, a new constitution and a new electoral law were passed in 1929.

Now, citizenship and franchise were extended to women. Suffrage became compulsory, but only for men (for women from 1967). To be entitled to vote, people had to be entered in the register of elections, but were free to do so. As non-voting was not sanctioned, the exercise of franchise was de facto non-compulsory. The constitution of 1978 marked the next step in the process of extending the franchise: for the first time, the non-literate obtained the right to vote.

Two considerations have to be taken into account: first the compositi-on of chambers. They were made up of both directly-elected members and those appointed by electoral colleges or functional association; and second, the fact that this second category of representatives was of cor-porative nature, determined by certain social and economic organizati-ons (public education, private education, media, scientific and cultural associations, agriculture and commerce, industry, workers, military forces, and national policy).

As to the electoral system to the office of president, the constitutions of 1830 and 1840 required two-thirds of the members of parliament to

Ecuador 375

be present. In 1861, a new constitution introduced the requirement of an absolute majority, and if none of the candidates reached this quorum, a second round was held, in which the candidate was elected by plurality. The constitution of 1978 established the absolute majority with a runoff between the two most successful candidates, if none of them had gained an absolute majority in the first round.

Until 1945, the Ecuadorian parliamentary electoral system (for the chamber of deputies or the unicameral national assembly) was a plural-ity system. Between 1946 and 1998, a proportional system in MMCs was applied. In 1998, the electoral system changed to plurality in MMCs.

Until 1861, the number of the members of parliament for each of the three departments, into which the country was divided, was established by the constitution. In 1835, Pichincha, Guayaquil, and Azuay elected eight deputies, in 1843 and 1845 ten, and in 1852, 14. In 1861, the de-partments were replaced by constituencies corresponding to a smaller administrative unit, the provinces. For the first time, the number of deputies to be elected was established on the basis of the number of in-habitants. This provision also governed the following electoral laws, changing only the figures. The constitution of 1978 adapted this princi-ple for the provincial deputies, while the national deputies were elected in one national constituency, their number being fixed by the respective constitution. There were 20 mainly small to medium-sized constituen-cies: In 1979 there were five single-member constituencies (SMCs), three of two members, nine of three, one of five, one of six and one of eight. In 1998 the country was divided into two constituencies of two members, eight of three, four of four, three of five and three constituen-cies of eight, 14 and 18 members respectively. The number of national deputies, twelve, increased to 20 for the elections of 1998. The constitu-tion of 1998 abolished the national constituency. According to this re-form, elections take place at provincial level in MMCs of different size.

Before the electoral law of 1945, the form of candidature was indi-vidual. The voter had to note the name of the candidate he or she voted for on the ballot paper. Since this time, candidates had to be nominated formally by a party or by a certain number of citizens entitled to vote. Later on, the nomination of candidates was limited to political parties. From 1945 to 1998 party lists were blocked and closed. Until the elec-toral law of 1929, the voter had as many votes as members were to be elected in the constituency. Since the electoral law of 1945 (with the ex-ception of the Asamblea Constituyente of 1946), voters had one vote. The electoral provision of 1998 returned to the earlier system of as many

Ecuador376

votes as members to be elected at the provincial, i.e. constituency level. According to this system, seats were distributed among candidates by plurality on the basis of a descending number of votes gained by candi-dates. Between 1945 and 1998 (with the only exception of the Asamblea Constituyente of 1946), the Hare system was applied, in which an elimi-nation quota (cociente eliminador) was calculated first on the basis of the votes for those parties that had passed the threshold of this elimina-tion quota. Second, a distribution quota (cociente distribuidor) was cal-culated, which was used to distribute the seats. Remaining seats were distributed by the method of the greatest remainder.

Senators were elected by plurality until 1945. Since then (with the only exception of 1946) proportional representation on the basis of the Hare quota was applied. Corresponding to the election of deputies, the number of senators to be elected was constitutionally established until 1861. In each of the three departments, the number of deputies was five in 1835, nine in 1843, six in 1845, and 18 in 1852. In 1862, two senators were to be elected in each province. This provision characterized each subsequent constitution, which provided a bicameral parliament, the on-ly exception being 1929, when one senator was elected for each provin-ce. With regard to other aspects (nomination, voting system), the provisions for the election of senators did not differ substantially from those for deputies.

Since 1978, parliament has been unicameral. For the 1998 elections, the size of congress was increased from 82 to 121 seats. 20 national de-puties had to be elected instead of 12, but had to step down in the follo-wing elections. While provincial deputies were elected every two years, since the new constitution, all deputies are elected simultaneously. A common characteristic of the electoral provisions prior to 1945 was the absence of an independent body to organize and supervise the electo-ral process. These functions were carried out by the governors of the provinces and the municipalities of the cantons, that is from bodies that depended directly on the central government. Under these circumstan-ces, it is hardly surprising that there were constant rumors about electo-ral fraud. These deficient institutions had to establish the register of voters, in which citizens had to procure to be registered.

The electoral law of 1945 founded the Superior Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Electoral), including the hierarchical structure of provincial, cantonal and parochial tribunals. They were charged with the administration, supervision and control of the elections, significant pro-gress in the institutionalization of the electoral process and the guarantee for free and fair elections.

Ecuador 377

Another innovation in 1945 was the inclusion of political parties in the electoral law. This meant that political parties finally received legal rec-ognition. In 1978, a Law on Political Parties was enacted underlining the importance of these political actors.


Sources: Political Constitution of the Republic, 1998; Electoral Law from 1978, amended in 1983, 1987, and 2000; Law on Political Parties from 1978, amended in 2000.

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, directly, secret, and compulsory for Ecuadorian citizens who are at least 18 years of age. Voting is not compulsory for persons over the age of 65 and is dependent on their fac-ulties.

Elected national institutions: The president is directly elected for a four-year term. Re-election is permitted only once a complete presidential term has passed. The unicameral parliament consists of 100 members, directly elected for a four-year term.

Nomination of candidates- presidential elections: Candidates for presidency can be nominated by political parties or by independent groups that are supported by at least one percent of the registered voters. The minimum age to run for presi-dent is 35. -parliamentary elections: Candidates can be nominated by political par-ties or groups of independents that are supported by at least one percent of the registered voters in the respective province. The minimum age to run for a parliamentary seat is 25.

Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority system with a runoff between the two most successful candidates. This runoff only takes place if none of the candidates wins more than 40% of the valid votes with a differ-ence of ten percent from the next candidate. - parliamentary elections: Deputies are elected in 22 provincial consti-tuencies (corresponding to the provinces of the country), based on indi-vidual voting within open lists (panachage). Based on the elections of 2002, constituency size varies between 2 and 18 seats. The allocation of

Ecuador378

seats is determined by applying the d’Hondt formula, although the vote is given individually.

Organizational context of elections: The Tribunal Supremo Electoral(TSE) is an autonomous, party-based institution, responsible for the ad-ministration, supervision and judicial review of elections. The constitu-tion and the electoral law stipulate that it is an electoral power (PoderElectoral) and an extra power in addition to the executive, legislative, and judicial one. The TSE is made up of seven members elected by the national assembly. For four members this election takes place on the ba-sis of lists of candidates, proposed by the Executive and the High Court of Justice. For the remaining members, parliament has a free choice. The term of office for members of the TSE is identical to that for members of parliament, which also supervises the activities of the TSE, notwithstan-ding the rights and obligations transferred via the electoral law to the Constitutional Court to control the way the TSE carries out its functions. Parties and citizens can appeal the decisions and non-decisions of TSE to the High Court of Justice. The final decision lies in the hands of the national assembly. The Court of Justice and the National Assembly may act as first and second instances in the process of judicial reviewing of the elections. In the past, however, there has been much controversy over the specific rights and functions of these two bodies.


The TSE rarely aggregates data or systematizes electoral statistics for all the electoral processes. This leads to a lack of official results even for recent elections. In general, the official information is partial and frag-mented. Data are sometimes available in the form of provisional results. As they are published without being aggregated at the provincial or na-tional level, a lot of skill and time is required in order to be able to make use of them. Even with this effort, the information is still not fully reli-able. For some earlier elections, it is virtually impossible to find even basic information.

Some academic institutions (ILDIS, FLACSO), survey companies or political engineering agencies (MARKET, CEDATOS, Informe Confi-dencial, INFOELECTOR) gather information themselves and have their own processes of systemization. Despite these efforts there is no cohe-rent picture of the evolution of elections in Ecuador.

Ecuador 379

2. Tables


Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections Referen- Coups elections Lower



dums d’état

1931 20–21/10

1932 30–31/10 xx/xxa

1933 14–15/12

1937 13/101938 xx/xx1939 xx/xxa

1940 10–11/01

1945 xx/xx1946 xx/xx1948 06/06

1950 04/06

1952 01/06 01/06 01/06

1954 06/06

1956 03/06 03/06 03/06

1958 01/06

1960 05/06 05/05 05/06

1962 03/06

1963 11/071966 16/101968 02/06 02/06 02/06

1970 07/06

1972 15/021978 16/07 (1st) 15/011979 29/04 (2nd) 29/04b

1984 29/01 (1st) 29/01b

06/05 (2nd)

1986 04/06c 01/06

1988 31/01 (1st)a 31/01b

08/05 (2nd)

1990 17/06c

1992 17/05 (1st) 17/05

05/07 (2nd)

1994 03/06 03/06 03/06 28/08 01/06 1995 26/111996 19/05 (1st) 19/05 05/06 07/07 (2nd) 1997 30/11 25/05 05/02

Ecuador380

Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections. Referen- Coups (cont.) elections Lower



dums d’état

1998 31/05 (1st) 31/05 12/07 (2nd)2002 20/10 (1st) 20/10 24/11 (2nd) a For the elections between 1901 and 1930 (1904, 1905, 1906, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1920, 1914, 1925, 1928, 1929) no precise data are available concerning the electoral day or the type of election.b National and provincial deputies. c Provincial deputies.



number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1901 Pr 1,270,000 — — 74,074 — — 1905 Pr 1,206,000 — — 69,208 — — 1906 CA 1,206,000 — — — — — 1911 Pr 1,206,000 — — 109,663 — — 1912 Pr 1,206,000 — — 63,83 — — 1916 Pr 2,000,000 — — 136,032 — — 1920 Pr 2,000,000 — — 128,105 — — 1924 Pr 1,857,000c — — 186,538 — — 1929 CA 2,022,000d — — — — — 1931 CA 2,022,000d 155,186 7.7 59,75 38.5 3.0 1932 Pr 2,366,686 — — 80,058 — 3.4 1933 Pr 2,600,116 — — 63,929 — 2.5 1938 CA 2,836,000 — — – — – 1940 Pr 2,466,000 — — 82,1 — 3.3 1945 CA 2,781,000 — — — — — 1946 CA 2,853,000 — — — — — 1947 C/S 2,936,000 352,55 12.0 199,86 56.7 6.8 1948 Pr 3,017,000 455,524 15.3 281,713 61.8 9.4 1950 C 3,202,757 431,794 13.5 276,831 64.1 8.6 1952 Pr 3,350,403 550,997 16.4 357,654 65.0 10.5 1952 C/S 3,350,403 550,997 16.4 — — — 1954 C 3,567,000 562,959 15.8 465,187 82.6 13.0 1956 Pr 3,800,074 836,955 22.0 614,423 73.4 16.2 1956 C/S 3,800,074 836,955 22.8 599,227 69.2 15.8 1958 C 4,049,000 — — 491,357 — 12.1 1960 Pr 4,320,100 1,009,280 23.4 767,105 76.0 17.8 1960 C/S 4,220,100 — — — — —

Ecuador 381


number %

pop.Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1962 C 4,476,007 — — 699,409 — 15.6 1966 CA 5,199,000 — — 633,284 — 12.2 1968 Pr 5,649,800 1,198,987 21.2 928,981 77.5 16.4 1968 C/S 5,649,800 — — — — — 1970 C/S 5,909,000 — — — — — 1978 Ref 7,287,495 2,088,874 28.7 1,811,640 86.7 24.9 1978 Pr 7,326,000 2,088,874 28.5 1,521,412 72.8 20.8 1979 Pr 7,542,117 2,088,874 27.7 1,681,286 80.5 22.3 1979 Pa 7,542,117 2,088,874 27.7 1,675,195 80.2 22.2 1979 Pa 7,542,117 2,088,874 27.7 1,678,924 80.4 22.3 1984 Pr 8,462,177 3,734,076 44.1 2,646,844 70.9 31.3 1984 Pa 8,462,177 3,734,076 44.1 2,636,656 70.6 31.2 1984 Pa 8,462,177 3,734,076 44.1 2,656,884 71.2 31.4 1984 Pr 8,462,177 3,794,149 47.9 2,964,298 78.1 35.0 1986 Pa 8,883,637 4,255,346 47.9 3,149,690 74.0 35.5 1986 Ref 8,883,637 4,255,346 47.9 3,130,139 73.6 35.2 1988 Pr 9,326,088 4,673,980 50.1 3,632,615 77.7 39.0 1988 Pa 9,326,088 4,673,980 50.1 3,601,990 77.1 38.6 1988 Pa 9,326,088 4,673,980 50.1 3,610,581 77.3 38.7 1988 Pr 9,326,088 4,673,980 50.1 3,611,074 77.3 38.7 1990 Pa 9,648,189 5,259,114 54.5 3,561,081 67.7 36.9 1992 Pr 10,128,719 5,709,984 56.4 4,060,357 71.1 40.1 1992 Pr 10,128,719 5,709,984 56.4 4,174,097 73.1 41.2 1994 Pa 10,633,181 6,175,991 58.1 4,044,429 65.5 38.0 1994 Pa 10,633,181 6,175,991 58.1 4,044,429 65.5 38.0 1994 Ref 10,633,181 6,214,358 58.4 3,977,374 64.0 37.4 1995 Ref 10,894,757 6,577,974 60.4 3,857,590 58.6 53.4 1996 Pr 11,162,768 6,662,007 59.7 4,525,881 68.0 40.5 1996 Pa 11,162,768 6,662,007 59.7 4,521,207 67.9 40.5 1996 Pa 11,162,768 6,662,007 59.7 4,516,197 67.8 40.5 1996 Pr 11,162,768 6,662,007 59.7 4,777,547 71.7 42.8 1997 Ref 11,437,372 6,890,832 60.3 4,083,106 59.3 35.7 1997 CA 11,437,372 6,974,623 61.0 4,168,099 59.8 36.4 1998 Pr 11,718,732 7,072,496 60.4 4,537,822 64.2 38.7 1998 Pa 11,718,732 7,072,496 60.4 4,538,918 64.2 38.7 1998 Pa 11,718,732 7,072,496 60.4 6,094,206 86.2 52.0 1998 Pr 11,718,732 7,072,496 60.4 4,960,058 70.1 42.3 2002 Pr (1st) 12,090,000 8,154,425 67.4 5,298,581 65.0 43.8 2002 Pa 12,090,000 8,154,425 67.4 —e — — 2002 Pr (2nd) 12,090,000 8,154,425 67.4 5,807,109 71.2 48.0 a C = Chamber of Deputies; CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pa = Parliament; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum; S = Senate.

Ecuador382

b Censuses were held in: November 1950, November 1962, June 1974 (6,521,710), November 1982 (8,060,712). The other data are mid-year estimates taken from The Statesman’s Yearbook(various editions). c Projection corresponding to 1925. d Projection corresponding to 1930. e Due to the nature of the multiple-votes system and the weak relationship between the votes (individual und multiple ones) and the parties’ shares of seats in parliament, there is no official aggregation of votes.

2.3 Abbreviations

ACC Acción Cívico Cristiana (Civic Christian Action) ADC Acción Demócrata Cristiana (Christian Democratic Action) ADN Alianza Democrática Nacional (National Democratic Alliance) AN Partido Alfarismo Nacional (National Alfarismo Party) AP Alianza Popular (Popular Alliance) APRE Acción Popular Revolucionaria Ecuatoriana (Ecuadorean Revolutiona-

ry Popular Action) ARNE Acción Revolucionaria Nacionalista Ecuatoriana (Ecuadorean Natio-

nalist Revolutionary Action) CFP Concentración de Fuerzas Populares (Concentration of Popular Forces) CID Coalición Institucionalista Demócrata (Democratic Institutionalist Co-

alition)CNR Coalición Nacional Republicana (Republican National Coalition) DP Democracia Popular (Popular Democracy) DP-UDC Democracia Popular - Unión Demócrata Cristiana (Popular Democra-

cy - Christian Democratic Union) FADI Frente Amplio de Izquierda (Broad Front of the Left) FADE Movimento Fuerza Activa de Desarrollo Ecuatoriano (Movement Ac-

tive Force of Ecuadorean Development) FDN Frente Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Front) FLR Fuerzas del Liberalismo Radical (Forces of the Radical Liberalism) FNV Federación Nacional Velasquista (Velasquista National Federation) FP Federación Pontista (Pontista Federation) FPD Frente Popular Democrático (Democratic Popular Front) FRA Frente Radical Alfarista (Alfarist Radical Front) FVP Federación Velasquista de Pichincha (Velasquist Federation of Pichincha)GN Gente Nueva (New People) ID Izquierda Democrática (Democratic Left) LP Liberación Provincial (Provincial Liberation)MCDN Movimiento Cívico Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Civic

Movement)M.E.T.A. Movimiento Esperanza Transformación y Acción (Movement Hope

Transformation and Action)

Ecuador 383

MIAJ Movimiento Independiente Amauta Jatari (Independent Movement Amauta Jatari)

MIN Movimiento de Integración Nacional (National Integration Movement) MIRA Movimiento Independiente por una República Auténtica (Independent

Movement for an Authentic Republic) MJ Movimiento Justicia (Justice Movement) MNA Movimiento Nacional Arosemenista (Arosemenista National Movement) MP Movimiento Pachakutic (Pachakutic Movement) MPD Movimiento Popular Democrático (Democratic Popular Movement) MPS Movimiento Patria Solidaria (Movement Fatherland in Solidarity) MRI Movimiento Republicano Independiente (Independent Republican

Movement)MUNR Movimiento Unión Nacional Revolucionario Ecuatoriano (Movement

Ecuadorean Revolutionary National Union) MUPP-NP Movimiento Unidad Plurinacional Pachakutic - Nuevo País (Move-

ment Plurinational Pachakutic Unity - New Country) NP Nuevo País (New Country)PAB Partido Asaad Bucaram (Assad Bucaram Party) PC Partido Comunista Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Communist Party) PCD Pueblo, Cambio y Democracia (People, Change and Democracy)PCE Partido Conservador Ecuatoriana (Ecuadorean Conservative Party) PD Partido Demócrata (Democratic Party)PDP Partido del Pueblo (People’s Party) PL Partido Libertad (Liberty Party) PLN Partido Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Party) PLR Partido Liberal Revolucionario (Revolutionary Liberal Party) PLRE Partido Liberal Radical Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Radical Liberal Party) PNR Partido Nacionalista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Nationalist Party) PR Partido Republicano (Republican Party) PRE Partido Roldosista Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Roldosista Party) PRIAN Partido Renovador Institutional Acción Nacional (Institutional

Renovation Party National Action)PSAPR Partido Socialista de Acción Popular Revolucionario (Socialist Party

of Revolutionary Popular Action) PSC Partido Social Cristiano (Social Christian Party) PSE Partido Socialista Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Socialist Party) PS-FA Partido Socialista - Frente Amplio (Socialist Party - Broad Front) PSP Partido Sociedad Patriotica 21 de Enero (Party Patriotic Society 21st

January)PUR Partido Unidad Republicana (Republican Unity Party) UCP Unión Cívica de Pichincha (Civic Union of Pichincha) UN-UNO Partido Unión Nacional (National Unity Party)

Ecuador384

UDP Unión Democrática Popular (Popular Democratic Union)UP Unión Popular (Popular Union)UPL Unión Popular Latinoamericana (Latin American Popular Union)


Party / Alliance Years Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary PCE 1933–1960; 1962; 1968;

1978–19946 12

PSE 1933; 1948; 1954–1956; 1960–1962; 1984–1990

5 6

PLRE 1940–1996; 2002 8 16 MCDN 1947–1948 1 1 AND 1952 1 1 ARNE 1952; 1968 2 0 FNV 1952; 1960–1968; 1979–

19843 2

CFP 1954–1962; 1978–2002 7 14 FPD 1954 1 UP 1954 1 AP 1956 1 0 FDN 1956; 1960–1962 2 1 ADC 1960 1 0 ACC 1962 0 1 FLR 1962 0 1 FVP 1962 0 1 UCP 1962 0 1 PSC 1968–2002 6 10 UDP 1968; 1979 1 1 APRE 1978–1990 1 5 FADI 1978–1990 3 4 FRA 1978–1979 3 4 ID 1978–2002 6 10 MPD 1978–2002 5 10 PNR 1978–1986 0 3 CID 1978 0 1 PSAPR 1978 0 1 CNR 1984–1988 1 2 DP-UDC 1984–2002 5 9 PCD 1984–1990 0 4 PD 1984–1988 1 3 PRE 1984–2002 4 9 PDP 1988–1990 0 2

Ecuador 385

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentary PR 1988 1 1 PAB 1992–1994 1 2 AN 1996–2002 0 3 MUPP-NP 1996–2002 1 3 FADE 2002 1 1 M.E.T.A. 2002 0 1 MIAJ 2002 1 1 MIN 2002 0 1 MJ 2002 0 1 MPS 2002 1 1 PL 2002 1 1 PRIAN 2002 1 1 PS-FA 2002 0 1 PSP 2002 1 1 UN-UNO 2002 0 1

2.5 Referendums

Year 1978a 1986 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,088,874 – 4,255,568 – Votes cast 1,811,640 86.7 3,130,361 73.6 Invalid votes — 23.0 569,255 13.4 Valid votes — — 2,561,106 60.2 Yes — 58.1 781,409 18.4 No — 41.9 1,779,697 41.8 a Constitutional Referendum.

Year 1994a 1995a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 6,214,358 – 6,577,974 – Votes cast 3,977,374 64.0 3,857,590 58.6 Invalid votes 1,110,065 17.9 900,934 13.7 Valid votes 2,645,130 42.6 3,857,590 58.6 Yes — — — — No — — — — a Voters were asked various questions.

Ecuador386

Year 1997a

Total number % Registered voters 6,890,832 – Votes cast 4,083,106 59.3 Invalid votes 1,396,259 20.3 Valid votes 4,083,106 59.3 Yes — — No — — a Voters were asked various questions.


1966 Total number % Seats % Registered voters — – Votes cast 633,284 — Blank votes 8,323 1.3 Invalid votes 48,848 7.7 Valid votes 576,113 91.0 PCE 197,279 34.2 — — PLRE 118,188 20.5 — — FP 113,205 19.6 — — MRI 72,344 12.6 — — MNA 26,870 4.7 — — Others 48,227 8.4 — —

1997 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 6,974,623 – Votes cast 4,168,099 59.8 Blank votes 158,331 3.8 Invalid votes 913,259 21.9 Valid votes 3,096,509 74.3 70 100.0 PSE 768,514 24.8 20 28.6 PRE 441,165 14.2 7 10.0 DP 291,835 9.4 10 14.3 NP 196,572 6.3 2 2.9 GN 190,083 6.1 1 1.4 MPD 154,739 5.0 3 4.3 PL/FRA 141,646 4.6 5 7.1 ID 134,853 4.4 3 4.3 MP 128,461 4.1 7 10.0 DP/ID 34,754 1.1 3 4.3 ID/PSE/MP 15,690 0.5 2 2.9 CFP/PSC 8,904 0.3 1 1.4

Ecuador 387

1997 (cont.) Total number % Seats % ALAP/NP 6,312 0.2 1 1.4 MSI 4,363 0.1 1 1.4 PL/FRA/DP 1,829 0.1 1 1.4 ID/PSE/MP/NP 1,248 0.0 1 1.4 FRA/PSE 1,067 0.0 1 1.4 MIPCD 557 0.0 1 1.4



Year 1947 1950 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 352,550 – 431,794 – Votes cast 199,860 56.7 276,831 64.1 Invalid votesa 11,648 6.2 19,063 7.4 Valid votes 188,212 94.2 257,768 93.1 PCE 59,199 31.5 70,807 27.5 PLRE 52,505 27.9 29,411 11.4 MCDN 34,922 18.5 – – nameless list – – 26,121 10.1 AND – – – – Others 41,586 22.1 131,429 51.0 a Calculated by the authors on the basis of votes cast and valid votes taken from different sources.

Year 1952 1954 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — – 569,959 – Votes cast — — 465,187 82.6 Blank votes — — 8,339 1.9 Invalid votes — — 19,569 4.5 Valid votes 334,737 — 437,279 94.0 PCE 84,973 25.4 101,537 23.2 PLRE 47,143 14.1 64,601 14.8 AND 11,334 3.4 – – CFP – – 113,947 26.1 FPD – – 51,541 11.8 PSE – – 29,829 6.8 UP – – 5,149 1.2 Others 191,287 57.1 70,675 16.1

Ecuador388

Year 1956 1958 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 836,955 – — –Votes cast 599,227 69.2 491,357 —Blank votes — — 2,515 0.5Invalid votes — — 7,261 1.5Valid votes — — 481,581 98.01a — — 124,360 25.82a — — 66,382 13.83a — — 4,156 0.9Aa — — 110,230 22.9Ba — — 74,596 15.5Ca — — 34,530 7.2Da — — 9,824 2.0Ea — — 22,840 4.72+3a — — 22,980 4.8Othersa — — 11,683 2.4a The official sources do not indicate the parties’ names. Here, the results are listed under the respective list numbers.

Year 1960 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — – — – Votes cast — — 699,409 — Blank votes — — 36,748 5.9 Invalid votes — — 38,609 6.2 Valid votes — — 624,052 89.2 ACC — — 144,840 23.2 PCE — — 142,612 22.9 CFP — — 118,501 19.0 FLR — — 102,034 16.4 FVP — — 42,001 6.7 FDN — — 31,376 5.0 UCP — — 18,953 3.0 PLRE — — 3,164 0.5 PSE — — 1,313 0.2 Others — — 19,258 3.1

Election results for 1968 and 1970 were not available.

Ecuador 389

Year 1979a 1979b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,088,874 – 2,088,874 – Votes cast 1,675,195 80.2 1,678,924 80.4 Blank votes 86,674 6.0 101,996 7.1 Invalid votes 149,699 10.4 143,402 10.0 Valid votes 1,438,822 85.9 1,433,526 85.3 CFP 445,229 30.9 454,910 31.7 ID 265,068 18.4 212,091 14.8 PSC 123,411 8.6 91,384 6.4 PLRE 115,110 8.0 138,456 9.7 PCE 112,909 7.8 126,942 8.9 PNR 108,437 7.4 65,150 4.5 CID 90,277 6.3 85,835 6.0 MPD 68,982 4.8 70,590 4.9 UDP 44,810 3.1 64,249 4.5 FNV 37,740 2.6 42,840 3.0 PSAPR 26,849 1.9 37,596 2.6 APRE – – 43,483 3.0 a Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales).b Election in several provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year 1984a 1984b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 3,734,076 – 3,734,076 – Votes cast 2,636,656 70.6 2,656,884 71.2 Blank votes 355,908 17.6 369,101 18.0 Invalid votes 254,134 12.5 234,571 11.4 Valid votes 2,026,614 76.9 2,053,212 77.3 ID 394,212 19.5 410,914 20.0 PSC 361,755 17.9 235,117 11.5 PD 185,376 9.1 164,835 8.0 CFP 176,251 8.7 184,506 9.0 FRA 161,643 8.0 180,896 8.8 DP/UDC 130,173 6.4 150,392 7.3 MPD 123,333 6.1 134,036 6.5 PRE 104,848 5.2 103,827 5.1 FADI 88,660 4.4 105,401 5.1 PLRE 75,489 3.7 122,485 6.0 PCE 56,785 2.8 75,523 3.5 PCD 49,645 2.4 55,457 2.7 PNR 37,030 1.8 46,081 2.2 PSE 32,048 1.6 36,084 1.8 CNR 25,718 1.3 27,869 1.4 FNV 14,938 0.7 18,281 0.9 APRE 8,710 0.4 4,508 0.2

Ecuador390

a Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales).b Election in several provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year 1986a

Total number % Registered voters 4,255,346 – Votes cast 3,149,690 74.0 Blank votes 385,511 16.0 Invalid votes 348,787 14.4 Valid votes 2,415,392 76.6 ID 349,825 14.5 PSC 304,671 12.6 CFP 228,126 9.4 DP-UDC 226,297 9.4 PRE 218,319 6.1 PLRE 204,336 8.5 MPD 176,461 7.3 FADI 146,466 6.1 FRA 136,531 5.7 PD 112,337 4.7 PSE 106,017 4.4 APRE 58,421 2.4 PCD 55,446 2.3 PNR 44,841 1.9 PCE 33,677 1.4 CNR 13,621 0.6 a Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year 1988a 1988b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 4,649,684 – 4,649,684 – Votes cast 3,601,990 77.5 3,610,581 77.7 Blank votes 524,452 14.6 486,285 13.5 Invalid votes 314,146 8.7 324,835 9.0 Valid votes 2,763,374 76.7 2,799,461 75.5 ID 601,409 21.8 635,590 22.7 PRE 449,653 16.3 456,524 16.3 PSC 310,950 11.3 347,446 12.4 DP-UDC 294,362 10.6 304,294 10.9 CFP 194,723 7.0 226,172 8.1 PCE 193,533 7.0 55,986 2.0 FADI 189,983 6.9 66,893 2.4 FRA 147,071 5.3 110,168 3.9 PSE 137,853 5.0 120,458 4.3 PLRE 97,495 3.5 76,380 2.7 PD 69,763 2.5 55,783 2.0

Ecuador 391

Year 1988a 1988b

(cont.) Total number % Total number % PCD 35,210 1.3 32,577 1.2 PDP 22,788 0.8 11,829 0.4 PR 18,671 0.7 15,354 0.6 MPD – – 163,562 5.8 APRE – – 120,445 4.3 a Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales).b Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year 1990a

Total number %Registered voters 5,259,114 –Votes cast 3,561,081 67.7Blank votes 147,679 4.1Invalid votes 454,925 12.8Valid votes 2,958,477 83.0PSC 723,428 24.4PRE 438,166 14.8ID 385,650 13.0DP-UDC 297,186 10.0PSE 262,360 8.9MPD 146,979 5.0PCE 125,308 4.2FRA 123,990 4.2CFP 122,982 4.2PLRE 97,933 3.3APRE 63,466 2.1FADI 63,063 2.1PLN 52,545 1.8PDP 29,264 1.0PCD 26,157 1.0a Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year 1992a 1992b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 5,710,363 – 5,710,363 – Votes cast 4,057,116 71.0 4,056,337 71.0 Invalid votes 835,752 20.6 853,545 21.0 Valid votes 3,221,364c 79.4 3,202,792d 79.0PSC 753,452 23.4 742,165 23.5 PUR 575,801 17.9 – – PRE 486,498 15.4 513,248 16.3 ID 313,415 9.7 289,816 9.2 PCE 193,654 6.0 271,096 8.6

Ecuador392

Year 1992a 1992b

(cont.) Total number % Total number % MPD 191,870 6.0 152,797 4.8 DP-UDC 171,073 5.3 231,163 7.3 PSE 130,558 4.1 2,594 0.1 CFP 120,607 3.7 78,630 2.5 FRA 109,419 3.4 114,849 3.6 APRE 48,833 1.5 472,751 15.0 PLRE 45,982 1.4 60,773 1.9 UDP/FADI 30,541 0.9 30,675 0.9 LN 28,885 0.9 31,645 1.0 PCD 20,773 0.6 14,630 0.5 PAB – – 14,509 0.5 Others – – 134,779 4.3 a Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales).b Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).c The official data are inconsistent. The reported number of valid votes is 3,221,364, while the total sum of party votes amounts only to 3,221,361 votes. d The official data are inconsistent. The reported number of valid votes is 3,202,792, while the total sum of party votes amounts only to 3,156,120. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure.

Year 1994a

Total number % Registered voters 6,175,991 – Votes cast 4,044,433 65.5 Invalid votes 968,071 23.9 Valid votes 3,076,362 76.1 PSC 810,846 26.4 PRE 516,268 16.8 ID 306,272 10.0 MPD 253,760 8.2 DP-UDC 253,122 8.2 APRE 183,383 6.0 PCE 172,725 5.6 FRA 144,508 4.7 UR 120,096 3.9 PSE 98,248 3.2 CFP 67,433 2.2 PLRE 61,412 2.0 UDP/FADI 30,103 0.1 PLN 27,174 0.9 UPL 17,445 0.6 PCD 11,044 0.4 PAB 2,523 0.1 a Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Ecuador 393

Year 1996a 1996b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 6,662,003 – 6,662,003 – Votes cast 4,521,207 67.9 4,516,197 67.8 Invalid votes 997,237 22.1 988,067 21.9 Valid votes 3,523,970c 77.9 3,528,130 78.1PSC 1,069,977 30.4 983,850 27.9 PRE 718,983 20.4 752,276 21.3 MUPP-NP 379,056 10.8 251,488 7.1 DP-UDC 370,311 10.5 418,381 11.9 Alianza PLRE/FRA 243,411 6.9 148,014 4.2 ID 219,536 6.2 251,505 7.1 MPD 153,714 4.4 150,176 4.3 APRE 105,902 3.0 123,732 3.5 CFP 80,245 2.3 68,070 1.9 PCE-UN 72,434 2.1 79,794 2.3 PS-FA 43,621 1.2 46,462 1.3 UPL 28,988 0.8 17,612 0.5 AN 22,987 0.7 30,080 0.9 Lists 21–32 – – 183,256 5.2 Alianza ID/PSFA – – 3,501 0.0 UCI – – 1,965 0.0 Others 14,771d 0.4 23,434e 0.6a Election of national deputies (diputados nacionales).b Election of provincial deputies (diputados provinciales).c Offical data are slightly inconsistent.d Including: ITI: 14,771 votes (0.4%). e Including: FRA: 9,485 votes (0.3%); PLRE: 5,467 (0.2%); Alianza ID/PSFA: 3,501 (0.0%); ITI: 3,016 (0.0%); UCI: 1,965 (0.0%).

Year 1998a 1998b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 7,072,496 – 7,072,496 – Votes cast 4,537,822 64.2 3,478,524c 49.2Invalid votes 1,009,881 22.3 953,033c 27.4 Valid votes 3,527,941 77.7 2,525,491c 72.6PSC 839,567 23.8 5,114,369 23.5 DP-UDC 669,473 19.0 6,008,940 27.6 PRE 628,265 17.8 4,429,114 20.3 ID 544,088 15.4 3,006,737 13.8 MUPP-NP 325,365 9.2 127,891 0.6 PCE 184,048 5.2 – – MPD 151,096 4.3 980,253 4.5 FRA 54,137 1.5 559,548 2.6 AN (List 11) 51,515 1.5 – – CFP 37,507 1.1 241,002 1.1

Ecuador394

Year 1998a 1998b

Total number % Total number % APRE 28,837 0.8 180,399 0.8 UPL 14,043 0.4 145,410 0.7 MPD – – 980,253 4.5 a Election of national deputies (diputados nacionales).b Election of provincial deputies (diputados provinciales).c For the elections of provincial deputies in 1998, voters had as many votes as seats to be filled in one of the MMCs. For this reason, here the numbers of ballots cast, valid ballots, and invalid ballots are documented, while the number of party votes refers to the total of individual votes cast for individual candidates. Percentages are calculated on the basis of the sum of party votes (21,773,916).

Year 2002a

Total number %Registered voters 8,156,425 –Votes cast — —Blank votes — —Invalid votes — —Valid votesb 96,416,298 —PL 11,056,053 11.5 MPS 8,931,384 9.3 PSC 8,588,231 8.9 PRIAN 8,372,586 8.7 UN-UNO 6,161,815 6.4 PRE 6,120,142 6.3 ID 5,852,347 6.1 PLRE 4,976,707 5.2 MIAJ 4,723,984 4.9 MPD 4,662,213 4.8 MTSI 4,658,915 4.8 PS-FA 3,527,556 3.7 M.E.T.A. 2,717,055 2.8 PSP 2,455,777 2.5 DP/UDC-MIN 2,235,166 2.3 FADE 2,076,000 2.2 MJ 2,011,123 2.1 Mujeres al Poder 1,986,000 2.1 MAER 1,199,155 1.2 MIAN 1,059,065 1.1 CFP-PS 649,035 0.7 MIP 599,009 0.6 MIEV 476,467 0.5 AN 438,313 0.5 MUPP-NP 229,004 0.2 Othersb 653,196 2.7

Ecuador 395

a Due to the nature of the multiple-votes-system and the weak relationship between the votes (individual und multiple ones) and the parties’ shares of seats in parliament, there was no official aggregation of votes. b The given number refers to the total of individual votes cast for individual candidates. Voters have as many votes as seats to be filled in one of the MMCs of different magnitude.


Electoral results for the senate are not available.



Year 1979 1979 1984 1984 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 12 100.0 57 100.0 12 100.0 59 100.0CFP 4 33.4 25 43.8 1 8.3 6 10.0ID 2 16.8 13 22.8 3 25.0 21 35.6CID 1 8.3 2 3.6 – – – –MPD 1 8.3 – – 1 8.3 2 3.4PCE 1 8.3 9 15.8 – – 2 3.4PLRE 1 8.3 3 5.3 – – 4 6.8PSC 1 8.3 2 3.6 2 16.9 7 11.9FNV – – 1 1.7 – – – –PNR – – 1 1.7 – – – –UDP – – 1 1.7 – – – –FRA – – – – 1 8.3 5 8.5DP-UDC – – – – 1 8.3 4 6.8PD – – – – 1 8.3 2 3.4PRE – – – – 1 8.3 2 3.4FADI – – – – 1 8.3 1 1.7CNR – – – – – – 1 1.7PSE – – – – – – 1 1.7

Year 1986 1988 1988 1990 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 59 100.0 12 100.0 59 100.0 60 100.0ID 14 23.9 3 25.1 28 47.5 11 18.3PSC 12 20.4 1 8.3 7 11.9 15 25.0CFP 6 10.0 1 8.3 4 6.0 3 5.0PSE 6 10.0 1 8.3 3 5.1 7 11.7DP-UDC 4 6.8 1 8.3 7 11.9 7 11.7FRA 3 5.1 1 8.3 1 1.7 1 1.7

Ecuador396

Year 1986 1988 1988 1990 (cont.) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats %MPD 3 5.1 – – 2 3.4 1 1.7PLRE 3 5.1 – – 1 1.7 3 5.0PRE 3 5.1 2 16.8 6 10.0 9 15.0FADI 2 3.4 1 8.3 1 1.7 1 1.7PCD 1 1.7 – – – – – –PCE 1 1.7 1 8.3 – – 2 3.3PD 1 1.7 – – – – – –

Year 1992 1994 1996 1998 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 77 100.0 77 100.0 82 100.0 120 100.0PSC 21 27.3 26 33.8 27 27.0 26 21.7PRE 13 16.9 11 14.3 19 19.0 24 20.0PUR 12 15.6 3 3.9 2 2.0 – –ID 7 9.1 8 10.4 4 4.0 15 12.5PCE 6 7.8 6 7.8 1 1.0 1 0.8DP-UDC 5 6.5 4 5.2 11 11.0 32 26.7MPD 4 5.2 8 10.4 2 2.0 2 1.7PSE 3 3.9 2 2.6 – – – –PLRE 2 2.6 1 1.3 – – – –APRE 1 1.3 2 2.6 2 2.0 – –CFP 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.0 – –FRA 1 1.3 2 2.6 – – 3 2.5PLN 1 1.3 1 1.3 – – – –MUPP-NP – – – – 8 8.0 5 4.2Others/Indep. – – 2 2.6 6 6.0 12 10.0

Year 2002 Seats % 99 100.0 PSC 23 23.2 PRE 15 15.2 ID 13 13.1 PRIAN 10 10.1 DP-UDC 4 4.0 Pachacutik 4 4.0 MPD 3 3.0 PSP 3 3.0 MUPP-NP 2 2.0 PSP/NP/MUPP 2 2.0 PS/FA/MUPP 2 2.0 ID/DP-UDC 1 1.0 MTD (INP) 1 1.0 ID/MC/NP 1 1.0 MIP 1 1.0

Ecuador 397

Year 2002 (cont.) Seats % MPD/PS-FA 1 1.0 MPD/FS/FA 1 1.0 MUPP-NP/MC 1 1.0 MIRE 1 1.0 MPS 1 1.0 PSC/AN 1 1.0 UNO/PSC 1 1.0 PS-FA 1 1.0 PSP/MUPP/UP 1 1.0 PSP/MPD 1 1.0 PSP/MUPP-NP 1 1.0 CFP 1 1.0 PL 1 1.0 AN/PS-FA/DP 1 1.0


Data on the composition of senate are not available.


1901 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 74,074 — Leónidas Plaza 65,781 88.8 Lizardo García 7,915 10.7 Othersa 378 0.5a Others include: Manuel A. Franco (182 votes; 0.2%) and other candidates.

1905 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 69,208 — Lizardo García 64,369 93.0 Ignacio Robles 2,687 3.9 Manuel A. Franco 1,383 2.0 Others 769 1.1

Ecuador398

1911 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 109,663 — Emilio Estrada 103,024 93.9 Flavio A. Alfaro 3,708 3.4 Alfredo Baquerizo M. 2,583 2.4 Others 348 0.3

1912 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 63,830 — Leónidas Plaza 62,374 97.7 Carlos R. Tobar 754 1.2 Gonzalo S. Córdova 507 0.8 Others 195 0.3

1916 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 136,032 — Alfredo Baquerizo M. 127,303 93.6 Rafael A. Arízaga 7,502 5.5 Federico Intriago 794 0.6 Others 433 0.3

1920 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 128,105 — José Luis Tamayo 126,945 99.1 Gonzalo Córdova 722 0.5 Othersa 438 0.4 a Others include: Enrique Baquerizo M. (124 votes; 0.1%) and other candidates.

Ecuador 399

1924 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 186,538 — Gonzalo Córdova 173,773 93.2 Juan M. Lasso 9,175 4.9 Federico F. Intriago 3,454 1.8 Others 136 0.1

1931 Total number % Registered voters 155,186 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 59,750 — Neptali Bonifaz 27,042 45.3 Modesto Larrea Jijón 19,442 32.5 Ildefonso Mendoza 12,565 21.0 Others 701 1.2

1932 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 80,058 — Juan de Dios Martínez M. 56,872 71.0 Manuel Sotomayor 16,212 20.3 Pablo H. Vela 6,093 7.6 Others 881 1.1

1933 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 63,929 — José María Velasco Ibarra (PC) 51,248 80.2 Carlos Zambrano O. (PSE) 10,895 17.0 Colón E. Alfaro (Sector Liberal) 943 1.5 Others 843 1.3

Ecuador400

1940 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 82,100 — Carlos Arroyo (PLRE) 43,642 53.2 José María Velasco Ibarra 22,061 26.9 Jacinto Jijón y C. (PCE) 16,376 19.9 Others 21 0.0

1948 Total number % Registered voters 455,524 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 281,713 — Galo Plaza (MCDN) 115,708 41.1 Manuel E. Flor Torres (PCE) 112,356 39.9 Camilo Ponce Enríquez (PLRE/PSE) 53,649 19.0

1952 Total number % Registered voters 550,997 – Votes cast 357,654 64.9 Invalid votes 3,629 1.0 Valid votes 354,025 99.0 José María Velasco Ibarra (FNV/ARNE)

152,259 43.0

Ruperto Alarcón (PCE) 116,870 33.0 José R. Chiriboga (PLRE) 66,771 18.9 José M. Larrea (ADN) 18,125 5.1

1956 Total number % Registered voters 836,955 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 614,423 — Camilo Ponce Enríquez (APa) 178,424 29.0 Raúl Clemente Huerta (FDNb) 175,378 28.6 Carlos Guevara (CFP) 149,935 24.4 José R. Chiribogac 110,686 18.0 a Alliance of PCE, PSC, and ARNE. b Alliance of PLRE, PSE, and PC. c Candidate of dissidents of liberal and Velasquist groups.

Ecuador 401

1960 Total number % Registered voters 1,009,280 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 767,105 — José María Velasco Ibarra (FNV) 369,461 48.2 Galo Plaza (PLRE/FDN) 179,705 23.4 Gonzalo Cordero (ADC) 172,117 22.4 Antonio Parra (PCE/CFP/PSE) 45,822 6.0

1968 Total number % Registered voters 1,198,874 – Votes cast 928,981 77.5 Invalid votes 75,435 8.1 Valid votes 853,546 91.9 José María Velasco Ibarra 280,370 32.8 Andrés F. Córdova (PLRE) 264,312 31.0 Camilo Ponce Enríquez (PSC) 259,833 30.4 Jorge Crespo (ARNE) 31,991 3.7 Elías Gallegos (UDP) 17,040 2.0

1978 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 2,088,874 – Votes cast 1,521,412a 72.8Blank votes 54,954 4.0 Invalid votes 144,961 6.5 Valid votes 1,376,451 90.5 Jaime Roldós Aguilera (CFP) 381,215 27.7 Sixto Durán Ballén (PSC) 328,461 23.9 Raúl Clemente Huerta (PLRE) 311,983 22.7 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 165,258 12.0 Aladón Calderón (FRA) 124,347 9.0 René Mauge (FADI) 65,187 4.7 a Official data are inconsistent. The reported number of votes cast is 1,521,412, while the sum of blank votes, invalid votes, and valid votes amounts to 1,576,366.

1979 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 2,088,874 – Votes cast 1,681,286 80.5 Invalid votes 184,481 11.0 Valid votes 1,496,805 89.0 Jaime Roldós Aguilera (CFP) 1,025,148 68.5 Sixto Durán Ballén (PSC) 471,657 31.5

Ecuador402

1984 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 3,734,076 – Votes cast 2,646,844 70.9 Invalid votes 439,225 19.9 Valid votes 2,207,619 83.4 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 634,327 28.7 León Febres Cordero (PSC) 600,563 27.2 Angel Duarte (CFP) 298,397 13.5 Jaime Hurtado (MPD) 161,810 7.3 Jaime Aspiazu (FRA) 149,733 6.8 Francisco Huerta (PD) 146,646 6.6 Julio César Trujillo (DP) 103,790 4.7 René Mauge (FADI) 94,070 4.3 Manuel Salgado (PSE) 18,283 0.8

1984 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 3,794,149 – Votes cast 2,964,298 78.1 Invalid votes 283,500 10.6 Valid votes 2,680,798 90.4 León Febres Cordero (PSC) 1,381,709 51.5 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 1,299,089 48.5

1988 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 4,679,684 – Votes cast 3,632,842 77.6 Invalid votes 591,865 16.3 Valid votes 3,040,977 83.7 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 744,409 24.5 Abdalá Bucaram (PR) 535,482 17.6 Sixto Durán Ballén (PSC/PCE) 447,672 14.7 Frank Vargas (APRE/PSE/others) 384,189 12.6 Jaime Mahuad (DP) 351,787 11.6 Angel Duarte (CFP) 239,056 7.9 Jaime Hurtado (FADI/MPD) 152,970 5.0 Carlos Julio Emanuel (FRA) 102,708 3.4 Miguel A. Albornoz (PLRE) 48,970 1.6 Guillermo Sotomayor (CNR) 33,734 1.1

1988 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 4,649,684 – Votes cast 3,612,635 77.7 Invalid votes 463,489 12.8 Valid votes 3,149,146 87.2 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 1,700,648 54.0 Abdalá Bucaram (PR) 1,448,498 46.0

Ecuador 403

1992 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 5,710,363 – Votes cast 4,090,643 68.7 Invalid votes 673,542 16.3 Valid votes 3,417,101a 83.7Sixto Durán Ballén (PCE/PUR) 1,089,154 31.9 Jaime Nebot Saadi (PSC) 855,225 25.0 Abdalá Bucaram (PRE) 750,611 22.0 Raúl Baca Carbo (ID) 288,640 8.5 APRE-candidateb 107,804 3.5 PSE-candidateb 88,255 2.6 MPD-candidateb 66,507 2.0 DP-UCD-candidateb 64,611 1.9 CFP-candidateb 45,768 1.3 PLRE-candidateb 32,816 1.6 FADI-candidateb 15,760 0.5 PAB-candidateb 11,050 0.3 a Official data are inconsistent. The reported number of valid votes is 3,417,101, while the total sum of party votes amounts to 3,416,201. b The candidate’s name has not been available.

1992 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 5,710,363 – Votes cast 4,174,097 70.1 Invalid votes 428,628 7.2 Valid votes 3,745,469 Sixto Durán Ballén (PCE/PUR) 2,146,762 57.3 Jaime Nebot Saadi (PSC) 1,598,707 42.7

1996 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 6,662,003 – Votes cast 4,525,881 67.9 Invalid votes 716,137 15.8 Valid votes 3,809,744 84.2 Jaime Nobot (PSC) 1,035,101 27.2 Abdalá Bucaram (PRE) 1,001,071 26.3 Freddy Ehlers (MUPP-NP) 785,124 20.6 Rodrigo Paz (DP-UDC) 513,464 13.5 Vargas (APRE) 187,935 4.9 Ricardo Noboa (Alianza) 115,033 3.0 Juan José Castellano (MPD) 89,472 2.3 José Gallardo (UCI) 46,464 1.2 Jacinto Velásquez (Indep.) 36,080 0.9

Ecuador404

1996 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 6,662,003 – Votes cast 4,777,526 71.7 Invalid votes 581,478 12.2 Valid votes 4,196,048 87.8 Abdalá Bucaram (PRE) 2,285,397 54.5 Jaime Nobot (CFP) 1,910,651 45.5

1998 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 7,072,496 – Votes cast 4,537,822 64.2 Invalid votes 694,021 15.3 Valid votes 3,843,801 84.7 Jamil Mahuad (DP-UDC) 1,342,114 34.9 Alvaro Noboa (PRE/APRE/UPL) 1,022,667 26.6 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 619,581 16.1 Freddy Ehlers (MCNP) 566,917 14.7 Rosalia Arteaga (MIRA) 195,000 5.1 Maria Eugenia Lima (MPD) 97,522 2.5

1998 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 7,072,496 – Votes cast 4,960,075 70.1 Invalid votes 576,594 11.6 Valid votes 4,383,481 88.4 Jamil Mahuad (DP-UDC) 2,243,000 51.2 Alvaro Noboa (PRE) 2,140,481 48.8

2002 (1st round) Total number % Registered voters 8,154,425 – Votes cast 5,298,581 65.0 Invalid votes 729,399 13.8 Valid votes 4,569,182 86.2 Lucio E. Gutiérrez (PSP/ MUPP-NP)

943,123 20.6

Alvaro F. Noboa (PRIAN) 794,614 17.4 Leon Roldós (RP) 703,593 15.4 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 638,142 14.0 Antonio X. Neira (PSC) 553,106 12.1 Jacobo Bucarám Ortíz (PRE) 544,688 11.9 Jacinto Velazquez (TSI) 169,311 3.7 Ivonne L. Juez (PLRE/META) 79,598 1.7 César A. Alarcon (PL) 54,793 1.2 Osvaldo Hurtado (MPS) 49,043 1.1 Carlos A. Varas (MIAJ) 39,171 0.9

Ecuador 405

2002 (2nd round) Total number % Registered voters 8,154,425 – Votes cast 5,807,109 71.2 Invalid votes 691,012 11.9 Valid votes 5,116,097 88.1 Lucio E. Gutiérrez (PSP/ MUPP-NP)

2,803,243 54.8

Alvaro F. Noboa (PRIAN) 2,312,854 45.2


Head of State Years Remarks Leónidas Plaza G. 1901–1905 Military officer. Constitutional president,

elected on 01/09/1901. Lizardo García 1905–1906 President until 16/01/1906. Eloy Alfaro 1906–1911 Jefe Supremo (16/01/1906), Interim president

(09/10/1906–01/01/1907), constitutional presi-dent (01/01/1907–11/08/1911).

Emilio Estrada 1911–1912 Constitutional president from 01/09/1911 to 21/12/1912.

Leónidas Plaza G. 1912–1916 Military officer. Constitutional president from 01/09/1912 to 31/08/1916.

Alfredo Baquerizo Moreno

1916–1920 Constitutional president until 31/08/1920.

José Luis Tamayo 1920–1924 Constitutional president until 31/08/1924. Gonzalo S. Córdova 1924–1925 Constitutional president, deposed by a military

coup on 09/06/1925. A. Guerrero Martínez

1925 Charged with the exercise of the executive power.

Junta Militar deGobierno

1925–1926 10/07/1925–09/01/1926; integrated by Luis N. Dillón, José Rafael Bustamante, Modesto Lar-rea Jijón, Francisco Arizaga Luque, Pedro Pa-blo Garaicoa, Francisco Boloña, and Gen. Francisco Gómez de la Torre.


1926 10/01/1926—31/01/1926; integrated by: Hum-berto Albornoz, Isidro Ayora, Humberto Viteri, Julio E. Moreno, Pedro Egüez, Adolfo Hidal-go, José Gómez.

Isidro Ayora 1926–1931 Provisional president. Constitutional president from 26/03/1929 to 24/08/1931.

Luis Larrea Alba 1931 Minister in exercise of the executive power until 15/10/1931.

Alfredo Baquerizo Moreno

1931–1932 President of the senate in charge of the execu-tive power; until 27/08/1932.

Ecuador406

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Carlos Freile Larrea 1932 Minister of Government; in power for four

days.Alberto Guerrero Martínez

1932–1933 President of the senate in charge of the execu-tive power from 02/09/1932 to 04/12/1932.

Juan de Dios Martínez Mera

1933 Constitutional president from 05/12/1932 to 19/10/1933.

Abelardo Montalvo 1933–1934 Minister of Government in charge of the ex-ecutive power from 23/10/1933 to 31/08/1934.

José M. Velasco Ibarra

1934–1935 Resigned on 20/08/1935 after signing a decree to call for elections for a constitutional assem-bly.

Antonio Pons 1935 Minister of Government in charge of the ex-ecutive power for 30 days. Handed over power to a Junta of Officers.

Junta Militar 1935Federico Páez 1935–1937 Jefe Supremo, dictator from 26/09/1935 to

10/08/1937. Constitutional interim president, ousted by a military coup on 23/10/1937.

Alberto Enríquez Gallo

1937–1938 Military officer, Jefe Supremo; ceded power on 10/08/1938.

Manuel M. Borrero 1938 Provisional president until 01/12/1938. Aurelio Mosquera Narváez

1938–1939 Constitutional president by designation from the assembly; in power until his death on 10/12/1939.

Andrés F. Córdova 1939–1940 President of the chamber of deputies, in charge of the executive power until 10/08/1940.

Carlos Arroyo del Río

1940–1944 Constitutional president; resigned on 28/05/1944 in view of a movement against his government originating in Guayaquil.


1944–1947 Jefe Supremo from 01/06/1944 to 10/08/1944. Constitutional president, second period from 10/08/1944 to 30/03/1946. Dictator until 23/08/1947. His minister of defense, Coronel Carlos Mancheno, had him arrested and forced him to resign.

Carlos Mancheno 1947 Military Chief Commander (Jefe Supremo Militar), until 02/09/1947. He was not backed by the Armed Forces, which permitted a return to constitutional order.

Mariano Suárez Veintimilla

1947 President of the congress in charge of the exe-cutive power from 02/09 to 15/09/1947.

Carlos Julio Arosemena Tola

1947–1948 Constitutional president. Handed over power on 01/09/1948.

Ecuador 407

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Galo Plaza Lasso 1948–1952 Constitutional president until 31/08/1952. José M. VelascoIbarra

1952–1956 Constitutional president, third period; in office until 31/08/1956.

Camilo Ponce Enríquez

1956–1960 Constitutional president until 31/08/1960.


1960–1961 Constitutional president, fourth period. The Academy of War forced his resignation on 07/11/1961. Provisional transfer of power to the president of the High Court of Justice.

Carlos Julio Arosemena Monroy

1961–1963 Declared constitutional president by the con-gress. Deposed by a military coup on 11/07/1963.


1963–1966 Integrated by Ramón Castro Jijón, Marcos Gándara Enríquez, Luis Cabrera Sevilla, Guil-lermo Freile Posso until 28/03/1966.

Clemente Yerovi Indaburu

1966 Interim president from 29/03/1966 to 16/11/1966.

Otto Arosemena Gómez

1966–1968 Named interim constitutional president by the constitutional assembly until May 1967. Con-stitutional president until 31/08/1968.


1968–1970 Constitutional president, proclaimed himself dictator on 22/06/1970. Ousted by a military coup on 15/02/1972.

Guillermo Rodríguez Lara

1972–1976 Military officer, de facto president representing the Armed Forces until his resignation on 11/01/1976.

Junta Militar 1976–1978 Consejo Superior de Gobierno, integrated by Alfredo Poveda Burbano (presiding), Guillermo Durán Arcentales, and Luis Leoro Franco.

Jaime Roldós Aguilera

1979–1981 Constitutional president, assumed office on 10/08/1979. Died on 24/05/1981 in an aircraft accident.

Osvaldo Hurtado Larrea

1981–1984 Vice president, acceded to presidency after the death of Roldós. The presidential term is ex-ceptionally, in accordance with the constitution of 1979, five years.

León Febres Cordero


Rodrigo Borja Cevallos


Sixto Durán Ballén 1992–1996 In office from 10/08/1992 to 10/08/1996. Abdalá Bucaram Ortiz

1996–1997 In office from 10/08/1996 to 06/02/1997.

Ecuador408

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Fabián Alarcón 1997 Interim, first time; from 06/02/1997 to

09/02/1997.Rosalía Arteaga Serrano

1997 Acting; from 09/02/1997 to 11/02/1997.

Fabián Alarcón 1997–1998 Interim, second time; from 11/02/1997 to 10/08/1998.

Jamil Mahuad 1998–2000 In office from 10/08/1998 to 21/01/2000. Lucio Gutiérrez 2000 First time; in office on 21/01/2000. Council of State 2000 Assumed power from 21/01/2000 to

22/01/2000; integrated by Carlos Mendoza, Antonio Vargas, and Carlos Solórzano.

Gustavo Noboa 2000–2003 Assumed office from 22/01/2000 to 15/01/2003.

Lucio Gutiérrez 2003– Second time; in office since 15/01/2003.

3. Bibliography


Informes de la Dirección Central de Estadística y Registro Civil al Congreso (1922–1940). Quito: Archivo del Congreso.

Informes del Ministerio del Interior al Congreso (1907–1928). Quito: Archivo del Congreso.

Informes del Tribunal Supremo Electoral al Congreso (1931–1933, 1948, 1950, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1979, 1987, 1988). Quito.

Leyes Electorales del Ecuador (1830–1978).Tribunal Supremo Electoral/Corporación Editora Nacional (eds.) (1989).

Elecciones y democracia en el Ecuador. 2 vols. Quito.


Abad Franco, A. (1974). Parteiensystem und Oligarchie in Ecuador. Berlin: Colloquium.

Alexander, R. J. (1982). The Greenwood Historical Encyclopedia of the World’s Political Parties. Political Parties of the Americas, Canada, Latin America and the West Indies. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Argones, N. (1985). El juego de poder. De Rodrigo Lara a Febres Cordero.Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional.

Ayala, E. (1988). Lucha política y origen de los partidos en Ecuador. Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional.

Ecuador 409

Ayerve, O. (1987). Tu voto es poder. Quito: Taski Editora. Borja y Borja, R. (1951). Las Constituciones del Ecuador. Madrid: Ediciones

Cultura Hispánica. Collin Delavaud, C. (1977). ‘Dix années de politique équatorienne (1966–

1976)’, in Notes et Etudes Documentaires (Paris), 4316–18, 4327. Conaghan, C. M. (1995). ‘Politicians Against Parties. Discord and Discon-

nection in Ecuador’s Party System’, in S. Mainwaring and T. R. Scully (eds.), Building Democratic Institution. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Uni-versity Press, 434–458.

Corkill, D. and Cubitt, D. (eds.) (1988). Ecuador, Fragile Democracy. Lon-don: Latin American Bureau.

Cueva, A. (1988). El proceso de dominación política en el Ecuador. Quito: Planeta.

Hurtado, O. (1989). El poder político en el Ecuador. Quito: Ariel, Planeta, Letraviva.

— (1990). Política democrática. Los últimos veinte y cinco años. Quito: FESO-Corporación Editora Nacional.

Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems (ICOPS) (1968). Ec-uador Election Factbook, June 2, 1968. Washington, D.C.: ICOPS.

Maier, G. (1969). The Ecuadorian Presidential Election of June, 2 1968. An Analysis. Election Analyses Series Nr. 6. Washington, D.C.: ICOPS.

Mejía Acosta, A. (2003). ‘La reelección legislativa en Ecuador: carreras políticas, relación electoral y disciplina de partido (1979–2003)’, in F. F. Dworak (ed.), El legislador a examen. El debate sobre la reelección legislativa en México. Mexico City: FCE, 206–228.

Mena, C. (1986). ‘Legislación electoral ecuatoriana’, in Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana (eds.), Sistemas electorales y representación política en Latinoamérica. Madrid, 75–117.

Menéndez-Carrión, A. (1986). La conquista del voto. De Velasco a Roldós.Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional.

Pachano, S. (1998). La representación caótica. Análisis del sistema electoral ecuatoriano. Quito: FLACSO.

Pareja Diezcanseco, A. (1979). Ecuador, la República de 1830 a nuestros días. Quito: Ed. Universitaria.

Reyes, O. E. (without year). Breve historia general del Ecuador. Quito. Rivera, R. (1992). ‘Ecuador. Elecciones y democracia 1978–1990’, in R.

Cerdas-Cruz, J. Rial and D. Zovatto (eds.), Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1988–1991. IIDH / CAPEL, San José, Costa Rica, 311–343.

Ruddle, K. and Gillette, P. (eds.) (1972). Latin American Political Statistics. Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles: University of California.

Ecuador410

Saint-Geours, Y. (1983). ‘Equateur. La démocratie à l'épreuve de la crise (1981–1983)’. Problèmes d'Amérique Latine, 70: 76–92.

— (1981). ‘Equateur. Retour à la démocratie décollage économique?’. Pro-blèmes d'Amérique Latine, 59: 9–35.

— (1988). ‘Equateur de Léon Febres Cordero à Rodrigo Borja (1984–1988)’. Problèmes d'Amérique Latine, 89.

Salgado, H. (1986). El Congreso Nacional del Ecuador 1968/1988. Quito: Ildis.

Sanchez López, F. (1999). Introducción al sistema electoral ecuatoriano (Papeles de Trabajo 3, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas). Quito: Pontífica Universidad Católica del Ecuador.

Tobar Donoso, J. (1981). Derecho constitucional ecuatoriano. Quito: Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones.

Trabucco, F. E. (1960). Síntesis histórica de la República del Ecuador.Quito: Ed. Santo Domingo.

United Nations (1966). Boletín estadístico de America Latina, Vol. III. New York.

Viekoslav Dalic, M. (1987). Estadísticas electorales del Ecuador (1978–1987). Quito: Ildis.

PARAGUAY by Marta León-Roesch and Richard Ortiz Ortiz

1. Introduction


The recorded history of Paraguay begins with the first encounters be-tween European explorers and Guarani tribes that populated the upper reaches of what are now the Paraná and Paraguay rivers. The first Euro-pean settlement, established in 1537, later became the Paraguayan capi-tal Asunción. The territory of Paraguay was then governed as a subsidiary of the vice-royalty of Lima and later of Río de la Plata. Para-guay became independent after citizens in Buenos Aires deposed the viceroy in 1810 and tried to extend their control to Paraguay, where the spirit of localism was strong. Buenos Aires sent troops to force Paraguay to comply. However, Paraguay won and, recognizing that foreign rule was ending, declared its independence from the Spanish Crown in May 1811. The first constitutional document, the Reglamiento de Govierno(Governmental Regulations) of 1813, established an independent repub-lic. However, throughout the 19th century Paraguay had to continually reaffirm its sovereignty against its powerful neighbors Brazil and Argen-tina.

The political history of Paraguay since 1811 can be divided into four main periods. The first period (1811–1870) was characterized by a very rudimentary legal and constitutional system and very restricted political activity. The second period (1870–1954) was marked by the liberal con-stitution of 1870, extreme political instability, and the constitution of 1940, a turning point that led back to authoritarianism. The third period (1954–1989) was characterized by the authoritarian regime of General Alfredo Stroessner, who presided over the longest dictatorship in the history of Paraguay. The fourth phase (from 1989) is marked by the transition to democracy, the democratic constitution of 1992, and politi-cal instability.

Soon after it had declared independence, Paraguay’s political history began to be determined by a militarist and authoritarian tradition, which

Paraguay412

became evident during long periods of dictatorial government. These dictatorships were often legitimized by the national congress or a new constitution, therefore elections were insignificant. The 1928 election was the first and only freely-contested presidential election until 1989. Despite elections in 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2003, the army remains an influential force. In 1993, the first civilian president for nearly 50 years came to power, and the 2000 election (only for vice president) was the first national election won by the opposition in almost 90 years. The 2003 election was won once more by the Partido Colorado.

The first dictatorship began with José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia’s rule from 1814 to 1840. Following independence, he was appointedmember of the three-man provisional government until June 1811 when the first National Congress invited him to become a member of the Junta Superior Gubernativa. In 1813, the second National Congress elected him as a member of the First Consulate. At the third National Congress in 1814 he was appointed as a one-person executive with the provisional title of Supreme Dictator, and at the fourth National Congress in 1816 he was appointed Perpetual Dictator. Francia’s government was based on economic self-sufficiency and an authoritarian and repressive internal power structure. The early imposition of the state’s influence over both society and economy was facilitated by the lack of a strong national bourgeoisie and the exclusion of the majority of the population from participation in the political process. In the field of international rela-tions, this policy of isolation helped Paraguay to assert its independence.

As Francia had named no successor before he died in September 1840, the country was plunged into chaos. After a few days, a junta was formed. The members freed some political prisoners, soon proved in-competent to govern, and the junta was overthrown in January 1841. Another coup followed 16 days later, and chaos continued until March 1841, when congress chose Carlos Antonio López as First Consul. In 1844, another congress named him president of the Republic, a post he held until his death in 1862: Paraguay had appointed its second dictator. The 1844 Congress also approved the law establishing the Adminis-tración Política de la República del Paraguay (Political Administration of the Republic of Paraguay), known as the 1844 Constitution. The new constitution established a powerful president with a ten-year term of of-fice and the right to promulgate legislation and convene congress every five years to approve it. When C. A. López assumed office, he liberal-ized the economy and politics under the state’s monopoly, and modern-ized the army. His period of rule oversaw a period of rapid economic and social development that was achieved with a self-reliant develop-

Paraguay 413

ment strategy. In marked contrast to Francia, he opened Paraguay to the world, whilst still retaining the extensive nature of state economic inter-vention inherited from the Franciata. Trade made arms acquisitions eas-ier and increased the state’s income. Foreign experts helped to build an iron factory and a large armory. His administration is regarded by many historians as Paraguay’s ‘Golden Age’.

During his administration, C. A. López worked to ensure the succes-sion of his son, Francisco Solano López, and gave him administrative responsibilities and experience. In 1857, congress reformed the constitu-tion, establishing prerequisites that guaranteed this succession. When C. A. López died, congress elected his son as president of Paraguay for a ten-year term. He sought to continue the ambitious economic develop-ment plan of his father. At the same time, he also tried to secure a sig-nificant role for Paraguay in the maintenance of the balance of power in the River Plate region. His attempt to interfere in the domestic politics of Uruguay led him into the ‘War of the Triple Alliance’ (1865–1870) in which Paraguay fought against Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Para-guay was defeated and, as a result, lost extensive territories, its popula-tion was reduced by more than half, and the productive structure was completely destroyed.

The internal political vacuum was at first dominated by survivors of the Paraguayan Legion. In 1869, the group set up a provisional govern-ment under Brazilian auspices and signed the 1870 peace accords, which guaranteed Paraguay’s independence and free river navigation. A consti-tution was also drawn up in the same year, but it proved ineffective be-cause of the foreign origin of its liberal, democratic tenets. Although this constitution endured for 70 years, it was repeatedly violated.

The 1870 Constituent Assembly elected Facundo Machain as presi-dent, but he was ejected by Brazilian troops and replaced by Cirilo Riva-rola. Argentina and Brazil were not willing to grant Paraguay a truly free political system. Pro-Argentine militia chief Benigno Ferreira emerged as de facto dictator until he was overthrown with Brazil’s help in 1874. Thus, politics degenerated into factionalism, and cronyism and intrigue prevailed. Presidents still acted like dictators, elections did not stay free. Free elections were a startling, and not altogether welcome, innovation for ordinary Paraguayans, who had always allied themselves with a patrón (benefactor) for security and protection.

In 1887, two political parties were founded, the Partido Liberal (PL; Liberal Party) and the nationalist-conservative Asociación Nacional Re-publicana (ARN; National Republican Association). Commonly, they are known as Partido Azul and Partido Colorado. Rather than having a

Paraguay414

distinct political profile, both parties represented the interests of extre-mely heterogeneous oligarchic groups. The Partido Colorado represen-ted great landowners and conservative members of the army and the Partido Liberal represented another group of landowners and middle-class merchants. These parties dominated Paraguayan politics until 1936. However, constant coup d’état attempts and conflicts among the caudillos created permanent instability, which prevented the consolidati-on of the political system.

The Partido Colorado was the dominant political force in the last quarter of the 19th century, from 1878 to 1904. In the late 1890s, grow-ing divisions appeared within the party. The party was ousted from power by the Liberal Revolution of 1904. Although the Partido Liberalretained control of government until 1940 (except for brief interludes), its rule was never particularly stable. From 1904 to 1936, there were 24 different presidential administrations as well as dozens of factional re-volts within the ruling party. The political anarchy contributed to the demise of liberalismo. The Chaco War led to a further decline in the party’s fortunes and it was eventually overthrown by the FebreristaRevolution of 1936.

In February 1936, a nationalist revolution erupted, at the end of which a civil-military coalition led by Colonel Rafael Franco assumed power. They set out to forge a revolutionary path for the country. To this end they developed a radical doctrine, Febrerismo, which drew inspiration from an odd combination of European ideologies (Italian fascism, Ger-man Nazism, Spanish corporatism, and Soviet communism). Represen-tative democracy was rejected as an imperialist sham. A political movement known as the Unión Nacional Revolutionaria (Revolutionary National Union) was founded to support the aims of the Febrerista Gov-ernment. When Franco’s government was overthrown, the movement continued its work in exile. The members exiled in 1945 reorganized the movement under the name Concentración Revolucionaria Febrerista, a forerunner of the Partido Revolucionario Febrerista (PRF; Febrerista Revolutionary Party).

José Félix Estigarribia assumed presidency in 1939, and ruled until 1940. He had been the military leader during the Chaco War (1932–1935), in which Paraguay defeated Bolivia. With his accession to power, the armed forces became involved in the political arena. Estigarribia abolished the 1870 Constitution and introduced the 1940 Constitution by decree, the latter being markedly authoritarian. The 1940 Constitution facilitated a move toward dictatorship in Paraguay, first under Higínio Morínigo and later under Alfredo Stroessner.

Paraguay 415

Following Estigarribia’s death in September 1940, Morínigo assumed presidency (1940–1948) and transformed the corporatist state of his predecessor into a personal dictatorship. His presidency saw the begin-ning of direct political control by the armed forces. His administration also promoted the rapid growth in relations with the United States, whose influence in Paraguay increased quickly during World War II. The United States wanted the country to support the Allies. In February 1943, Morínigo was formally elected in a presidential contest in which he was the only candidate. The allied victory in 1945 soon led to the rapid demise of Morínigo’s authoritarian rule. Under pressure from the United States, he opened the political system, relaxed restrictions on free speech, allowed political exiles to return, and formed a coalition gov-ernment. The sudden liberation set the stage for civil war. In January 1947, a military putsch removed the Febreristas from government and handed over power exclusively to the right-wing faction of the PartidoColorado, led by Juan Natalicio González.

This polarized the political spectrum and led to a civil war, known as the Revolution of 1947, which erupted in March 1947. During the civil war, Morínigo retained the presidency, as nominal leader of the victori-ous Colorados. By the end of the rebellion in August, a single party, the Partido Colorado, had almost total control in Paraguay. The fighting had simplified politics by eliminating all parties and reducing the size of the army. Since nearly four-fifths of the officer’s corps had joined the rebels, fewer individuals were now in a position to compete for power. The institutionalization of one-party rule, the establishment of order at the expense of political liberty, and the acceptance of the army’s role as the ultimate political arbiter created the conditions that produced the Stroessner regime.

In May 1954, another revolt broke out, and General Alfredo Stroess-ner was elected president in July. Stroessner claimed power on the basis of a military-political pact. His power was built on an alliance between the armed forces and the Partido Colorado. The political class, the mili-tary, and the state machinery remained subordinate to Stroessner’s con-trol. He used repression, corruption, and electoral fraud to stage a pseudo-democracy that lasted for almost 40 years.

Another major factor in Stroessner’s favor was a change in attitude among the domestic opposition. Demoralized by years of fruitless strug-gle and exile, the major opposition groups began to long for peace. In 1963, a Liberal Party faction, the Grupo Renovación (Renewal Group), returned to Paraguay to become the ‘official’ opposition, leaving the re-mainder of the Liberal Party, which renamed itself the Partido Liberal

Paraguay416

Radical (PLR; Radical Liberal Party). The Renovacionistas, now offici-ally recognized as the Partido Liberal, were granted one-third of the seats in congress. Four years later, members of the Partido Liberal Radi-cal also returned to Paraguay and began participating in the electoral process. By this time, the Febreristas posed no threat to Stroessner and were legalized in 1964. The new Partido Demócrata Cristiano (PDC; Christian Democratic Party) also renounced violence as a means of gai-ning power. The exhaustion of most opposition forces enabled Stroess-ner to crush the Partido Communista Paraguayo (Paraguayan Communist Party) by mercilessly persecuting its members and their spouses and to isolate the exiled Colorados, who had reorganized them-selves as the Movimiento Popular Colorado (Popular Colorado Move-ment).

In August 1967, the fifth constitution of Paraguay was enacted. It was designed to permit Stroessner to rule as president for two more five-year terms. Ten years later, Stroessner pushed through the Constitutional Amendment of 1977 which annulled the two-term limit to enable him to serve indefinitely as president. Opposition to this amendment led a ma-jority of the Partido Liberal Radical to break away and form the PartidoLiberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA; Authentic Radical Liberal Party). The elections that periodically confirmed his control of the presidential of-fice were staged.

Stroessner’s control of the Partido Colorado had been unchallenged from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, but the Partido Colorado gradu-ally began to split into two factions. The tradicionalistas were willing to consider opening up the political field, whereas the militantes began to speak openly of Stroessner’s son Gustavo as a possible successor for his father. In February 1989, a coup d’état, led by General Andrés Rodríguez, overthrew Stroessner. The circumstances that prompted this coup were the increasing democratic tendencies in the region, the eco-nomic crisis, and the internal disputes regarding Stroessner’s successor. In May 1989, Rodríguez was elected president. For the first time in many years, the democratic opposition was allowed to participate in na-tional elections. This marked the beginning of the transition to democ-racy, a period characterized by continuing military influence.

In February 1990, congress approved a new electoral law, known as Law No. 1. Its main innovations included the introduction of political representation and the provision for a second round in the event that no candidate secured an absolute majority in presidential elections. Nego-tiations with the opposition led to municipal elections in May 1991 and elections for a constitutional assembly in December 1991. The election

Paraguay 417

for a new 198-seat national assembly saw the Partido Colorado take two-thirds of the vote (122 seats); a vigorous opposition, led by the Par-tido Liberal Radical Auténtico which won 55 seats, emerged after long years of repression. The new constitution was published in 1992. It rein-troduced the office of vice president and the plurality rule for presiden-tial elections.

In May 1993, parliamentary and presidential elections were held un-der the new constitution. The Partido Colorado’s candidate, Juan Carlos Wasmosy, won. The Liberal Party’s candidate, Domingo Laino, came in second. The newly-formed Partido Encuentro Nacional (PEN; National Encounter Party) won 24.1% of the vote and became the third political force. In the legislative elections, the opposition gained a majority of the seats in both chambers. The parties opposed to the president—PLRA,PEN, and a breakaway group from Partido Colorado, the Movimiento de Reconciliación Colorada (MRC; Colored Reconciliation Movement)—secured a majority in both the senate and the chamber of deputies. Wasmosy became Paraguay’s first civilian president in nearly 50 years.

The 1993 elections confirmed the transformation of the party system that had begun in the 1991 municipal elections, when the Partido Colo-rado had lost the political monopoly. Indeed, in 1993 a third and new political force, the PEN emerged, but the remaining traditional and smaller parties, such as the Partido Revolucionario Febrerista and the Partido Demócrata Cristiano, lost some of their political significance.

Anti-Wasmosy elements lent their support to an influential and con-troversial former army commander, General Lino Oviedo, who was cho-sen as the Colorado candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections in 1998, despite being suspected of organizing a coup against Wasmosy in 1996. The failed coup d’état attempt in April 1996, which resulted in the retirement of the highest army officers, highlighted the breakdown of the alliance between the Partido Colorado and the armed forces. Oviedo was excluded from the presidential candidacy after he was convicted of sedition and other offences by a military tribunal. Raúl Cubas Grau as-sumed the Colorado candidacy, and won the election in May 1998. For the following twelve months, Paraguayan politics was in a state of near chaos. On taking office, Cubas freed Oviedo from jail amid a storm of protest. This precipitated the final split in the Colorados when Vice President Luis Argaña allied himself with the opposition and deprived the pro-Cubas Colorado faction of its majority in congress. Congress quickly voted for an impeachment of Cubas. At the end of March 1999, Argaña was killed by unknown assassins; five days later, Cubas resigned to avoid the impeachment trial.

Paraguay418

Senate leader Luis González Macchi was sworn in as the new president and declared his intention to form a broad-based government. The vice president was elected separately on 13 August 2000. The liberal party’s candidate, Julio César Franco, won. González Macchi subsequently faced serious opposition from Oviedo supporters, especially in the army. The continuation of the tensions posed a serious threat to the future of Paraguay’s young democratic regime. These fears were confirmed in May 2000 when supporters of Oviedo launched a coup attempt which was put down by armed forces loyal to the government.

On 27 April 2003, presidential and parliamentary elections were held and the Paraguayans voted for Colorado and Nicanor Duarte. At this time, the population in general and the political class in particular had started to value democracy.


The 1870 Constitution was Paraguay’s first democratic constitution. It introduced universal suffrage for all men aged 18 or over. The electoral law of 1911 established secret suffrage. The secret ballot became man-datory in 1927. Law No. 704 of 1961 extended suffrage to women, who were allowed to vote for the first time in 1963. The 1967 Constitution stipulated that suffrage was the right, duty, and public function of the voter. According to the 1992 Constitution, voting is not compulsory but considered a duty for all men and woman who are 18 years of age or older.

Direct parliamentary elections have been held since 1870. Until 1940, the only directly elected national institution in Paraguay was the con-gress. The 1870 Constitution, approved at the time of the allied occupa-tion of Paraguay, provided for the direct election of deputies and the indirect election of the president and vice president. From 1870 to 1940, congress was bicameral with a chamber of deputies and a senate. The 1940 Constitution, which contained some authoritarian features, pro-vided for a weak unicameral legislature and for the direct election of the president. The president was able to dissolve congress at any time. In 1967, the second chamber of congress was re-established. The 1940 and 1967 constitutions did not provide for the office of a vice president. It was reintroduced in 1992. The 1992 Constitution gives the legislative branch a more central role in the government of the country.

The 1844 Constitution did not establish how long members of con-gress should serve, but they were convened every five years to approve

Paraguay 419

the legislation. The 1870 Constitution established a legislative, with a senate serving a six-year term and a chamber of deputies, serving a four-year term. Elections were held every two years to renew half of the chamber of deputies and one-third of the senate. The 1940 Constitution provided for a unicameral legislature elected for a five-year term. Since 1967, the members of the chamber of deputies and the senate have been elected for a five-year term.

The 1870 Constitution established a legislative with a 13-member senate and a 26-member chamber of deputies. The 1940 Constitution provided for a legislature with one representative for each 25,000 inhabitants; it consisted of 40 deputies and 20 substitutes. Since 1993, the chamber of deputies comprises a minimum of 80 members and the senate is made up of at least 45 members. According to the 1967 and 1992 constitutions, members of both houses had to be native-born Paraguayans. The deputies must be at least 25 years of age; senators at least 40 (since 1992 only 35). Members of the clergy and officers of the armed forces on active duty are eligible for election to the national congress. There is no restriction concerning re-election.

In accordance with the 1844 Constitution, the president was elected by congress. From 1870 to 1940, the president was chosen by an elec-toral college. The 1940 Constitution introduced the direct election of the president and the Law of 1947 established the plurality rule for presiden-tial elections. According to the Law of 1990, the president had to be elected by absolute majority. In 1992, the plurality rule was re-introduced.

In order to be eligible for presidency and vice presidency, the 1870 Constitution established that an individual must be a native Paraguayan, at least 30 years of age, and Catholic. The 1940 and 1967 constitutions retained the prerequisites of native citizenship and Catholic denomina-tion, but the minimum age to be eligible was increased to 40. Since 1992, Catholicism is no longer a prerequisite.

According to the 1844 Constitution, the president was elected for a term of ten years. In 1940, it was reduced to five years with re-election permitted for one additional term. The sole objective of the 1967 Consti-tution was to enable Stroessner to rule for a further two five-year terms as president, because his period of office was to expire in 1968 due to a two term limit determined in the 1940 Constitution. Thus, although the new 1967 Constitution formally guaranteed human rights, political par-ticipation, and the division of powers, it actually contained numerous authoritarian elements that prevented these constitutional norms from coming into effect. The 1967 Constitution did not provide for a vice pre-

Paraguay420

sident. In 1992, the office of vice president was reintroduced and the re-election of the president was prohibited.

During the Liberal Period from 1904 to 1940, the country was divided into electoral constituencies based on departments. Under the 1940 Con-stitution, this division was replaced by an electoral system based on party lists for a single national constituency. This mechanism was rein-forced during Stroessner’s regime by Electoral Laws No. 600 of 1960, No. 1088 of 1965, and No. 886 of 1981. In 1927, Law No. 929 intro-duced minority representation in congress. The Law of 1947 established proportional representation. Under the Stroessner Regime, Paraguay was the only country in the world to use the ‘majority plus’ electoral system that goes back to the Italian electoral law of 1923 during the regime of Mussolini. Under this arrangement, the party that obtains a majority of votes automatically receives two-thirds of the seats in congress, while the remaining seats are distributed among the other contesting parties in proportion to their respective share of the national vote. This system was used until 1990.

After Stroessner was overthrown, congress approved a new electoral law in February 1990, known as Law No. 1. Its most important features were the establishment of a proportional system for the allocation of seats in parliamentary elections, the provision for a second round in the event that no candidate secures an absolute majority in presidential elec-tions, the introduction of independent candidacies and, for the first time in the country’s history, the direct election of intendentes (municipal governors). However, the law maintained the highly centralized system of party lists contesting a single national constituency.

Since 1992, the chamber of deputies has been elected in multi-member constituencies (MMC). The Cámara de Senadores is elected in one single nationwide constituency with closed and blocked lists. The seats are allocated using the d’Hondt method. The president is directly elected by simple plurality for a non-renewable term.

Some of the most important features of the 1992 Constitution were: the prohibition of presidential re-election; the creation of the office of vice president; the adoption of the decentralization principle; the reduc-tion of the power of the executive and the strengthening of the legisla-tive; the creation of additional control organs; and finally, the improvement of the system to protect human rights. The elections of May 1993 were the first free elections with all-civilian candidates since 1928. A new electoral code was promulgated in April 1996 which regu-lated the 1998 election.

Paraguay 421

The electoral law of 1911 established the Registro Permanente de Elec-tores (Permanent Register of Voters). It was founded in 1918. From 1960 to 1989, the Paraguayan electoral commission, Junta Electoral Central (Central Electoral Board), was dominated by the Partido Colo-rado. According to the electoral laws of 1960 and 1981, two-thirds of the members of all institutions, from the Junta Electoral Central to the district-level electoral boards and the election officers at the voting ta-bles, consisted of nominees from the party that gained a majority of votes in the previous election. This ensured that the rigging of elections through ballot-stuffing and illegal voter registration could not occur. The 1992 Constitution established an Electoral Justice System. Its responsi-bilities include the management of the electoral register and the final calculation of the results and the determination of the outcome of the elections.

1.3. Current Electoral Provisions

Sources: The Constitución de la República del Paraguay of 1992; the Código Electoral (Ley No. 834/96), and Ley No. 1830/2001 to reform the electoral code; Ley No. 635/95 that regulates the electoral justice; and Ley No. 744/95, No. 1.281/98, and No. 1.346/98, which introduced modifications to the law of electoral justice

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, secret, and direct suffrage apply. All Paraguayan citizens 18 years or older who are permanently resident in Paraguay have the right to vote. Some groups are excluded from this right: people that have been declared mentally infirm by a court, members of the armed forces and police, pupils of the police academy, and military cadets. To be allowed to vote, citizens must regis-ter in the Registro Cívico Permanente (the Permanent Civil Register). Everybody needs an identity card issued by the police in order to be able to enroll in the register and to vote. Voting is not compulsory but con-sidered a duty.

Elected national institutions: President and vice president as well as the legislative comprising the Cámara de Diputados (chamber of deputies) and the Cámara de Senadores (senate) are elected for a period of five years simultaneously but with different ballots.

The Cámara de Diputados consists of a minimum of 80 members. Before each election, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral estab-

Paraguay422

lishes—according to population—the number of representatives to be elected in each department. The Cámara de Senadores consists of at least 45 members. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled by substitutes elected at the same time as regular members.

Nomination of candidates: All Paraguayan citizens 35 years or older who are in possession of their full civil and political rights qualify to run for the presidency or vice presidency. The candidates are chosen by rec-ognized parties or movements. All Paraguayan citizens 25 years or oldercan be elected to the Cámara de Diputados. All Paraguayan citizens 35 years or older can be elected to the Cámara de Senadores. Each recog-nized party or movement must present a list of candidates with as many names on it as there are seats to be filled.

Electoral system- presidential elections: president and vice president are elected on the same ticket according to the plurality system. - parliamentary elections: The Cámara de Diputados is elected in small, medium, and large MMCs that correspond to the departments plus the city of Asunción. There are four SMCs and 14 MMCs. Only two of them are large (17 and 13 seats, respectively). There are also two con-stituencies of six deputies, one of five, two of four, two of three, and four of two. Due to the size of most constituencies, the system creates a very conspicuous majority effect. The lists are closed and blocked. The voter is entitled to one vote. The seats are allocated using the d’Hondt formula.

The Cámara de Senadores is elected in one single nationwide con-stituency with closed and blocked lists. Every voter has one vote. The seats are distributed using the d’Hondt method. Former presidents are senators for life; they may take part in relevant discussions, but cannot vote.

Organizational context of elections: The Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral (High Court of the Electoral Justice System) is the highest court with respect to electoral matters. It consists of three members ap-pointed by congress. It has jurisdiction over the entire country and over-sees the other electoral bodies. Its responsibilities include the management and supervision of the electoral register, the administration of resources allocated in the general national budget for electoral pur-poses, and the appointment and removal of all judicial and administra-

Paraguay 423

tive officials of the electoral bodies. It is also responsible for the final calculation of the results.

The Tribunales Electorales (electoral tribunals) and the Juzgados Electorales (electoral courts) are spread throughout ten judicial districts. Their main function is to manage and oversee the elections held in their jurisdiction. The Fiscalias Electorales (electoral supervisory offices) are responsible for ensuring the public control and supervising parties and political movements. They are in charge of prosecuting those who com-mit electoral offences. The staff of these institutions is appointed by the supreme court. The Registro Electoral (register of voters) has to take care of the Permanent Civic Register. It consists of four representatives, one from each of the four major political parties in parliament, but it has branches all over the country. Its decisions have to be unanimous.

The Juntas Cívicas (citizen boards) are auxiliary electoral bodies that start to assist the other institutions 60 days prior to the elections and dis-solve 30 days thereafter. The Mesas Receptoras de Votos (polling sta-tions) consist of three members who are proposed by the major political parties and elected by the chambers of congress. A polling station cannot have more than one member of the same party.


From 1870 to 1960, there are no data for parliamentary elections. The compilation of data from national elections, referendums, and coupsd’état starts in 1940 and the table for the electoral body begins in 1943. The official results of national elections published in the Diario ABC on6 February 1983 are relatively accurate, although incomplete. The tables for senate elections start with the 1993 elections, when deputies and senators where elected on separate ballots for the first time.

Since 1940, the president has been elected directly. The results of the elections of 1943, 1948, 1949, and 1950 are not available, so documen-tation of presidential election results starts with the 1953 elections. For the 1991 election to the constitutional assembly there is no complete set of data and the existing figures are inconsistent. The data for this electi-on were taken from Lingenthal (1992) and Alcantara (1999).

The Centro de Información, Documentación y Educación Electoral(CIDEE) of Paraguay was founded on 12 November 1996 and it only provides results for the 1998 elections. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) supplies electoral statistics since 1989, but they are also incomplete. Payne et al. (2002) provide complete informa-

Paraguay424

tion for all elections since 1993, but their data are not precise. The data for the 2003 elections were taken from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral. Reports on the elections held in 1991 and 1993, written by the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, were also consulted. The popula-tion data are based on the data in the UN Statistical Yearbooks.

Paraguay 425

2. Tables


Parliamentary elections Year Presidential elections Lower Cham-

berUpperChamber

Electionsfor Constit. Assembly

Referen-dums

Coupsd’état

1940 04/08b

1943 xx/02

1948 15/02 15/02 03/061949 17/04 17/04 29/011949 26/021950 16/07 16/07

1953 15/02 15/02

1954 11/07 08/051958 09/02 09/02

1960c xx/xx

1963 10/02 10/02

1967 07/051968 11/02 11/02

1973 11/02 11/02

1977 06/021978 12/02 12/02

1983 06/02 06/02

1988 14/02 14/02

1989 01/05 01/05 03/02 1991 01/12 1993 09/05 09/05 1998 10/05 10/05 2000 13/08d 2003 27/04 27/04 a From 1940 to 1967 the congress was unicameral. Since 1990, deputies and senators have been elected on separate ballots. b The 1940 Constitution was ratified by plebiscite. c The congress was dissolved by Stroessner in 1959. Parliamentary election was held in 1960, but the opposition considered the guarantees of freedom insufficient, and abstained. d Election of vice president only.

Paraguay426



number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

%pop.

1943 Pr/Pa 1,194,000 10.01948 Pr/Pa 1,335,000 15.01949 Pr/Pa 1,397,000 1950 Pr/Pa 1,400,000 15.01953 Pr/Pa 1,500,000 237,049 15.81954 Pr 1,530,000 239,978 15.71958 Pr/Pa 1,690,000 303,478 18.01960 Pa 1,773,000 271,452 15.31963 Pr/Pa 1,910,000 738,472 38.7 628,615 85.1 32.91967b CA 2,120,000 897,445 40.2 656,214 73.1 29.41968 Pr/Pa 2,230,000 897,445 40.2 656,214 73.1 29.41973 Pr/Pa 2,500,000 1,052,652 42.1 814,610 77.4 32.61977 CA 2,800,000 987,917 35.3 817,935 82.8 29.21978 Pr/Pa 2,890,000 1,175,351 40.7 1,010,299 86.0 35.01983 Pr/Pa 3,472,000 1,132,582 32.6 1,048,996 92.6 30.21988 Pr/Pa 4,039,000 1,446,675 35.8 1,333,436 92.2 33.01989 Pr 4,157,000 2,226,061 53.5 1,202,826 54.0 28.91989 Pa 4,157,000 2,226,061 53.5 1,157,781 52.0 27.91991 CA 4,397,000 1,438,543 32.7 743,546 51.7 16.91993c Pr 4,643,000 1,698,984 36.6 1,172,883 69.0 25.31993 Pa 4,643,000 1,698,984 36.6 1,148,408 67.6 24.71998 Pr 5,219,000 2,049,449 39.3 1,650,725 80.5 31.61998 Pa 5,219,000 2,049,449 39.3 1,649,419 80.5 31.62000d Vice-Pr 5,496,000 2,059,164 37.5 1,250,266 60.7 22.72003 Pr 5,800,000 2,405,108 41.5 1,546,192 64.3 26.72003 Pa 5,800,000 2,405,108 41.5 1,542,172 64.1 26.5

a Pr = President, CA = Constitutional Assembly, Pa = Parliament, Vice-Pr = Vice President. b Until 1967 the congress was unicameral, from then on bicameral again. c Since 1990, deputies and senators are elected on separate ballots. d The vice president was elected separately in 2000.

Paraguay 427

2.3 Abbreviations

ADa Alianza Democrática (Democratic Alliance) ARN-PC Asociación Nacional Republicana-Partido Colorado (National

Republican Association – Colored Party) CPT Constitución para Todos (Constitution for All) MFC Movimiento Fuerza Ciudadana (Citizen’s Force Movement) MORENA Movimiento de Renovación Nacional (National Renewal Movement) MPQ Movimiento Patria Querida (Beloved Fatherland Movement) PB Partido Blanco/Unión Nacional Cristiana (White Party/National

Christian Union) PDC Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) PENb Partido Encuentro Nacional (National Encounter Party) PHP Partido Humanista Paraguayo (Paraguayan Humanist Party) PL Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) PLR Partido Liberal Radical (Radical Liberal Party) PLRA Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (Authentic Radical Liberal Party) PLRU Partido Liberal Radical Unificado (Unified Radical Liberal Party) PPL Partido Patria Libre (Free Fatherland Party) PPS Partido País Solidario (Country with Solidarity Party) PRF Partido Revolucionario Febrerista (Febrerista Revolutionary Party) UNACE Unión Nacional de Ciudadanos Éticos (National Union of Ethical

Citizens)a AD was composed of PLRA and PEN. b PEN was formed in 1993 as a coalition of the PRF, PDC, Asunción para Todos (APT) and a dissident faction of the ARN-PC to contest the election of May 1993.

Paraguay428



Presidential Parliamentary ARN-PCb, c 1948–2003 17 13PLb 1963–1973; 1978–1993 8 9PLR 1967–1989 6 7PRF 1967–1968; 1989; 1991;

1993; 1998; 20034 7

PLRA 1989–2003 5 5PDC 1989; 1991; 1993; 2003 2 5PEN 1993–2003 3 3 PHP 1989; 1991; 2000; 2003 3 3AD 1998 1 1 PB 1998 1 1 PLRU 1989 1 1CTP 1991 – 1 MORENA 1998 – 1 MPQ 2003 1 1 UNACE 2003 1 1 PPL 2003 1 1 PPS 2003 – 1 MFC 2003 – 1 a The compilation of data begins in 1948 for presidential elections, and in 1963 for parliamentary elections. The number of presidential elections is 17 (including the 2000 election for vice-president), and the number of parliamentarian elections is 13 (including the elections for consti-tutional assemblies). b The Partido Colorado and Partido Liberal are the oldest parties of Paraguay and have already paticipated in the first elections. However, the Partido Liberal was dissolved in 1942. It began to contest elections again in 1963. c In 1989 ARN-PC participated in election with the abbreviation ANR.

2.5 Referendums

The only referendum in Paraguayan history was held on 4 August 1940. It ratified the constitution which had been published on 10 July 1940. There are no data available on this plebiscite.

Paraguay 429

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1967, 1977, and 1991

1967 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 670,010 – Votes cast 461,839 68.9 Invalid votes 6,828 1.5 Valid votes 455,011 98.5 120 100.0 ARN-PC 315,941 69.4 80 66.7 PLR 97,838 21.5 29 24.2 PL 28,321 6.2 8 6.7 PRF 12,911 2.8 3 2.5

1977 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 987,917 – Votes cast 817,935 82.8 Invalid votes 130,870 16.0 Valid votes 687,065 84.0 — 100.0 ARN-PC 687,065 100.0 100.0

1991 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 1,438,543 – Votes cast 743,546 52.4 Invalid votes 3.3 Valid votes 198 100.0 ARN-PC 409,730 55.1 122 61.6 PLRA 201,040 27.0 55 27.8 CPT 81,860 11.0 19 9.6 PRF 9,094 1.2 1 0.5 PDC 6,548 0.9 1 0.5 Othersa 1.2 – – a Others include: PT (0.6%), PHP (0.5%), PNS (0.1%).

Paraguay430


2.7.1 Chamber of Deputies 1963–2003

Year 1963 1968 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 738,472 – 897,445 – Votes cast 628,615 85.1 656,414 73.1 Invalid votes 11,314 1.8 6,421 1.0 Valid votes 617,301 98.2 649,993 99.0 ARN-PC 569,551 92.3 465,535 71.6 PL 47,750 7.7 27,965 4.3 PLR – – 139,622 21.5 PRF – – 16,871 2.6

Year 1973 1978 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,052,652 – 1,175,351 – Votes cast 814,610 77.4 1,010,299 86.0 Invalid votes 10,597 1.3 12,795 1.3 Valid votes 804,013 98.7 997,504 98.7 ARN-PC 681,306 84.7 905,461 90.7 PLR 98,096 12.2 54,984 5.5 PL 24,611 3.1 37,059 3.7

Year 1983 1988 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,132,582 – 1,446,675 – Votes cast 1,048,996 92.6 1,333,436 92.2 Invalid votes 11,255 1.1 7,818 0.6 Valid votes 1,037,741 98.8 1,325,618 99.4 ARN-PC 944,637 91.0 1,187,738 89.6 PLR 59,094 5.7 95,450 7.2 PL 34,010 3.3 42,430 3.2

Paraguay 431

Year 1989 1993 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,226,061 – 1,698,984 – Votes cast 1,157,781 52.0 1,172,683 69.0 Invalid votes 21,971 1.9 46,805 4.0 Valid votes 1,135,810 98.1 1,124,878 96.0 ARN-PC 845,820 74.5 488,342 43.4 PLRA 229,329 20.2 414,208 36.8 PRF 23,815 2.1 – – PLR 15,083 1.3 – – PDC 11,674 1.0 – – PL 5,544 0.5 – – PEN – – 199,053 17.7 Othersa 4,545 0.4 23,275 2.1 a Others include in 1989: PLRU (3,476 votes) and PHP (1,069). In 1993, Others include candi-dates from six small parties of the left and right (PT, CDS, PL, MAPN, MPSP, PNS).

Year 1998 2003 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,049,449 – 2,405,108 – Votes cast 1,649,419 80.5 1,542,172 64.1 Invalid votes 55,005 3.3 65,564 4.3 Valid votes 1,594,414 96.7 1,476,608 95.7 ARN-PC 857,473 53.8 520,761 35.3 AD 681,917 42.8 – – PRF 20,121 1.3 11,542 0.8 MORENA 16,863 1.1 – – PDC 9,249 0.6 – – PB 8,791 0.6 – – PLRA – – 379,066 25.7 MPQ – – 255,811 15.3 UNACE – – 216,803 14.7 PPS – – 49,280 3.3 PEN – – 39,372 2.7 PPL – – 16,480 1.1 MFC – – 6,749 0.5 Othersa – – 10,744 0.7 a Others include: PHP (2,867 votes); PFA (2,670); PIA (1,978); PDC (1,927); MFDI (1,302).

Paraguay432

2.7.2 Senate 1999–2003

Year 1993a 1998 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,698,984 – 2,049,449 – Votes cast 1,178,682 69.4 1,648,880 80.5 Invalid votes 46,504 3.9 77,003 4.7 Valid votes 1,132,178 96.1 1,571,877 95.3 ARN-PC 498,586 44.0 813,287 51.7 PLRA 409,728 36.2 – – PEN 203,213 17.9 – –AD – – 661,764 42.1 PB – – 36,424 2.3 MORENA – – 23,844 1.5 PDC – – 19,891 1.3 PRF – – 16,667 1.1 Others 20,411 1.8 – – a Until 1990, elections to senate and chamber of deputies were held simultaneously and accord-ing to identical rules.

Year 2003 Total number %Registered voters 2,405,108 – Votes cast 1,544,222 64.2 Invalid votes 67,815 4.4 Valid votes 1,476,407 95.6 ARN-PC 508,506 34.4 PLRA 374,854 25.4 MPQ 234,748 15.9 UNACE 211,078 14.3 PPS 67,462 4.6 PEN 31,212 2.1 PPL 16,151 1.1 PRF 10,202 0.7 MFC 6,766 0.5 Othersa 15,428 1.0 a Others include: PIA (3,791 votes); PHP (3,515); PDC (3,010); PFA (2,828); MFDI (2,284).

Paraguay 433



Year 1963 1969 1973a 1978 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 60 100.0 60 100.0 60 100.0 60 100.0 ARN-PC 40 66.6 40 66.6 40 66.7 40 66.7 PL 20 33.7 3 5.0 — — 4 6.7 PLR – – 16 26.6 — — 16 26.7 PF – – 1 1.8 — — – – PLRA – – – – — — – – a No data were available for the period between 1973 and 1988. The indicated shares of seats are deduced from the electoral law (‘majority plus’ system).

Year 1983 1988 1989 1993 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 60 100.0 60 100.0 72 100.0 80 100.0 ARN-PC 40 66.7 40 66.7 48 66.7 38 47.5PLR — — — — 1 1.3 – – PL — — — — – – – – PLRA – – – – 21 29.2 33 41.3 PF – – – – 2 2.8 – – PEN – – – – – – 9 11.3

Year 1998 2003 Seats % Seats % 80 100.0 80 100.0 ARN-PC 45 56.3 37 46.3 ADa 35 43.8 – – PLRA – – 21 26.3 MPQ – – 10 12.5 UNACE – – 10 12.5 PPS – – 2 2.5 a PLRA 27 seats, PEN 8 seats.

Paraguay434

2.8.2 Senate 1993–2003

Year 1993a 1998 2003 Seats % Seats % Seats % 45 100.0 45 100.0 45 100.0 ARN-PC 20 44.4 24 53.3 16 35.6 PLRA 17 37.8 – – 12 26.7 PEN 8 17.8 – – 1 2.2 AD – – 20b 44.4 – –PB – – 1 2.2 – – MPQ – – – – 7 15.6 UNACE – – – – 7 15.6 PPS – – – – 2 4.4 a Until 1990, elections to senate and chamber of deputies were held simultaneously and accord-ing to identical rules. b PLRA 13 seats and PEN 7 seats.


1953 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast 237,049 — Invalid votes 12,261 5.2 Valid votes 224,788 94.8 Federico Chávez (ARN-PC) 224,788 100.0

1954 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast 239,978 — Invalid votes 3,787 1.6 Valid votes 236,191 98.4 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 236,191 100.0

1958 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast 303,478 — Invalid votes 8,064 2.7 Valid votes 295,414 97.3 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 295,414 100.0

Paraguay 435

1963 Total number % Registered voters 738,472 – Votes cast 628,615 85.1 Invalid votes 11,314 1.8 Valid votes 617,301 98.2 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 569,551 92.3 Ernesto Gavilan (PL) 47,750 7.7

1968 Total number % Registered voters 897,445 – Votes cast 656,414 73.1 Invalid votes 6,421 1.0 Valid votes 649,993 99.0 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 465,535 71.6 Gustavo González (PLR) 139,622 21.5 Ruy Rufinelli (PL) 27,965 4.3 PRF 16,871 2.6

1973 Total number % Registered voters 1,052,652 – Votes cast 814,610 77.4 Invalid votes 10,597 1.3 Valid votes 804,013 98.7 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 681,306 84.7 Gustavo Riart (PLR) 98,096 12.2 Carlos Levi Ruffinelli (PL) 24,611 3.1

1978 Total number % Registered voters 1,175,351 – Votes cast 1,010,299 85.9 Invalid votes 12,795 1.3 Valid votes 997,504 98.7 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 905,461 90.8 Germán Acosta Caballero (PLR) 54,984 5.5 Fulvio Hugo Celauro (PL) 37,059 3.7

1983 Total number % Registered voters 1,132,582 – Votes cast 1,048,996 92.6 Invalid votes 11,255 1.1 Valid votes 1,037,741 98.9 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 944,637 91.0 Enzo Doldan (PLR) 59,094 5.7 Fulvio Hufo Celauro (PL) 34,010 3.3

Paraguay436

1988 Total number % Registered voters 1,446,675 – Votes cast 1,333,436 92.2 Invalid votes 7,818 0.6 Valid votes 1,325,618 99.4 Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) 1,187,738 89.6 Luis María Vega (PLR) 95,450 7.2 Carlos Ferreira Ybarra (PL) 42,430 3.2

1989 Total number % Registered voters 2,226,061 –Votes cast 1,202,826 54.0 Invalid votes 24,222 2.0 Valid votes 1,178,604 98.0 Andrés Rodríguez (ARN-PC) 894,374 75.9 Domingo Laíno (PLRA) 240,600 20.4 Aniano D. Estigarribia (PLR) 14,849 1.3 Fernando Vera (PRF) 11,041 0.9 Secundino Nueñez (PDC) 8,116 0.7 Othersa 9,624 0.8 a Others include: PL (5,051); PLRU (3,545); PHP (1,028).

1993 Total number % Registered voters 1,698,984 –Votes cast 1,172,883 69.0 Invalid votes 48,220 4.1 Valid votes 1,124,663 95.9 Juan Carlos Wasmosy (ANR-PC) 468,213 41.6 Domingo Latino (PLRA) 376,868 33.5 Guillermo Caballero Vargas (AEN)

271,421 24.1

Othersa 8,161 0.7 a Eduardo Arce (PT) 2,025 votes; Ricardo Canese (CDS) 1,998 votes; Abraham Zapag (PL) 1,155 votes; Joel Cazal (APN) 1,091 votes; Leandro Yedros (MPSP) 1,042 votes; Gustavo Bader (PNS) 850 votes.

1998 Total number % Registered voters 2,049,449 – Votes cast 1,650,725 80.5 Invalid votes 47,819 2.9 Valid votes 1,602,906 97.1 Raúl Cubas Grau (ARN-PC) 887,196 55.3 Domingo Laíno Figueredo (AD) 703,379 43.9 Luis Campos (PRF) 8,139 0.5 Gustavo Bader Ibáñez (PB) 4,192 0.3

Paraguay 437

2000a Total number % Registered voters 2,059,164 – Votes cast 1,250,266 60.7 Invalid votes 46,841 3.7 Valid votes 1,203,425 96.3 Julio César Franco (PLRA) 597,431 49.6 Felix Agaña (ARN-PC) 587,498 48.8 Ricardo Buman (PHP) 18,496 1.5 a Elections for the office of vice president only.

2003 Total number % Registered voters 2,405,108 – Votes cast 1,546,192 64.3 Invalid votes 46,992 3.0 Valid votes 1,499,200 97.0 Nicanor Duarte Frutos (ARN-PC) 574,232 38.3 Julio César Franco (PLRA) 370,348 24.7 Pedro Fadul (MPQ) 328,916 21.9 Guillermo Sánchez (UNACE) 208,391 13.9 Diego Abente Brun (PEN) 8,745 0.6 Othersa 8,568 0.6 a Tomás Zayas (PPL) 4,559 votes; Pedro Alamada Galeano (PFA) 1,443 votes; Guillermo Hellmers (MFDI) 1,370 votes; Teresa Notario (PHP) 1,196 votes.


Head of State Years RemarksJosé Rodríguez de Francia

1814a–1840 Absolute ruler and founder of Paraguay. In 1811 he was a member of the Junta Superior Gubernativa. The 1813 Congress elected him as member to the First Consulate, together with Fulgencio Yedros. In 1814, the congress gave him full dictatorial powers and appointed him Perpetual Dictator of Paraguay two years later. He saw his brutal rule and diplomacy as a means to consolidate state and economy.

Carlos Antonio López 1841–1862 Consul from 1841 to 1844. He was elected by congress in March 1844 and re-elected in 1854 und 1957. He promoted rapid economic and social development and opened Paraguay to foreign trade.

Paraguay438

Head of State (cont.) Years RemarksFrancisco Solano López

1862–1870 On the death of Carlos Antonio López, he was elected president by the congress. His attempt to interfere with the domestic politics of Uruguay provoked the Triple Alliance War.

Cirilo Antonio Rivarola

1870–1871 He became the first president under the 1870 Constitution. Under pressure, he resigned in favor of his vice president, Jovellanos.

Juan Salvador Jovellanos

1871–1874 Former vice president, he assumed presidency in December 1871.

Juan Bautista Gill 1874–1877 A staunch supporter of Brazilian interests, he was one of the most influential politicians in the immediate post-war period. He was assas-sinated in office.

Higinio Uriarte 1877–1878 Following the assassination of Gill on 12/04/1877, he served as interim president until November 1878.

Cándido Bareiro 1878–1880 He died in office on 04/09/1880. Bernardino Caballero 1880–1886 Following the death of Bareiro, he took over

presidency in order to prevent the vice presi-dent from assuming office. The post-war re-construction took place under his administration. Caballero dominated the politi-cal life of Paraguay for 20 years, first as presi-dent and later as leader of the PartidoColorado which he founded in 1887.

Patricio Escobar 1886–1890 Together with Caballero, he dominated the po-litical life of the country until the Liberal Revolution of 1904. His presidency ended in a severe economic recession.

Juan Gualberto González

1890–1894 His administration was unable to overcome the economic recession. He was overthrown on 09/06/1894.

Marcos A. Morínigo 1894 Provisional president from June to November 1894.

Juan Bautista Egusquiza

1894–1898 His administration is remembered mainly for the splitting of both the Partido Colorado and the Partido Liberal into rival factions.

Emilio Aceval 1898–1902 His presidency was marked by political insta-bility and economic recession. He was re-moved by a military coup on 09/01/1902.

Andrés HéctorCarvallo

1902 Provisional president. He came to power in the wake of the military revolt on 09/01/1902.

Juan Antonio Escurra 1902–1904 He was deposed in December 1904 and was forced into exile.

Paraguay 439

Head of State (cont.) Years RemarksJuan Bautista Gaona 1904–1905 He was the first president to belong to the Par-

tido Liberal. He was overthrown on 05/12/1905.

Cecilio Báez 1905–1906 Provisional president. Benigno Ferreira 1906–1908 Together with Cecilio Báez, he planned the

Liberal Revolution of 1904. He was ousted by a revolt on 03/07/1908.

Emiliano González Navero

1908–1910 He was founder and member of the PartidoLiberal and president of the Republic during three non-consecutive terms.

Manuel Gondra 1910–1911 He supported the Liberal Revolution of 1904. Nevertheless, he was overthrown by a faction of the Partido Liberal.

Albino Jara 1911 In January, he deposed Gondra and replaced him briefly as president. He was overthrown on 05/07/1911.

Liberato Marcial Rojas

1911–1912 His administration was characterized by politi-cal anarchy. He was deposed on 28/02/1912.

Pedro Pablo Peña 1912 From February to March 1912, his presidency marked the only break in the liberal domination. He was quickly replaced by Navero.

Emiliano González Navero

1912 Second time. He was provisional president from March to August 1912. In November 1931, he served as provisional president until the reinstatement of Guaggiari.

Eduardo Schaerer 1912–1916 The 1912 revolution brought him to presi-dency. The country remained neutral during World War I.

Manuel Franco 1916–1919 He introduced the secret ballot. He died in of-fice and was replaced by his vice president Jóse Montero.

José Patricio Montero 1919–1920 Following the death of Franco, he served for the rest of the presidential term.

Manuel Gondra 1920–1921 Second time. Shortly after assuming the presi-dency he was ousted by a military coup engi-neered by Schaerer in October 1921.

Félix Paiva 1921 Provisional president from October to Decem-ber 1921.

Eusebio Ayala 1921–1923 He was removed from office during the Civil War from 1922 to 1923.

Eligio Ayala 1923–1924 He resigned to be able to stand as candidate in the 1924 election.

Luis Alberto Riart 1924 Provisional president.

Paraguay440

Head of State (cont.) Years RemarksEligio Ayala 1924–1928 His administration was characterized by political

peace, hitherto unknown press freedom was es-tablished and there were no coup attempts.

José Patricio Guggiari1928–1932 His presidency was marked by growing social tensions. Under impeachment, he temporarily withdrew from office and was replaced by Emiliano González Navero. He resumed office in January 1932.

Eusebio Ayala 1932–1936 Second time. He was president during the Chaco War (1932-1935). The Febrerista Revo-lution removed him from office in 1936.

Rafael Franco 1936–1937 Popular hero of the Chaco War. He was called from exile to head the Febrerista Government but was overthrown in August 1937.

Félix Paiva 1937–1939 Second time. Provisional president. José FélixEstigarribia

1939–1940 He ran for the Partido Liberal. He promulgated the Constitution of 1940 which heralded a new era under stronger executive powers. He died in office on 05/09/1940.

Higinio Morínigo 1940–1948 Following the death of Estigarribia, he assumed presidency and ruled as a dictator for the next eight years. A coup d’état deposed him in 1948.

Juan Manuel Frutos 1948 Provisional president until August 1948 when González assumed office.

Juan Natalicio González

1948–1949 Elected in uncontested elections on 15/02/1948. Although an attempted coup involving Stroess-ner failed on 25/10/1948, he was ousted by a military-civilian movement on 29 January.

Raimundo Rolón 1949 Provisional president from 29 January to 26 February. He was ousted by a military coup.

Felipe Molas López 1949 President from February to September 1949. The coup which brought him to power marked a peak in the ascendancy of the Partido Coloradoin regard to the armed forces. He was forced to resign by his own party.

Federico Chaves 1949–1954 Provisional president until he was elected in 1950 and re-elected in 1953 as the only candi-date who stood for election. On 08/05/1954 he was overthrown by a military coup led by Stroessner.

Tomás Romero Pereira

1954 Following the overthrow of Chaves, he served as provisional president until August 1954, when he promoted a political accord by which the Colorados gave their support to the candi-dacy of Stroessner.

Paraguay 441

Head of State (cont.) Years RemarksAlfredo Stroessner 1954–1989 On 11/07/1954, he was elected president as

the sole candidate and assumed office in Au-gust. He was re-elected seven times (1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988). On 03/02/1989, he was overthrown by the Movimiento 2 de Febrero, led by his military aide, General Andrés Rodríguez.

Andrés Rodríguez 1989–1993 On 03/02/1989, he seized power, forced Stroessner into exile in Brazil and appointed himself president. On 01/05/1989, he was elected. Liberalizing measures were intro-duced coupled with strict fiscal and budgetary control.

Juan Carlos Wasmosy 1993–1998 Elected on 09/05/1993. During 1996 disaffec-tion at the deteriorating economic situation grew and revelations of corruption served to undermine the president’s position. These cir-cumstances caused a major split within the Partido Colorado.

Raúl Cubas Grau 1998–1999 Elected on 10/05/1998. On 23/03/1999, vice-president Luis Argaña was killed by unknown assassins. Together with General Lino Oviedo, Cubas was accused of this assassination. He resigned to avoid the impeachment trial.

Luis González Macchi 1999–2003 After the resignation of Cubas, he as senate leader was sworn in as the new president and declared his intention to form a broad-based government.

Nicanor DuarteFrutos

2003– Elected on 27/04/2003.

a Although Paraguay became independent in 1811, it was governed by a provisional junta until 1814.

Paraguay442

3. Bibliography

3.1.Official Sources

Anuario Estadístico del Paraguay. Asunción, several years.Constitución de la República del Paraguay, sancionada y promulgada el 20

de junio de 1992. Asunción. Ley No. 679/95 de 31 de agosto de 1995 que suspende el ejercicio de los

derechos y el cumplimiento de las deberes y obligaciones de los militares y policías en servicio activo afiliados a partidos, movimientos políticos o alianzas electorales. Asunción.

Ley No. 635/95 de 27 de noviembre de 1995 que regula la Justicia Electoral.Ley No. 834/96 de 17 de abril de 1996 que establece el Código Electoral

Paraguayo. Asunción.

3.2. Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports

Acevedo, E. (1985). Aproximación a la realidad paraguaya. Algunas ideas básicas para la transición. Toledo: Fundación Friedrich Ebert.

Alcántara, M. (1999). Sistemas políticos de América Latina, Vol. 1: América del Sur. Madrid: Tecnos.

Arditi, B. (1989). Cuadros de resultados electorales en el Paraguay 1953–1989. Asunción: Centro de Documentación y Estudios.

Bareiro, O. and H. Barrios (1995). ‘Paraguay’, in Nohlen, D. and Nuscheler, F. (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 2: Südamerika (3rd edn.). Bonn: Dietz, 421–440.

Blais, A. et al. (1997). ‘Direct Presidential Elections. A Word Summary’. Electoral Studies, 16/4: 441–445.

Bonilla P. G. (1989). ‘Elecciones generales. Paraguay, 1° de mayo de 1989’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano (San José: IIDH-CAPEL). 1: 16–24.

Britos de Villafañe, M. (1982). Las épocas históricas del Paraguay. Asun-ción.

Chartrain, F. (1973). La République du Paraguay. Paris: Berger-Levrauet. Centro de Información, Documentación y Educación Electoral (CIDEE),

<http://tsje.gov.py/CIDEE/CIDEE.html> (as of 09/09/2002). Diario ABC (1983). Los comicios de los 30 últimos años en cifras. Asunción,

06/02/1983.Gorvin, I. (1989). Elections since nineteen hundred and forty-five. A world-

wide reference compendium. Harlow: Longman.Jones, M. (1995). ‘A Guide to the electoral Systems of the Americas’. Elec-

toral Studies, 14/1: 5–21. Juventud Demócrata Cristiana (without date). Geografía electoral. Asunción:

Ediciones Revolución.

http://tsje.gov.py/CIDEE/CIDEE.html

Paraguay 443

Lewis, P. H. (1986). ‘Paraguay from the War of the Triple Alliance to the Chaco War, 1870–1932’, in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. 5: c. 1870 to 1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 475–96.

(1991). ‘Paraguay since 1930’, in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. 8: Latin America since 1930: Spanish South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 233–66.

Lingenthal, M. (1992). ‘Paraguay im Wahljahr 1991’. KAS-Auslandsinformationen, 2/92: 14–32.

López, R. (2002). Voter Turnout since 1995. Stockholm: IDEA.Lüers, W.-R. (1993). ‘Paraguays entscheidender Schritt auf dem Weg in die

Demokratie: Die Präsidentschaftswahlen vom 9. Mai 1993’. KAS-Auslandsinformationen, 8/93: 23–30.

(1998). ‘Paraguay im Mai 1998: Die Parlamentswahlen und ihre Auswirkungen’. KAS-Auslansinforamtionen, 7/98: 73–93.

Meissner, J. (1996). ‘Paraguay’, in Werner, H. and Bernecker, W. (eds.), Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, Vol. 3: Lateinamerika im 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1017–48.

Mendonca, J. (ed.) (1967). Constitución de la República del Paraguay y sus antecedentes. Constituciones de 1844, 1870 y 1940. Asunción: Editorial Emasa.

Mendoza, R. (1968). ‘Desarrollo y evolución de la población paraguaya’. Revista Paraguaya de Sociología, 5/12: 16–27.

Nickson, R. A. (1993). Historical Dictionary of Paraguay (2nd edn.). Metu-chen, N.J./ London: Scarecrow Press.

Nohlen, D. (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.

(1996) Elections and Electoral Systems (2nd edn.). New Delhi: McMillan. (2004) Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem (4th edn.). Opladen: Leske +

Budrich.Nohlen, D. et al. (ed.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de

América Latina. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Oficina Internacional del Trabajo (1977). Anuário de Estadísticas del

Trabajo. Ginebra: OIT. Pastore, C. (1972). La lucha por la tierra en Paraguay. Montevideo: Ed.

Antequera.Payne, M. et al. (2002). Democracies in Development. Washington, D.C.:

IDB and IDEA. Posado, A. (1911). La República del Paraguay. Impresiones y comentarios.

Madrid: Suárez. Prieto, J. J. (1988). El Estatuto Electoral cuestionado. Análisis de la ley

paraguaya. Asunción: Editorial Histórica.

Paraguay444

— (1990). El nuevo Código Electoral paraguayo. IV Curso Anual Interamericano de Elecciones. San José: IIDH-CAPEL.

Prieto, J. J. and Arditi, B. (1990). Paraguay: hacia la consolidación democrática. San José: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos and Centro de Asesoria y Promoción Electoral.

Rivarola, D. M. et al. (1974). La población del Paraguay. Asunción: Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos.

Ruddle, K. and Gillette, P. (eds.) (1972). Latin American Political Statistics. Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles: Uni-versity of California.

Schmelz, F. (1981). Paraguay im 19. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Esprint. Secretariado Internacional de juristas para la amnistía y la democracia en

Paraguay (SIJADEP) (1988). Sistema Electoral y Democracia.Asunción: El Lector.

Soler, J. J. (1954). Introducción al derecho paraguayo. Madrid: Cultura Hispánica.

Sottoli, S. (1997). ‘Paraguay nach Stroessner: Fortschritte und Probleme des Demokratisierungsprozesses’, in Betz, J. and Brüne, S. (eds.), JarbuchDritte Welt 1997. München: Beck, 215–234.

Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral (TSJE), <http://www.tsje.gov.py> (as of 06/06/2003).

Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) (1996). Observaciones Electo-rales en Paraguay 1991–1993. Washington, D.C.: OAS.

(1998). Electoral Observation Mission in Paraguay 1998. Washington, D.C.: OAS.

Wilkie, J. W. and Haber, S. (1983). Statistical Abstract of Latin America, vol. 22. Los Angeles: University of California.

http://www.tsje.gov.py

PERUby Fernando Tuesta Soldevilla*

Introduction


Peru has been independent for more than 150 years and its history du-ring this period largely resembles that of the other Latin American coun-tries, in that the country’s civilian governments have been constantly disrupted by coups d’état that have brought several dictators to power. Since independence in 1821, Peru has experienced 108 presidential terms, their lengths ranging from Manuel María Prado’s ephemeral tenu-re which lasted just three days (25–28 August 1930) to the eleven years of Augusto B. Leguía’s dictatorship who had himself re-elected twice (1919–1930). Most of these governments succeeded each other during the 19th century, but the 20th century has been witness to 30 of them.

There are several important turning points in Peruvian political histo-ry that are worth mentioning. The first period began in 1821 with natio-nal independence and lasted up to the election of 1871. This period was characterized by the absolute presence of the military in politics. A po-wer vacuum followed the war of independence and no leading class was able to develop a national movement together with the other heterogene-ous social classes. Therefore, the military, the winner of the war of inde-pendence, seized power, supported by select local groups. This meant that there was no chance for democratic elections or political parties.

While the power and economic potential of the old aristocracy gene-rally decreased after independence, a part of the bourgeoisie managed to rise politically, economically, and socially by exploiting the economic potential of guano. Between 1869 and 1879 the bourgeois landowners began to shift their economic focus from agricultural production towards new markets, facilitated by the work of semi-enslaved Chinese immi-grants. During this time the state started to participate more actively in the economic development of the country and thus helped the bourgeois class stabilize their new position as the economic and political leading * The author would like to thank Piero Corvetto for his assistance.

Peru446

group. This group, formed around Manuel Pardo, developed into the Partido Civil (PC; Civil Party), and became the first Peruvian political party. The party won the 1872 elections, but this civilian government did not last long. It was interrupted by the war against Chile, which resulted in a reduction in the national territory, a bankrupt economy, an indebted country, and the return of the military to the political arena until 1895. In this year, a revolt finally ousted Andrés Avelino Cáceres, who had been elected in 1894 being the only candidate standing for election. Prior to the election, interim President Colonel Borgoño had dissolved congress and reinstated the electoral legislation of 1861. In 1894 a civil war broke out in the middle of a general crisis. Nicolás de Piérola assumed lea-dership of the rebels. In March 1895, Nicolás de Piérola’s troops entered the city of File where, after two days of military confrontation, the re-presentatives of Cáceres signed an armistice that allowed a government to meet under the chairmanship of Manuel Candamo.

The downfall of the military government in 1895 triggered what has come to be called the ‘Aristocratic Republic’, characterized by the reign of the Partido Civil. The party governed for over twenty years (with a brief interruption from 1912 to 1914). The political landscape in this pe-riod was marked by fighting between the oligarchic parties. The two main contenders were the Partido Civil and the Partido Democrático (PD; Democratic Party). The former had a clear focus on urban econo-mic development and supported immigration from Europe to counter la-bor shortages. The latter envisioned a society with an oligarchic elite based on personal merits rather than birth and fought for a federal union between Peru, Chile, and Bolivia. A third party, the Partido Nacional(PN; National Party) played a minor role but its program was unclear. Elections during this period were barely competitive and were characte-rized by the exclusion of the majority of the population from suffrage.

Augusto B. Leguía’s seizure of power in 1919 put an end to the he-gemony of the Partido Civil, although in the past decade he had been one of its leaders. He was supported by traders, civil servants, middle and lower ranked military, and workers, i.e. by social groups that had only recently emerged and that had different demands to those of the old political elite. Leguía gradually dismantled the bases of support for the Partido Civil, and built an ever-tighter alliance with US investors, there-by displacing British investors along the national territory. The increa-sing numbers of workers began to organize in guilds. This was the start of the Central General de Trabajadores del Perú (CGT), which owed much to the initiative and support of the Marxist Partido Comunista Pe-ruano (PCP; Peruvian Communist Party), founded by José Carlos Mari-

Peru 447

átegui, and the populist Partido Aprista Peruano (PAP; Peruvian Apri-sta Party), founded by Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. Both anti-oligarchic groups fought strongly against the ‘Leguiísmo’, which had banned them on several occasions. The economic crisis of the 1930s, caused by a combination of the worldwide depression and internal fac-tors such as continued spending, brought about Leguía’s downfall, and with it the irruption of the masses into national politics. The oligarchy, unable to form new political parties, had no alternative but to support an army officer, Luis M. Sánchez Cerro, at the 1931 elections. As the PCP was banned, it could not contest these elections, and the defeated PAP labeled them fraudulent.

In 1932, the government implemented a series of laws to restrict the political work of the PAP and its leader Haya de la Torre. Shortly after-wards, President Sánchez survived an assassination attempt by a young member of the PAP. The subsequent government repressions against the party and its supporters caused a series of uprisings and the death of many civilians. In 1933, Sánchez was eventually assassinated by another aprista (member or supporter of the PAP) during a military parade. A state of emergency was declared and General Oscar R. Benavides seized power. This marked the beginning of the third period of military go-vernment, during which both apristas and communists were persecuted and repressed. Nevertheless, the apristas managed to gain undisputed leadership among a large sector of the organized population for the next three decades. The country experienced a series of oligarchic govern-ments, not including José Luis Bustamante y Rivero’s government from 1945 to 1948, which was brought to an end by a coup d’état. This period was characterized by the banning of political parties, the impoverish-ment of most of the population, the lack of political rights, and the strong presence of US interests. The oligarchy could not address issues crucial to the majority of the national population, as this would have jeopardized their own economic interests. The processes of industrializa-tion and urbanization, which had begun in the 1950s, went hand in hand with a process of migration to the urban areas that caused overcrowding in Lima and other cities, dramatically exposing the problems of the far-ming world and threatening the basis of the oligarchic power. At this time, the military’s power of veto, which had been introduced in 1932, was abolished and the PAP joined the political system, yet it had to pay a price: the party aligned itself more closely with the oligarchy and even had to enter into coalitions with them later. In 1956, the PAP supported Manuel Prados’ bid for the presidency and thereafter maintained a so-called ‘state of contact’ with its former enemies in the government. The

Peru448

anti-oligarchic stance was partly abandoned and two new reformist par-ties emerged: Acción Popular (AP; Popular Action) and DemocraciaCristiana (DC; Christian Democracy). Together, the AP and DC won the 1963 presidential elections with their candidate Fernando Belaúnde Terry.

However, the failure of Belaúnde Terry’s reformist government wor-sened the serious problems of Peruvian society, and in 1968 a new mili-tary government emerged with a clear program of reforms. It finally displaced the traditional elite parties from power. General Juan Velasco Alvarado’s government tried to gain popular support, but his authoritari-an attitude towards the population gave rise to a marked opposition from a radical union movement and a large group of Marxist parties from the so-called ‘New Left’, which were established as a radical alternative to the PAP and the CP.

The military government of Velasco Alvarado ended in 1975 amidst a wave of social protest and an economic crisis heightened by excessive spending. The military dictator Francisco Morales Bermúdez succeeded Velasco Alvarado as president. However, in 1977, a general strike forced him to call elections to a constituent assembly and, three years later, the ongoing economic crisis mobilized such strong opposition that the dictator was forced to retire.

The process of transition began in 1978 with the ‘Political Transfer Plan’. An elected constituent assembly drafted the constitution that go-verned the country’s institutional and political life up to the coup d’étatof 5 April 1992, led by President Alberto Fujimori. The traditional par-ties reappeared (PAP, AP, PPC) and other Marxist parties emerged as a consequence of their activity against the dictatorship. All parties were legalized and participated in the transition except for AP, Sendero Lumi-noso, and Patria Roja.

In 1978, an unprecedented series of elections began: one election to the constitutional assembly (1978), four municipal elections (1980, 1983, 1986, and 1989), a regional election (1989), and three presidential and parliamentary elections (1980, 1985, 1990). These led to three con-secutive constitutional governments as well as many local and regional governments, thereby effectively generating political power. However, the stabilization of democratic institutions did not coincide with an in-crease in social democracy, so extreme poverty continued to affect the majority of the population, victims of a devastating economic crisis. This abject poverty led to the formation of terrorist groups such as Sen-dero Luminoso (Lightning Path), but they failed to gain massive popular support for their proposals.

Peru 449

Nevertheless, the unstable political system, built on an extremely con-fused society, and the political institutions descended into a crisis, pav-ing the way for Alberto Fujimori’s coup d’état on 5 April 1992. The 1993 Constitution was drawn up in this state of absolute power, and the constitution made it possible for the president to be re-elected in 1995.

President García implemented an extensive fiscal policy, aimed main-ly at stimulating economic demand by subsidizing basic products, but these policies led to a substantial increase in the public sector, to ineffi-ciency, and hyperinflation. Alberto Fujimori emerged as an alternative for major sectors of the population, who were disillusioned with politici-ans in general. During the first two years of his government Fujimori managed to control inflation, albeit at the cost of a deep recession. He also opened the economy to foreign capital. These achievements, and the Peruvian population’s general distrust of political parties, facilitated Fu-jimori’s coup d’état, the so-called autogolpe. At this time, Fujimore could count on massive support for his actions, and his leadership was further consolidated thanks to the capture of Abimael Guzmán Reinoso, leader of the Sendero Luminoso, and to the victories in the elections to the constituent assembly and the subsequent approval of the constitution in the 1993 referendum.

The election campaign for Fujimori’s third term was marked by a dir-ty campaign against opposing candidates and electoral fraud. His main contender, Alejandro Toledo, withdrew from the runoff after serious al-legations of fraud during the first round, which Fujimori narrowly won.

Fujimori’s assumption of office for his third term was accompanied by numerous protests. His final downfall, however, was initiated by the publication of a video tape in September 2000 showing his close advisor Vladimiro Montesinos handing over a large sum of money to a con-gressman who had defected from the opposition to Fujimori’s ranks. Montesinos fled the country and shortly afterwards Fujimori sought asy-lum in Japan during a trip to Asia and resigned as president.

The congress declared Valentín Paniagua transitional president. He formed a cabinet of renowned national personalities who prepared the way for the elections of 2001, which were won by Alejandro Toledo.


The following laws have governed the Peruvian electoral processes: Electoral Law of 26 April 1822, Law of 2 December 1849, Law of 4 April 1861, Law of 20 November 1896, Law 4907 of 30 January 1924, Electoral Statue-Decree-Law 7177 of 26 May 1931, amended by the

Peru450

Decree-Law 7287, constitution of 1931, Law of 17 September 1955, Decree-Law 14250 and amendments, and the constitutions of 1979 and 1993. Throughout Peru’s electoral history the president has been elected together with his two vice presidents, and a two-chamber parliament (senators and deputies). There were also elections to a constituent as-sembly, three of them in the 20th century (1931, 1979, and 1993). The presidential terms varied from five to six years. Since 1931 parliament has been elected on the same day as the president, and its term of office resembles that of the president.

Regarding Peruvian electoral law, all the constitutions before 1979 (eight in total) were restrictive. During the 19th century, suffrage was limited, voluntary, indirect, and public. The Electoral Law of 1896 gran-ted the right to vote to all male, literate, and tax-paying Peruvian citizens over 21. In 1931, the right to vote was extended to all literate men over 21. Suffrage became compulsory, direct, and secret. However, female suffrage was first introduced in 1955, and women could vote for the first time in 1956. In 1979, the new constitution finally abolished all remai-ning requirements that excluded major sectors of the population from voting. Illiterate people voted for the first time in 1980.

Until 1979, each constitution had provided for the indirect election of the president, be it through an electoral college, through parliament, or by direct suffrage. The method applied was plurality. From 1931, the president had to win one third of the vote to be elected. If he failed to muster this amount, parliament selected one of the top three candidates. However, this only happened once, in 1962. In general, immediate pre-sidential re-election was forbidden, except on two occasions: in 1826, with Bolivar’s ephemeral Constitución Vitalicia (Lifelong Constitution), which lasted 54 days, and during Leguía’s eleven-year dictatorship.

In parliamentary elections Peru has traditionally had a system of pro-portional representation. Elections were held in two kinds of constituen-cies, one for the house of representatives and one for the senate. Politically, Peru is divided into departments, which are in turn divided into provinces. Until 1980, the 60 senators were elected in one single constituency. Thereafter they were elected at the departmental level in MMCs. The 1979 Constitution stipulated that former presidents became lifelong senators after completing their terms, but this was abolished in the 1993 Constitution.

Before the 1979 Constitution, the 180 representatives were elected at provincial level. As of 1979, the 180 deputies were elected in 24 de-partments and the constitutional province of Callao. These were also MMCs but due to their small size many of them were actually SMCs.

Peru 451

The 180 deputies were elected in MMCs that corresponded to the 24 de-partments, Lima Metropolitana, Callao port, and the remaining provin-ces of the department of Lima. In accordance with a transitional provision of the constitution, Lima had 40 deputies while the rest of the seats were distributed according to population densities: two constituen-cies of 11 deputies, two of 10, three of 9, three of 8, two of 7, one of 6, two of 4, four of 3, two of 2, and three of 1.

Up to 1931, some parliamentary elections were held at times different to the presidential elections; the reason for this was that only one-third of parliament was elected at the same time. Since 1931, parliamentary elections have been held at the same time as presidential elections, with the same ballot paper but a different vote. Before this year, there had been a single vote with closed and blocked lists. With regard to seat al-location in parliament, the systems applied were the simple electoral quota at the department or provincial level and the method of the largest remainder.

Between 1978 and 1984, parties were required to submit at least 40,000 supporting signatures before national elections to be able to run. In 1984, this number was raised to 100,000 signatures, and as of 1995, parties were required to submit a number of signatures corresponding to 4% of the registered voters.

1.3. Current Electoral Provisions

Sources: Constitution of 1993, Ley Orgánica de Elecciones (No. 26859 / 11/01/1997), Ley de Elecciones Municipales (No. 26864 / 10/14/1997), Ley de los Derechos de Participación Ciudadana (No. 26300), Ley de Elecciones de los Jueces de Paz No Letrados (No. 27539 / 10/25/2001), Ley de Elecciones Regionales (No. 27683 / 03/15/2002).

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, direct, and secret for all citizens over the age of 18. Voting is compulsory until the age of 70. Registered citizens have a libreta electoral (electoral card) and a national identity card that enables them to vote. Citizens living abroad may vote at presi-dential elections and elections to the national assembly. Members of the armed forces and the national police can neither vote nor be elected.

Elected national institutions: The president and his vice presidents are elected on the same ballot paper with only one vote. The term of office

Peru452

is five years. Peru has a unicameral parliament with 120 members. Its term coincides with the presidential term.

Nomination of candidates: Parties have to submit supporting signatures of at least 5% of the registered voters to be allowed to present candi-dates. The Jurado Nacional de Elecciones delists a party if it gained less than 5% of the vote in the last elections. Candidates can stand for elec-tions on either party or independent lists. Both president and parliamen-tarians can be re-elected.

Electoral system - presidential elections: The president and his two vice presidents are elected by absolute majority. If they do not reach this majority a second round is held between the two candidates with the most votes. - parliamentary elections: The unicameral parliament, the national as-sembly, is elected in MMCs of different magnitude through proportional representation. The party lists are closed and non-blocked. Citizens may cast an optional preferential vote, which means that they can select up to two representatives from the list. The same ballot is used for presidential and parliamentary elections, but with a different vote for each. Seats are allocated following the d’Hondt formula. There is no threshold of repre-sentation. If parliamentarians resign or die they are replaced by the can-didate on the list who received the highest number of preferential votes.

Organizational context of elections: The electoral organization is dis-tributed among three different bodies: the Jurado Nacional de Elec-ciones (JNE), responsible for electoral justice, the Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (ONPE), responsible for the organization of the electoral process , and the Registro Nacional de Identificación y Estado Civil (RENIEC), in charge of the registry office.


The electoral data presented in the following tables are based on infor-mation from the Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE), except in some specific cases. Unfortunately, the data before 1963 are incomplete, be-cause the military government that seized power the year before took all the electoral information from the JNE and did not return it. The inten-tion was to examine an alleged case of electoral fraud in favor of the APRA. Only the data from 1978 on are generally complete, although

Peru 453

there are only official publications for the years 1978, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1995. No information is available for the presidential elec-tions of 1990, for the elections to the constituent congress of 1992, and for the 1993 referendum. Percentages have been calculated by the au-thor.

Peru454

2. Tables

2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’État

Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections Referen Coups elections Lower



dums d’état

1930 25/08 1931 11/10 11/10 1939 22/10 22/10 22/10 1945 10/06 10/06 10/06 1948 27/08 1950 02/07 02/07 02/07 1956 17/06 17/06 17/06 1962 10/06a 10/06a 10/06a 18/07 1963 09/06 09/06 09/06 03/03 1968 03/10 1975 29/08 1978 18/06 1980 18/05 18/05 18/05 1985 14/04 14/04 14/04 1990 08/04 (1st) 08/04 08/04 1990 10/06 (2nd) 1992 22/11 05/04 1993 31/10 31/10 1995 09/04 09/04b 2000 09/04 (1st) 09/04b 2000 28/05c (2nd) 2001 08/04 (1st) 08/04 b 2001 03/06 (2nd) a Elections have been anulled by coup d’état.b The political constitution of 1993 abolished the bicameral parliament (house of representatives and senate) and replaced it with the unicameral national assembly. c The runoff was boycotted by the opposition and its candidate Alejandro Toledo Manrique of Perú Posible.

Peru 455



number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. voters

% pop.

1931 CA/Pr 6,120,000 392,363 — 323,654 82.5 — 1939 Pr 6,080,313 597,182 9.8 339,193 56.8 5.6 1939 R 6,080,313 — — — — — 1939 S 6,080,313 — — — — — 1945 Pr 6,857,538 776,572 11.3 456,310 58.8 6.7 1945 R 6,857,538 — — — — — 1945 S 6,857,538 — — — — — 1950 Pr 7,632,460 776,132 10.2 — — — 1950 R 7,632,460 — — — — — 1950 S 7,632,460 — — — — — 1956 Pr 8,904,874 1,575,741 17.7 1,324,229 84.0 14.9 1956 R 8,904,874 — — — — — 1956 S 8,904,874 — — — — — 1962 Pr 10,516,473 2,221,906 21.1 1,969,288 88.6 18.7 1962 R 10,516,473 — — — — — 1962 S 10,516,473 — — — — — 1963 Pr 10,825,832 2,070,718 19.1 1,954,284 94.4 18.1 1963 R 10,825,832 — — — — — 1963 S 10,825,832 — — — — — 1978 CA 16,414,402 4,978,831 30.3 4,172,962 83.1 25.4 1980 Pr 17,295,274 6,471,101 5,121,328 79.1 29.6 1980 R 17,295,274 6,431,651 37.2 4,573,141 71.1 26.4 1980 S 17,295,274 6,431,651 37.2 5,258,247 81.8 30.4 1985 Pr 19,697,549 8,333,433 42.3 7,544,836 90.6 38.3 1985 R 19,697,549 8,282,545 42.0 6,608,533 79.8 33.6 1985 S 19,697,549 8,282,545 42.0 7,206,943 87.0 36.6 1990 Pr (1st) 22,332,100 10,013,225 44.8 7,837,116 78.2 35.1 1990 Pr (2nd) 22,332,100 10,007,614 44.8 7,958,232 79.5 35.6 1990 R 22,332,100 10,012,325c 44.8 6,818,536 68.1 30.5 1990 S 22,332,100 10,013,225 44.8 5,539,680 55.3 24.8 1992 CA 22,462,000 11,339,756 50.5 8,086,312 71.3 36.0 1993 Ref 22,639,443 11,620,820 51.3 8,178,742 70.4 36.1 1995 Pr 23,531,701 11,974,396 50.1 8,803,049 73.5 37.4 1995d NA 23,531,701 11,865,283 50.4 7,961,114 67.1 33.8 2000 Pr (1st) 25,939,329 14,567,468 56.2 12,066,229 82.8 46.5 2000 Pr (2nd) 25,939,329 14,567,468 56.2 11,800,310 81.0 45.5 2000 NA 25,939,329 14,567,468 56.2 11,942,810 82.0 46.0 2001 Pr (1st) 26,346,840 14,898,435 56.6 12,264,349 82.3 46.5 2001 Pr (2nd) 26,346,840 14,898,435 56.6 12,128,969 81.4 46.3 2001 NA 26,346,840 14,898,435 56.6 11,987,641 80.5 45.5

Peru456

a Pr = President; NA = National Assembly; R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber), S = Senate (Upper Chamber), CA = Constitutional Assembly, Ref = Referendum. b The population data are based on the census of 1940: 6,208,040; 1961: 9,906,746; 1972: 13,538,208; 1981: 17,754,800 and 1993: 22,048,356. Numbers for the remaining years are esti-mates and projections based on these data by Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática(INEI) and The Statesman’s Yearbook. Population data for 2000/2001 is taken from INEI. c The difference between the number of voters registered for the lower and the upper chamber elections is due to the fact that Peruvians living abroad cannot vote in the lower chamber electi-ons.d The constitution of 1993 abolished the bicameral parliament (house of representatives and senate) and replaced it with the unicameral national assembly.

2.3 Abbreviations

AP Acción Popular (Popular Action) APP Alternativa Perú Puma (Alternative Peru Puma) APS Acción Política Socialista (Socialist Political Action) AR Acción Republicana (Republican Action) ARS Acción Revolucionaria Socialista (Revolutionary Socialist Action) C 90a Cambio 90 (Change 90) C 90/NMa Cambio 90/Nueva Mayoría (Change 90/ New Majority) CC Coalición Conservadora (Conservative Coalition) CN Coalición Nacional (National Coalition) CODEb Convergencia Democrática (Democratic Agreement) CODE/PP Convergencia Democrática/País Posible (Democratic

Agreement/Possible Country) COONAN Cooperación Nacional (National Cooperation) DC Democracia Cristiana (Christian Democracy) FAHF Frente Agrícola Humanista Femenino (Female Humanist Agricultural

Front) FDN Frente Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Front) FDUN Frente Democrático de Unidad Nacional (Democratic Front of

National Unity) FIM Frente Independiente Moralizador (Moralizing Independent Front) FIRN Frente Independiente de Reconciliación Nacional (Independent Front

of National Reconciliation) FJD Frente de Juventudes Democráticas (Front of Democratic Youths) FLNc Frente de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Front) FNTCd Frente Nacional de Trabajadores y Campesinos (National Worker’s

and Farmer’s Front) FOCEP Frente Obrero Campesino Estudiantil y Popular (Worker’s, Farmer’s,

Student’s and People’s Front) FP Frente Patriótico (Patriotic Front) FREDEMOe Frente Democrático (Democratic Front) FREPAP Frente Agrícola Peruano (Peruvian Agricultural Front) INd Izquierda Nacionalista (National Left)

Peru 457

ISf Izquierda Socialista (Socialist Left) IUg Izquierda Unida (United Left) LADI Lista Avanzada Democrática Independiente (Independent Democratic

Progressive List) LICN Lista Independiente Cooperación Nacional (Independent List of

National Cooperation) LIDJ Lista Independiente Democrática Junín (Democratic Independent

List Junín) LIDNC Lista Independiente Democracia Nissei Callao (Independent List

Democracy Nissei Callao) LIFRIH Lista Independiente Frente Revolucionario de Izquierda de Huánuco

(Independent List Leftist Revolutionary Front of Huánuco) M7J Partido Movimiento Nacional 7 de Junio (Party National Movement

7th of June) MAS Movimiento de Avanzada Socialista (Progressive Socialist Movement) MBH Movimiento de Bases Hayistas (Movement of the Hayistas’ Bases) MDI Movimiento Democrático de Izquierda (Democratic Movement of the Left) MDPh Movimiento Democrático Pradista (Pradista Democratic Movement)MIA Movimiento Independiente Agrario (Independent Agrarian Movement) MII Movimiento Independiente Inca (Independent Inca Movement) MINP Movimiento Independiente Nuevo Peru (Independent Movement New Peru)MIR Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (Movement of the

Revolutionary Left) MIRA Movimiento Independiente Regionalista Ancashino (Independent

Regionalist Ancashino Movement) ML Movimiento Libertad (Liberty Movement) MNP Movimiento Nuevo Perú (Movement New Peru) MPAIS Movimiento Popular de Acción e Integración Social (People’s

Movement of Social Action and Integration) MSI Movimiento Social Independiente/Recambio (Social Independent

Movement/Change) MSP Movimiento Social Progresista (Social Progressive Movement) NM Nueva Mayoria (New Majority) OBRAS Movimiento Cívico Obras (Civic Works Movement) OPRP Organización Política de la Revolución Peruana (Political

Organization of the Peruvian Revolution) P 2000 Perú 2000 (Peru 2000)PADIN Partido de Integración Nacional (National Integration Party) PAIS Partido de Avanzada e Integración Social (Progressive and Social

Integration Party) PAN Partido de Avanzada Nacional (National Progressive Party) PAP Partido Aprista Peruano (Peruvian Aprista Party)PC Partido Civil (Civic Party) PCC Partido Constitucional (Constitutional Party) PC DEL P Partido Comunista del Perú; Patria Roja (Communist Party of Peru;

Red Fatherland)

Peru458

PCP Partido Comunista Peruano (Peruvian Communist Party) PCP-BR Partido Comunista Peruano – Bandera Roja (Peruvian Communist

Party – Red Flag) PCR Partido Comunista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Communist Party)PCRP Partido Constitucional Renovador del Perú (Constitutional Renewal

Party of Peru) PD Partido Demócrata (Democratic Party) PDP Partido Descentralista del Perú (Decentralistic Party of Peru) PDRP Partido Democrático Reformista Peruano (Democratic Peruvian

Reform Party) PL Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) PMLN Partido Mariateguista para la Liberación Nacional (Mariateguista

Party for the National Liberation) PMR Partido Mariateguista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Mariateguista

Party)PN Partido Nacional (National Party) PND Partido Nacional Democrático (National Democratic Party) POMR Partido Obrero Marxista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Workers’

Marxist Party) PP País Posible (Possible Country) PPC Partido Popular Cristiano (People’s Christian Party) PRP Partido Reformista del Perú (Reformist Party of Peru) PR Partido Restaurador (Restoration Party) PRT Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (Revolutionary

Worker’s Party) PSDN Partido Social Demócrata Nacionalista (Nationalist Social

Democratic Party) PSP Partido Socialista del Perú (Socialist Party of Peru) PSR Partido Socialista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Socialist Party of Peru)PST Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (Socialist Worker’s Party) PUM Partido Unificado Mariateguista (Unified Mariateguista Party) P y D Paz y Desarrollo (Peace and Development) R Movimiento Renovación (Renewal Movement) SODE Solidaridad y Democracia (Solidarity and Democracy) UCI Unión Cívica Independiente (Independent Civic Union) UD Unión Democrática (Democratic Union) UDPi Unidad Democrática Popular (Popular Democratic Union) UIj Unidad de Izquierda (Unity of the Left) UNk Unidad Nacional (National Unity) UNm Unidad Nacional (National Unity) UNIRl Unión de Izquierda Revolucionaria (Union of the Revolutionary Left)UNOk Unión Nacional Odriísta (National Odriísta Union) UN y CD Unidad Nacional y Concordia Democrática (National Unity and

Democratic Concordance) UPP (1) Unión Popular Peruano (Popular Peruvian Union) UPP (2) Unión por el Perú (Union for Peru)

Peru 459

UR Unión Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Union) VR Vanguardia Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Vanguard) VR-PC Vanguardia Revolucionaria – Proletariado Comunista (Revolutionary

Vanguard – Communist Proletariat) a Cambio 90 participated in the 1990 elections. In the 1992 elections it joined the electoral allian-ce Nueva Mayoría, which changed its name to Cambio 90/Nueva Mayoría. b Front formed by PPC, MBH and independents. c Front, formed mainly by the PCP and some independent individuals. d Ran under the name ‘IN’ in 1985 and continued under its own name afterwards. e Front formed by AP, PPC, ML, and SODE. f Front formed by PSR, PCR, and several small groups. g IU is an electoral front formed by PSR, PCP, FOCEP, UDP, UNIR, and PCR in 1980. In 1984, the member parties of UDP merged with PUM, which subsequently joined IU. In 1985 APS and PADIN were integrated into PUM, too. PADIN withdrew shortly thereafter. In 1989, the recently founded MAS was incorporated, but some time before the municipal elections of that year IU was definitively divided. PSR, PCR, and independent individuals formed IS. In 1990, IU’ mem-bers were: PUM, PCP, UNIR, MAS, APS, FOCEP, and PMR. h Former Democratic Pradista Movement (Movimiento Democrático Pradista).i Political front formed by VR, MIR, and PCR in 1977. After the 1980 elections, the front foun-ded IU together with other parties. j Front formed by PCP, PR, FLN, and VR-PC. The front joined with UDP and founded IU in 1980. k Participated in 1980 elections as ‘UN’. Afterwards it continued under its own name. l Front formed by PCP, PSR, PCP-BR. m Front formed by R, PPC, and SN for the 2001 elections.


Party / Alliance Years Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya

AR 1931 1 1 PAPb 1931; 1945; 1962–2001 10 11 PCRP 1931 1 1 PDP 1931 — 1PSPc 1931;1962; 1980–1990 3 5 UR 1931; 1945; 1963 2 3 CC 1939 1 1 FP 1939 1 1 PCPd 1945;1962; 1978–1990 5 6 PR 1950 1 1 DCe 1956–1978; 1985–1990 4 6 FJD 1956 1 1 MDP 1956; 1963–1980 2 4 UN y CD 1956 1 1 APf 1962–2001 7 8 FLNg 1962; 1980 2 2 MSP 1962 1 1 UNO 1962–1980; 1990 4 5

Peru460


FNTCh 1963–1995 4 6 UPP 1963 1 1 PDRP 1978 — 1 ARS 1978 — 1FOCEPi 1978–1990 4 4 PPCj 1978–1995 3 5 PSRk 1978–1990 3 4 PSTl 1978–1985 3 2 UDPm 1978–1980 1 2 APSn 1980–1990 3 3 OPRP 1980 1 1 PAIS 1980 1 1 PRTo 1980 1 1 UI 1980 1 1 UNIR 1980–1990 3 3 CODE 1985 1 1 FAHF 1985 — 1FDUN 1985 1 1 IU 1985–1995 3 3 M7J 1985 1 1 MBH 1985 1 1 PADINp 1985 1 1 PAN 1985 1 1 PMLN 1985 — 1C 90 1990 1 1 C 90/NM 1992–1995, 2001 1 2 FIM 1990–2001 1 4 FREDEMO 1990 1 1 FREPAP 1990–2001 3 4 IS 1990 1 1 UCI 1990 — 1UD 1990 1 1 UPP 1995–2001 3 2 CODE-PPq 1995 1 1 OBRAS 1995 1 1 MNP 1995 1 1 PRP 1995 1 1 APP 1995 1 1 P y D 1995 1 1FIRN 1995 1 1 R 1995 — 1 MIA 1995 — 1 Perú 2000 2000 1 1 Perú Posible 2000–2001 2 2

Peru 461


Somos Perúr 2000–2001 1 2 SolidaridadNacional

2000 1 1

Avancemos 2000 1 1 Solución Popular 2001 1 1 Todos por la Victoria

2001 1 1

Proyecto País 2001 1 1 Renacimiento Andino

2001 1 1

Unidad Nacionals 2001 1 1 a Includes elections to the constitutional assemblies. b Participated in the 1945 elections on the lists of the FDN. In 1985, parts of DC and SODE joined PAP.c In 1990, PSP participated on the lists of IU. d Participated on following parliamentary lists: 1945 on the FDN list; 1962 on the FLN list; 1980 on the UI list; 1985 on the IU list. It only ran under its own list in the constitutional elections of 1978. e Participated in the elections of 1985 on the lists of PAP and in 1990 on those of IS. f Formed by the base of the FJD. It participated in the elections of 1990 on the lists of FREDEMO. In all the other elections it participated with its own lists. g Participated in 1980 within UNIR. h In 1995, it participates in the races for the presidency and the congress together with the allian-ce Perú al 2000/FNTC. i Front formed by PST, POMR, PCP-BR and independent individuals in 1978. In 1980, the front was dissolved, FOCEP became a party and participated as such in the 1980 elections. From 1985 on it participated on the lists of IU. j Joined CODE for the 1985 elections and FREDEMO for the 1990 elections. k Participated on the lists of PRT in 1980, on the lists of UI in 1985 and on the lists of IS in 1990. l With other groups it formed the FOCEP. In 1980, it participated on the list of PRT and in 1985 under its own name. m Joined PUM in 1984, with the exception of a PCR wing. n Joined IU in 1985. o In 1980 it included candidates of PST and POMR on its lists. p Participated on the list of IU in 1985. q Former CODE in alliance with País Posible (PP). r Alliance with Causa Democrática.s Alliance of PPC, SN and R.

Peru462

2.5 Referendums

1993 Total number % Registered voters 11,620,820 – Votes cast 8,178,742 70.4 Invalid votesa 734,645 8.9 Valid votes 7,444,097 91.0 Yes 3,895,763 52.3 No 3,548,334 47.7 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1931–1992

1931a Total number % Seats % Registered voters 392,363 – Votes cast 323,645 82.5 Invalid votesb 23,818 7.4 Valid votes 299,827 92.6 145 100.0 UR 152,149 50.8 — — PAP 106,088 35.4 — — AR 21,950 7.3 — — Partido Constitucional Renovador del Perú

19,640 6.5 — —

a The elections for constitutional assembly have been held simultaneously with the presidential elections.b Invalid votes include blank votes.

1978 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 4,978,831 – Votes cast 4,172,962 83.7 Invalid votesa 661,576 15.8 Valid votes 3,511,386 84.1 100 100.0 PAP 1,240,674 35.4 37 37.0 PPC 835,285 23.8 25 25.0 FOCEP 433,413 12.3 12 12.0 PSR 323,520 6.6 6 6.0 PCP 207,612 5.9 6 6.0 UDP 160,741 4.5 4 4.0 FNTC 135,552 3.8 4 4.0 DC 83,075 2.3 2 2.0 PUN 74,137 2.1 2 2.0 MDP 68,619 1.9 2 2.0

Peru 463

1978 (cont.) Total number % Seats % ARS 20,164 0.5 – 0.0 PDRP 19,594 0.5 – 0.0 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

1992 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 11,339,756 – Votes cast 8,086,312 71.3 Invalid votesa 1,910,255 23.7 Valid votes 6,176,057 76.3 80 100.0 C 90/NM 3,040,552 49.2 44 55.0 PPC 602,110 9.8 8 10.0 FIM 437,908 7.1 7 8.8 R 435,414 7.1 6 7.5 MDI 338,746 5.5 4 5.0 CODE 326,219 5.3 4 5.0 FNTC 237,162 3.8 3 3.8 FREPAP 169,303 2.7 2 2.5 SODE 126,189 2.0 1 1.2 MIA 105,703 1.7 1 1.2 a Invalid votes include blank votes.


2.7.1 National Assembly 1995–2001

Year 1995 2000 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 11,865,283 – 14,567,468 – Votes cast 7,961,114 67.1 11,942,810 82.0 Invalid votesa 3,671,464 46.1 2,007,685 16.8 Valid votes 4,289,650 53.9 9,935,125 83.2 C90/NM (95) 2,193,724 51.1 – – UPP (2) 584,099 13.6 254,582 2.6 PAP 274,263 6.4 546,930 5.5 FIM 205,117 4.8 751,323 7.6 CODE/PP 175,693 4.1 – – AP 142,638 3.3 245,115 2.5 PPC 127,277 3.0 – – R 123,969 2.9 – – OBRAS 80,918 1.9 – – IU 80,078 1.9 – – FREPAP 46,102 1.1 216,953 2.2

Peru464

Year 1995 2000 (cont.) Total number % Total number % Perú al 2000/FNTC 46,027 1.1 – – MIA 33,283 0.8 – – MNP 28,177 0.7 – – Perú 2000 – – 4,189,018 42.2 Perú Posible – – 2,308,635 23.2 Somos Perú – – 715,396 7.2 Solidaridad Nacional – – 399,985 4.0 Avancemos – – 307,188 3.1 Others 148,285b 3.5 – – a Invalid votes also include blank votes.b PRP: 12,484; APP: 11,961; Apertura para el Desarrollo Nacional: 10,224; FIRN: 9,988; MII: 9,281; MSI: 6,116; others: 88,231.

Year 2001 Total number % Registered voters 14,898,435 – Votes cast 11,987,641 80.5 Invalid votesa 2,565,932 21.4 Valid votes 9,421,709 78.6 Perú Posible 2,477,624 26.3 PAP 1,857,416 19.7 UN 1,304,037 13.8 FIM 1,034,672 11.0 Somos Perú 544,193 5.8 C 90/NM 452,696 4.8 AP 393,433 4.2 UPP (2) 390,236 4.1 Solución Popular 336,680 3.6 Todos por la Victoria 191,179 2.0 FREPAP 156,264 1.7 Proyecto País 155,572 1.7 Renacimiento Andino 127,707 1.4 a Invalid votes also include blank votes.

Peru 465

2.7.2 House of Representatives 1980–1990

Year 1980 1985 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 6,431,651 – 8,282,545 – Votes cast 4,573,141 71.1 6,608,533 79.8 Invalid votesa 941,802 27.9 777,823 11.8 Valid votes 3,631,339 79.4 5,830,710 88.2 AP 1,413,233 38.9 491,581 8.4 PAP 962,801 26.5 2,920,605 50.1 PPC 348,578 9.6 – – UNIR 172,430 4.8 – – UDP 156,415 4.3 – – PRT 151,447 4.2 – – UI 124,751 3.4 – – FNTC 93,416 2.6 – – FOCEP 61,248 1.7 – – UN 31,443 0.9 – – MDP 22,573 0.6 – – APS 22,708 0.6 – – OPRP 21,609 0.6 – – PAIS 16,493 0.5 – – IU – – 1,424,981 24.4 CODE – – 649,404 11.1 IN – – 110,695 1.9 FUN – – 59,455 1.0 Others 9,786b 0.3 74,797c 1.3 Independents 22,408 0.6 99,192 1.7 a Invalid votes include blank votes. b PSPc Others include: PSP (14,775 votes), M7J (24,466); PAN (19,131) and PST (16,425).

Year 1990a

Total number % Registered voters 10,012,325 – Votes cast 6,818,536 68.1 Invalid votesb 1,857,066 27.3 Valid votes 4,961,470 72.8 FREDEMO 1,492,513 30.1 PAP 1,240,395 25.0 C 90 819,527 16.5 IU 497,764 10.0 IS 264,147 5.3 FNTC 124,544 2.5 FREPAP 62,955 1.3

Peru466

Year 1990a

(cont.) Total number % UCI 41,210 0.8 Movimiento Regionalista Loreto

23,836 0.5

Others 58,411 1.2 Independents 336,168 6.8 a The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d´état on 05/04/92. b Invalid votes include blank votes. c Frente Tacneñista: 18,035; Movimiento Independiente en Acción: 14,547; UNO: 10,788; UD: 7,762; MBH: 5,047; Somos Libres: 2,232.

2.7.3 Senate 1980–1990

Year 1980 Total number % Registered voters 6,431,651 – Votes cast 5,258,247 81.8 Invalid votesa 1,116,044 21.3 Valid votes 4,142,203 78.8 PAP 1,144,203 27.6 FNTC 92,892 2.2 AP 1,694,952 40.9 PSP 11,299 0.3 PPC 385,674 9.3 UNIR 189,080 4.6 PRT 165,191 4.0 UDP 145,155 3.5 UI 146,085 3.5 FOCEP 69,412 1.7 UN 25,551 0.6 OPRP 23,339 0.6 APS 10,102 0.5 Othersb 30,268 0.7 a Invalid votes include blank votes. b MDP: 17,560; PAIS: 12,708.

Peru 467

Year 1985 1990a

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 8,282,545 – 10,012,325 – Votes cast 7,206,943 80.7 6,875,950 68.7 Invalid votesb 1,162,305 16.1 1,336,270 19.4 Valid votes 6,044,638 83.9 5,539,680 80.6 FREDEMO – – 1,791,077 32.3 C 90 – – 1,204,132 21.7 PAP 3,099,975 51.3 1,390,954 25.1 IU 1,521,461 25.2 542,049 9.8 IS – – 303,216 5.5 FNTC – – 112,388 2.0 FREPAP – – 63,879 1.2 UCI – – 45,171 0.8 Somos Libres – – 30,671 0.6 CODE 675,621 11.2 – – AP 492,056 8.1 – – IN 103,874 1.7 – – FUN 56,859 0.9 – – PAN 25,843 0.4 – – Others 69,129c 1.1 56,143d 1.0 a The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d´état on 05/04/92. b Invalid votes include blank votes. c Frente Agrícola Humanista Femenino: 17,540; PST: 16,113; M7J: 15,126; PSP: 12,991; PMLN: 7,359.d UNO: 16,479; MBH: 13,616; FIR: 9,065; UD: 8,041; COONAM: 4,002; Movimiento Independiente Solidaridad: 3,142; Confederación Honorífica de Lucha Organizada Independiente: 1,798.

Peru468


2.8.1 National Assembly 1995–2001

Year 1995 2000 2001 Seats % Seats % Seats % 120 100.0 120 100.0 120 100.0 C 90/NM 67 55.8 – – 3 2.5 UPP (2) 17 14.2 3 2.5 6 5.0 PAP 8 6.7 6 5.0 28 23.3 FIM 6 5.0 9 7.5 11 9.2 CODE/PP 5 4.2 – – — — AP 4 3.3 4 3.3 3 2.5 PPC 3 2.5 – – — — R 3 2.5 – – — — OBRAS 2 1.7 – – — — IU 2 1.7 – – — — FREPAP 1 0.8 2 1.7 — — Perú al 2000/FNTC

1 0.8 – – — —

MIA 1 0.8 – – — — Perú 2000 – – 52 43.3 — — Perú Posible – – 29 24.2 45 37.5 Somos Perú – – 9 7.5 4 3.3 SolidaridadNacional

– – 5 4.2 — —

Avancemos – – 3 2.5 — — UnidadNacional

— — — — 17 14.2

SoluciónPopular

— — — — 1 0.8

Renacimiento Andino

— — — — 1 0.8

Todos por la Victoria

— — — — 1 0.8

Peru 469

2.8.2 House of Representatives 1963–1990

Year 1963 1980 1985 1990a

Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 139 100.0 180 100.0 180 100.0 180 100.0 PAP 56 40.3 58 32.2 107 59.4 53 29.4 AP 39 28.1 98 54.4 10 5.6 26 14.4 UNO 26 8.7 – – – – – – DC 10 7.2 – – – – – – MDP 2 1.4 – – – – – – PPC – – 10 5.6 12 6.7 25 13.9 IU 3 2.2 10 5.6 48 26.6 16 8.9 FNTC (IN) – – 4 2.2 1 0.5 3 1.7 C 90 – – – – – – 32 17.8 ML – – – – – – 9 5.0 FIM – – – – – – 7 3.9 IS – – – – – – 4 2.2 SODE – – – – – – 2 1.1 Independents 3 2.2 – – 2 1.1 3 1.7 a The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d´état on 05/04/92.

2.8.3 Senate 1963–1990

Year 1963 1980 1985 1990d

Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 45 100.0 60 100.0 61 100.0 62 100.0 PAP 18 40.0 18 30.0 30a 50.1 17c 27.4 AP 15 33.3 26 43.3 6 8.3 8 12.9 UNO 7 15.6 – – 1a – – – DC 5 11.1 – – – 1.6 – – IU b – – — — 15 25.0 6 9.7 PPC/CODE – – 6 10.0 7 11.6 5 8.1 PRT — — 2 3.3 — — — — UDP — — 2 3.3 — — — — UNIR — — 2 3.3 — — — — UI — — 2 3.3 — — — — FOCEP — — 1 1.6 — — — — FNTC – – 1 1.6 1 1.6 1 1.6 SODE – – – – 1a 1.6 1 1.6 C 90 – – – – – – 14 22.6 ML – – – – – – 6 9.7 IS – – – – – – 3 4.8 Independientes – – – – – – 1 1.6 a DC and SODE participated on the list of the PAP and got one senator each.

Peru470

b IU was founded five months after the 1980 election by members of parliament for PRT (02), UDP (02), FOCEP (01), UNIR (02) and UI (02).c Former presidents Belaúnde and García were appointed senators for lifetime after completing their presidential terms. Belaúnde is counted under AP and García under PAP.d The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d’état on 05/04/92.


1931 Total number % Registered voters 392,363 – Votes cast 323,645 82.5 Invalid votesa 23,818 7.4 Valid votes 299,827 92.6 Luis M. Sánchez Cerro (UR) 152,149 50.8 Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (PAP) 106,088 35.4 José María de la Jara y Ureta (AR) 21,950 7.3 Antonuio Osores (PCRP) 19,640 6.5 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

1939 Total number % Registered voters 597,182 – Votes cast — — Invalid votesa — — Valid votes 339,193 — Manuel Prado Ugarteche 262,971 77.5 José Quesada 76,222 22.5 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

1945 Total number % Registered voters 776,572 – Votes cast — — Invalid votesa — — Valid votes 456,310 — José Luis Bustamante y Rivero (FDN) 305,590 66.9 Eloy G. Ureta Montehermoso (UR) 150,720 33.0 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

1950 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes — — Manuel Odría (PR)a 550,779 — a After the elimination of his adversary Ernesto Montage of the Liga Democrática, Odría was the only candidate.

Peru 471

1956 Total number % Registered voters 1,575,741 – Votes cast 1,324,229 84.0 Invalid votesa 75,931 5.4 Valid votes 1,248,298 94.3 Manuel Prado Ugarteche (MDP) 567,713 45.5 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (FJD) 457,966 36.7 Hernando de Lavalle Vargas (UN/CD) 222,619 17.8 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

1962a Total number % Registered voters 2,221,906 – Votes cast 1,969,288 88.6 Invalid votesb 279,730 14.2 Valid votes 1,689,558 85.8 Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (PAP) 557,007 33.0 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (AP) 544,180 32.2 Manuel A. Odría Amoretti (UNO) 480,378 28.4 Héctor Cornejo Chávez (DC) 48,792 2.9 César Pando Egúsquiza (FLN) 33,341 2.0 Luciano Castillo Coloma (PSP) 16,658 1.0 Alberto Ruiz Eldredge (MSP) 9,202 0.5 a Elections were annulled because of a coup d´état.b Invalid votes include blank votes.

1963 Total number % Registered voters 2,070,718 – Votes cast 1,954,284 94.4 Invalid votesa 139,716 7.2 Valid votes 1,814,568 92.9 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (AP/DC) 708,662 39.1 Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (PAP) 623,501 34.4 Manuel A. Odría Amoretti (UNO) 463,085 25.5 Mareio Samamé Boggio (UPP) 19,320 1.1 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

Peru472

1980 Total number % Registered voters 6,471,101 – Votes cast 5,121,328 79.1 Invalid votesa 1,130,074 22.1 Valid votes 3,991,254 77.9 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (AP) 1,793,190 44.9 Armando Villanueva del Campo (APRA)

1,087,188 27.2

Luis Bedoya Reyes (PPC) 382,547 9.6 Hugo Blanco Galdós (PRT) 160,713 4.0 Horacio Zevallos Gámes (UNIR) 134,321 3.4 Leonidas Rodríguez Figueroa (UI) 116,890 2.9 Carlos Malpica Santisteban (UDP) 98,452 2.5 Roger Cáceres Velásquez (FNTC) 81,647 2.0 Genaro Ledesma Izquieta (FOCEP) 60,853 1.5 Othersb 75,453 1.9 a Invalid votes include blank votes. b Carlos Carrillo Smith (UN): 18,170; Javier Tantaleán Vanini (OPRP): 17,737; Gustavo Mohme Llona (APS): 11,607; Alejandro Tudela Garland (MDP): 9,875; Waldo Fernández Durán (PAIS): 9,350; Luciano Castillo Coloma (PSP): 8,714.

1985 Total number % Registered voters 8,333,433 – Votes cast 7,544,836 90.6 Invalid votesa 1,044,181 13.8 Valid votes 6,500,550 86.2 Alan García Pérez (PAP) 3,452,111 53.1 Alfonso Barrantes Lingán (IU) 1,605,139 24.7 Luis Bedoya Reyes (CODE) 773,313 11.9 Javier Alva Orlandini (AP) 471,150 7.3 Roger Cáceres Velásquez (IN)b 91,968 1.4 Francisco Morales Bermúdez (FDUN)

54,899 0.8

Othersc 52,212 0.8 a Invalid votes include blank votes. b FNTC was called IN during the election. It returned to its old name afterwards. c Jorge Campos Arredondo (PAN): 26,366; Enrique Fernández Chacón (PST): 15,696; Peter Uculmana (M7J): 10,150.

Peru 473

1990 (First round) Total number % Registered voters 10,013,225 – Votes cast 7,837,116 78.3 Invalid votesa 1,195,532 15.3 Valid votes 6,641,584 84.7 Mario Vargas Llosa (FREDEMO) 2,163,323 32.6 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (C 90) 1,932,208 29.1 Luis Alva Castro (PAP) 1,494,231 22.5 Henry Pease García (IU) 544,889 8.2 Alfonso Barrantes Lingán (IS) 315,038 4.7 Roger Cáceres Velásquez (FNTC) 86,418 1.3 Ezequiel Atacusi Gamonal (FREPAP) 73,974 1.1 Othersb 31,503 0.5 a Invalid votes include blank votes. b Dora Larrea de Castillo (UNO): 21,962; Nicolás de Piérola y Balta (UD): 9,541.

1990 (Second round) Total number % Registered voters 10,007,614 – Votes cast 7,958,232 79.5 Invalid votesa 760,044 9.6 Valid votes 7,198,188 90.4 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (C 90) 4,489,897 62.4 Mario Vargas Llosa (FREDEMO) 2,708,291 37.6 a Invalid votes include blank votes.

1995 Total number % Registered voters 11,974,396 – Votes cast 8,803,049 73.5 Invalid votesa 1,576,708 17.9 Valid votes 7,226,341 82.1 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (C90/NM)

4,645,279 64.3

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (UPP [2]) 1,555,623 21.5 Mercedes Cabanillas (PAP) 297,327 4.1 Alejandro Toledo Manrique (CODE/PP)

234,964 3.3

Ricardo Belmont (OBRAS) 175,042 2.4 Raúl Diez Canseco (AP) 121,872 1.7 Ezequiel Ataucusi (FREPAP) 56,827 0.8 Augustín Haya de la Torre (IU) 41,985 0.6 Othersb 60,021 0.8 a Invalid votes include blank votes. b Includes Luis Cáceres Velásquez (Perú al 2000/FNTC): 24,640; Sixtilio Dalmau (MNP): 9,583; Víctor Echegaray (PRP): 8,829; Edmundo Inga (APP): 6,740; Miguel Campos (P y D): 6,143; Carlos Cruz (FIRN): 5,106.

Peru474

2000 (First Round) Total number % Registered voters 14,567,468 – Votes cast 12,066,229 82.8 Invalid votes 980,359 8.1 Valid votes 11,085,870 91.9 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (Perú 2000)

5,528,568 49.9

Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú Posible)

4,460,895 40.2

Alberto Andrade Carmona (Somos Perú)

333,048 3.0

Federico Salas Guevara Schultz (Avancemos)

247,054 2.2

Luis Castañeda Lossio (Solidaridad Nacional)

199,814 1.8

Abel Salinas Izaguirre (PAP) 153,319 1.4 Ezequiel Ataucusi Gamonal (FREPAP) 80,106 0.7 Othersa 83,066 0.7 a Víctor Andrés García Belaúnde (AP): 46,523; Máximo San Román Cáceres (UPP [2]): 36,543.

2000 (Runoff) Total number % Registered voters 14,567,467 – Votes cast 11,800,310 81.0 Invalid votes 3,672,410 31.1 Valid votes 8,127,900 68.9 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (Perú 2000) 6,041,685 74.3 Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú Posible)a

2,086,215 25.7

a Toledo and his coalition inofficially withdrew from the runoff and asked their followers to boy-cott the election.

2001 (First round) Total number % Registered voters 14,898,435 – Votes cast 12,264,349 82.3 Invalid votes 1,662,629 13.6 Valid votes 10,601,720 86.4 Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú Posible)

3,871,167 36.5

Alan García Pérez (PAP) 2,732,857 25.8 Lourdes Flores (UN) 2,576,653 24.3 Fernando Olivera (FIM) 1,044,207 9.8 Carlos Boloña (Solución Popular) 179,243 1.7 Ciro Gálvez (Renacimiento Andino) 85,436 0.8 Marco Arrunategui (Proyecto País) 79,077 0.7 Ricardo Noriega (Todos por la Victoría) 33,080 0.3

Peru 475

2001 (Runoff) Total number % Registered voters 14,898,435 – Votes cast 12,128,969 81.4 Invalid votes 1,675,484 13.8 Valid votes 10,453,485 86.2 Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú Posible)

5,548,556 53.1

Alan García Pérez (PAP) 4,904,929 46.9


Head of state Years Remarks Nicolás de Piérola Villena

1895–1899 Constitutional president from 08/09/1895 until 08/09/1899.

Eduardo López de Romaña Alvizuri


Manuel Candamo Iriarte

1903–1904 Constitutional president from 08/09/1903 until 18/04/1904. He died in office.

Serapio CalderónChirinos

1904 He was the second vice president under Candamo and succeeded him after his death. President from 18/04/1904 until 24/09/1904.

José Pardo y Barreda 1904–1908 Constitutional president from 24/09/1904 until 24/09/1908.

Augusto B. Leguía Salcedo


Guillermo Billinghurst Angulo

1912–1914 President, elected by congress on 24/09/1912. Overthrown by a coup d’état on 04/02/1914.

Óscar R. Benavides Larrea

1914–1915 Military officer; he took over the presidency of the junta on 04/02/1914 and was formally appointed by congress on 15/05/1914. He acted as transitional president from 15/05/1914 until 18/08/1915.

José Pardo y Barreda 1915–1919 Constitutional president for the second time from 18/08/1915 until 04/07/1919.

Augusto B. Leguía Salcedo

1919–1930 Took over the presidency after leading a re-bellion to defend his electoral triumph over the defeated Partido Civil. Governed as pro-visional president until 12/10/1919, when he was officially elected by congress. He was a constitutional president until 25/08/1930.

Peru476

Head of state (cont.) Years Remarks Manuel M. Ponce Brousset

1930 Military officer; took over the government as president of the junta of government. Gover-ned from 25/08 until 28/08.

Luis M. SánchezCerro

1930–1931 Military officer; led the rebellion against Le-guía in Arequipa and took over the presiden-cy of the military junta on 28/08/1930. Governed until 01/03/1931.

Ricardo L. Elías Arias1931 President of the provisional junta from 01/03 until 05/03.

Gustavo Jiménez 1931 Military officer, became head of the transi-tional junta of government after a rebellion. Governed from 05/03 until 11/03.

David SamanezOcampo

1931 President of the junta of government from 11/03 until 08/12. Held general elections.

Luis M. SánchezCerro

1931–1933 Constitutional president; governed from 08/12/1931 until 30/04/1933, the day of his assassination.

Oscar R. Benavides Larrea

1933–1939 Military officer; after the assassination of Sánchez he was appointed president of the Republic by congress. Governed from 30/04/1933 until 08/12/1939.

Manuel Prado yUgarteche


José L. Bustamante y Rivero

1945–1948 Constitutional president from 28/07/1945 until 27/10/1948. Overthrown by a coupd’état.

Manuel A. Odría Amoretti

1948–1950 Military officer; led the coup d’état against Bustamante y Rivero and governed as presi-dent of the junta of government from 27/10/1948 until 10/05/1950.

Zenón NoriegaAgüero

1950 Military officer, transitional president from 10/05/1950 until 28/07/1950. Held general elections.

Manuel A. Odría Amoretti

1950–1956 Odría won the elections after having impri-soned his only opponent Ernesto Montagne. Governed from 28/07/1950 until 28/07/1956.

Manuel PradoUgarteche

1956–1962 Constitutional president for the second time. Governed from 28/07/1956 until 18/07/1962. Overthrown by a coup d’état.

Ricardo Pérez Godoy 1962–1963 Military officer, governed first together with the other commanders-in-chief, then he be-came chairman of the junta from 18/07/1962 until 03/03/1963. Removed by Nicolás Lind-ley.

Peru 477

Head of state (cont.) Years Remarks Nicolás LindleyLópez

1963 Military officer. Governed from 03/07 until 28/07.

Fernando Belaúnde Terry

1963–1968 Constitutional president from 28/07/1963 until 03/10/1968. Overthrown by a coupd‘état.

Juan Velasco Alvarado

1968–1975 Military officer, president of the revolutiona-ry government of the army; Governed from 03/10/1968 until 29/08/1975.

Francisco Morales Bermúdez Cerruti

1975–1980 Military officer; president of the revolutiona-ry government of the army; Governed from 29/08/1975 until 28/07/1980.

Fernando Belaúnde Terry

1980–1985 Constitutional president for the second time from 28/07/1980 until 28/07/1985.

Alan García Pérez 1985–1990 Constitutional president from 28/07/1985 until 28/07/1990.

Alberto K. Fujimori Fujimori

1990–2000 Won the elections in a runoff against the highly favored author Mario Vargas Llosa. Constitutional president from 28/07/1990. He led a coup d’état while being in office (autogolpe) and proclaimed himself presi-dent of the Emergency Government for Na-tional Reconstruction on 05/04/1992. Re-elected twice (1995 and 2000). Resigned on 20/11/2000 in the middle of a scandal invol-ving bribery of a member of parliament.

Valentín Paniagua Corazo

2000–2001 President of the congress since 16/11. Fol-lowing the constitutional succession rules he became transitional president on 22/11 after Fujimori’s two vice presidents resigned. He was a transitional president until 28/07/2001.

Alejandro Toledo Manrique

2001– Constitutional president since 28/07/2001.

Peru478

3. Bibliography


Corte Suprema de Justicia (1913). Jurisprudencia electoral. Lima: Lib. de la Academia.

Defensoría del Pueblo (2000). Elecciones 2000. Balance de la segunda vuelta electoral. Lima.

— (2000). Elecciones 2000. Supervisión de la Defensoría del Pueblo. Lima. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Balance de la primera vuelta. Lima: Defensoría

del Pueblo. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Balance de la segunda vuelta. Lima: Defensoría

del Pueblo. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Supervisión de la Defensoría del Pueblo. Lima:

Defensoría del Pueblo. Dirección de Estadística (without year). Estadística electoral y parlamentaria

del Perú 1870 al 1876. Lima: J. M. del Castillo. Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (1978). Resultados de las elecciones para re-

presentantes a la Asamblea Constituyente. Lima: JNE. — (1984). Resultados de las elecciones municipales de 1980 y de las elec-

ciones municipales complementarias de 1981. Lima: JNE. — (1984). Resultados de las elecciones municipales de 1984. Lima: JNE. — (1986). Resultados de las elecciones políticas generales de 1985. Lima: JNE. — (1995). Resultados de las elecciones políticas generales de 1995. Lima: JNE. Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (1998). Compendio de normas legales

de aplicación en el proceso de elecciones municipales 1998. Lima: ONPE— (2000). Compendio legal electoral 2000. Lima: ONPE. — (2000). Elecciones Generales del año 2000. Informe Ejecutivo. Lima: ONPE. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Recurso electrónico. Lima: ONPE. — (2001). Informe final de la campaña de voluntariado para la segunda

vuelta. Lima: ONPE. Registro Electoral (1963). Población electoral, año 1961. Lima: Registro

Electoral del Perú. — (1973). Población electoral del Perú, año 1972. Lima: Registro Electoral del Perú. Senado de la República (1961). Presidentes del Senado, comisiones directi-

vas y señores senadores 1829–1960. Lima: Cámara de Senadores.


Abad Yupanqui, S. (1999). ‘Observación electoral y personeros’, in Ponenciasy conclusiones del Primer Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima: Horizonte, 123–147.

Peru 479

Anderle, A. (1985). Los movimientos políticos en el Perú entre las dos guer-ras mundiales. Havanna: Casa de las Américas.

Aramburú, J. F. (1915). Derecho electoral. Antecedentes históricos y aplicaciones a la nueva ley. Lima: La Opinión Nacional.

Arca Parró, A. (1936). Manual de legislación electoral del Perú. Lima: Torres Aguirre.

Asociación Civil Transparencia (2001). El debate presidencial. Reto y res-ponsabilidad. Lima: ACT.

— (2001). Elecciones 2000. Balance y propuesta. Lima: ACT.— (2001). Las elecciones que el Perú merecía. Informe final 2001. Lima: ACT. — (2001). Informe de monitoreo de medios. Enero 2001. Lima: ACT. Barba Caballero, J. (1981). APRA. Presente y futuro. Análisis de la derrota

electoral, drama interno y proyecciones del aprismo. Lima: Cultura Po-pular.

Barreda y Laos, F. (1917). Índice de los documentos electorales en defensa de las elecciones de diputados realizadas en la provincia de Cajatambo. Lima.

Barreto Wilson, J. (1991). Marketing politico. Elecciones 1990. Lima: CIUP. Basadre, J. (1980). Elecciones y centralismo en el Perú. Lima: CIUP. — (1981). La vida y la historia. Lima. Basombrio Iglesias, C. (2000). Las elecciones frankenstein, 830 razones; na-

cieron con deformidades incurables, se armaron a la mala, con fallas estructurales insalvables y terminaron con cicatrices monstruosas en to-do el cuerpo. Lima: IDL.

— (2000). ‘Elecciones viciadas irremediablemente. 110 razones (… y seguimos contando)’. Ideele 126: 2–7.

Béjar Rivera, H. (1983). ‘Los movimientos sociales y los partidos políticos desde 1930 hasta 1968. Su significado en términos de participación popular’, in H. Giannoni (ed.), El Perú de Velasco. Lima: Cedep, 74–93.

Belaúnde Terry, F. (1963). Así se hizo el fraude. Lima: Minerva. Benavides Correa, A. (1946). Los partidos políticos del Perú. Estudio

histórico-doctrinario. 2 volumes. BA thesis, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

Benvenutto, N. (1921–24). Parlamentarios del Perú contemporáneo (1904–1924). 3 volumes. Lima.

Bernales Ballesteros, E. (1980). Crisis política. ¿Solución electoral?. Lima: Desco.

Blondet Montero, C. (1999). Las mujeres y la político en la década de Fujimori. Lima: IEP.

Boggio, M. R., Romero, F., and Ansión, J. (1991). El pueblo es así y también así. Lógicas culturales en el voto popular. Lima: Instituto Democracia y Socialismo.

Bonilla, H. and Drake, P. (eds.) (1989). El Apra de la ideología a la praxis.San Diego, Calif.: University of California.

Peru480

Burga, M. and Flores Galindo, A. (1984). ‘Aprismo, comunismo y el proceso electoral de 1931’, in M. Burga, (ed.), Apogeo y crisis de la República aristocrática. Vol. 3. Lima: Rikchay Perú, 213–265.

Bustamante y Zapata, J. (1950). Elecciones generales de 1950. Lima: Torres Aguirre.

CAAAP (1980). Elecciones, partidos políticos y la Amazonía. Lima: CAAAR.

Cámara de Diputados (1917). El proceso electoral de Lima de 1917 en la Cámara de Diputados. Lima: Torres Aguirre.

Carpio Marcos, E. (2000). ‘El proceso electoral Peruano’. Revista de Derecho Político 48–49: 43–67.

Castillo Ochoa, M. (1990). ‘El populismo conservador. Sánchez Cerro y la Unión Revolucionaria’, in A. Adfianzón (ed.), Pensamiento político peruano 1930–1968. Lima: Desco, 84–113.

Castro Pozo, H. et al. (1989). Regionalización, elecciones y consultas populares. Lima: Ipadel.

Celadec (1981). Elecciones presidenciales del Perú. Lima: Celadec. Chanamé Orbe, R. (1990). ‘El sufragio en el Perú’. Socialismo y Participa-

ción 52: 53–87. Chanduví Tomes, L. (1988). El Apra por dentro. Lo que hice, lo que vi, lo

que sé. 1931–1957. Lima. Chang Rodríguez, E. (1985). Opciones políticas Peruanas 1985. Lima: CDI. Chávez, L. A. (1998). ‘Mecánica naranja. Cambio 90, Nueva Mayoría y

ahora Vamos Vecino’. Quehacer 113/mayo-junio: 18–28. Chávez Molina, J. (2000). ‘Candidatura de Alberto Fujimori Fujimori’.

Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16: 65–72. — (2000). Mis votos singulares. Historia del fraude que nunca se debe

repetir. Lima: Horizonte. Chirinos Soto, E. (1962). Cuenta y balance de las elecciones de 1962. Lima. — (1982). La nueva Constitución y los partidos. Lima: Centro de

Documentación Andina. Chirinos Soto, F. (1985). Democracia y elecciones. Lima: AFA. CIED (1980). ¿El voto perdido? Critica y autocrítica de izquierda en la

campaña electoral de 1980. Lima: CIED. — (without year). Partidos y conciencia en las barriadas. Lima: CIED. Coloma Marquina, J. M. (1996). ‘Postulación de candidaturas y el rol de los

partidos políticos. Una visión comparada’. Simposio sobre reforma electoral. Lima.

Comisión Andina de Juristas (2000). Perú 2000. Un triunfo sin democracia.Lima: CAJ.

Córdova, M. (1990). ‘Perú 1989. El desborde de los partidos’. Temas de Actualidad 2: 65–75

Peru 481

Cotler, J. (1990). ‘Los partidos políticos y la democracia en el Perú’, in L. Pásara and J. Parodi (eds.), Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Perú.Lima: IEP, 101–112.

— (1991). ‘Partidos y presidencialismo. Problemas políticos de la democracia en el Perú’, in L. Pásara (ed.), Las formas políticas de la democracia en los países andinos. Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú.Lima: IFEA, 23–44.

— (1994). Política y sociedad en el Perú. Cambio y continuidades. Lima: IEP. Daeschner, J. (1993). La guerra del fin de la democracia. Mario Vargas

Llosa versus Alberto Fujimori. Lima: Perú Reporting. Dancuart, P. E. (1906–10). Crónica parlamentaria del Perú. Historia de los

congresos que han funcionado en la República desde 1822. 4 volumes. Lima. Davies, T. Jr. and Villanueva, V. (1983). Secretos electorales del APRA.

Correspondencia y documentos de 1939. Lima: Horizonte. Degregori, C. I. and Grompone, R. (1991). Demonios y redentores en el nue-

vo Perú (Elecciones 1990: Una tragedia en 2 vueltas). Lima: IEP. Diaz Zegarra, W. A. (2000). El derecho electoral en el Perú. Lima: Palestra. Dietz, H. (2000). Pobreza urbana, participación política y política estatal.

Lima 1970–1990. Lima: PUCP. Echegaray Correo, I. R. (1966). La Cámara de Diputados y las

constituciones del Perú (1822–1965). Lima. Eguiguren Praeli, F. (1990). ‘La elección presidencial en la Constitución de

1979. Alcances y controversias en el sistema electoral vigente’. Lecturassobre temas constitucionales 4: 34–53.

Fernández, C. (1987). ‘Notas sobre el sistema de partidos políticos en el Perú’. Síntesis 3: 23–47.

Ferrero Costa, E. (1992). Proceso de retorno a la institucionalidad democrática en el Perú. Lima: CEPEI.

Fowks, J. (2000). Suma y resta de la realidad. Medios de comunicación y elecciones generales 2000 en el Perú. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert.

Franco, C. (2001). Perú. Entre el proceso electoral y las incertidumbres del futuro. Lima: Ipadel, 65–72.

Fundación Internacional para Sistemas Electorales: La normatividad de los partidos políticos. Lima: Simposio sobre Reforma Electoral.

Garavito Amezaga, H. (1989). El Perú liberal. Partidos e ideas políticas de la Ilustración de la República Aristocrática. Lima: El Virrey.

Garcia Belaúnde, D. (1986). Una democracia en transición. Las elecciones peruanas de 1985. Lima: Okura.

Goyzueta, L. F. (1980). Populismo en las elecciones peruanas de 1956. Lima. Grados Bertorini, A. (1984). ‘El elector de 1985’. Debate (Lima)32: 34–52. Guerra García, F. (1996). Reforma del Estado y crisis de los partidos. Lima:

Cedep.Hernández Canelo, W. M. (1998). Legislación electoral peruana. Lima, OEA.

Peru482

Instituto Nacional Demócrata para Asuntos Internacionales (2000). Informedel NDI/Centro Carter. Tercera Misión de Observación Preelectoral.Lima: The Carter Center.

— (2000). Segundo Informe del NDl/Centro Carter. Misión Internacional de Observación Pre-electoral. Lima: The Carter Center.

Landa Arroyo, C. (2000). ‘La responsabilidad constitucional del Jurado Nacional de Elecciones. Reelección el caso de la presidencial’. Diálogocon la jurisprudencia 16/enero: 27–32.

Lira, P. (1877). Formulario de elecciones populares. Lima: El Nacional. Lynch, N. (1992). Para cambiar el Estado (La reforma del Congreso

Nacional). Lima: Instituto Democracia y Socialismo. — (2000). Política y antipolítica en el Perú. Lima: Desco. Macassi Lavender, S. (2001). Prensa amarilla y cultura política en el

proceso electoral. Lima: Asociación de Comunicadores Sociales Calandria.

McDonald, R. and Ruhl, M. (1994). ‘Perú’, in Smitch (ed.), Party Politics and Elections in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 114–153.

Macera, C. F. (1956). El proceso electoral de 1956. Lima. — (1963). El proceso electoral de 1963. Lima: Scheuch. Manzanilla, J. M. (1931). Elecciones políticos y municipales (2nd edn.). Li-

ma: Rivas Berrio. Medina Garcia, O. (1980). Perú 1978–1980. Análisis de un momento

político. Lima: C’est.Mercado Ulloa, R. (1985). Los partidos políticos en el Perú. El APRA, el PCP y

Sendero Luminoso. Síntesis historiográfica. Lima: Latinoamericana. Miró Quesada, F. (1964). La ideología de AP. Lima. — (1990). ‘La ideología de Acción Popular’, in A. Adrianzén (ed.),

Pensamiento político Peruano 1930–1968. Lima: Desco, 94–118. Miró Quesada, J. A. (1893). Estudio sobre el sufragio en el Perú. Lima. Miró Quesada Laos, C. (1961). Autopsia de los partidos políticos. Lima:

Páginas Peruanas. Molinari, T. (1998). ‘La Unión Revolucionaria, el Apra y el antifascismo de

1931’, in R. Silva Santisteban (ed.), Encuentro de Peruanistas. Lima: Universidad de Lima, 67–84.

Morán Alva, M. (1950). Los partidos políticos y la democracia. BA-thesis, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

Muñoz Arce, R. (2000). Manual de fiscalización electoral (2nd edn.). Lima: JNE.

Nohlen, D.; Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. San José/Costa Rica: IIDH.

North, L. and North, D. (1968). Elecciones presidenciales de 1945. Lima. Ortíz de Zevallos, J. (1984). La democracia peruana presenta pruebas. Lima:

CDI.

Peru 483

Otárola Peñaranda, A. (1997). Reelección presidencial y derecho de referén-dum. Lima: Foro Democrático.

Palacios, F. (1870). Proyecto de Ley de Elecciones, dedicado al Congreso de 1870. Lima: F. Moreno.

Paniagua Corazao, V. (2000). ‘Reelección o continuismo presidencial’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia. 16/Enero: 41–45.

— (2000). ‘Trampas y engaños del proceso electoral. Consecuencias y expli-caciones’. Lecturas sobre temas constitucionales 15: 21–56.

Panty Neyra, Ó. (1986). Tendencias y partidos políticos del Perú. Tacna. Pareja Pflucker, P. (1978). El caso Vásquez Lapeyre. Confidencial en torno a

las elecciones de 1939. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Pásara, L. (1989). La izquierda en la escena pública. Lima: Cedys/Fundación

Friedrich Ebert. — (1993). ‘El ocaso de los partidos’, in Alvarez Rodrich, A. (ed.), El poder

en el Perú. Lima: Apoyo, 23–28. Patino Samudio, M. (1893). Estudio de nuestras leyes sobre elecciones

políticos. Lima: Benito Gill. Pease Garcia-Yrigoyen, H. (1988). ‘Los partidos de izquierda en la transición

democrática’, in Aguilera y Donoso (ed.), Democracia y precariedad bajo el populismo aprista. Cuadernos Desco N° 12. Lima: Desco, 14–33.

— (1999). Electores, partidos y representantes sistema electoral, sistema de partidos y sistema de gobierno en el Perú. Lima: PUCP, Departamento de Ciencias Sociales.

Perales Hernández, O. (1978). Junio 1978. Asamblea Constituyente. Lima: Universidad Garcilaso de la Vega.

Planas Silva, P. (1998). Comunicación política y equidad electoral. Lima: Universidad de Lima.

— (1998). Los orígenes del Apra. Lima: Okura Editores. — (2000). La democracia volátil. Movimientos, partidos, lideres políticos y

conductas electorales en el Perú contemporáneo. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert.

— (2001). La videopolítica en el Perú. Las elecciones y el acceso de los par-tidos y los candidatos en los inicios de la IV. Peruana. Lima: Universidad San Martín de Porres.

Portocarrero Maisch, G. (1983). De Bustamante a Odría. El fracaso del Frente Democrático Nacional 1945–1950. Lima: Mosca Azul.

Quiróz, M. T. (1996). El Apra. El movimiento social y el Estado 1945–1948 (elecciones y lucha político en la coyuntura del 45). Lima: Fomciencias.

Quispe Correa, A. (2000). ‘Validez de la Resolución No. 2191-99-JNE’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16/Enero: 47–49.

Ramirez Novoa, E. (2000). La democracia, los partidos políticos y su consti-tucionalización. Lima: AFA.

Peru484

Ramírez y Berríos, M. G. (1957). Grandezas y miserias de un proceso electo-ral en el Perti, junio 17 de 1956. Lima: P. L. Villanueva.

— (1963). Examen expectral de las elecciones del 9 de junio de 1963. Lima: Rávago e hijos, Enrique.

— (2000). Los partidos políticos y las elecciones del 2000. Lima: Horizonte. Rendón Vásquez, J. (1989). Legislación electoral. Registro electoral,

elecciones políticas, elecciones municipales, elecciones regionales.Lima: Gráfica Danik.

Ríos, R. R. (1919). Ley de Elecciones 2108. Lima: Torres Aguirre. — (1924). La Ley Electoral 4907. Lima: H. La Rosa y Cia. Rojas Samanéz, A. (1982). Partidos políticos en el Perú, manual y registro.

Lima: CDI. — (1994). Nuevos retos, otro rol. Los partidos y los políticos en el Perú.

Lima: Salgado Editores, Lima. Roncagliolo, R. (1980). ¿Quién ganó? Elecciones 1931–1980. Lima: Desco. — (1990). ‘La Democracia Cristiana. Marcos de referencia y momentos

iniciales’, in A. Adrianzén (ed.), Pensamiento político peruano 1930–1968. Lima: Desco, 211–244.

Rospigliosi, F. (1992). ‘Las elecciones peruanas de 1990’, in R. Cerdas, J. Rial, and D. Zovatto (eds.), Una tarea inconclusa. Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1988–1991. San José de Costa Rica: IIDH/Capel, 116–133.

Rubio Correa, M. (1997). Las reglas que nadie quiso aprobar. Ley de Parti-dos Políticos. Lima: Ed. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial.

Sistema Electoral Peruano (1999). Ponencias y conclusiones. Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima: JNE/ONPE.

Salmón, J. (1993). Entre la vanidad y el poder. Lima: Apoyo. Santisteban de Noriega, J. (1999). Derechos humanos y elecciones. Primer

Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima. Santos Chichizola, J. A. (1964). Los partidos políticos. BA thesis, Lima. Sivirichi, A. (1955). Historia del Senado del Perú. Vol. 1. Lima. Sulmont Hoak, D. (1999). Calentando motores. Análisis de tendencias elec-

torales y de las relaciones entre los potenciales candidatos presidencia-les en la coyuntura actual. 1998–1999. Lima: PUC.

Tamariz Lúcar, D. (1995). Historia del poder. Elecciones y golpes de Estado en el Perú. Lima: Campodónico.

Tanaka, M. (1998). Los espejismos de la democracia. El colapso del sistema de partidos en el Perú 1980–1995 en perspectiva comparada. Lima: IEP.

— (1999). Los partidos políticos 1992–1999. Estatalidad, sobrevivencia y político mediática. Lima: EP.

— (2000). ‘Perú. Elecciones 2000 y los conflictos poselectorales’. NuevaSociedad 12/Sept.–Oct.: 34–47.

Peru 485

Távara, S. (1951). Historia de los partidos. Lima: Huascarán. Tizón y Bueno, R. (1903). Apuntes para la historia del Parlamento Peruano.

Lima.Torres Guzmán, A. (1989). Perfil del elector. Lima: Apoyo. Tuesta Soldevilla, F. (1986). Perú 1985. El derrotero de una nueva elección.

Lima: CIUP/Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1989). Pobreza urbana y cambios electorales en Lima. Lima: Desco. — (1995). ‘Partidos políticos y elecciones en el Perú (1978–1993)’.

Cuadernos Capel 38: 43–59. — (1995). Rol y funciones del parlamento. Lima: Apoyo. — (1995). Sistema de partidos políticos en el Perú (1978–1995). Lima:

Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1996). ‘Las elecciones presidenciales de 1995 en el Perú’. América

Latina Hoy 13: 54–63. — (1996) (ed.). Los enigmas del poder Fujimori 1990–1996. Lima:

Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1996). ‘Formas de composición o mecanismos de elección del

parlamento’. Politik 1/1: 41–53. — (1996). ‘El impacto del sistema electoral sobre el sistema político

peruano’, in F. Tuesta Soldevilla (ed.), Los enigmas del poder Fujimori 1990–1996. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert.

— (1996) (ed.). Simposio sobre reforma electoral (Memoria). Lima: IFES/USAID.

— (1998). ‘Notas sobre el derecho y sistema electoral’, in Memorias del III Congreso Nacional de Sociología. Cajamarca, Congreso Nacional de Sociología: 189–221.

— (1999). Dime que circunscripción tienes y te diré qué quieres. La circunscripción electoral en el Perú. Lima: Transparencia.

— (1999) (ed.). El juego político. Fujimori, la oposición y las reglas. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert, 1999.

— (1999). ‘Perú. De la plaza pública a los escenarios mediáticos’, in F. Tuesta Soldevilla and F. Priess (eds.), Campanas electorales y medios de comunicación en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Fundación Konrad Adenauer, 65–93.

— (1999). ‘Sistemas electorales comparados de América Latina’, in JNF/ONPE/Reniec, Ponencias y conclusiones del Primer Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima: Horizonte, 159–193.

— (1999) (ed.). Sistemas electorales en la Región Andina. Mecanismos, efec-tos y reformas. Bogotá: Parlamento Andino/UPD-OEA.

— (2001). La jornada electoral. Análisis comparativo Lima-Huamanga de las elecciones generales 2000. Lima: USAID.

Peru486

— (2001). Perú político en cifras 1821–2001 (3rd edn.). Lima: Fundación Fried-rich Ebert.

— (2002). ‘La Circunscripción Electoral: Perú y la Región Andina’.Documentos de Trabajo 1: 7–24. Lima: Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales, Centro de Investigación Electoral (CIE ONPE).

Ugolotti Dansey, H. (1963). Las elecciones de 1963 y la lección del 62.Lima: Offsett Peruana.

Ulloa Cisneros, A. (1917). Para la historia. El proceso electoral de 1919. Lima. Valderrama, M., Chullen, J., and Malpica, C. (1980). El Apra. Un camino de

esperanzas y frustraciones. Lima: El Gallo Rojo. Valdivia Cano, R. (2000). Diccionario de derecho electoral peruano.

Legislación, doctrina, jurisprudencia. Lima: JNE. — (2000). Las elecciones en el Perú. Lima: J. C. Servicios Gráficos. Valle Riestra, J. (1998). El Tribunal de Garantías Constitucionales. El caso

de los votos nulos blancos. Lima. — (2000). ‘Sobre la no reelección. La sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional’.

Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16/Enero: 61–64. Vargas Llosa, A. (1991). El diablo en campana. Madrid: El País-Aguilar. Vargas Llosa, M. (1993). El pez en el agua. Memorias. Barcelona: Seix Barral. Various (1978). Seminario sobre la situación y derechos políticos del

Analfabeto en el Perú. Lima: PUC.Vega Centeno, I. (1985). Aprismo popular. Mito, cultura e historia. Lima: Tarea. — (1986). Ideología y cultura en el aprismo popular. Lima: Tarea/Friedrich Ebert. — (1991). Aprismo popular. Cultura, religión y política. Lima: Pontificia

Universidad Católica del Perú/Tarea. Velásquez, J. L. (1936). Contra la amenaza civilista de 1936. Lima: S. A. Villanueva, V. (1977). El Apra en busca del poder. Lima: Horizonte. — (1977). El Apra y el ejercito (1940–1950). Lima: Horizonte. Villarán, M. V. (1918). ‘Costumbres electorales’. Mercurio Peruano 1: 3. Weck, W. (2000). ‘Elecciones presidenciales y parlamentarias en Perú. Con

el triunfo de Fujimori pierde la democracia’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano 14: 81–93.

Welsh, F. J. and Turner, F. C. (eds.) (2000). Opinión publica y elecciones en América. Caracas: IPSA.

Wiener Fresco, R. A. (1998). El reeleccionista. Clima político y juego del poder en el Perú de los 90. Lima: A-4 impresores.

Wilson Barreto, J. (1992). Marketing político y elecciones 1990. Lima: CIUP. Zavaleta, J. (2000). ‘El fujimorazo’. Cambio 16 1488: 56–59. Zuzunaga Flores, C. (1992). Vargas Llosa. El arte de perder una elección.

Lima: Peisa.

URUGUAY by Dieter Nohlen*

1. Introduction


Uruguay stands out from the other Latin American countries because of its long tradition of competitive democratic politics. The country has ex-perienced nearly 60 years of democracy during the 20th century. Its tra-ditional parties, the Colorados and the Blancos (officially known as the National Party) were formed approximately 150 years ago, and the insti-tutions, values, and practices of democratic politics are deeply embed-ded in society. Despite the dominance of the Colorados between 1865 and 1958, the stability of Uruguay’s democracy resulted from the com-petitive balance between the two traditional parties due to power-sharing mechanisms. However, in the 1960s, coinciding with the beginning of a prolonged economic crisis, political competition between the Blancosand the Colorados became increasingly virulent. The combination of the guerrilla activities of the left-wing Tupamaros, the politicization of the military forces, and growing political polarization eventually led to the breakdown of Uruguay’s democracy. After twelve years of military rule, a democratic regime was reinstated in 1985. Since then, electoral com-petition between the two traditional parties and the Frente Amplio has displayed a centripetal pattern, contributing to the stabilization of demo-cracy.

Uruguay originated as a result of the South American wars of inde-pendence when the country was created as a buffer state between the two bordering rival countries Argentina and Brazil. These countries formally recognized Uruguay’s independence in 1828. Until the mid-19th century, Uruguayan politics was characterized by civil warlike struggles among the most influential factions of the leading class. In the last third of the 19th century, the Colorados and the Blancos reached an agreement on diverse institutional mechanisms that would secure the * I would like to thank Martín Lauga for his research assistance and Carlos A.Urruty, president of the Corte Electoral, for the revision of this chapter.

Uruguay488

participation of both groups in power. Since this time, elections have been a crucial element in the political system.

Towards the end of the 19th century, Uruguay became integrated in world trade economy, based on the comparative advantages of its agrari-an export economy. This economic integration played a large role in the early stabilization of the political system. The rapid economic develop-ment was accompanied by a high immigration quota, and favored the development of politically influential middle and lower classes in the capital Montevideo. The two traditional parties opened up to these new social sectors at the beginning of the 20th century. Political power was gradually transferred from the rural oligarchy to the middle classes. The liberal reformer José Battle y Ordóñez of the Colorados became presi-dent in 1903. His presidency led to a successful combination of capita-lism and state formation. In his two presidencies (1903–1907 and 1911–1915), he promoted the creation of government agencies, state banks, and public enterprises, and introduced fairly advanced social legislation. This was the start of the ongoing democratization of Uruguay’s politics and society.

Following several electoral reforms, the unique Uruguayan electoral system, known as the ‘double simultaneous vote’ or ‘Lema Law’, was created in the first decades of the 20th century. It originated alongside the development of the party system; in fact, it can be regarded as the result of the traditional fragmentation of the Colorados and Blancos. Up to the 1997 constitutional reform, the double simultaneous vote provided for the simultaneous election of all the representative organs (president, chamber of deputies, senate) with one single ballot and one single vote. Before the emergence of the Frente Amplio, an electoral coalition of dif-ferent leftist parties, new political parties had not been excluded, but the traditional parties had been favored by the double simultaneous vote. The system made it difficult for new parties to gain access to the lema(or party) status, whilst also promoting the vote for the two traditional parties, as opening up the lemas allowed voters to vote for both suble-mas (intra-party factions or currents) and lists. Given that the victorious candidates resulted from the total amount of votes collected at the lemalevel, and not at the level of the individual candidates (sublemas), thelemas became involved in strategies to forge vote accumulation. The main drawback of this system was that the elected president actually re-presented only one sector (sublema) of his party, often assuming office with the votes of just one clear minority of the electorate.

In the 1930s, the worldwide economic crisis revealed the fragility of Uruguay’s economic model based on the exportation of agricultural pro-

Uruguay 489

ducts. The negative effects of the economic crisis (especially unem-ployment) could be partly contained by expanding the state machinery and implementing a policy of industrialization aimed at the substitution of imports. Despite the economic crisis, the working class remained po-litically important. Patronage based on the proportional distribution of administrative posts in the numerous state agencies and public enterpri-ses helped the two traditional parties maintain their central positions within the party system. Both parties continued to promote strategies of democratic agreement. They introduced a collegiate executive based on the Swiss model, which allowed both parties access to government. Ne-vertheless, even though the Colegiado (a nine-member executive) was introduced twice (1918–1933 and 1951–1966), its poor performance led to the restoration of the presidential system. In accordance with the prin-ciple of ‘co-participation’, from 1934 to 1942 the senate was equally di-vided permanently between the Colorados and the Blancos. The 1931 ‘Pork-Barrel Pact’ extended this co-participation to the selection of boards of directors for public enterprises.

At the end of the 1950s, the Uruguayan economy entered a prolonged crisis. The state began to lose its distributional capacity, which had pre-viously had a stabilizing effect on both politics and society. During the following decades, the income and living standards of all social classes decreased. The persisting economic crisis brought about social conflicts, affected the political process negatively, and intensified the political dis-putes. At the end of the 1960s, the left-wing Tupamaros’ urban guerilla forces began an armed struggle against the political system. The demo-cratic governments and then the military commanders responded by in-creasing the repression.

Between 1971 and 1973, the democratic regime gradually gave way to a military dictatorship. In 1973, the congress elected in 1971 was dis-solved, and political power was centralized under the Junta de Coman-dancia Suprema, being all the parties, unions, and local authorities excluded from the political arena. The Uruguayan military forces were able to suppress the left-wing guerilla forces, but failed to modernize the economy. In November 1980, the military government held a plebiscite in order to legitimize its power. However, the Uruguayans rejected the new constitution, and the military admitted defeat. In 1982, the military government allowed the Colorados, the Blancos, and the Unión Cívicato choose new leaders via primaries. The result confirmed both the in-creasing erosion in the military’s support and the strength of the opposi-tion forces within the traditional parties (especially for the exiled Blancosenator Wilson Ferreira). A fraction of the military, who were in favor of

Uruguay490

democratization, negotiated the restoration of democracy with the tradi-tional parties (Parque Hotel talks in 1983 and Pacto del Club Naval of 1984).

In 1984, the country held the first presidential and legislative electi-ons since 1971. These ended in the victory of the Colorado party and its presidential candidate, Julio María Sanguinetti. In 1990, he was succee-ded by the Blanco candidate Luis Alberto Lacalle. Sanguinetti was re-turned as president in 1995, heading a coalition government with the Blancos.

On the surface, Uruguay has traditionally had a two-party system, consisting of the Colorados and the Blancos; from 1865 to 1958, the Co-lorados were dominant and remained the majority party. But with re-spect to their internal structures, the Uruguayan parties have been highly fragmented, approaching a multiparty system. This ambivalence was caused in part by the Uruguayan electoral system, which underwent sub-stantial modification with the constitutional reform of 1997. After the electoral success of the left-wing Frente Amplio in the 1971 elections, the two-party system began its transformation into a three-party system. In the aftermath of redemocratization, this evolution has been confirmed in the 1984, 1989 and 1994 elections. Today, each of the three parties has approximately one third of the seats in the bicameral general assem-bly. After the emergence of this third party, it was the Frente Ampliothat gained most from the double simultaneous vote, as this was the only way for leftist parties to accumulate votes.

The 1997 constitutional reform, initiated in 1995 by the two traditio-nal parties in a coalition government, represented the actual implementa-tion of reform after several previous attempts had been frustrated ever since the restoration of democracy. The constitutional amendments in-cluded several issues that had emerged from arduous negotiations with the Frente Amplio. However, due to pressure from its base, the Frentedenied parliamentary approval at the last minute and began a campaign against the passing of the reform in the scheduled referendum. The con-stitution was finally ratified by a very narrow margin in December 1996. The main focus of the constitutional reform was the introduction of a sy-stem of absolute majority for presidential elections. Each lema presents only one candidate. Following Uruguayan tradition, accumulation of vo-tes takes place only in the first round of presidential and parliamentary elections, when electors vote for lemas. Electors only vote for candidates if a second round is held. The first politician to win a presidential electi-on held under the new system was Jorge Battle Ibanez of the ColoradoParty. In the second round, he was supported by the Blanco Party.

Uruguay 491


According to the first Uruguayan constitution of 1830, the president was elected indirectly by the bicameral parliament, the senate was indirectly elected, and members of the chamber of representatives were elected di-rectly and publicly (orally). However, in the 19th century suffrage was limited to literate men, which, in practice, meant that the majority of the population was excluded from voting.

The 1893 electoral law introduced the ballot paper, replacing the oral vote, but the voters now had to write down the names of the candidates and sign the ballot papers, so the public character of the suffrage remai-ned unchanged. Direct, secret, and universal male suffrage was introdu-ced in the 1918 Constitution. In this same year, the economic conditions attached to candidacy for the presidency, the senate, or the chamber of representatives were also abolished. In 1924, it was made law that voters had to be entered in the National Electoral Register. The 1932 Constitu-tion introduced direct election of the senate, and the 1934 Constitution introduced universal adult suffrage.

Since the beginning of the 20th century until the constitutional reform in 1997, Uruguay had a unique electoral system, the ‘double simultane-ous vote’, which linked the presidential and parliamentary elections (a constitutional reform in 1997 partially separated them). The elections to the executive and legislative offices were held on the same day, with one electoral ballot and one vote. Within one lema (party), different binomi-nal lists of presidential and vice presidential candidates contested the e-lections, each representing a sublema (intraparty faction). Nevertheless, the presidential election was primarily a decision taken among lemas: the winners were the candidates of the lema who obtained the relative majority of the vote; within the lema, the victorious candidates were tho-se belonging to the sublema that received the relative majority of the vo-te. Thus, the candidates who had received the highest percentage of the vote might not necessarily be elected, since the candidates had to belong to the lema with the highest percentage of the vote.


Sources: Constitución de 1997, Ley 16.017 de 20 de enero de 1989, Ley 16.019 de 5 de abril de 1989, Ley 16.021 de 13 de abril de 1989, Ley 7.812 de 1925.

Uruguay492

Suffrage: Uruguay has universal adult suffrage. Minimum voting age is 18. Voting is compulsory and unjustified abstention is punishable by a fine. Other voting requirements include Uruguayan citizenship and pres-ence in the country on polling day.

Elected national institutions: The president is elected directly for a five-year term; the elections are held on the last Sunday of October. If a sec-ond round is required, it is scheduled for the last Sunday of November. The immediate re-election of the president is prohibited. The bicameral general assembly is also directly elected for five years. The general as-sembly consists of a 30-member senate (plus one ex officio: the vice president of the Republic) and a 99-member chamber of representatives. They are jointly elected together with the election of the president.

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates are elected in open, secret, and non-compulsory primaries by the Uruguayan voters (one candidate per party; before this reform, several candidates could be nominated within each party or lema). The minimum age for candidacy is 35.- parliamentary elections: Nominated by political parties (lists of candi-dates must be submitted to the National Electoral Court at least 20 days before the elections). The minimum age for candidacy is 25 for repre-sentatives and 30 for senators.

Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority system. If no candidate achieves this majority, a second round is held between the two top can-didates (one month after the first round, on the last Sunday of Novem-ber).- parliamentary elections: the 99 members of the chamber of represen-tatives are elected in 19 constituencies of different sizes. The Electoral Court distributes the seats according to the number of voters in the con-stituencies, each constituency corresponding to one department. Theconstitutional minimum is guaranteed for each constituency. In 1994, there was one constituency of 45, one of 13, seven of three, and ten of two deputies. The 1997 constitutional reform abolished the accumula-tion of votes by sublemas. This means that political parties can accumu-late votes based on their different lists. These lists are closed and blocked. The seats are allocated via the d’Hondt formula.

For the election of the 30 senators, a broad freedom of candidacy remains in the form of sublemas and, within them, candidate lists, which

Uruguay 493

are closed and blocked. The senators are elected in one single nationwi-de constituency; the voter votes for intraparty factions within the lema.These votes are added and accumulated for the lema to which the suble-mas and candidate lists belong. The seats are distributed via the d’Hondt formula.

Organizational context of elections: Elections are administrated and su-pervised by the Corte Electoral (Electoral Court), an independent party-based body created by law on 9 January 1924. Of its nine members, five are considered neutral, as they are elected by a two-thirds majority by a general assembly of senators and deputies of both houses of the parlia-ment, four are representatives of the political parties. The Electoral Court is simultaneously the supreme electoral authority, manager of elections, and supreme court of electoral justice. It was awarded consti-tutional status in 1934. The Electoral Court enjoys high public esteem.


The Uruguayan electoral statistics are reliable and fulfill international standards. The statistics do not differentiate between blank votes and in-valid votes until 1971 (for this reason, only invalid votes are included in the tables with the exception of intraparty elections in 1982). In the ta-bles, the names of the factions and their respective electoral results are set in italics in order to differentiate them from the names of the parties to which they belong.

Uruguay494

2. Tables


Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections. Referen Coups elections Lower

HouseUpperHouse

for Constit Assembly

dums d’état

1916 30/071917 xx/xx 25/111919 xx/xx 1920 xx/xx 1922 xx/xx 1925 02/08 29/11 02/081926 28/11 28/11 1928 25/11 25/11 25/11 1930 30/11 30/11 30/11 1931 29/11 1932 27/11 1933 25/06 31/031934 19/04 19/04 19/041938 27/03 27/03 27/031942 29/11 29/11 29/11 29/11 21/021946 24/11 24/11 24/11 24/111950 26/11 26/11 26/11 26/111954 26/11 26/11 26/11 1958 30/11 30/11 30/11 30/111962 25/11 25/11 25/11 1966 27/11 27/11 27/11 27/111971 28/11 28/11 28/11 28/111973 27/061980 30/111984 25/11 25/11 25/11 1989 16/041989 26/11 26/11 26/11 26/111992 13/121994 28/08 1994 27/11 27/11 27/11 27/111996 08/121999 31/10 31/10 31/10 1999 28/11a 2004 31/10 31/10 31/10 31/10 a Second round of presidential elections.

Uruguay 495



number %pop.

Totalnumberc

% reg. voters

%pop.

1916 CA 1,214,100 223,020 18.4 146,632 65.7 12.11917 Pa 1,228,000 — — 128,888 — —1917 Ref 1,228,000 223,020 — 89,322 40.1 — 1919 Pa 1,257,017 — — 188,352 — 15.0 1920 Pr 1,300,000 — — 178,777 — 13.8 1922 Pa 1,386,031 — — 246,324 — 17.8 1925 Pa 1,430,000 331,743 21.1 271,468 74.3 17.31925 CNA 1,430,000 304,005 21.3 241,910 79.3 16.91926 Pr/CNA 1,532,431 353,860 23.1 289,255 81.7 18.91928 CNA 1,598,515 382,817 23.9 296,101 77.3 18.51930 Pr/CNA 1,620,000 398,169 24.6 318,760 80.1 19.71931 Pa 1,670,000 419,271 25.1 309,048 73.7 18.51932 CNA 1,690,000 431,192 25.5 160,625 37.3 9.51933 CA 1,700,000 428,597 25.2 246,882 57.6 14.51934 Pa 1,734,000 422,865 24.4 249,125 58.9 14.41934 Ref 1,734,000 422,865 24.4 232,269 54.9 13.4 1938 Pr 1,932,000 636,171 32.9 357,209 56.1 18.51938 Ref 1,932,000 636,171 32.9 357,187 56.1 18.5 1942 Pr/Pa 2,014,000 858,713 42.6 574,703 66.9 28.51942 Ref 2,014,000 858,713 42.6 574,577 66.9 28.51946 Pr 2,090,000 993,892 47.6 649,405 65.3 31.11946 Ref 2,090,000 993,892 47.6 — — — 1950 Pr 2,150,000 1,168,206 54.3 823,829 70.5 38.31950 Ref 2,150,000 1,168,206 54.3 — — — 1951 Ref 2,210,000 1,158,939 52.4 429,760 37.1 19.4 1954 CNG 2,310,000 1,295,502 56.1 879,242 67.9 38.11958 CNG 2,471,200 1,410,105 57.1 1,005,362 71.3 40.71958 Ref 2,471,200 1,409,372 57.0 — — — 1962 CNG 2,611,600 1,528,239 58.5 1,171,020 76.6 44.81962 Ref 2,611,600 1,526,868 58.5 — — — 1966 Pr/Pa 2,708,500 1,658,368 61.2 1,231,762 74.3 45.51966 Ref 2,708,500 1,656,322 61.2 — — — 1971 Pr/Pa 2,728,500 1,878,132 68.8 1,726,049 91.9 63.21971 Ref 2,728,500 1,875,660 68.7 — — — 1980 Ref 2,850,000 1,944,951 68.2 1,689,424 86.9 59.31984 Pr/Pa 2,927,500 2,197,503 75.2 1,930,931c 87.9 66.01989 Ref 2,940,000 2,283,597 77.7 1,934,715 84.7 65.81989 Pr/Pa 2,945,000 2,319,022 78.7 2,056,355 88.7 69.81989 Ref 2,945,000 2,319,022 78.7 — — — 1992 Ref 3,130,600 2,345,077 74.9 1,981,650 84.5 63.3

Uruguay496


number %pop.

Totalnumberc

% reg. voters

%pop.

1994 Ref 3,167,500 2,278,375 71.9 1,964,509 86.2 62.0 1994 Pr/Pa 3,167,500 2,330,154 73.6 2,130,618 91.4 67.3 1994 Ref 3,167,500 2,330,154 73.6 — — — 1996 Ref 3,203,600 2,343,920 73.2 2,019,843 86.2 63.0 1999 Pr/Pa 3,313,000 2,402,160 72.5 2,204,884 91.8 66.6 1999 Prd 3,313,000 2,402,135 72.5 2,206,112 91.8 66.6 2004 Pr/Pa 3,720,000 2,487,816 66.9 2,229,583 89.6 60.0 2004 Ref 3,720,000 2,487,816 66.9 2,229,583 89.6 60.0 a Pr = President, Pa = Parliament, CA = Constitutional Assembly, CNA = Consejo Nacional de Administración (National Administration Council), CNG = Consejo Nacional de Gobierno, Ref = Referendum.b Results of the censuses in 1900: 915,647; 1908: 1,042,686; 1963: 2,595,510; 1975: 2,763,964. c No information on the total number of voters is available for the years prior to 1971, only the valid votes. Therefore, the percentage of the voters out of the registered population was calcula-ted on the basis of the valid votes. After 1971 the total amount of votes is considered. d Second round of presidential elections.

2.3 Abbreviations

EP Encuentro Progresista (Progressive Encounter) FA Frente Amplio (Broad Front) FideL Frente Izquierda de Liberación (Liberation Left Front) MCC Movimiento Cívico Cristiano (Christina Civic Movement) NE Nuevo Espacio (New Space) PAN Partido Autóctono Negro (Black Native Party) PAP Partido Agrario Popular (Popular Agrarian Party)PBR Partido Blanco Radical (Radical White Party) PC Partido Colorado (Colored Party) PCU Partido Comunista Uruguayo (Uruguayan Communist Party) PD Partido Demócrata/Unión Democrática (Democratic

Party/Democratic Union) PDC Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) PDS Partido Demócrata Social (Social Democratic Party) PGP Partido por el Gobierno del Pueblo (Party for the Government of the People) PI Partido Independiente (Independent Party)PMR Partido Movimiento Renovador (Party Renewal Movement) PN Partido Nacional (National Party) PNI Partido Nacional Independiente (Independent National Party) PR Partido Reformista (Party for Renewal) PS Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) PV Partido Verde (Green Party) UC Unión Cívica (Civic Union) UDR Unión Democrática Reformista (Democratic Renewal Union)

Uruguay 497

UI Unión Industrial (Industrial Union) UP Unión Popular (Popular Union) URC Unión Radical Cristiana (Christian Radical Union)


Party / Alliance Years Elections contested Presidentiala Parliamentaryb

PN 1916–1919; 1925–1931; 1934–2004

16 22

PSc 1916–1931; 1934–1958; 1966

4 18

UCd 1916; 1919–1958; 1984; 1999

7 15

PC (Anticolegialista)e 1916 0 1PC (Colegialista)e 1916 0 1PCf 1916–1931; 1934–

200416 23

PC Gral. Rivera 1917–1934 0 8 P. Autonomía Coloradag 1917 0 1 P. Coalición Colorada Nacionalistag

1917 0 1

P. Rionegrense 1917 0 1 Listas Coloradas 1919–1922 0 2 P. Blancoh 1919 0 1 P. Bandera Coloradag 1919 0 1 PC Batllistag 1919–1934 0 7 PD 1919 0 1 Unión Colorada 1919 0 1 PCUl 1922–1958 8 12PC Radical (vierismo)g 1922–1933 0 5 UI 1922 0 1 Agrupación Col. Batlle Libre

1925 0 1

PAP 1925–1931 0 3 PBRh 1925–1931 1 3 Unión Colorada de Duraznog

1925 0 1

P. Por la Tradición Coloradag

1928–1934 0 4

PR 1928; 1933–1934 0 3 Agrup. Col. Juventud Riveristag

1928 0 1

Uruguay498

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidentiala Parliamentaryb

P. Concentración Coloradag

1928 0 1

Agrup. Militar Patria y Ejército

1931 0 1

Sindicato Gente de Artes y Afines

1931 0 1

Comisión Nac. de Unificación del PCh

1933 0 1

P. Saravistah 1934–1938 0 2 PAN 1938 0 1 P. Independiente Feminista

1938 0 1

P. Concentración Patriotica Cándida Díaz de Saraivah

1938 1 0

P. M. Pacheco y Obes 1938 0 1P. Por las Libertades Públicasi

1938 1 0

PNIh 1942–1954 4 4PDSj 1946–1950 1 2P. La Concordancia 1938–1942; 1950 1 2P. Liberal 1950 1 0P. Por la Defensa de los Derechos

1950 1 0

P. del Pueblo 1950 1 0PMRk 1958 0 1 UDRk 1958 0 1 FIdeLl 1962–1966 2 2PDCm 1962–1966 2 2UPn 1962–1971 2 3MCCo 1966–1971 1 2FA (lema PDC)p 1971–1984 2 2URCo 1971 1 0FA 1989 1 1NE (lema PGP)p 1989–1999 3 3PV 1989 1 1FA–EP 1994–2004 3 3 PI 2004 1 1 a Includes the 1954, 1958 and 1962 elections to the Consejo Nacional de Gobierno (national go-vernment council). 15 elections in all. b Includes the 1916 and 1933 elections to the constitutional assemblies. The 1930 elections are excluded due to lack of data. 21 elections in all. c Founded in 1904; constested elections since 1910. In 1962 it was part of the UP alliance; since 1971 it belongs to the FA. d Became PDC in 1962, afterwards MCC and URC; appeared again in 1984.

Uruguay 499

e Names taken by the PC for the Convención Nacional Constituyente (national constituent con-vention).f From 1917 to 1934, independent colorado lemas contested the parliamentary elections of repre-sentatives, senators and members of the constituent convention, but they stood together for pre-sidential elections and elections to the Consejero de Administración (government counsellor), making use of accumulation mechanisms. g Colorado lemas for the elections of representatives and senators between 1917 and 1934. h Dissident Blanco lemas of different periods.i Socialist-Communist alliance for the 1938 presidential elections. j Independent Nationalist origin. k 1958 Colorado dissidents. l The PCU was created mainly by socialist activists that at the beginning adhered to the Third International. In 1962 and 1966 the PCU contested elections together with minor allied groups. In 1971 FIdeL was a list (sublema) within the FA. In 1984 and 1989 the Communists together with minor allied groups formed Democracia Avanzada as a sublema within the FA.m It sprang from the UC in 1962, also contesting elections in 1966. In 1971 and 1984 the lema was lent to the FA coalition, and the PDC strictu sensu contested as a sublema with a different name. n In 1962, alliance between Communists and dissident Communists. In 1966, small former natio-nalists’ groups. In 1971, it became a sublema of FA. o PDC’s dissidents at different times. p Leftist coalition which, in 1971 and 1984, comprised Communists, Socialists, Christian-Democrats, radical left-wingers and dissidents of the two traditional parties. It split in 1989: one faction founded the NE and the rest kept the name and the lema FA.

2.5 Referendums

Year Registered voters

Validvotes

Yes % val. votes

% reg. voters

No Ap-proved

1917 223,020 89,322 84,992 95.2 38.1 4,330 Yes 1934 422,865 232,269 222,145 95.6 52.5 10,124 Yes 1938a 636,171 357,187 333,802 93.5 52.5 23,385 Yes 1938a 636,171 340,289 333,802 98.1 52.5 6,487 Yes 1942 858,713 574,577 443,414 77.2 51.6 131,163 Yes 1946b 993,892 — 252,353 — 25.4 — No 1946b 993,892 — 289,101 — 29.1 — No 1950c 1,168,206 — 2,128 — 0.2 — No 1951d 1,158,939 429,760 232,076 54.0 20.0 197,684 Yes 1958e 1,409,372 — 233,941 — 16.6 — No 1958e 1,409,372 — 153,662 — 10.9 — No 1962e 1,526,868 — 195,623 — 12.8 — No 1966e 1,656,322 — 786,987 — 47.5 — Yes 1966e 1,656,322 — 175,095 — 10.6 — No 1966e 1,656,322 — 86,315 — 5.2 — No 1966e 1,656,322 — 1,120 — 0.1 — No 1971f 1,875,660 — 491,680 — 26.2 — No 1980g 1,944,951 1,529,682 643,858 42.1 33.1 885,824 No 1989h 2,319,022 — 1,681,592 — 72.5 — Yes

Uruguay500

Year(cont.)

Registered voters

Valid vo-tes

Yes % val. votes

% reg. voters

No Ap-proved

1989i 2,283,597 1,881,558 1,082,454 57.5 47.4 799,104 Yes 1992j 2,345,077 1,782,318 1,293,016 72.5 55.1 489,302 Yes 1994k 2,278,375 1,798,833 564,393 31.4 24.8 1,234,440 No 1994l 2,330,154 — 694,351 — 29.8 — No 1994m 2,330,154 — 1,540,462 — 66.1 — Yes 1996n 2,343,920 1,945,316 1,015,028 52.2 43.3 930,288 Yes 2004o 2,487,816 2,229,583 1,440,006 64.6 57.9 788,924 Yes a Two reforms were decided in that referendum, one of which concerned the composition of the senate and the Juntas Departmentales.b The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting the reforms; 35% of the registered voters were required. The first reform introduced different ballot papers to elect the president and the parlamentarians. Hence, the voters could vote for different parties at each level. The second re-form established a Colegiado.c The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting of the proposal; 35% of the registered voters were required.d According to a previous political agreement, only the plurality of votes was needed. e The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting of the issue; 35% of the registered voters were required. The reforms abolished the collective form of government, i.e. the Colegiado.f Proposal for the re-election of the president. g The military proposed a new constitution (approval or rejection). h The constitution includes a regulation establishing that increase in the income of retired people and pensioners should be linked to that of civil servants. The referendum was only about accep-ting or rejecting the proposal; the plurality of votes and a turnout of at least 35% was required. Preliminary results based on provisional counting. i The referendum concerned the so-called Ley de Caducidad.j Change of five articles of Law No. 16,211 (privatization of state enterprises). k Reform of the 1967 Constitution. l Constitutional reform envisaging the allocation of 27% of the public budget or 4.5% of the BIP to public education. m Constitutional reform to ensure that the norms regulating the state pension system cannot be altered by budget laws. n Reform of the 1967 Constitution. o Constitutional reform to treat access to piped water and sanitation services as a fundamental human right.

Uruguay 501


1916 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 223,020 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 146,632 65.7 218 100.0 PN 68,073 46.4 105 48.2PC (lema) Colegialista 60,420 41.2 87 39.9Anti–Colegialista 14,548 9.9 22 10.1PS 2,001 1.4 2 0.9UC (Catholics) 1,590 1.1 2 0.9

1933 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 428,597 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 246,882 57.6 284 100.0 PN 101,419a 41.1 117 41.2PC–lemaa 130,761 53.0 151 53.2 Batllistas terristas 80,563 32.6 95 33.5 Gral. F. Rivera 24,088 9.8 28 9.9 Radical (vieristas) 11,595 4.7 13 4.6 P. Por la Tradición Colorada (sosistas)

13,713 5.6 15 5.3

Comisión Nacional de Unificación del PC

802 0.3 – –

UC (Catholics) 9,707 3.9 11 3.9PCU 4,950 2.0 5 1.8Othersb 45 0.0 – –a The Batllistas Netos and a nationalist current, which became PNI later on, abstained. The PS did not take part either. b Others include PR (45 votes).

Uruguay502



Year 1917 1919 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — – — – Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — —Valid votes 128,888 — 188,352 —Lema Colorados 98,477 76.4 97,689 51.9 PC 63,617 49.4 – – P. Coalición Colorado Nacionalista

32,254 25.0 – –

PC Batllista – – 55,623 29.5 PC Gral. Rivera 2,606 2.0 13,129 7.0 PC Bandiera Colorada (vieristas)

– – 12,293 6.5

Unión Colorada – – 11,612 6.2 Listas coloradas – – 5,032 2.7Lema Blancos 29,257 22.7 83,520 44.3 PN 29,257 22.7 71,538 38.0 P. Blanco – – 11,982 6.4UC – – 2,133 1.1PS 703 0.5 4,324 2.3P. Rionegrense 315 0.2 – – P. Autonomia Colorada

136 0.1 – –

PD – – 686 0.4

Year 1922 1925 Total number % Total number % Registered voters — – 331,743 – Votes cast — — — —Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 246,324 — 271,468 — Lema Colorados 123,279 50.0 134,617 49.6 PC Batllista 95,995 39.0 106,693 39.3 PC Gral. Rivera 14,460 5.9 16,302 6.0 Unión Colorada de Durazno

– – 2,318 0.9

PC Radical 9,726 3.9 8,436 3.1 Agr, Col, Batll, Libre – – 868 0.3 Listas coloradas 3,098 1.2 – –Lema Blancos 116,080 47.1 127,207 46.9

Uruguay 503

Year 1922 1925 (cont.) Total number % Total number % PN – – 122,530 45.1 PBR – – 4,677 1.7UC 2,787 1.1 2,999 1.1PS 997 0.4 1,794 0.7PCU 3,179 1.3 4,838 1.8UI 2 0.0 – –PAP – – 13 0.0

Year 1928 1931 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 382,217 – 419,271 –Votes cast — — — —Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 299,017 — 309,048 —Lema Colorados 144,070 48.2 151,791 49.1 PC Batllista 88,553 29.6 110,693 35.8 P. por la Tradicion Col.

21,814 7.3 13,831 4.5

PC Gral. Rivera 21,322 7.1 18,302 5.9 PC Radical 9,879 3.3 8,965 2.9 P. Concentración Col.

1,671 0.6 – –

Agr. Col. Juventud Riv.

831 0.3 – –

Lema Blancos 145,159 48.5 136,992 44.3 PN 140,940 47.1 133,625 43.2 PBR 4,219 1.4 3,367 1.1PCU 3,911 1.3 6,235 2.0PS 2,931 1.0 5,630 1.8UC 2,743 0.9 7,404 2.4PAP 199 0.0 151 0.0PR 4 0.0 – –Sind, Gente de Arte y Afines

– – 412 0.1

Agr, Militar Patria y Ejército

– – 244 0.1

Others – – 189 0.1

Uruguay504

Year 1934 1938 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 422,865 – 636,171 –Votes cast — — — —Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 249,125 — 375,771 —Lema Colorados 139,832 56.1 219,362 58.4 PC Batllista 110,330 44.3 – – Por la Tradicion Col. 6,158 2.5 – – PC Gral. Rivera 23,344 9.4 – –Lema Blancos 92,903 37.3 122,440 32.6 PN 91,608 36.8 114,564 30.5 P. Saravista 1,295 0.5 7,876 2.1PCU 3,634 1.5 5,736 1.5PS 5,849 2.3 13,152 3.5UC 6,878 2.8 14,802 3.9PR 29 0.0 – –P. Indep. Feminista – – 122 0.0P. Autóct. Negro – – 87 0.0P. La Concordancia – – 69 0.0P. M. Pacheco y Obes – – 1 0.0

Year 1942 1946 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 858,713 – 993,892 – Votes cast — — — —Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 575,700 — 670,229 — PC 328,596 57.1 310,556 46.3Lema Blancos 199,265 34.6 271,037 40.4 PN 132,235 23.0 208,088 31.0 PNI 67,030 11.6 62,949 9.4PDS – – 5,081 0.8UC 24,433 4.2 35,147 5.2PS 9,036 1.6 15,731 2.3PCU 14,330 2.5 32,677 4.9P. La Concordancia 40 0.0 – –

Uruguay 505

Year 1950 1954 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,168,206 – 1,295,502 –Votes cast — — — —Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 828,403 — 879,242 —PC 433,628 52.3 444,429 50.5PN 254,788 30.8 309,818 35.2PNI 62,686 7.6 32,341 3.7UC 36,093 4.4 44,255 5.0PCU 19,026 2.3 19,541 2.2PS 17,400 2.1 28,704 3.3PDS 4,711 0.6 – –Others 71 0.0 154 0.0

Year 1958 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,410,105 – 1,528,239 – Votes cast — — — —Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 1,005,362 — 1,171,020 — PC 379,062 37.7 521,231 44.5PN 499,425 49.7 545,029 46.5UC 37,625 3.7 – – PCU 27,080 2.7 – – PS 35,478 3.5 – – UDR 19,979 2.0 – – PMR 6,325 0.7 – – FIdeLa – – 40,886 3.5UP – – 27,041 2.3PDC – – 35,703 3.0 Others 388 0.0 1,130 0.1a Frente Izquierda de Liberación, formed by Communists and allies; their acronym coincides with the first name of the Cuban Revolution’s leader, Fidel Castro.

Uruguay506

Year 1966 1971 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,658,368 – 1,878,132 –Votes cast — — 1,726,049 91.9 Invalid votes — — 48,647a 2.8b

Valid votes 1,231,762 — 1,664,119c 96.4PC 607,633 49.3 681,624 41.0PN 496,910 40.3 668,822 40.2FIdeL 69,750 5.7 – – PDC 37,219 3.0 – – FA (lema PDC)d – – 304,275 18.3PS 11,559 0.9 – –UP 2,655 0.2 69,474d 4.2MCCe 4,230 0.3 8,844 0.5Others 1,806 0.1 554 0.3a Official figure; the correct figure resulting from the substraction would be 61,930. b Official figure. The correct result is 3.6%. c The vote shares of the parties add up to 1,733,593. d In 1971, FIdeL was founded as a coalition comprising Communists and their allies, Socialists, Christian-Democrats, UP (one of the legal branches of the Tupamaros) and dissidents from the two traditional parties. In order to take advantage of the rule which allows different factions to accumulate votes, it took the name (lema) Partido Demócrata Cristiano. The PDC strictu sensuvoted with the Selma Michelini’s sector (Lista 99, former Colorado) within the sublema Frentedel Pueblo.e Dissident sector of the PDC which refused to be part of the party in 1966. Another group, the URC, split in 1971.

Year 1984 1989 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,197,503 – 2,319,022 – Votes cast 1,930,931 87.9 2,056,355 88.7 Invalid votes 44,569 3.2 85,769 4.2 Valid votes 1,886,756a 97.7 1,970,586 95.8 PC 777,701 41.2 596,964 30.3 PN 660,767 35.0 765,990 38.9 FA (lema PDC) 401,104 21.3 – – UC 46,241 2.5 – – FA – – 418,403 21.2 NE – – 177,453 9.0 PV – – 10,835 0.5 Others 943 0.0 941 0.0 a The number of valid votes is 1,886,362 if invalid votes are subtracted from votes cast. 1,886,756 is the sum of party vote shares.

Uruguay 507

Year 1994 1999 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,330,154 – 2,402,160 – Votes cast 2,130,618 91.4 2,204,884 91.8 Invalid votes 101,337 4.8 57,735 2.6 Valid votes 2,029,281a 95.2 2,147,149 97.4 PC 656,426 32.3 703,915 32.8 PN 633,384 31.1 478,980 22.3 FA–EP 621,226 30.8 861,202 40.1NE 104,773 5.2 97,943 4.6 Others 13,470 0.6 5,109b 0.2 a The sum of party votes in 1994 is 2,029,279. b In 1999, others include: UC (5,109).

Year 2004a Total number % Registered voters 2,487,816 – Votes cast 2,229,583 89.6 Invalid votes 21,541 1.0 Blank votes 31,031 1.4 Valid votes 2,177,169 97.6 FA–EP 1,124,761 51.7 PN 764,739 35.1 PC 231,036 10.6 PI 41,011 1.9 Others 56,503 2.6 a The numbers listed correspond to the official figures. However, neither do the parties’ shares add up to the number of valid votes, nor does the sum of valid, blank, and invalid votes equal the number of votes cast.


Year 1934a 1938 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 422,865 – 636,171 –Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 221,203 — 361,923 —PC 125,981 57.0 219,375 60.6PN 91,585 41.4 114,571 31.7PCU 3,637 1.6 – –UC – – 14,802 4.1PS – – 13,175 3.6a Before 1934, senators were elected indirectly.

Uruguay508

Year 1942 1946 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 858,713 – 993,892 –Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 574,703 — 670,061 —PC 328,599 57.2 310,390 46.3PN 131,235 22.8 208,085 31.1PNI 67,030 11.7 62,950 9.4PCU 14,330 2.5 32,677 4.9UC 24,433 4.3 35,147 5.2PS 9,036 1.6 – –PDS – – 5,081 0.8PSU – – 15,731 2.3Others 40 0.0 – –

Year 1950 1954 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,168,206 – 1,295,502 – Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 838,288 — 879,242 — PC 443,440 52.9 444,429 50.5 PN 254,834 30.4 309,818 35.2 PNI 62,701 7.5 32,341 3.7 UC 36,100 4.3 44,255 5.0 PCU 19,026 2.3 19,541 2.2 PSU 17,401 2.1 28,704 3.3 PDS 4,715 0.6 – – Others 71 0.0 154 0.0

Year 1958 1962 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,410,105 – 1,528,239 –Votes cast — — — — Invalid votes — — — — Valid votes 1,005,362 — 1,171,018 —PC 379,062 37.7 521,231 44.5PN 499,425 49.7 545,027 46.5UC 37,625 3.7 – – UDRa 19,979 2.0 – – PDC – – 35,703 3.0PCU 27,080 2.7 – – PS 35,478 3.5 – – FIdeLb – – 40,886 3.5

Uruguay 509

Year (continued) 1958 1962 Total number % Total number % UP – – 27,041 2.3Others 6,713 0.7 1,130 0.1a Communists and allies. b In 1962 FIdeL included Socialists and a dissident sector of the PN.

Year 1966 1971 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,658,368 – 1,878,132 –Votes cast — — 1,726,049 91.9 Invalid votes — — 48,647a 2.8b

Valid votes 1,231,762 — 1,664,119 96.4PC 607,633 49.3 681,624 41.0PN 496,910 40.3 668,822 40.2PDC 37,219 3.0 – – PS 11,559 0.9 – – FIdeL 69,750 5.7 – – UP 2,655 0.2 – – FA (lema PDC) – – 304,275 18.3URC – – 8,844 0.5Others 6,036 0.5 554 0.0a Official figure. The correct figure after the sustraction would be 61,930. b Official figure. The correct result is 3.6%.

Year 1984 1989 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,197,503 – 2,319,022 – Votes cast 1,930,931 87.9 2,056,355 88.7 Invalid votes 44,569 2.3 85,769 4.2 Valid votes 1,886,362a 97.7 1,970,586 95.8 PC 777,701 41.0 596,964 30.3 PN 660,767 35.1 765,990 38.9 FA (lema PDC) 401,104 21.3 – – UC 46,241 2.5 – – FA – – 418,403 21.2 NE – – 177,453 9.0 PV – – 10,835 0.5 Others 943 0.1 941 0.0 a Official figure, which does not coincide with the figure obtained when the parties’s votes are added up (1,886,756).

Uruguay510

Year 1994 1999 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 2,330,154 – 2,402,160 – Votes cast 2,130,618 91.4 2,204,884 91.8 Invalid votes 101,337 4.8 57,735 2.6 Valid votes 2,029,281a 95.2 2,147,149 97.4 PC 656,426 32.3 703,915 32.8 PN 633,384 31.1 478,980 22.3 FA–EP 621,226 30.8 861,202 40.1 NE 104,773 5.2 97,943 4.6 Others 13,470 0.6 5,109b 0.2 a The sum of party votes in 1994 is 2,029,279 b Others include: UC (5,109).

Year 2004a Total number % Registered voters 2,487,816 – Votes cast 2,229,583 89.6 Invalid votes 21,541 1.0 Blank votes 31,031 1.4 Valid votes 2,177,169 97.6 FA–EP 1,124,761 51.7 PN 764,739 35.1 PC 231,036 10.6 PI 41,011 1.9 Others 56,503 2.6 a Official figures. However, neither do the parties’ shares add up to the number of valid votes, nor does the sum of valid, blank, and invalid votes equal the number of votes cast.

Uruguay 511



Year 1919 1922 1925 Seats % Seats % Seats % 123 100.0 123 100.0 123 100.0 PC 64 52.0 63 51.2 63 51.2 PC Battlista 40 32.5 49 39.8 – – PC Gral. Rivera 9 7.3 8 6.5 7 5.7 Unión Colorada 7 5.7 – – – – PC Bandera Colorada (vieristas)

7 5.7 5 4.1 – –

P. Colorado – – – – 51 41.5 PC Radical – – – – 4 3.3 Unión Colorada de Durazno – – – – 1 0.8 Others 1 0.8 1 0.8 – –PN 56 45.5 58 47.2 56 45.5PS 2 1.6 – – – – PCU – – 1 0.8 1 0.8PBR – – – – 2 1.6UC 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8

Year 1928 1931 1934 Seats % Seats % Seats % 123 100.0 123 100.0 99 100.0 PC 59 48.0 60 48.8 55 55.5 PC 37 30.1 45 36.6 43 43.4 PC Gral. Rivera 9 7.3 7 5.7 10 10.1 PC por la Tradición Colorada

9 7.3 5 4.1 2 2.0

PC Radical 4 3.3 3 2.4 – –PN 60 48.8 55 44.7 39 39.4PBR 1 0.8 1 0.8 – –UC 1 0.8 3 2.4 2 2.0PS 1 0.8 2 1.6 2 2.0PUC 1 0.8 2 1.6 1 1.0

Uruguay512

Year 1938 1942 1946 Seats % Seats % Seats % 99 100.0 99 100.0 99 100.0 PC 64 64.6 58 58.6 47 47.5 Para Servir al País (Baldomir)

33 33.3 – – – –

Viva Terra (Acevedo) 31 31.3 – – – – Batllismo – – 34 34.3 – – Libertad y Justicia – – 14 14.1 – – Para Servir al País – – 8 8.1 – – Por la Patria – – 1 1.0 – – Depto. de Paysandú – – 1 1.0 – – PN 29 29.3 23 23.2 31 31.3 PS 3 3.0 1 1.0 2 2.0 UC 2 2.0 4 4.0 5 5.1 PCU 1 1.0 2 2.0 5 5.1PNI – – 11 11.1 9 9.1

Year 1950 1954 1958 Seats % Seats % Seats % 99 100.0 99 100.0 99 100.0 PC 53 53.5 51 51.5 38 38.5 Batllismo 41 41.4 – – – – Libertad y Justicia 12 12.1 3 3.0 – – Lista 15 – – 33 33.3 26 26.3 Lista 14 – – 15 15.2 12 12.2 PN 31 31.3 35 35.4 51 51.5 Mov. Popular Nacionalista – – 12 12.1 – – Reconstrucción Blanca – – 1 1.0 – – Herrerismo – – 22 22.2 24 24.2 Unión Blanca Democrática – – – – 25 25.3 Nacionalismo Intransigente – – – – 2 2.0 PS 2 2.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 UC 4 4.0 5 5.1 3 3.0 PCU 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 PNI 7 7.1 3 3.0 – –UDR – – – – 2 2.0

Uruguay 513

Year 1962 1966 1971 Seats % Seats % Seats % 99 100.0 99 100.0 99 100.0 PC 44 44.4 50 50.5 41 41.4 Por la Unión del Partido 28 28.3 – – – – Unión Colorado y Batllista 7 7.1 – – – – Unión Colorado y Batllista 2 2.0 – – – – Por el Gobierno del Pueblo 7 7.1 – – – – Unión Colorado y Ballista (Gestido/Pacheco)

– – 25 25.3 – –

Unidad y Reforma (Batlle/Lacarte)

– – 18 18.2 – –

Por el Gobierno del Pueblo (Vasconcellos/Rodriguez)

– – 5 5.1 – –

Por la Defensa del Batllismos (Michelini/Lanza)

– – 2 2.0 – –

Unión Naciobal Reeleccionista (Bordaberry)

– – – – 28 28.3

Unidad y Reforma (Batlle) – – – – 12 12.1 Por la Unión del Partido (Vasconcelos)

– – – – 1 1.0

PN 47 47.5 41 41.4 40 40.4 Unión Blanca Democrática 20 20.2 – – – – Herrera – Por la Reforma 20 20.2 – – – – Herrera (Haedo) 5 5.1 – – – – Acción Blanca 2 2.0 – – – – Herrerismo–Ruralismo (Echegoyen/Ortiz)

– – 19 19.2 – –

Unión Blanca Democrática (Gallinal/Zaballos)

– – 14 14.1 – –

Herrerismo (Heber/Storace) – – 8 8.1 – – Por la Patria/MNR (Ferreira) – – – – 30 30.3 Herrerismo (Aguerrondo) – – – – 10 10.1 FideL 3 3.0 5 5.1 – – PDC 3 3.0 3 3.0 – – FA (lema PDC) 2 2.0 – – 18 18.2 Democristianos – – – – 7 7.1 Comunistas y aliados – – – – 4 4.0 Colorados Disidentes (Por el Gobierno del Pueblo)

– – – – 1 1.0

UP/Pro–tupamaro 2 2.0 – – 5 5.1 PS – – – – 1 1.0

Uruguay514

Year 1984 1989 Seats % Seats % 99 100.0 99 100.0 PC 41 41.4 30 30.3 Batllismo Unido 35 35.4 – – Unión Colorada y Batllista 6 6.1 – – Batllistas – – 17 17.2 Pachequistas – – 13 13.1 PN 35 35.4 39 39.4 Por la Patria 30a 30.3 1 1.0 Movimiento Nacional de Rocha

–a – 12 12.1

Consejo Nacional Herrerista 4 4.0 – – Herrerismo 1 1.0 23 23.2 Renovación y Victoria – – 3 3.0 FA (lema PDC) 21 21.2 – –UC 2 2.0 – –FA – – 21 21.2 Democracia Avanzada – – 11 11.1 PS – – 5 5.1 Vertiente Artigusta – – 3 3.0 Movimiento Participación Popular

– – 2 2.0

NE – – 9 9.1 PGP – – 8 8.1 PDC – – 1 1.0 a Por la Patria and Movimiento Nacional de Rocha formed an electoral coalition.

Uruguay 515

Year 1994 1999 2004 Seats % Seats % Seats % 99 100.0 99 100.0 99 100.0 PC 32 32.3 33 33.3 10 10.1 Foro Batllista 24 24.3 – – – – P por el Gobierno del Pueblo 1 1.0 – – – – Batllismo Radical 2 2.0 – – – – Sector Vaillant 1 1.0 – – – – UCB 1 1.0 – – – – Cruzada 94 3 3.0 – – – – PN 31 31.3 22 22.2 34 34.3 Sector Alberto Volonté 16 16.2 – – – – Renovación y Victoria 1 1.0 – – – – MNR 2 2.0 – – – – Herrerismo 12 12.1 – – – – FA-EP 31 31.3 40 40.4 53 53.5 Asamblea Uruguay 17 17.2 – – – – Espacio 90 7 7.1 – – – – Vertiente Artiguista 2 2.0 – – – – PC 2 2.0 – – – – MPP 2 2.0 – – – – EP 1 2.0 – – – – NE 5 5.1 4 4.0 – – PI – – – – 2 2.0


Year 1934a 1938a 1942 Seats % Seats % Seats % 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 PN 15 50.0 15 50.0 7 23.3 PC 15 50.0 15 50.0 19 63.3 Por la Victoria (Batllismo Terrista)

13 43.3 – – – –

Gral. Rivera 2 6.7 – – – – Batllismo – – – – 10 33.3 Libertad y Justicia – – – – 4 13.3 Por Servir el País – – – – 4 13.3 Por la Patria (Riveristas) – – – – 1 3.3 PNI – – – – 3 10.0 UC – – – – 1 3.3

Uruguay516

a According to a constitutional regulation the senate was formed by parlamentarians of the two most successful lemas in equal proportion.

Year 1946 1950 1954 Seats % Seats % Seats % 30 100.0 30 100.0 31 100.0 PC 15 50.0 17 56.7 17 54.8 Batllismo 9 30.0 12 40.0 – – Batllismo Lista 15 – – – – 10 32.3 Batllismo Lista 14 – – – – 6 19.4 Libertad y Justicia 4 13.3 – – 1 3.2 Para Servir al País 2 6.7 5 16.7 – – PN 10 33.3 10 33.3 11 35.5 Herrera – – – – 6 19.4 Mov. Popular Nacionalista – – – – 4 12.9 Reconstrucción Blanca – – – – 1 3.2 PNI 3 10.0 2 6.7 1 3.2 Con nuestras ideas, con nuestras hombres

– – 1 3.3 – –

Reconstrucción Blanca – – 1 3.3 – – UC 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.2 PCU 1 3.3 – – – –PS – – – – 1 3.2

Year 1958 1962 1966 Seats % Seats % Seats % 31 100.0 31 100.0 30 100.0 PC 12 38.7 14 45.2 16 53.3 Batllismo 7 22.6 8 25.8 6 20.0 Por las ideas de Batlle 5 16.1 – – – – Unión Colorada y Ballista Lista C, Batlle

– – 3 9.7 – –

Lista Bautista López Toledo – – 1 3.2 – – Por el Desarrollo y la Justicia Social

– – – – 7 23.3

Por el Gobierno del Pueblo – – 2 6.5 1 3.3 Por la Defensa del Batllismo – – – – 2 6.7 PN 17 54.8 15 48.4 13 43.3 Herrera 9 29.0 – – – – Unión Blanca Democrática 8 25.8 7 22.6 – – Lista Echegoyen – – 6 19.4 – – L.A. de Herrera (Lista Haeda) – – 2 6.5 – – UC 1 3.2 – – – –PS 1 3.2 – – – –PDC – – 1 3.2 – –FIdeL – – 1 3.2 1 3.3

Uruguay 517

Year 1971 1984 1989 Seats % Seats % Seats % 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 PC 13 43.3 13 43.3 9 30.0 Batllismo 5 16.7 – – – – Unión Nacional Reeleccionaria

7 23.3 – – – –

Por la Unión del Partido 1 3.3 – – – – Batllismo Unido – – 8 26.7 – – Integración Batllista – – 1 3.3 – – Corriente Ballista Independiente

– – 1 3.3 – –

Unión Colorado y Batllista – – 3 10.0 – – Batllismo (Batlle) – – – – 2 6.7 Batllismo (Sanguinetti) – – – – 3 10.0 UCB (Pacheco – Jude) – – – – 2 6.7 UCB (Pacheco – Millor) – – – – 2 6.7 PN 12 40.0 11 36.7 12 40.0 Defensores de las Leyes 8 26.7 – – – – Herrerismo – Ruralismo 2 6.7 – – – – Unidos a la Victoria 2 6.7 – – – – Por la Patria – – 5 16.7 1 3.3 Movimiento Nacional de Rocha

– – 3 10.0 4 13.3

Consejo Nacional Herrerista – – 2 6.7 – – Por la ruta de Herrera – – 1 3.3 – – Renovación y Victoria – – – – 2 6.7 Herreristas – – – – 5 16.7 FA (lema PDC) 5 16.7 3 10.0 – – Patria Grande 1 3.3 – – – – FIdeL 2 6.7 – – – – Frente del Pueblo 2 6.7 – – – – PGP – – 3 10.0 – – FA – – 3 10.0 7 23.3 Democracia Avanzada – – 2 6.7 4 13.3 PS – – 1 3.3 2 6.7 Vertiente Artiguista – – – – 1 3.3 NE (PGP) – – – – 2 6.7

Uruguay518

Year 1994 1999 2004 Seats % Seats % Seats % 31 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 PC 11 35.5 10 33.3 3 10.0 PGP 1 3.2 – – – – Foro Batllista 7 22.6 – – – – Batllismo Radical 1 3.2 – – – – Cruzada 94 2 6.5 – – – – PN 10 32.2 7 23.3 10 33.3 Sector Volonté 5 16.1 – – – – MNR 1 3.2 – – – – Herrerismo 4 12.9 – – – – FA–EP 9 29.0 12 40.0 17 56.7 Asamblea Uruguay 5 16.1 – – – – PS 2 6.5 – – – – PC 1 3.2 – – – – MPP 1 3.2 – – – – NE (PGP) 1 3.2 1 3.3 – –

2.9 Presidential Elections

2.9.1 Consejo Nacional de Administración (National Administration Council) 1925–1932

1925 Total number % Registered voters 304,005 –Votes cast — —Invalid votes — —Valid votes 241,910 —PC 115,518 47.8 Contra el Servicio Militar (batllistas)

95,486 39.5

PC Gral, Rivera 16,133 6.7 Por la Pureza del Sufragio 2,818 1.2 Unión Col, de Durazno 1,038 0.4 al lema 43 0.0PC Radical 7,137 3.0PN 119,255 49.3

Uruguay 519

1926 Total number % Corrected by the Senatea

Registered voters 353,860 – — Votes cast — — — Invalid votes — — — Valid votes 289,131 — (289,253)PC 141,553 49.0 (141,579) Por el Triunfo Colorado (batllistas, riveristas y radicales)

97,475 33.7 —

Por la Tradición Colorada 43,929 15.3 — al lema 149 0.0 — PN 139,959 48.4 (140,055)PBR 3,844 1.3 — PCU 3,775 1.3 — a The figures in brackets are the corrections made by the senate in the final counting.

1928 Total number % Corrected by the Senate

Registered voters 382,817 – — Votes cast — — — Invalid votes — — — Valid votes 292,765a — (296,101) PC 143,280 48.9 (144,912) Por los Ideales Batllistas 87,933 30.0 — Por el Triunfo y la Unión del P. Colorado

54,662 18.7 —

Comité Dptal, Col, Batllismo José Batlle y Ordóñez

598 0.2 —

al lema 87 0.0 — PN 141,055 48.2 (142,729) PBR 3,715 1.3 — PCU 3,791 1.3 — UC 954 0.3 — a If all party votes are added up, the sum is 292,795.

1930 Total Number % Corrected by the Senate

Registered voters 398,169 – — Votes cast — — — Invalid votes — — — Valid votes 317,293a — (318,064) PC 165,069 52.1 (165,827) Por la Victoria 136,832 43.2 — F. Rivera 28,882 9.1 — al lema 113 0.0 —

Uruguay520

1930(cont.)

Total Number % Corrected by the Senate

PN 149,339 47.2 (150,642) PCU 2,243 0.7 (2,291) a If all party votes are added up, the sum is 316,651. Furthermore, the sublema votes do not equal the votes for the PC.

1932 Total number % Registered voters 431,192 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 160,625 — PC 107,664 67.0 Por la Victoria del Batllismo 85,106 53.0 P. Por la Tradición 11,388 7.1 PC Radical 11,073 6.9 al lema 97 0.1 PN 41,908 26.1 Por el Sufragio, por la democracia económica

37,872 23.6

Agrup. Pop. 3,828 2.4 al lema 208 0.1 PCU 5,227 3.3 PS 5,826 3.6

2.9.2 Presidential Elections 1926–1950

1926 Total number % Registered voters 353,860 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 289,255 — PC 141,581a 48.9 Por el Triunfo Col, (batllistas, riveristas y radicales)

97,475 33.7

Por la Tradición 43,929 15.2 al lema 149 0.1 PN 140,055 48.4 PBR 3,844 1.3 PCU 3,775 1.3 a The sublema votes (141,553) do not equal the votes for PC.

Uruguay 521

1930 Total number % Corrected by the Senate

Registered voters 398,169 – — Votes cast — — — Invalid votes — — — Valid votes 317,343a — (318,760) PC 165,069 52.0 (165,827) Por la Victoria (Fórmula Gabriel Terra)

136,832 43.1 —

F. Rivera (Fórmula Manini Ríos) 28,882 9.1 — al lema 113 0.0 — PN 149,997 47.3 (150,642) PCU 2,227 0.7 (2,291) a Sum of party votes (317,293) is less than number of valid votes and sum of sublema votes is not equal to the PC’s share.

1938 Total number % Registered voters 636,171 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 357,205 — PC 219,311 61.4 Baldomir-Charlone 121,259 33.9 Blanco Acevedo-Martínez Thedy 97,998 27.4 al lema 54 0.0 PN 114,506 32.1 P. Concentración Patriótica 6,487 1.8 P. Por las Libertades Públicas 16,901 4.7

1942 Total number % Registered voters 858,713 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 574,703 — PC 328,599a 57.2 Amézaga/Guani 234,127 40.7 Blanco Acevedo/Vilaró Rubio 74,767 13.0 Williman/Mermot 670 0.1 al lema 66 0.0 PN 131,235 22.8 Herrera/Berro 129,132 22.5 Turena/Olivera 1,384 0.2 Turena/Saraiva 667 0.1 al lema 52 0.0 PNI 67,030 11.7

Uruguay522

1942 (cont.) Total number % UC 24,433 4.3 PCU 14,330 2.5 PS 9,036 1.6 Others 40 0.0 a The sum of the PC’s candidates’ shares equals 309,630.

1946 Total number % Registered voters 993,892 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 649,405 — PC 310,496 47.8 Berreta/Batlle 185,715 28.6 Schiaffino/Castellanos 83,534 12.9 Baldomir/Mussio Fournier 40,875 6.3 al lema 372 0.0 PN 208,120 32.0 Herrera/Echegoyen 205,923 31.7 Muñoz/Fontella 557 0.1 Muñoz/Durán 1,479 0.2 al lema 161 0.0 PNI 62,955 9.7 UC 35,154 5.4 PCU 32,680 5.0

1950 Total number % Registered voters 1,168,206 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 823,829 — PC 433,454a 52.6 Martínez Trueba/Brum 162,262 19.7 Mayo Gutiérrez/Batlle Pacheco 195,930 23.8 Blanco Acevedo/Giambruno 120,949 14.7 PN 254,834 30.9 Herrera/Echegoyen 253,077 30.7 Estradé/Arróspide 1,421 0.2 al lema 396 0.0 PNI Delgado/Roldán 62,701 7.6 UC 36,100 4.4 PCU 19,026 2.3 PS 17,401 2.1 Othersb 313 0.0

Uruguay 523

a Sum of PC candidates’ vote shares equals 479,141, the sum of PN candidates’vote shares is 254,894. The last five parties should be subsumed in ‘others’ and then listed in a footnote. b Others include: PDS (242 votes); P. La Concordancia (38 votes); P. Liberal (23 votes); P. Por la Defensa de los Derechos (6 votes); P. del Pueblo (4 votes).

2.9.3 Consejo Nacional de Gobierno (National Government Council) 1954–1962

1954 Total number % Seats Registered voters 1,295,502 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 879,242 — PC 444,429 50.6 6 Batllismo Lista 15 254,648 29.0 – Batllismo Lista 14 180,164 20.5 – Libertad y Justicia 9,292 1.1 – al lema 325 0.0 – PN 309,818a 35.2 3 Herrerismo 160,738 18.3 – Mov. Pop. Nacionalista 112,124 12.7 – Reconstrucción Blanca 36,818 4.2 – PNI 32,341 3.7 –UC 44,255 5.0 –PS 28,704 3.3 –PCU 19,541 2.2 –Others 154 0.0 –a Sum of PN sublemas’ vote shares is 309,680.

1958 Total number % Seats Registered voters 1,410,105 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,005,362 — PC 379,062 37.7 3 PN 499,425 49.7 6 UC 37,625 3.7 – PS 35,478 3.5 – PCU 27,080 2.7 – Others 26,692 2.7 –

Uruguay524

1962 Total number % Seats Registered voters 1,528,239 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,171,020 — PN 545,029 46.5 6 PC 521,231 44.5 3 FideL 40,886 3.5 – PDC 35,703 3.1 – UP 27,041 2.3 – Others 1,130 0.1 –

2.9.4 Presidential Elections 1966–1999

1966 Total number % Registered voters 1,658,368 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,231,762 — PC 607,633 49.3 Gestido/Pacheco 262,040 21.3 Batlle/Lacarte 215,642 17.5 Vasconcellos/Rodríguez 77,476 6.3 Michelini/Lanza 48,992 4.0 Aréchaga/Berchesi 4,064 0.3 al lema 389 0.0 PN 496,910 40.3 Echegoyen/Ortiz 228,309 18.5 Gallinal/Zeballos 171,618 13.9 Heber/Storace 96,772 7.9 al lema 211 0.0 PDC, Bidart/Saralegui 37,219 3.0 MCC, Chiarino/Flores 4,230 0.3 PS 11,559 0.9 Cardoso/Bernhard 7,892 0.6 Frugoni/Gavazzo 3,646 0.3 UP 2,655 0.2 FIdeL, Aguirre González/Pastorino 69,750 5.7 Others 1,806 0.1

Uruguay 525

1971 Total number % Registered voters 1,878,132 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,664,119 — PC 681,624a 41.0 Bordaberry/Sapelli 379,515 22.8 Batlle/Rodríguez 242,804 14.6 Vasconcellos/Mora 48,844 2.9 Pintos/Torialli 5,402 0.3 Ribas/Gorlero 4,025 0.2 al lema 604 0.0 PN 668,822 40.2 Ferreira Aldunate/Pereyra 439,649 26.4 Aguerrondo/Heber 228,569 13.7 al lema 604 0.0 FA (lema PDC), Seregni/Crottogini 304,275 18.3 URC, Pérez/Saralegui 8,844 0.5 Others 554 0.0 a PC candidates’ vote shares add up to 681,194.

1984 Total number % Registered voters 2,200,086 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,886,756 — PC 777,701 41.2 Sanguinetti/Tarigo 588,143 31.2 Pacheco/Pirán 183,588 9.7 al lema 5,970 0.3 PN 660,767 35.0 Zumarán/Aguirre 553,193 29.3 Ortiz 76,014 4.0 Paysee/Maeso 21,903 1.2 al lema 9,657 0.5 FA (lema PDC), Crottogini/D’Eia 401,104 21.3 UC, J. U. Chiarino 46,241 2.5 Others 943 0.0

Uruguay526

1989 Total number % Registered voters 2,319,022 – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,970,586 — PN 765,990 38.9 Lacalle/Aguirre 444,839 22.6 Pereyra/Tourné 218,656 11.1 Zumarán/García Costa 101,046 5.1 al lema 1,449 0.1 PC 596,964 30.3 Batlle/Sanguinetti 291,944 14.8 Pacheco/Millor 289,222 14.7 Faingold/Vispo 14,482 0.7 al lema 1,316 0.0 FA, Seregni/Astori 418,403 21.2 NE (lema PGP), Batalla/Quijano 177,453 9.0 PV, Talice/Portillo 10,835 0.5 Othersa 941 0.0 a Others include: Partido Movimiento Justiciero (441 votes), Partido Convergencia (190 votes), Partido de los Trabajadores (30 votes).

1994 Total number % Registered voters 2,330,154 – Votes cast 2,130,618 91.4 Invalid votes 101,337 4.8 Valid votes 2,029,281a 95.2PC 656,426 32.3 Julio M. Sanguinetti 500,760 24.7 Jorge Batlle 102,551 5.1 Jorge Pacheco 51,935 2.6 PN 633,384 31.2 Alberto Volonté 301,655 14.9 Juan Andrés Ramírez 264,255 13.0 Carlos J. Pereyra 65,650 3.2 FA–EP, Tabaré Vázquez 621,226 30.6 NE, Rafael Michelini 104,773 5.2 Others 13,470 0.7 a Sum of individual shares is only 2,029,279. Moreover, candidates’ shares do not equal party shares.

Uruguay 527

1999a Total number % Registered voters 2,402,160 – Votes cast 2,204,884 91.8 Invalid votes 57,735 2.6 Valid votes 2,147,149 97.4 FA-EP, Tabaré Vázquez 861,202 40.1PC, Jorge Battle 703,915 22.3 PN, Luis Alberto Lacalle 478,980 32.8 NE, Rafael Michelini 97,943 4.6 Others 5,109b 0.2 a First round of presidential elections which is identical to the parliamentary elections. b Others include: UC (5,109 votes).

1999a Total number % Registered voters 2,402,135 – Votes cast 2,206,112 91.8 Invalid votes 65,626 3.0 Valid votes 2,140,486 97.0 Jorge Battle 1,158,708 54.1 Tabaré Vázquez 981,778 45.9 a Second round of presidential elections contested by the two most successful candidates of the first round, where none achieved an absolute majority.

2004 Total numbera %Registered voters 2,487,816 – Votes cast 2,229,583 89.6 Invalid votes 52,421 2.4 Valid votes 2,144,070 96.2 FA-EP, Tabaré Vázquez 1,124,761 51.7 PN, Jorge Larrañaga 764,739 35.1 PC, Guillermo Stirling 231,036 10.6 Others 56,503 2.6 a Official figures. However, neither do the candidates’ shares add up to the number of valid vo-tes, nor does the sum of valid and invalid votes equal the number of votes cast.

Uruguay528

2.10 List of Power Holders

2.10.1 List of Presidents 1919–2004

Head of State Years Remarks Baltasar Brum 1919–1923 José Serrato 1923–1927 Juan Campisteguy 1927–1931 Gabriel Terra 1931–1938

During this period the executive comprised two branches: the presidency with its Inte-rior, War, Navy and Foreign Affairs Mini-stries, and the Consejo Nacional de Administración (National Administration Council). The last president, Gabriel Terra, conducted a coup d’état, bringing back a unipersonal executive. Terra served as de facto president until 1934, and as constitu-tional president in a later period.

Alfredo Baldomir 1938–1942 Constitutional president. Juan José de Amézaga 1942–1946 Constitutional president. Tomás Berreta 1946 Died in office (2/8/1946). Luis Batlle Berres 1946–1950 Vice president. Served the remaining term. Andrés Martínez Trueba

1952–1955 With a new constitution from 1952 to 1966 the executive comprised a 9-member Na-tional Government Council. In 1966, a new constitutional regime reestablished the uni-personal executive.

Oscar D. Gestido 1967 Died in office in December 1967. Jorge Pacheco Areco 1967–1972 Vice president. Served the rest of the term. Juan M. Bordaberry 1972–1976 Coup d’état on 27/06/1973. Overthrown by

the armed forces in 1976. Alberto Demicheli 1976 President of the Consejo de Estado. Held

the interim presidential office. Aparicio Méndez 1976–1981 Elected by the Consejo de la Nación.Gregorio C. Alvarez 1981–1985 Elected by the Consejo de la Nación.Rafael Addiego 1985 Interim president (15 to 28/02). Julio Maria Sanguinetti

1985–1990 First elected president after the dictatorship. Governed according to the constitution.

Luis Alberto Lacalle 1990–1995 Constitutional president. Julio Maria Sanguinetti

1995–2000 Constitutional president.

Jorge Battle Ibanez 2000–2004 Constitutional president. Tabaré Vázquez 2004– Constitutional president. Won an absolute

majority in the first round.

Uruguay 529

2.10.2 Consejeros del Consejo Nacional de Administración (Members of the National Administration Council) 1925–1932

1925 Luis A. de Herrera (PN). Martín C. Martínez (PN). Gabriel Terra (PC Batllista)

1926 José Batlle y Ordóñez (PC Batllista). Luis Cancela (PC Batllista). Arturo Lussich (PN)

1928 Baltasar Brum (PC Batllista). Victoriano Martínez (PC Batllista). Ismael Cortinas (PN)

1930 Juan P. Fabini (PC Batllista). Tomás Berreta (PC Batllista). Alfredo García Montes (PN)

1932 Antonio Rubio (Batllismo). Andres Martínez (Batllismo). Gustavo Gallinal (PN)

Uruguay530

2.10.3 Consejeros del Consejo Nacional de Gobierno (Members of the National Government Council) 1952–1966

Andrés Martínez Trueba 1952–1954 Appointed by the parliament Luis Batlle Berres 1954–1958 PC BatllistaAlberto F. Zubiría PC BatllistaArturo Lezama PC BatllistaCarlos L. Fisher PC BatllistaJustino Zavala Muniz PC BatllistaZoilo A. Chelle PC BatllistaLuis A. Herrera PN Sublema HerreraRamón Viña PN Sublema HerreraDaniel Fernández Crespo

PN Sublema Mov. Pop. Nacionalista

Martín R. Echegoyen 1958–1962 PN Sublema HerreraBenito Nardone PN Sublema HerreraEduardo V. Haedo PN Sublema HerreraFaustino Harrison PN Sublema HerreraJusto M. Alonso PN Sublema HerreraPedro Zabalza PN Sublema HerreraManuel Rodríguez Correa

Sublema Batllismo Lista 15

Ledo Arroyo Torres Sublema Batllismo Lista 15 César Batlle Pacheco Sublema Batllismo Lista 14 Daniel Fernández Crespo

1962–1966 PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática

Luis Giannattasio PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática

Washington Beltrán PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática

Alberto Heber PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática

Carlos M. Penadés Unión Blanca Democrática Washington Guadalupe Unión Blanca Democrática; he resi-

gned and was replaced by Héctor Lo-renzo y Losada

Luis Batlle Berres PC Sublema Batllismo; he did not as-sume office; Alberto Abdala assumed it in his place.

Amílcar Vasconcellos PC Sublema BatllismoOscar D. Gestido Sublema Unión Col. y Batllista

Uruguay 531

3. Bibliography


Corte Electora/Sección Estadística (1989). Elecciones generales de 26 de noviembre de 1989. Montevideo.

Dirección General de Estadística y Censos (1970). Boletín Estadístico.


Acevedo, E. (1934). Anales históricos del Uruguay, Vol. I–VI. Montevideo. Aguiar, C. and Argenti, G. (1983). Elecciones uruguayas: Un marco de

análisis preliminar. Montevideo: CIEDUR. Balbis, J. (1984). ‘Los resultados en cifras. 1948–1982’. Cuadernos del

CLAEH (Montevideo) 31: 101–114.Biles, E. R. (1972). Patronage Politics: Electoral Behaviour in Uruguay.

Baltimore, Md./ London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Bottinelli, O. (1986). ‘Dilemas de la reforma electoral’, in D. Nohlen and J.

Rial (eds.), Reforma electoral. Deseable, posible? Montevideo: FE-SUR/EBO.

Botinelli, O., Nohlen, D., and Rial, J. (1990). ‘Uruguay: Sistema electoral y resultados electorales’, in Lateinamerikaforschung, Arbeitspapier 3. Heidelberg.

Cocchi, A. (1986). La legislación electoral vigente: Desarrollo histórico y estructura actual. Montevideo.

— (ed.) (1988). Reforma electoral y voluntad política. Montevideo: FESUR/EBO.

Corlazzoli, J. P. (1984). ‘Les “Elections Primaires” en Uruguay de Novembre 1982’, in D. Nohlen (ed.), Wahlen und Wahlpolitik in Lateinamerika.Heidelberg: Esprint, 215–243.

Crespo, I., Mieres, P., and Pérez, R. (1991). ‘Uruguay. De la quiebra institu-cional a la presidencia de Lacalle (1971–1991)’. Revista de Estudios Políticos (Nueva Época) 74: 297–321.

Equipos-Consultores Asociados – Sistema de Estudios de Opinión Pública. (Base de datos 84–85–86). Opinión de los Montevideanos sobre el sistema electoral. Montevideo.

Fabregat, J. T. (1950–1971). Elecciones uruguayas. Montevideo: Corte Electoral. — (1950). Elecciones uruguayas (Febrero de 1925 a Noviembre de 1946).

Montevideo: Poder Legislativo. — (1957). Elecciones uruguayas (Noviembre de 1950 a Noviembre de 1954).

Montevideo: Cámara de Representantes. — (1962). Elecciones uruguayas (Elecciones de 30 de noviembre de 1958).

Montevideo: Cámara de Senadores.

Uruguay532

— (1964). Elecciones uruguayas (Elecciones del 25 de noviembre de 1962).Montevideo: Cámara de Senadores.

— (1968). Elecciones uruguayas (Plebiscito y elecciones de noviembre 27 de 1966). Montevideo: Cámara de Senadores.

— (1967). Organización cívico electoral del Uruguay. Montevideo. Filgueira, C. and Filgueira, F. (1998). ‘Coaliciones reticentes. Sistema electoral,

partidos y reforma estructural en el Uruguay’, in D. Nohlen and M. Fer-nández (eds.), El presidencialismo renovado. Instituciones y cambio políti-co en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad, 287–308.

Finch, H. (1991). ‘Uruguay since 1930’, in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–232.

Franco, R. and Cisa, A. (1977). ‘Breve historia del sistema electoral uruguayo’, in Cuadernos CIESU 19. Montevideo.

Franco, R. (1985). Democracia a la uruguaya. Un análisis electoral del período 1925–1984. Montevideo: El libro libre.

— (ed.) (1986). El sistema electoral uruguayo: Peculiaridades y perspecti-vas. Montevideo.

— (1987). ‘Los sistemas electorales y su impacto politico’, in Cuadernos del CAPEL 20. San José de Costa Rica.

Gillespie, C. G. (1986). ‘Activists and Floating Voters: The Unheeded Lessons of Uruguay's 1982 Primaries’, in P. W. Drake and E. Silva (eds.), Elections and Democratization in Latin America. 1980–1985. San Diego, 215–244.

— (1991). Negotiating Democracy: Politicians and Generals in Uruguay.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 178–207.

González, L. A. (1986). ‘El doble voto simultáneo y la ley de lemas’, in R. Franco (ed.), El sistema electoral uruguayo: Peculiaridades y perspectivas. Montevideo.

— (1991). Political Structures and Democracy in Uruguay. Notre Dame. — (1995). ‘Continuity and Change in the Uruguayan Party System’, in S.

Mainwaring and T. Scully (eds.), Building Democratic Institutions. Par-ty Systems in Latin America. Stanford, 138–163.

Gros Espiell, H. and Arteaga, J. J. (1991). Esquema de la evolución constitu-cional de Uruguay. Montevideo.

Handelman, H. (1986). ‘Prelude to Elections: The Military's Legitimacy Cri-sis and the 1980 Constitutional Plebiscite in Uruguay’, in P. W. Drake and E. Silva (eds.), Elections and Democratization in Latin America. 1980–1985. San Diego, 201–214.

Kerbusch, E.-J. (1971). Das uruguayische Regierungssystem. Der Zweite Co-legiado 1952–1967. Köln.

Uruguay 533

Lauga, M. (1998). ‘La reforma constitucional uruguaya de 1996’, in D. Nohlen and M. Fernández (eds.), El presidencialismo renovado. Instituciones y cambio político en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad, 309–324.

Lindahl, G. (1962). Uruguay's New Path. A Study in Politics During the First Colegiado 1919–1933. Stockholm.

McDonald, R. (1972). ‘Electoral Politics and Uruguayan Political Decay’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 26/1: 25–45.

Mieres P. (1988). ¿Cómo votan los uruguayos? Las elecciones de 1984.Montevideo: CLAEH/EBO.

Neschen, J. (1971). Uruguay. Besonderheiten eines Verfassungssystems. Münster. Nohlen, D. (1971). ‘Politischer Wandel durch Wahlen: Der Fall Uruguay’, in

Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 48: 3–22.— (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios

Constitucionales. — (1998). ‘Sistemas electorales parlamentarios y presidenciales’, in D. Nohlen, S.

Picado, D. Zovatto (eds.), in Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 145–185.

Nohlen, D. and Rial, J. (eds.) (1986). Reforma electoral. Deseable. Posible?Montevideo: FESUR/EBO.

Pérez Pérez, A. (1970). La ley de lemas. Contenido. Alcance. Inconvenientes. Sugerencias para su reforma. Montevideo: Fundación de Cultura Universitaria.

Rama, G. W. (1987). La democracia en Uruguay. Una perspectiva de inter-pretación. Buenos Aires: GEL.

Rial, J. (1986). ‘The Uruguayan Elections of 1984: A Triumph for the Cen-ter’, in P. W. Drake and E. Silva (eds.), Elections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980–1985. San Diego, 245–272.

Rial, J. and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Elecciones y democracia en América Latina, 1992–1996. San José: IIDH/CAPEL.

Rouquié, A. (1973). L’Uruguay de M. Pacheco à M. Bordaberry. Les élections de novembre et les débuts de la présidence Bordaberry. Paris.

Solari, A. (1986). ‘El sistema de partidos y régimen electoral en el Uruguay’, in R. Franco (ed.), in El sistema electoral uruguayo: Peculiaridades y perspectives (Montevideo), 1: 117–150.

Taylor, P. B. (1955). ‘The Electoral System in Uruguay’. Journal of Politics,17/1: 19–42.

Thibaut, B. (1996). Präsidentialismus und Demokratie in Lateinamerika. Ar-gentinien, Brasilien, Chile und Uruguay im historischen Vergleich. Op-laden: Leske + Budrich.

Venturini, A. R. (1989). Estadísticas Electorales 1917–1982. Montevideo: EBO. — (1989). Estadísticas Electorales, Elecciones Nacionales 1926–1982,

Elecciones Internas 1982. Montevideo: EBO.

Uruguay534

Weinstein, M. (1995). ‘Uruguay: The Legislature and the Reconstitution of Democracy’, in D. Close (ed.), in Legislatures and the New Democra-cies in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Rienner, 137–150.

VENEZUELAby José Molina and Bernard Thibaut

1. Introduction


Venezuela was a rather marginal colony in its early years and only ac-quired importance in the 19th century, from both an economic and ad-ministrative point of view. This development happened systematically within a plantation-based economy (cacao, indigo, cotton, coffee, sugar cane).

The long and costly wars of independence began in 1810. They were marked by the ethnic and social conflicts arising from the considerable number of slaves among the population, and ended with Venezuela’s in-dependence from Spain and the foundation of Great Colombia. Vene-zuela finally split from Great Colombia and declared itself an independent republic on 22 September 1830.

The constitution of 1811 was the first in Latin America. It provided for a tripartite executive, a two-chamber legislature, and a federal state. The 1830 Constitution, however, established a strong, one-person presi-dential system whilst maintaining a two-chamber legislative system. De-spite the introduction of constitutional amendments up to 1999, the basic political structure set up by this constitution remained in force. That same year, a new constitution established a unicameral national assem-bly to replace the two-chamber congress. Few of the 24 Venezuelan constitutions enacted before 1961 were relevant to the development of an effective political process. Before 1958, Venezuela had scarcely en-joyed eight years of civilian governments, and only a brief period of democracy (1945–1948).

The dissolution of Great Colombia was followed by the so-called Conservative Oligarchy (1830–1847), led by General Juan Antonio Páez. During this period, Caracas became the center of political decisi-on-making and the nucleus of economic activity, based on the exportati- The authors would like to thank Carlos Huneeus who contributed to an earlier version of this

study with his work on political and electoral developments in Venezuela in the 19th century.

Venezuela536

on of coffee and cacao. As the landholding sector in the inland areas be-gan to lose power this resulted in a center-periphery cleavage, which would be responsible for the country’s unstable political development throughout the 19th century. The 1840s witnessed the revival of violent conflicts between the landowning sector, organized around the PartidoLiberal (Liberal Party), and Caracas’ conservative trade-oriented elite, which controlled central government. The constitution of 1858 recogni-zed a principle included in the constitution of 1857, namely the centrali-zation of the state. It was also the first constitution to grant universal and direct suffrage to men. Nevertheless, the first truly democratic, univer-sal, and direct elections were held as late as 1946, when a constituent assembly was elected.

The conflict between Liberals and Conservatives together with the numerous social rebellions led to the so-called Federal Wars (1859–1863). The civil war was followed by a revolution, as a result of which the traditional oligarchy lost its property to the victorious military cau-dillos. The constitution of the United States of Venezuela, enacted in 1864, recognized the separation of powers and the representative functi-on of the government but failed to end the country’s political instability. Political life was now dominated by the regional caudillos.

Juan Vicente Gómez’s dictatorship (1908–1935) consolidated the central power of the state and began the process of modernization. Gómez, the last caudillo, broke with the regionalist power structures of the 19th century, which had regained its status after Guzmán’s downfall. Oil exploitation had special relevance within this process: Since 1917 it had been in the hands of US oil consortiums working under license. When the number of licenses rose, oil exploitation provided the econo-mic resources to expand the public sector and professionalize the army and civil service. During his time in government Gómez introduced nu-merous constitutional reforms to adapt the legal framework of his de facto authoritarian government to the political needs of his personal con-trol of the government, which he either exercised directly as president, or through a figurehead president under his control.

The economic expansion of oil caused a change in the social structure that translated into a process of political mobilization and organization in the 1940s and 1950s. In this context, the rise of a trade union move-ment in the oil fields, organized by left-wing political activists was par-ticularly important. They were strongly influenced by the social democratic Acción Democrática (AD; Democratic Action) and the communist Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV; Communist Party of Venezuela). This period gave rise to the most important trade union in

Venezuela 537

Venezuela to date, the Confederación de Trabajadores Venezolanos(CTV; Venezuelan Labor Confederation), founded in 1936, as well as to the most important organization of political and economic interests, the Federación de Cámaras de Comercio y Producción (FEDECAMARAS; Trade and Industry Chambers Federation), founded in 1942. Political groups also emerged led by intellectual representatives of the urban middle-classes, different from the traditional actors of the 19th century. The leadership of these groups is known as the Generación del 28 (Ge-neration of 28), because of the protests against the dictatorship they led in 1928. The first political party in a modern sense was the Partido Co-munista Venezolano, founded in 1931. The Acción Democrática was formed in 1941, and the social christian Comité de Organización Políti-ca Electoral Independiente (COPEI; Electoral Independent Committee for Political Organization) was founded in 1946.

This process of organization was the key factor for opening the politi-cal scene following Gómez’s death in 1936. After the presidency of Ge-neral Eleazar López Contreras (1935–1941), the country opened up to a certain extent. In 1945, the AD and a group of young army officers (Unión Patriótica Militar) conducted a civil-military coup that put an end to General Isaías Medina Angarita’s presidency (1941–1945). This incident marked the beginning of a three-year democratic government (Trienio). The junta resulting from this coup, led by Rómulo Betancourt, prepared the first free and competitive elections in the history of the country. These elections led to the establishment of a constituent assem-bly in 1946. The AD won both these elections and the presidential and parliamentary polls of 1947 with over 70% of the votes and became the leading political force in the country. Rómulo Gallegos, the candidate standing for the AD, was elected president. During his tenure there was a gradual polarization between the reformist government and the opposi-tion as both sides seemed to seek conflict rather than agreement. The pe-riod was marked by political sectarianism. The extreme political polarization has been regarded as one of the main causes of the failure of this first democratic period. In November 1948, a military coup d’étatthat was not actively opposed by a part of the opposition ousted Vene-zuela’s first democratically elected government. Left-wing political lea-ders went into exile and the PCV and AD were banned in 1950 and 1951 respectively. In November 1952, the dictatorial government called for elections to the constituent assembly. The opposition candidates were members of the Unión Republicana Democrática (URD; Democratic Republican Union) and COPEI. The former, led by Jóvito Villalba and backed clandestinely by the AD and PCV, won the elections. The go-

Venezuela538

vernment did not acknowledge the results and the leader of the Junta de Gobierno Pérez Jiménez proclaimed himself president and banned the COPEI and URD.

Democracy returned to Venezuela in 1958. The one-time political e-nemies during the Trienio period (AD, COPEI, PCV, and URD) joined forces with the major social groups (business, unions, church, and mili-tary) in opposition against Pérez Jiménez’s government. They managed to oust the government with the help of a general strike and set the basis for the current democracy. They achieved this by setting up various poli-tical pacts, among others the so-called Pacto de Puntofijo signed on 31 October 1958 by the AD, COPEI, and URD. In this pact, these groups (excluding the PCV) agreed to establish a common political program fo-cused on preserving democracy and to form a coalition government, no matter who might win the presidential elections. This pact was the be-ginning of a period of consensus to defend democracy and tone down the political and social conflicts that marked Venezuelan politics up to 1998. The presidential and parliamentary elections of 1958 gave an ab-solute majority to the AD but the parties who signed the pact governed in coalition. They drew up a new constitution that was enacted in 1961 and enjoyed the support of all forces in parliament, even the PCV. As such, it represented a wider range than established in the Pacto de Pun-tofijo. The text in force until 1999 established a presidential republic or-ganized along federal lines with a bicameral legislature. However, the federal organization and the constitutional mechanisms intended to pre-vent the preeminence of the executive over the other constitutional bo-dies were of little relevance until the late 1980s.

From an economic point of view, the democratic government in po-wer since 1958 was as much influenced by oil exploitation as the previ-ous governments. Since the 1930s, oil had been the material basis for the development program represented by all political groups. The programs of the AD and COPEI were very similar: both followed a program based on using the revenue derived from oil exploitation to diversify the eco-nomic structures and build a modern national industry administered by the state. The enduring social differences did not significantly affect Ve-nezuela’s political stability. However, the consolidation of the democra-tic system was endangered during the 1960s by armed struggles with left-wing guerrillas. The prohibition of the PCV in 1962, because of its participation in the Cuban-backed guerilla insurgency against the elected government, was formally lifted in 1969. However, the Communists we-re allowed to nominate candidates and campaign for the 1968 general elections under the name of Unión Para Avanzar (UPA; Unity For Ad-

Venezuela 539

vancing). From then on, most of the former members of the guerrilla movement joined the political competition thanks to an amnesty and the legal recognition of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (MIR; Movement of the Revolutionary Left), the other main participant in the guerrilla insurgency. MIR was founded by former members of the radi-cal left-wing of the AD. It had been banned since 1963.

The Venezuelan party system became fragmented in the 1960s at the same time as the AD lost its position as the undisputed predominant and majority party. Amidst internal ideological conflicts and personal rival-ries over the presidential candidacy, the party suffered a series of inter-nal divisions (1960, 1962, and 1967) that weakened it significantly. Party identification among the rural population, built up during the for-ties and at its peak during the 1946 and 1947 elections, was also weake-ned during the dictatorship years, mainly due to emigration to the cities, which reduced the importance of the rural vote and created a sizeable urban population without strong party ties. This decline in party identifi-cation and the splits that plagued the AD opened the door to personalist parties, built around individuals with strong personal and financial bak-king, who were relevant in the 1963 and 1968 elections. The weakening of the AD enabled Rafael Caldera’s COPEI to win the 1968 presidential elections, which meant that a new party was able to assume power for the first time.

The party system was characterized by several cleavages. A regional (west-east) one: AD was traditionally strong in the eastern states, while COPEI (Christian Democrats) had its electoral base in the western An-dean regions, which was also a strongly Catholic area. A second cleava-ge concerned the division between the rural inland states, where the two main parties enjoyed considerable support, and the central coastal regi-on, where the other parties enjoyed more significant backing in the elec-tions. During the forties, the class cleavage was also important as the AD was associated with the labor and peasant movements, and COPEI with the middle classes. By the early seventies both parties had become catch-all parties, and the social, religious, and regional cleavages had lost electoral relevance. Ideological differences also lost relevance as both parties moved to the center of the political spectrum, and ended up positioning themselves close to each other at the center-right.

From 1973, the party system showed a tendency towards concentrati-on. AD and COPEI gradually became the axis of electoral competition, despite the growing number of contesting parties. AD and COPEI ma-naged to reach a certain degree of cohesion in their regional bases and to alternate in government, although the AD still enjoyed a certain structu-

Venezuela540

ral superiority, due to its strong links with the trade union movement and peasant organizations, and a larger number of party identifiers. COPEI, despite winning two elections, never matched the level of influence that the AD achieved within organized labor, or its number of party members and sympathizers.

Soon after the oil industry had been nationalized in 1975, the deve-lopment strategy favored by both parties was plunged into a crisis. The first oil crisis had brought about a huge increase in revenue, which resul-ted in a boom of consumer imports and reinforced the role of the state in the economy, which was already quite significant at that stage. Although the state had sources of revenue, it resorted to foreign loans to finance its large investment projects and to meet the great need for imports. Howe-ver, this loan policy did not accelerate the process of modernization and economic growth as the country had expected. On the contrary, when oil prices fell and the debt crisis began in the early 1980s, Venezuela found itself loaded with debts and submerged in the mayhem of an economic crisis.

In the 1980s, efforts to adapt the economic structure only served to worsen the political problems, especially as the state’s margin for sol-ving social conflicts was reduced due to the sharp decrease in oil reve-nues and per capita income. The development model followed by the AD and COPEI since the Pacto de Puntofijo was based on the distributi-on of the oil rent by the state to keep social conflicts low by improving the conditions of the different sectors, even though the model clearly fa-vored the wealthy. The crisis of this model, the state and the parties de-fending it, namely AD and COPEI, and the attempt to replace it with a neo-liberal package agreed with the IMF, gave rise to a disorganized uprising by the poor sectors of the population. This revolt led to wi-despread looting in 1989 in Caracas and other cities controlled by the army and there were thousands of civilian casualties. This crisis caused a continuous decline in electoral participation and eroded party loyalties, but it did not become a real danger to the stability of the democratic sy-stem until 1992 when Hugo Chávez led a military coup that failed.

In the mid-1980s a debate began on how to reform the structure of the state. In 1984, under pressure from civil organizations and public opini-on, President Lusinchi established the Comisión Presidencial para la Reforma del Estado (COPRE; Presidential Committee for State Re-form). Until it was dissolved by President Chávez in 1999 to make way for the process of constitutional reform and the constituent assembly, this institution encouraged the modernization of institutions as a way to fight the deterioration of the political system. The most important results

Venezuela 541

of this process were the electoral reform and decentralization, which be-gan in earnest in 1988 and 1989. Nominal voting was introduced for elections to legislative bodies from the 1993 election onwards, following a system of personalized proportional representation, based on the Ger-man electoral system. This established direct elections for mayors and governors and the transfer of power from a central body to the states, in order to set up a direct political link between the parliamentarians and their citizens, and thus effectively implement the form of organization provided for by the constitution—formally federalist but (to date) de fac-to centralist. At the 1988 elections, party competition became moderate-ly pluralized and personalized, thereby inverting the tendency to concentration and party dominance in existence since 1973. Other par-ties became strong in some regions mainly due to the success of indivi-dual leaders, but the AD and COPEI nevertheless maintained their domination, with 43.3% and 31.3% of the parliamentary vote respective-ly. These elections can be seen as the beginning of a tendency towards party de-institutionalization and personalist politics, characteristics that are now central to the Venezuelan political system.

In December 1988, the AD candidate Carlos Andrés Pérez was elec-ted president for the second time, and inaugurated in February 1989 (he served a first term from 1974 to 1979). The AD won 48% of the vote in the chamber of deputies and in the senate. Pérez introduced an economic adjustment program agreed with the International Monetary Fund. Sub-sequent rises in fuel prices and public transport fees caused social pro-tests that led to riots on 27 and 28 February, which, although centered in Caracas, extended to the whole country. The government resorted to the military to suppress the revolts and there were several thousand casual-ties. As a consequence of this military intervention the armed forces split and the government lost popular support. The structural adjustment pro-gram continued until early 1992, when the first of two coups d’état that year took place. According to opinion polls, a large sector of the popula-tion was sympathetic towards the coup as it was seen as attacking a re-gime that was corrupt and highly unpopular. However, this sympathy was expressed at a time when most of those questioned also declared that they supported democracy. This paradox demonstrates a weakness in popular support for democracy in Venezuela, which had been detec-ted before by Baloyra and Martz (1979), polling in 1973, and that is found to be common to underdeveloped democracies. The coup leaders, Lieutenant Colonels Hugo Chávez and Francisco Arias Cárdenas, im-mediately became popular figures, although in the years before 1998, support for Chávez as a potential presidential candidate had never been

Venezuela542

higher than 10%. A number of civil leaders from the radical wing of LaCausa R (LCR; The Radical Cause) participated in the coup attempt, among them Pablo Medina and Alí Rodríguez. They later split from the party to organize the radical left-wing party Patria Para Todos (PPT; Fatherland for All), which supported Chávez in 1998. The second coup took place on 27 November, a week after the regional and municipal elections. This time it was led by Generals Francisco Visconti and Gru-ber Odreman. A proposal for constitutional reform, prepared by a par-liamentary team led by former President Rafael Caldera, which would have introduced the institution of recall for elected offices, as a way to end the unpopular Pérez government, was finally discarded due to fierce opposition by the media and AD. The media was opposed to constitutio-nal reforms that would give the public the right to reply to information affecting their reputation. The IMF sponsored economic adjustment pro-gram was also suspended, but Pérez’s government failed to recover its legitimacy. In 1993, as the attempts to regain legitimacy for the political system and the government appeared doomed to failure, and with sup-port for the main parties, including AD, waning, the attorney general brought an indictment against the president on charges of misappropria-tion of public funds. The supreme court considered the charges to be ju-stified and the senate approved the procedure. Pérez was dismissed from office and provisionally replaced, in accordance with the constitution, by the president of the senate, Octavio Lepage and then finally succeeded by Ramón J. Velásquez, a well-known independent academic with close ties with the AD, who was appointed by congress once Pérez’ removal from office was considered definite. Velásquez successfully led the country to the national elections scheduled for December 1993 in the midst of military, social and political unrest.

Rafael Caldera won the 1993 presidential elections backed by the Convergencia (a splinter group of COPEI founded as Caldera’s electoral platform in July), the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS; Movement To-wards Socialism) and other minor left-wing parties. The radical left-wing group LCR, some of whose leaders had taken part in the coup at-tempts of 1992, gained over 20% of the vote, thereby positioning them-selves at the same political level as the traditional parties. It was the first time since the establishment of democracy that a candidate outside the AD or COPEI won the elections. Thus, the two-party system became a multi-party system, and the virtually absolute control exerted by the AD and COPEI came to an end. The party system was becoming de-institutionalized, party loyalties were much less important than in the past, and elections were, to a great extent, decided on government per-

Venezuela 543

formance, personalized leadership and issues such as change or the IMF-inspired economic adjustment.

In 1996, after two years of economic uncertainty, the Caldera go-vernment abandoned its electoral agenda and implemented a structural adjustment program known as the Agenda Venezuela. After a promising first year, in which the program gained widespread support, the plan fai-led due to the fall in oil prices in 1998, and as a result, government po-pularity sunk.

When the population elected Caldera in 1993 it had opted for modera-te change, and when this option failed, the way was opened up for more extreme alternatives. The radical option had already enjoyed massive support in 1993 through La Causa R. At this point, retired Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez took advantage of the political climate and conte-sted the 1998 elections at the head of his party Movimiento V República (MVR; Fifth Republic Movement), in alliance with the left-wing parties (MAS; PPT and the other groups that had previously supported Calde-ra). He offered revolutionary change within the framework of democra-cy and defeated the moderate alternatives of Irene Sáez and Enrique Salas Romer. Their failure owed much to the fact that, having accepted the support of the traditional parties (first Sáez, but also Salas in the last month of campaigning), the population considered their ties to be too close. Chávez’s victory was an expression of the demise of traditional party loyalties, disenchantment with the Caldera government, personalist politics, and a desire for political change. He was supported by all social sectors, and attained a majority of votes in all of them, except the richest 5%. This was not a socially or ideologically grounded vote. Nor was it based on party loyalties. It was a vote based on an evaluation of go-vernment and was a vote for change, and therefore the future of the ad-ministration’s popular support depended mostly on its ability to satisfy the electorate on basic matters. This is why the support started to decline swiftly by the end of 2001 when the economic and social situation had not only not improved, but had deteriorated. Chávez won the presidency, but not a majority in congress, something which convinced him to im-plement one of his most important offers: he called a referendum to de-cide on the formation of a constituent assembly. Although this body was not provided for in the constitution of 1961, the supreme court, in a con-troversial resolution in January 1999, did not consider it unconstitutio-nal. The referendum was held on 25 April 1999. The opposition called for abstention. Turnout was the lowest ever for national elections, but the proposal was approved by more then 90% of the votes. In July of the same year, elections were held to elect the members of the assembly.

Venezuela544

The candidates of government parties, grouped under the so-called PoloPatriótico (MVR, MAS, PPT, and others) obtained almost all the seats, greatly helped by a plurality electoral system that did not contemplate proportional representation (see data below). With the absolute domina-tion of the national constituent assembly, the government assumed abso-lute power, intervening both in the legislative and judicial powers. The supreme court acknowledged the supra-constitutional character of the national constituent assembly, which elaborated the draft constitution over the next four months. A referendum was held in December 1999 and the constitution was approved. Afterwards, the assembly finally dis-solved the congress and appointed a Comisión Legislativa Nacional (Na-tional Legislative Commission) to substitute it provisionally until the general elections that were to be held in May 2000. This legislature was filled solely with government supporters; not one member of the opposi-tion was appointed by the constituent assembly. The same happened with the state legislatures. Furthermore, the assembly also replaced the members of the supreme court and the national electoral council, the at-torney general and the comptroller general by government loyalists. The reaction of the opposition was weak because the traditional parties were deeply discredited and plagued by internal crises. By the beginning of 2000 the government had absolute control over all branches of power, enjoyed broad popular support and had favorable prospects for the elec-tions planned for the middle of the year, partly because of a significant increase in public revenues as a consequence of rising oil prices, but also because the approval of the new constitution allowed the government to claim that it was fulfilling its electoral promise.

The new constitution respected the democratic institutions and, follo-wing the proposal made by the Caldera Committee in 1992, introduced mechanisms of direct participation, such as the calling of referenda to decide issues of national interest or the substitution of elected officers (recall), including recall for the president if requested by 20% of registe-red voters, at least 25% of the register voters actually vote, and the yes vote attains at least as many votes as those won by the elected officer subject to recall. Instead of the two-chamber congress, the constitution set up a unicameral national assembly. It consolidated the decentralizati-on process without widening it. It also updated the provisions regarding human rights, creating the office of the ombudsman for their defense. It granted the military the right to vote and eliminated the provision accor-ding to which the armed forces were an obedient institution without de-cision or deliberating capacity vis-à-vis the civil authorities. This measure was strongly criticized, but was in alignment with the declared

Venezuela 545

government project to become a civil-military movement: The military, both active and retired officers, played an ever greater role in public functions. The final decision on who was promoted to the higher level of the military was left solely in the hands of the president. According to the 1961 Constitution these promotions needed senate approval. By im-plementing this provision, President Chavez secured political control over the military, and discarded one of the cornerstones of the previous system: pluralism in the political control over the military.

The 2000 elections ratified the popular support for the government. Chávez won by a wide margin against an opposition candidate, Francis-co Arias-Cárdenas, who had split from the government ranks and had been one of the commanders of the coup attempt in February 1992. The parties supporting the government gained a majority in the national as-sembly, but stopped short of achieving the two-thirds needed to appoint members to important offices, such as the national electoral council, the controller general, the attorney general and the Ombudsman. Neverthe-less, they were able to fill the latter three jobs with government suppor-ters after negotiations with the AD and Proyecto Venezuela (Venezuelan Project) that gave the latter some justices in the supreme court. Control-ling all branches of power, the government attempted to gain control of the Trade Union movement. In order to do this they called for a referen-dum on whether to hold direct elections for the renewal of the Board of Directors of the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV; Venezuela Labor Confederation), the main trade union organization of the country. The referendum was held on 3 December 2000 together with the municipal elections. The yes-vote won by a wide margin, but abstention reached its highest point in national voting at 76.5%. The tra-de union elections were held the next year. The government lost but ne-ver recognized the victory of the AD’s candidate Carlos Ortega. From this point on, the government constantly tried to set up a meaningful parallel trade union organization in support of the government, but their efforts failed. At this point, the government excluded CTV as a negotia-ting partner. By the end of 2001, the CTV had joined ranks with the main business organization (FEDECAMARAS) to lead the huge demon-strations and protests that surrounded the coup attempt of April 2002, and the national strike of December 2002. The failure to topple the go-vernment forced the CTV and FEDECAMARAS to give up the leaders-hip of the opposition movement. By the middle of 2003 the parties have regained ground, but CTV and FEDECAMARAS along with several middle class, non-governmental organizations still have significant in-

Venezuela546

fluence in the opposition and in the drive to request a recall referendum to end Chávez mandate, which was put into motion by the end of 2003.

To conclude, the history of democratic Venezuela, after the unstable 19th century, is closely linked to the consolidation of the state and the modernization of society initiated in the 1920s and connected to oil ex-ploitation. The political parties, which appeared in the first half of the 20th century and soon evolved into mass organizations without a fixed social structure, determined the transition to democracy and its consoli-dation. They were the main political actors up to the 1990s, when electo-ral volatility and personality politics became increasingly more central. The main reasons for the stable development since 1958 were, first, the remarkable ability of the Puntofijo elites to reach political consensus; second, the possibility of using the oil rent to reduce social conflict by avoiding extreme poverty and inequality; third, a political culture that, in spite of not being unequivocal, increasingly supported democracy and made the establishment of an enduring dictatorship of any kind incon-ceivable, and last but not least, success in achieving civil control of the military based on pluralist political control. With social and economic decay starting in the 1980s due to the decrease in oil revenues, one of the pillars of the Puntofijo political system disappeared. In addition, the inability of the traditional parties (AD and COPEI) to address the eco-nomic crisis in a way that could satisfy the electorate, the increase in corruption, and the partisan clientelism, gradually eroded the party loy-alties and confidence in the traditional leadership, despite efforts to im-plement reforms regarding decentralization and the electoral system. As a consequence, electoral abstentionism increased and more and more vo-ters looked for political alternatives. This trend, after a first government alien to the traditional parties in 1993, gave victory to Polo Patriótico(Patriotic Pole)—Chávez’s electoral coalition—and the civil-military platform of President Hugo Chávez Frías. The break from the so-called Puntofijo regime enjoyed popular support as long as the hope for change remained and the basic democratic institutions were not dismantled. However, since the end of 2001, a number of factors have caused a de-cline in the government’s popular support in the midst of increasing po-larization: the failure to fulfill the expectations for social change, the ambiguity towards democratic institutions represented by the close rela-tionship with countries governed by the authoritarian left (particularly Cuba), the resistance to apply the direct democracy mechanism establis-hed in the constitution once they were not sure to win the referenda, the imposition of left-wing oriented economic measures by executive decree (without parliamentary or social negotiation) alienated the business and

Venezuela 547

economic sectors. As in Chile in 1973, and Nicaragua during the 1980’s, faced with a left-wing government that was seen as unwilling to negotia-te its social program and as being too close to Cuba, the business and middle classes, in alliance with the main trade union movement, and with increasing popular support, attempted to topple the government, first by staging a coup attempt with military backing in April 2002 that failed, and later by a general strike whose stated purpose was to force the government to accept an early referendum on its mandate or resign to hold new elections. The result was great political instability, caused by two factors: first, the undemocratic tendencies within the right wing opposition and, second, the government's refusal to solve the crisis by calling new elections. Under the guidance of the Organization of Ameri-can States, the Carter Center, and the United Nations, the government and opposition reached a shaky agreement in May 2003.

The key factor was the scheduling of a recall referendum after the go-vernment reached half its term in August 2003. This was formally re-quested by the opposition in December 2003. The events in Venezuela show that an attempt to provoke radical social change tends to be haun-ted by extreme instability when associated with a policy of social con-frontation instead of negotiation. The result of the policy of extreme confrontation adopted by the Chávez government has been the failure to achieve any meaningful change; the deterioration of the social conditi-ons of the lower classes mainly due to a sharp increase in unemployment because of lack of investments by the frightened private sector, and mismanagement of the economy; extreme political instability; and the loss of popular support. According to most public opinion polls, support for the government tumbled from 80% in 1999 to 30% in the middle months of 2003.


The electoral law is regulated by the constitution (26 constitutions from 1811 to 1999) and by the electoral provisions. Several pieces of electoral legislation were drawn up during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, but without any real effect, due to the rule of authori-tarian governments. The legal provisions for elections during the democ-ratic periods were those put into effect on the following dates: 20 September 1945, 15 March 1946, 19 September 1947, 23 May 1958, 8 April 1959, 31 March 1964, 16 December 1970, 3 September 1973, 6 July 1977, 22 August 1998, 1 September 1989, 26 February 1992, 29

Venezuela548

July 1993, 16 May 1995, 13 December 1997 (amended and reprinted on 13 March 1998, reformed 27 May 1998), 25 April 1999 (bases for the election of members of the constituent assembly, approved by referen-dum), and 30 January 2000 (Estatuto Electoral del Poder Público, Pub-lic Powers Electoral Statute) exclusively for the elections of 28 May 2000. The 1998 law was not repealed, and served as complimentary leg-islation for the 2000 elections, and if not amended or repealed will also be used for future elections). In the 19th century the presidential term was generally four years, occasionally (1847 and 1893) two years. The 1901 Constitution extended it to six years, and in 1936 it was reduced again to four years. From 1958 to 1999 it was five years. The terms for senators and deputies usually corresponded to those of the president, but two-year terms were also applied. From 1958 to 1999, the term for depu-ties and senators was five years without partial renewal. Five years was also the term for the presidential mandate between 1958 and 1999. The re-election of the president has usually been forbidden, especially im-mediate re-election. The constitution of 1961, for example, did not allow re-election until at least ten years after the end of the last term. Presi-dents Pérez and Caldera won a second mandate in this fashion. Caldera served from 1969 to 1974, and from 1994 to 1999. Pérez was President from 1974 to 1979, and from 1989 to 1993, when he was tried for cor-ruption and removed before completing his term of office.

Until 1946, there was limited and generally indirect suffrage (with the formal exceptions of 1858 and 1859) within an authoritarian framework. These were not democratic elections by any means. Ownership require-ments were formally abolished as early as the middle of the 19th centu-ry, but women and illiterates remained excluded from voting. Fair elections as such were never conducted until 1946, so these rights were just a façade. The electoral law of 1945, drawn up during the process of liberalization but still within a non-democratic framework, was the first to give women the right to participate in the local government elections. Universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage was introduced in 1946 and applied for the first time that year at the elections to the constituent as-sembly and afterwards, under the constitution of 1947, at the presidential and congressional elections (deputies and senators) held in 1947. These were the first democratic elections held in the country.

In the 19th century and up to 1946, the legal age for the right to vote was commonly set at 20 or 21 years. In 1946, it was lowered to 18 years, increased again to 21 in 1951, for the rigged elections of 1952 and the plebiscite held by the dictatorship in 1957, and lowered to 18 again in 1958. Suffrage was not compulsory from 1945 to 1947, but the constitu-

Venezuela 549

tion of 1961 established suffrage as both a right and a duty. Until the e-lectoral reform of 1993 those who did not vote could be penalized with fines, or denied access to some public services such as university regi-stration or passports, although these measures have not been enforced since the mid-1970s.

The minimum age to be elected was traditionally fixed at 25 years. The 1961 Constitution established 21 as the minimum age to be elected to public office, another requisite was literacy. For the senate and presi-dential office the minimum age was set at 30 years in 1961.

The electoral law of 1941 was the first to consider party and voter as-sociations as the main way to present candidates for political offices. Since then, legal requirements for candidacy have been largely reduced. To present a list of candidates to congress in a constituency, a group of citizens (until 1992 a minimum of ten, five since 1993) needed only to submit the signatures of a small percentage (at least 0.5%) of the voters in the relevant constituency, at least 200. In 1995 the percentage rose to 2% and in 1998 to 5%. The 1995 law attempted to introduce a deposit for candidates wishing to run for the presidency but the supreme court declared this measure to be unconstitutional.

Until the introduction of direct elections, the senate was elected by the legislative assemblies of the states or the provinces. The deputies were elected by the assembly of municipal councils that existed in each state or province.

The constitutions and electoral laws of the 19th century established absolute majority for the indirect election of deputies and senators. The absolute majority system remained in force until 1945. From 1946 to 1988 the system applied was proportional representation in multi-member constituencies with closed and blocked lists, with an additional compensatory proportional distribution of seats at the national level. In 1993 personalized proportional representation was used, in which half of the seats were elected by plurality, most of them in single-member di-stricts, but proportional representation prevailed, and continued to use blocked and closed lists. According to the Organic Law of Elections and Political Participation, half of the seats in each constituency were elected by plurality in single or multi-member districts. This applied for the 1993 and 1998 elections.

An additional compensatory proportional distribution of seats was kept until the changes introduced by the 1999 Constitution, and the Elec-toral Statute for the 2000 elections. This provision lowered the percenta-ge of seats allocated according to proportionality to 40%.

Venezuela550

In the 19th century, the electoral constituencies corresponded generally to the provinces or the states. Most of them elected two senators, whereas the number of deputies elected per province was determined ac-cording to the population. Since 1945, the division into electoral con-stituencies corresponds to the division of the country into federal states, a federal district and two federal territories. Until the 1989 elections there were 20 federal states and two federal territories. In 1992 the two federal territories became states. For the elections of 1998 the number of states was increased to 23. With the capital district, there is a total of 24 constituencies for the national parliamentary elections.

From 1947 to 1998 each federal state elected two senators, as did the federal district (now called capital district). No deputies were elected in the two federal territories. Additionally, the minorities were allotted se-nators on the basis of their nationwide vote in order to compensate the difference (up to three) between the number of senators that they would be allotted according to strict proportionality and the number they were allotted in the distribution by entities. The 1999 Constitution abolished the senate.

Regarding the elections to the chamber of deputies up to 1998 and the national assembly after 1999, the size of the constituencies is calculated according to the size of the population. The relation between the depu-ties and the population is regulated by the constitution and the relevant electoral law. The Electoral Statute of 1947 established the relation at one deputy per 120,000 inhabitants. The federal territories were conside-red an electoral constituency with one deputy. Until 1970, the following electoral laws established different proportions between the number of deputies and the population. Between 1970 and 1998 one deputy was elected for every 0.55% of the Venezuelan population. Each state elec-ted at least two deputies until 1988 and three to the present day. The fe-deral territories were considered a one-deputy constituency. Closed and blocked lists were introduced in 1946 with the introduction of proportio-nal representation. Deputies and senators were elected using this system with one single vote until 1988. Throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century absolute majority (not actually in effect) was required for the election of deputies and senators in the electoral colleges, with a possible second round between the top two candidates. If they drew level again after the second round the winner was chosen by lot.

The Electoral Statute of 15 March 1946 established the legal frame-work for the elections to the constituent assembly of that year. It also in-troduced the system of proportional representation, which is essentially

Venezuela 551

valid to date. Until 1988, seats were allocated using the following pro-cess: First, seats were distributed at constituency level according to the d’Hondt formula, both for the senate and for the chamber of deputies; in a second round seats for the additional deputies and senators at the na-tional level were distributed using the method of the single electoral quota to compensate parties that received less seats in the first round than their proportional share. The maximum number of additional depu-ties and senators allowed per party varied repeatedly: in 1946, it was one deputy for the constituent assembly; in 1947, it was two deputies and two senators; in 1959, it was six deputies and four senators; in 1977, it was four deputies and two senators and finally, in 1988, it became five deputies and three senators. The number of extra seats and thus seats per constituency was increased by the introduction of personalized propor-tional representation in 1998.

The supreme court decided, however, that the constitution of 1999 does not allow an increase in the number of deputies by distributing compensatory additional seats, so they were not allocated in the 2000 elections.

The 1997 Electoral Law established an electoral quota for women. According to this provision, one-third of the list candidates for each par-ty had to be women. It was only applied in 1998. It was not applied for the elections of the national constituent assembly in 1999, and the Su-preme Tribunal of Justice declared it unconstitutional the following year.

As an exception, a plurality system was established for the election to the national constituent assembly in 1999. There were 24 regional multi-member constituencies comprising a total of 104 seats and one national constituency with 24 plurality seats. In the regional constituencies the voters had as many votes as there were seats. The candidates with most votes were declared winners, proportional representation was not ap-plied. In the national constituency they could vote for a maximum of ten candidates, so a plurality system with limited vote applied. The 24 can-didates with the most votes were declared the winners, again proportio-nal representation did not apply, but the limited vote allowed the opposition to gain few seats. The national constituency was an additio-nal constituency and was not compensatory. Therefore, its result was simply added to the other 24 constituencies. Apart from the members elected, three members were appointed by the most representative orga-nizations of the indigenous population.

Venezuela552


Sources: The general principles of the electoral law and system are regu-lated by the 1999 Constitution. The Ley orgánica de sufragio y partici-pación política (Organic Law of Elections and Political Participation) of 26 May 1998 regulates the electoral process. However, for the 2000 elections a special Electoral Statute was passed by the constituent as-sembly, and its provisions prevailed over those of the Organic Law of Elections.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every Venezuelan citizen who is at least 18 years old and neither a convicted prisoner nor declared mentally disabled by a judicial decision is entitled to vote. Voting is not compulsory. The members of the military were given the right to vote by the 1999 Constitution.

Elected national institutions: The president is elected for a six-year term and the national assembly for a five-year term. The president can be re-elected once. The national assembly has only one chamber and currently consists of 165 deputies. 162 of them are elected in 23 states plus the capital district, formerly called the federal district. Each of these territo-rial units elects three deputies plus the result of dividing its population between a quota that is equal to 1.1% of the national population. If in the calculation one territorial unit obtains a remainder equal to or greater than 50% of the quota, it is entitled to one additional deputy. The other three seats are elected in three indigenous constituencies with one seat each. After their first election, deputies can only be re-elected twice con-secutively. Elections are held on a Sunday within the first fortnight of December in the year before the end of the term.

Nomination of candidates In general, nominations to any election can be made by parties, but in-dependent candidates are also accepted. - presidential elections: Only Venezuelans by birth without dual natio-nality who are over 30 years old can be elected president. The clergy is excluded from this right. - parliamentary elections: Candidates have to be 21 years old.

Electoral system - presidential elections: Plurality system.

Venezuela 553

- parliamentary elections: Personalized proportional representation. Each voter has two votes, the voto lista (list vote) for the party he or she choo-ses and another one for as many candidates as are elected in the single-member or multi-member district by nominal vote according to plurality. Lists are closed and blocked. The national electoral council decides whether the nominal seats are to be elected in single or multi-member districts. Single-member seats prevail, but if a municipality has a population that entitles it to more than one seat, then a multi-member seat must be established as municipalities cannot be split into more than one electoral district. In practice, this means that in large cities nominal seats are elected in multi-member districts.

The allocation of seats takes place at the district level. The total num-ber of district seats to be filled is distributed among the lists by propor-tional representation (d’Hondt formula). The number of seats won by a party or independent group in single-member districts in the constituen-cy (territorial unit) is then subtracted from the number of seats that it is entitled to proportionally in that constituency according to its list vote. The difference is allotted to the candidates of the list in the order of no-mination (closed and blocked lists). If the number of seats obtained by one list in one constituency (territorial unit) is higher than the number that it is entitled to proportionally (extra seats), the party or independent list of candidates keeps the higher number, but an equal number of seats corresponding to the last quotients in the distribution using the d’Hondt formula are eliminated to prevent an increase in the number of seats. In the indigenous constituencies, voters elect their representatives by plura-lity.

Organizational context of elections: Elections are organized by the Con-sejo Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Council). It has the status of a government branch equal to the legislature, the executive, and the ju-diciary, according to the constitution. It has five members, who must be politically independent according to the constitution of 1999 and the Or-ganic Law of Elections and Political Participation. The members are ap-pointed by the national assembly with the agreement of two-thirds of its members, in order to guarantee that they have the broad approval of the political parties. Following this orientation, the national electoral council elected in 1998 was filled with independents, and their work was gener-ally regarded as impartial during the elections of 1998 and 1999. As ex-pected by political scientists, this move from partisan to non-partisan members in the national electoral council increased the public’s trust as regards the fairness of elections (19% in 1995 to 91% in February 1999).

Venezuela554

Following the approval of the 1999 Constitution, and contradicting its provisions, the constituent assembly appointed five members who were supporters of the government. They failed in their organization of the 2000 elections, which were postponed from April to July. The new members, appointed by a provisional legislature completely controlled by the government, were selected among people without partisan affilia-tion, but mostly close to the government. The minority was appointed from nominations by NGOs. They ran the 2000 elections, but were not able to manage the claims against local and regional elections satisfacto-rily. Consequently, trust in the fairness of elections dropped again ac-cording to public opinion polls. The national assembly elected in 2000 has the task of appointing new members according to the orientation of the constitution, and with the agreement of two-thirds of its members. In August 2003, when a recall referendum was requested against the presi-dent, they failed to agree on the new members, and the Supreme Tribu-nal of Justice decided to fill the vacuum temporarily.


The data presented in the following tables are taken from the publica-tions of the Consejo Supremo Electoral (CSE) until 1997 and from the Consejo Nacional Electoral since 1998. There are inconsistencies, both within the single sources and among the different official sources con-sulted. We have tried to correct them as far as possible, by comparing them with other official sources. Since the national elections of 1993, there is no printed official publication of the results. We have resorted to the electronic sources provided by the Dirección de Estadística del con-sejo Supremo Electoral for the 1993 elections (Consejo Supremo Elec-toral, Dirección de Estadísticas Electorales 1994) and the official web sites for the 1999 and 2000 elections and referendums (Consejo Na-cional Electoral INDRA 1999a, 1999b) and the CNE’s journal (ConsejoNacional Electoral 1999), http://www.cne.gov.ve/estadisticas.asp, as well as the official CD ROM published by the national electoral council: República Bolivariana de Venezuela Elecciones 2000.

http://www.cne.gov.ve/estadisticas.asp

Venezuela 555

2. Tables


Year Presidential elections

Parliamentary electionsa

Elections for ConstitutionalAssembly

Referendums Coups d’état

1945 18/10 1946 27/10 1947 14/12 14/12 1948 24/11 1952 30/11 1957 15/12 1958 07/12 07/12 23/01 1963 01/12 01/12 1968 01/12 01/12 1973 09/12 09/12 1978 03/12 03/12 1983 04/12 04/12 1988 04/12 04/12 1993 05/12 05/12 1998 06/12 08/11 1999 25/07 25/04 (I)

15/12 (II) 2000 30/07 30/07 03/12 2004 15/08 a Until 1998 elections to both chambers of parliament have always been held on the same day. Since 2000 the legislature consists of a single-chamber parliament.

Venezuela556



number %pop.

Totalnumber

% reg. Voters

%pop.

1946 CAc 4,390,000 1,621,687 36.9 1,403,717 86.6 32.0 1947 Prc 4,500,000 1,662,000 36.9 1,198,869 72.1 26.6 1947 Pa 4,500,000 1,662,000 36.9 — — — 1952 CA 5,518,925 — — 1,907,000 — 34.6 1957 Ref 6,745,967 — — 2,924,985 — 43.4 1958 Pr 6,785,000 2,913,801 42.9 2,722,053 93.4 40.1 1958 Pa 6,785,000 2,913,801 42.9 2,684,949 92.1 39.6 1963 Pr 8,150,000 3,367,787 41.3 3,107,563 92.3 38.1 1963 Pa 8,150,000 3,367,787 41.3 3,059,434 90.8 37.5 1968 Pr 9,687,000 4,134,928 42.7 3,999,617 96.7 41.3 1968 Pa 9,687,000 4,134,928 42.7 3,907,823 94.5 40.3 1973 Pr 11,280,000 4,737,152 42.0 4,571,561 96.5 40.5 1973 Pa 11,280,000 4,737,152 42.0 4,572,187 96.5 40.5 1978 Pr 13,122,000 6,223,903 47.4 5,449,801 87.6 41.5 1978 Pa 13,122,000 6,223,903 47.4 5,449,790 87.6 41.5 1983 Pr 17,317,000 7,777,892 44.9 6,792,208 87.3 39.2 1983 Pa 17,317,000 7,777,892 44.9 6,789,061 87.3 39.2 1988 Pr 18,751,000 9,185,647 49.0 7,518,663 81.9 40.1 1988 Pa 18,751,000 9,185,647 49.0 7,500,085 81.7 40.0 1993 Pr/Pa 20,913,000 9,688,795 46.3 5,829,216 60.2 27.9 1998 D 23,410,000 10,991,482 47.0 5,792,391 52.7 24.7 1998 S 23,410,000 10,991,482 47.0 5,884,588 53.5 25.1 1998 Pr 23,446,000 11,013,020 47.0 6,988,291 63.5 29.8 1999 Ref 23,623,000 11,022,031 46.7 4,001,672 36.3 16.9 1999 CA 23,738,000 10,986,871 46.3 5,079,445 46.2 21.4 1999 Ref 23,920,000 10,940,596 45.7 4,819,786 44.1 20.1 2000 Pr 24,208,000 11,720,660 48.4 6,637,276 56.6 27.4 2000 Pa 24,208,000 11,705,702 48.4 6,559,146 56.0 27.1 2000 Ref 24,401,000 11,784,831d 48.3 2,632,523 23.5 10.8 2004 Ref 26,127,000 14,037,900 53.7 9,815,631 69.9 37.6 a CA = Constitutional Assembly; D = Deputies; Pa = Parliament; Pr = President; Ref = Referen-dum; S = Senate. b Population data are rounded figures of the official estimates based on population censuses: 1941: 3,850,721; 1950: 5,034,838; 1961: 7,523,999; 1971: 10,721,522; 1981: 14,516,735; 1990: 18,105,265; 2001: 24,765,581. The figure for 1947 is an official 1949 estimate. c Data for the 1946 and 1497 elections are taken from Bunimov (1968) and López Maya (1987). Approximate figure for 1947 calculated by applying to the 1946 number the same rate of growth as the total population between 1946 and 1947. d This is the official figure for registered voters. In the official results of this elections the total registered voters in the precincts that were actually tallied was: 11,202,214, and those that actual-ly voted were 2,632,523. It is from these figures that abstention is calculated. This is the official abstention figure.

Venezuela 557

2.3 Abbreviations

AA Acción Agropecuaria (Agricultural Action) ABP Alianza Bravo Pueblo (Brave People Alliance) AD Acción Democrática (Democratic Action) AD–OP Acción Democrática Oposición (Opposition Democratic Action) AEI Agrupación Electoral Independiente (Independent Electoral

Group)AICO — AIR Acción Independiente Revolucionaria (Revolutionary

Independent Action)ALCINA — ALCO Alianza Comunal (Local Alliance) ALVE Alianza Liberal Venezolano (Venezuelan Liberal Alliance) AM — AMI Araguaney Movimiento Independiente (Independent

Araguaney Movement) AMOR — APERTURA Apertura a la participación Nacional (Opening to National

Participation)APD Alianza Popular Democrática (Democratic Popular Alliance)API Alianza Popular Independiente (Independent Popular Alliance)APOP — ARPA Alianza Revolucionaria Patriótica (Patriotic Revolutionary

Alliance)ARVI Acción Renovadora Vencedora Independiente (Independent

Victorious Renewal Action)BIN Bloque Independiente Nacionalista (Nationalist Independent Block)BR Bandera Roja (Red Flag) CAMINA — CBO 1 Caraboro Primero (Caraboro First) CC Causa Común (Common Cause) CD — CCN Cruzada Cívica Nacionalista (Nationalist Civic Crusade)CEPAS Cruzada Electoral Popular Agrupación S. (Popular Electoral

Crusade Group S.) CIMA Comité Independiente Mayoritario (Majoritarian Independent

Committee) CI Comité Independiente (Independent Committee) CN Convergencia Nacional (National Convergence) COIM — CONFE Confianza Nacional (National Confidence) CONIVE Consejo Nacional Indio de Venezuela (National Indian

Council of Venezuela) COPEI Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente

(Committee of Independent Electoral Political Organization)

Venezuela558

CPZ — CR Causa Radical (Radical Cause) DC Desarrollo de la Comunidad (Community Development)DP Democrático Popular (Popular Democratic) EI Electores Independientes (Independent Voters) ENADE Emergencia Nacional Democrática (Democratic National

Emergency)ENCUENTRO Encuentro Nacional (National Encounter) EPA El Pueblo Avanza (The People Advances) EVI Electores Venezolanos Independientes (Independent

Venezuelan Voters) FD Factor Democrático (Democratic Factor) FDP Frente Democrático Popular (Popular Democratic Front) FE Fuerza Emancipadora (Emancipatory Force) FEI Fuerza Electoral Independiente (Independent Electoral Force) FEVO Fuerza Espiritual Venezolano Orientadora (Venezuelan

Spiritual Force Pointing the Way Ahead)FID Fuerza Independiente Democrática (Democratic

Independent Force)FIN (1) Frente de Integración Nacional (National Integration Front) FIN (2) Frente Independiente Nacional (National Independent Front) FIPO Frente Independiente Popular (Popular Independent Front)FIR Frente Independiente Regional (Regional Independent Front)FND Frente Nacional Democrático (Democratic National Front)FNP Frente Nacional Popular (Popular National Front) FRFI Fuerza Revolucionaria Femenina Individual (Individual

Female Revolutionary Force)FS Frente Soberano (Sovereign Front) FUN Frente Unidad Nacionalista (Nationalist Unity Front) GAR Grupo de Acción Revolucionario (Revolutionary Action Group)GE Gente Emergente (Emerging People) GEO-Pro-S — GOA Grupo de Opinión de Acción (Action and Opinion Group)GP —IA Independientes Auténticos (Authentic Independents) IC Izquierdista Cristiana (Christian Leftist) ICC Independientes con el Cambio (Independents with Change)ICP — ID Izquierda Democrática (Democratic Left) IDEAL — IP Independientes Progresistas (Progressive Independents) IPCN Independientes por la Comunidad Nacional (Independents

for the National Community)IPDC Independientes Pro Desarrollo de la Comunidad

(Independents for Community Development)

Venezuela 559

IPFN Independientes Pro Frente Nacional (Independents for the National Front)

IPV Independientes por Venezuela (Independents for Venezuela)IR Integración Republicana (Republican Integration) IRE Integración Renovadora Electoral (Electoral Renewal

Integration)IRENE Integración Representación Nueva Esperanza (Integration

and Representation New Hope)La Llave La Llama de Venezuela (The Flame of Venezuela) LAPY Lo Alcanzado Por Yaracuy (That which has been Achieved

for Yaracuy)LCR La Causa Radical (The Radical Cause) LIDER —LNR (OLVARRIA) —LS Liga Socialista (Socialist League) LVP — MAN Movimiento de Acción Nacional (National Action Movement)MANO — MAS Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism) MB Movimiento de los Barrios (Districts Movement)MDD Movimiento por la Democracia Directa (Movement for

Direct Democracy)MDI Movimiento Democrático Independiente (Independent

Democratic Movement)MDP-BR Movimiento por la Democracia Popular–Bandera Roja

(Movement for Popular Democracy–Red Flag)MDT Movimiento del Trabajo (Labor Movement) MEM — MENI Movimiento Electoral Nacional Independiente (Independent

National Electoral Movement)MEP Movimiento Electoral del Pueblo (People’s Electoral Movement)MF Movimiento Familiar (Family Movement) MIA Movimiento Independiente Apureño (Apureño Independent

Movement)MIAP — MIDE — MIGATO Movimiento Independiente Ganamos Todos (Independent

Movement We All Win)MIN Movimiento Integración Nacional (National Integration

Movement)MIO —MIPO —MIR Movimiento Izquierda Revolucionario (Movement

Revolutionary Left) MIRU —MISIGLO XXI —

Venezuela560

MIV —ML Movimiento Libertador (Liberating Movement)MM Movimiento Municipalista (Municipal Movement)MNV — MOCIR Movimiento Organizado Comunitario Integración

Revolucionario (Joint Organized Movement Revolutionary Integration)

MOINE —MOMO —MORENA Movimiento Renovación Nacional (National Renewal

Movement)MOREPO — MPCO Movimiento Pro Candidatura Obrero (Workers’ Movement

for Candidature) MPI Movimiento Popular (Popular Movement)MR Movimiento Republicano (Republican Movement)MVR Movimiento V República (Fifth Republic Movement)NA Nueva Alternativa (New Alternative)NGD Nueva Generación Democrática (New Democratic Generation)NOR Nuevo Orden (New Order)NOSOTROS (PSN) —NRD Nuevo Régimen Democrático (New Democratic Regime)NT Nuevo Tiempo (New Time)OFM Organización Fuerza en Movimiento (Organization Force in

Motion)OI — ONDA Organización Nacionalista Democrática Activa (Active

Democratic Nationalist Movement)ONI — ONIS — OPINA Opinión Nacional (National Opinion) OPIR Organización Popular Independiente Revolucionaria

(Revolutionary Independent Popular Organization)ORA Organización Renovadora Auténtica (Authentic Renewal

Organization)OVNI Organización Venezolano Nacionalista Independiente

(Independent Nationalist Venezuelan Organization)PAN Partido Auténtico Nacional (National Authentic Party)PCV Partido Comunista Venezolano (Venezuelan Communist Party)PDIN Movimiento Pro Defensa de Ideas (Movement for the

Defense of Ideas)PDR Partido Democrático Republicano (Republican Democratic Party) PJ Primero Justicia (Justice First)PLT —PLV —PN Partido Nacional (National Party)

Venezuela 561

PNI Partido Nacional Integracionista (Integrationist National Party)PNV Partido Nacionalista Venezolano (Venezuelan Nationalist Party)PPT Patria Para Todos (Fatherland for All)PPV Partido Popular Venezolano (Venezuelan Popular Party)PQAC Por Querer a Venezuela (Out of Love for Venezuela)PRIN Partido Revolucionario Integración Nacionalista

(Revolutionary Party Nationalist Integration)PRIVO Profesionales Independientes de Volante (Independent

Professional Drivers)PRN Partido Revolucionario Nacionalista (Nationalist

Revolutionary Party)PRP Partido Revolucionario del Proletariado (Revolutionary

Party of the Proletariat) PSD — PSO — PST Partido Socialista de Trabajadores (Socialist Workers’ Party) PSV Partido Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Party of Venezuela) PUAMA Pueblo Unido Multi-étnico Amazona (United Multi-Ethnic

People of Amazona) PUEBLO — PUV — PV Proyecto Venezuela (Project Venezuela) RDB Revolución Dinámica en los Barrios (Dynamic Revolution

in the Quarters) REI — REINA Rescate Espiritual Integración Nacional (Spiritual Rescue

National Integration) RENACE Rescate Nacional Electoral (Electoral National Rescue)RIN — RN Rescate Nacional (National Rescue) SI (1) Socialistas Independientes (Independent Socialists) SI (2) Movimiento Solidaridad Independiente (Movement

Independent Solidarity)SOLUCION Sociedad Luchadora con Independientes Organizados por

la Nación (Fighting Society with Independents Organized for the Nation)

UDH Unidos por los Derchos Humanos (United for Human Rights)UDI Unión Democrática Independiente (Independent Democratic

Union)UFR Unión Federal Republicano (Republican Federal Union)UNION Unión Para El Progreso (Union for Progress)UNT Un Nuevo Tiempo (A New Time)UP Unión Patriótica (Patriotic Union)UPA Unión para Avanzar (Union for Progress)UPP Unión Progresista del Pueblo (Progressive Union of the People)

Venezuela562

URD Unión Republicana Democrática (Democratic Republican Union)

URI Unión Revolucionaria Independiente (IndependentRevolutionary Union)

UTOPIA Movimiento Nacional Utopía (National Movement Utopia)UVEM — VAMOS Venezuela Adelante Movimiento de Organización Social

(Advance Venezuela Movement of Social Organization)VOI Venceremos Organizados Independientes (We Will Win

Independent Organized People)VU Venezuela Unida (United Venezuela) VUC Vanguardia Unitaria Comunista (Communist Unitarian

Vanguard)


Party / Alliance Years Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary AD 1946–2000 10 11 COPEI 1946–1988 10 11 PCV 1946–1958; 1973–2000 6 9 URD 1946–2000 9 11 PLT 1947 0 1 PRP 1947 0 1 PSV 1947–1968 0 4 UFR 1947 0 1 IR 1958 0 1 MENI 1958–1968 1 3 PST 1958 0 1 AD–OP 1963 1 1 CEPAS 1963 0 1 FDP 1963–1978 1 4 IPFN 1963 1 1 MAN 1963–1973 3 3 PAN 1963 0 1 AIR 1968 0 1 ALVE 1968 0 1 AM 1968 0 1 CCN 1968–1978; 1988 4 4 CBO 1968 0 1 EVI 1968 0 1 FEI 1968 0 1 FIR 1968 0 1 FND 1968–1973 1 2

Venezuela 563

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentary FRFI 1968 0 1 IC 1968 0 1 MB 1968 0 1 MDI 1968–1973 1 2 MEP 1968–2000 8 8 ML 1968 0 1 MM 1968 0 1 MPCO 1968 0 1 OPINA 1968–2000 7 8 OPIR 1968 0 1 OVNI 1968 0 1 PRINa 1968–1973 2 2 PRIVO 1968 0 1 PSO 1968 1 1 UDI 1968 0 1 UPA 1968; 1988 0 2 UPP 1968 0 1 AEI 1973 0 1 ALCINA 1973 0 1 ARPA 1973; 1988 0 2 ARVI 1973 0 1 BIN 1973 0 1 DC 1973 0 1 DP 1973; 1983 0 2 FE 1973; 1983–1988 3 3 FEVO 1973; 1988 1 2 FIPO 1973 0 1 MAS 1973–2000 7 7 MF 1973 0 1 MIA 1973 0 1 MPI 1973 0 1 PRN 1973 0 1 REINA 1973 0 1 URI 1973 0 1 CC 1978 1 1 CR 1978 0 1 GAR 1978; 1983 0 2 IPDC 1978 0 1 MDT 1978 0 1 MIN 1978–2000 2 9 MORENA 1978–1988 1 3 VUC 1978 0 1 AICO 1983 0 1 AMI 1983–1988 0 2

Venezuela564

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentary CD 1983 0 1 CIDE 1983 0 1 CIMA 1983 0 1 COIM 1983 0 1 CONFE 1983 1 1 EI 1983 1 1 ENADE 1983 0 1 EPA 1983–1988 0 2 FIN 1983 0 1 GEO Pro S 1983 0 1 GOA 1983–1988 0 2 ICC 1983–1988 0 2 ICP 1983 0 1 MID 1983 0 1 MIV–83 1983 0 1 MOCIR 1983 0 1 MOINE 1983 0 1 NOR 1983 1 2 ONIS 1983 0 1 PNV 1983 1 1 RDB 1983 0 1 RN 1983 1 1 SI (1) 1983 0 1 UP 1983–1988 0 2 UTOPIA 1983 0 1 UVEM 1983 0 1 VOI 1983 0 1 LCR 1983–1988 5 5 LNR 1983–1988 1 2 MPDIN 1983–1988 1 2 NA 1983–1988 1 2 NGD 1983–1988 1 2 ALCO 1988 0 1 AMOR 1988 0 1 APD 1988 0 1 API 1988 0 1 APOP 1988 0 1 CAMINA 1988 0 1 CI 1988 0 1 CPZ 1988 0 1 FID 1988 0 1 FNP 1988 0 1 FUTURO SEGURO 1988 0 1 GP 1988 0 1

Venezuela 565

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentary IA 1988 0 1 IDEAL 1988 0 1 IRE 1988 0 1 LIDER 1988 0 1 LVP 1988 0 1 MANO 1988 0 1 MEM 1988 0 1 MIAP 1988 0 1 MIDE 1988 0 1 MIPO 1988 0 1 MIRU 1988 0 1 MISIGLO XXI 1988 0 1 MOMO 1988 0 1 MOREPO 34 1988 0 1 MNV 1988 1 1 NOSOTROS (PSN) 1988 1 1 NT 1988 0 1 OI 1988 0 1 ONI 1988 1 1 ORA 1988–2000 3 4 PDR 1988 0 1 PENETRACION 88 1988 0 1 PLV 1988 0 1 PPV 1988 0 1 PUEBLO 1988 1 1 PUV 1988 1 1 PV 1988 0 1 REI 1988 0 1 RENOVACION 1988, 1998 0 2 RIN 1988 0 1 CONVERGENCIA 1993–2000 1 2 AA 1998–2000 2 1 APERTURA 1998 1 1 IRENE 1998 1 2 MVR 1998-2000 2 2 PPT 1998–2000 2 2 PV 1998–2000 2 2 SI (2) 1998–2000 2 2 UDH 1998–2000 0 2 ABP 2000 0 1 ENCUENTRO 2000 1 1 ID 2000 0 1 MDP-BR 2000 1 1 MIGATO 2000 1 1

Venezuela566

Party / Alliance Years Elections contested (continued) Presidential Parliamentary NRD 2000 1 1 OFM 2000 1 1 PUAMA 2000 0 1 UNT 2000 1 1 a In coalition with AD in 1973.

2.5 Referendums

Year 1957a Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast 2,924,985 — Invalid votes 186,013 6.4 Valid votes 2,738,972 93.6 Yes 2,374,790 86.7 No 364,182 13.3 a The 1957 referendum was held by the dictatorial government of Pérez Jiménez under non-democratic conditions in order to ask whether the people approved that he continued to stay in office without new elections and to appoint as national and regional legislators, and members of the local governments, those nominated by the government. Those above are the official results that were published by the government in Gaceta Oficial No. 25.541, 20 December 1957, accor-ding to Bunimov (1968, p. 96).

Year 1999a (Ia) b 1999 (Ib) c

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 11,022,031 – 11,022,031 – Votes cast 4,001,672 37.8 4,001,672 37.8 Invalid votes 194,590 4.9 212,989 5.3 Valid votes 3,807,082 95.1 3,788,683 94.7 Yes 3,516,558 92.4 3,275,716 86.5 No 290,524 7.6 512,967 13.5 a Referendum with two questions regarding the convention of a constitutional assembly. b The first question asked whether a constitutional assembly should be convened or not. c The second question asked to approve or disapprove the president’s suggestion on the form of election of the constitutional assembly.

Venezuela 567

Year 1999 (II)a Total number % Registered voters 10,940,596 – Votes cast 4,819,786 44.4 Invalid votes 220,206 4.6 Valid votes 4,599,580 95.4 Yes 3,301,475 71.8 No 1,298,105 28.2 a The referendum asked to approve or disapprove the draft constitution presented by the constitu-tional assembly.

Year 2000a 2004b

Total number % Total number % Registered voters 11,784,831c – 14,037,900 – Votes cast 2,632,523 23.5 9,815,631 69.9 Invalid votes 280,002 10.6 25,994 0.3 Valid votes 2,352,521 89.4 9,789,637 99.7 Yes 1,632,750 69.4 3,989,008 40.7 No 719,771 30.6 5,800,629 59.3 a The referendum was held on 3 December 2000. It asked the following question: Do you agree that the trade union leadership must be renewed in the next 180 days, following an Electoral Sta-tute to be approved by the Electoral Power, and according to the principles of alternation and uni-versal, direct and secret elections as ordained in the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela, and that the directive boards of those unions, federations and confederations are suspended from their functions until those elections take place? b The referendum was held on 15 August 2004. Voters had to decide on the following question: Do you agree to revoke the popular mandate that was given through legitimate democratic electi-ons to Hugo Chávez Frías as president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the current presidential term? c This is the official figure for registered voters. In the official results of this election the total registered voters in the precincts that were actually tallied was: 11,202,214, and those that actual-ly voted were 2,632,523. It is from these figures that abstention is calculated. This is the official abstention figure.

Venezuela568


1946 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 1,621,687 – Votes cast 1,403,717 86.6 Invalid votes 1,706 0.1 Valid votes 1,402,011 99.9 160 – AD 1,099,601 78.4 137 85.6 COPEI 141,418 10.1 19 11.9 PCV 50,837 3.6 2 1.3 URD 49,721 3.5 2 1.3 UFR 38,440 2.7 0 0.0 Othersa 21,994 1.6 0 0.0 a Others include the PLP (4,333 votes).

1952a Total number % Seats % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,907,000 — — – URD 1,198,000 62.8 — — FEI 403,000 21.1 — — COPEI 306,000 16.0 — — a The elections were manipulated and non-competitive. AD was banned and could therefore not participate. The delegates which convened in the famous session of April 1953 elected Marcos Pérez Jiménez as constitutional president of Venezuela for the period from 1953 to 1958. The government did not publish the results. It lost the election but did not recognize the results, and declared itself the winner. These figures are unofficial results reported by Armando Veloz Man-cera (1963, p. 7), as quoted by Boris Bunimov (1968, p. 96).

1999 Total number % Seats % Registered voters 10,986,871 – Ballots cast 5,079,445a 46.2 Votes cast 50,794,450a – Invalid votes 6,073,409 12.0 Valid votes 44,721,041 88.0 128b –Polo Patrióticoc 29,424,635 65.8 121 94.5 Polo Democráticod 9,873,223 22.1 4 3.1 Others 5,423,183 12.1 3 2.3 a Every voter had ten votes on the ballot. The total number of votes cast is, therefore, obtained by multiplying the number of ballots cast by ten. On the basis of the ‘potential’ votes cast, valid and invalid votes are calculated.

Venezuela 569

b Three additional seats in the assembly were filled by indigenous delegates. They were elected by various indigenous associations. c Comprised MVR, MAS, PPT, PCV, MEP, and other minor groups. d Comprised AD, COPEI, Proyecto Venezuela, and Convergencia.



Year 1947 1958 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 1,662,000 – 2,913,801 – Votes cast 1,198,869 72.1 2,684,949 92.1 Invalid votes 15,105 1.3 104,732 3.9 Valid votes 1,183,764 98.7 2,580,217 96.1 AD 838,526 70.8 1,275,973 49.5 COPEI 200,695 17.0 392,305 15.2 URD 51,427 4.3 690,357 26.8 PCV 43,190 3.6 160,791 6.2 UFR 39,491 3.3 – – PRP 7,068 0.6 – – IR – – 19,424 0.8 PST – – 15,476 0.6 MENI – – 14,908 0.6 Others 3,367a 0.3 10,983b 0.4a Others include PLT (1) (1,300 votes), PSV (1,207) and PLT (2) (860). b Others include the PSV (10,983 votes).

Venezuela570

Year 1963 1968 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 3,367,787 – 4,134,928 – Votes cast 3,059,434 90.8 3,907,823 94.5 Invalid votes 197,708 6.5 229,739 5.9 Valid votes 2,861,726a 93.5 3,678,084 94.1 AD 936,124 32.7 939,759 25.6 COPEI 595,697 20.8 883,814 24.0 URD 497,454 17.4 340,195 9.2 IPFN 381,600 13.3 – – FDP 274,096 9.6 194,931 5.3 AD–OP 93,494 3.3 – – PSV 24,670 0.9 29,920 0.8 MENI 18,510 0.6 13,847 0.4 MAN 15,746 0.6 24,407 0.7 PAN 14,555 0.5 – – MEP – – 475,909 12.9 CCN – – 402,351 10.9 UPA – – 103,591 2.8 FND – – 96,027 2.6 PRIN – – 88,509 2.4 MDI – – 18,337 0.5 API – – 18,332 0.5 Others 4,230b 0.1 48,155c 1.3a The sum the votes (2,856,176) does not correspond to the figure given in the official records (2,861,726).b Others include CEPAS (4,230 votes). c Others include AIR (9,154 votes), OPINA (7,339) and 18 minor parties.

Venezuela 571

Year 1973 1978 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 4,737,152 – 6,223,903 – Votes cast 4,572,187 96.5 5,449,790 87.6 Invalid votes 172,422 3.8 166,901 3.1 Valid votes 4,399,765 96.2 5,282,889 96.9 AD 1,955,439 44.4 2,096,512 39.7 COPEI 1,330,514 30.2 2,103,004 39.8 MAS 232,756 5.3 325,328 6.2 MEP 218,192 5.0 117,455 2.2 CCN 189,667 4.3 10,906 0.2 URD 140,462 3.2 88,807 1.7 FDP 54,759 1.2 13,697 0.3 PCV 52,754 1.2 55,168 1.0 MIR 44,012 1.0 123,915 2.3 OPINA 32,751 0.7 7,961 0.2 PNI 30,618 0.7 – – IP 27,528 0.6 – – CC – – 85,432 1.6 MIN – – 83,700 1.6 VUC – – 46,547 0.9 LS – – 30,191 0.6 MORENA – – 26,235 0.5 Others 90,313a 2.1 68,031b 1.3a Others include FUN (15,537 votes), MAN (12,588), PSD (12,238), FND (11,313), MPI (8,324) and 19 minor parties. b Others include MDT (22,966 votes), FUN (12,986), CR (12,573), GAR (9,034), IPDC (6,719), and other minor parties.

Venezuela572

Year 1983 1988 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 7,777,892 – 9,185,647 – Votes cast 6,825,180 87.8 7,500,085 81.7 Invalid votes 244,281 3.6 283,635 3.8 Valid votes 6,580,899 96.4 7,216,400 96.2 AD 3,284,166 49.9 3,123,790 43.3 COPEI 1,887,226 28.7 2,247,236 31.1 MASa 377,795 5.7 – – OPINA 130,022 2.0 – – MEP 129,263 2.0 116,621 1.6 URD 125,458 1.9 103,883 1.4 PCV 115,162 1.7 – – MIRa 103,923 1.6 – – NA 68,729 1.0 – – ICC 63,822 1.0 – – LS 53,506 0.8 – – MIN 59,870 0.9 – – LCR 35,304 0.5 117,562 1.6 LNR (OLVARRIA) 29,642 0.5 – – NGD 10,288 0.2 236,833 3.3 MAS/ MIRa – – 733,421 10.2 FORMULA 1 – – 93,228 1.3 ORA – – 92,117 1.3 Others 106,723b 1.6 351,709c 4.9a MAS and MIR contested the elections together. b Others include CIMA (18,762 votes), RN (15,083), GAR (15,033), FUN (12,262), MIO (10,020), and 29 minor parties. c Others include 58 minor parties.

Venezuela 573

Year 1993 1998 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 9,688,795 – 10,991,482 – Votes cast 5,829,216 60.2 5,792,391 52.7 Invalid votes 1,117,998 19.2 828,631 14.3 Valid votesa 4,711,218b 80.8 4,963,760 85.7 AD 1,099,728 23.3 1,195,751 24.1 COPEI 1,065,512 22.6 593,882 12.0 La Causa R 974,190 20.7 147,806 3.0 Convergencia 651,918 13.8 122,242d 2.5 MAS 509,068c 10.8 440,665 8.9 ORA 41,085 0.9 26,610 0.5 MIN 29,433 0.6 18,099 0.4 MEP 27,635c 0.6 17,343d 0.3 URD 26,299 0.6 19,145 0.4 PCV 21,180c 0.4 28,827d 0.6 Proyecto Venezuela – – 518,235 10.4 MVR – – 986,131d 19.9 PPT – – 171,091d 3.4 Apertura – – 76,991 1.5 Renovación – – 61,704 1.2 IRENE – – 62,738 1.3 UDH – – 30,760 0.6 SI – – 24,729d 0.5 Others 264,996e 5.6 397,205 8.0 a The votes shown in the table are the votes cast for party lists, which—under the rules governing the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system used in the 1993 and the 1998 electi-on—are the votes that determine the overall distribution of seats in the chamber of deputies. b The sum of all votes (4,711,044) does not correspond to the figure given in the official records (4,711,218).c These parties contested the 1998 election in the electoral alliance Polo Patriótico, which was established above all to support Hugo Chávez’ presidential candidacy. The parties ran separately for the list vote in most regions of the country. For the nominal seats, though, they presented common candidates in 22 out of 24 regions. d These parties plus GE formed the Polo Patriótico.e Others include GE (12,525 votes), which was part of the Polo Patriótico and 155 other minor parties.

Venezuela574

Year 2000a

Total number % Registered voters 11,705,702 – Votes cast 6,559,146 56.0 Invalid votes 2,101,850 32.0 Valid Votes 4,457,296 68.0 MVR 1,977,992 44.4 AD 718,148 16.1 PV 309,168 6.9 COPEI 227,349 5.1 MAS 222,170 5.0 LCR 196,787 4.4 PJ 109,900 2.5 PPT 101,246 2.3 UNT 78,109 1.8 ABP 49,218 1.1 CONVERGENCIA 47,620 1.0 ENCUENTRO 37,036 0.8 MIGATO 21,044 0.5 Othersa 361,509 8.1 a Others include PCV (15,997 votes); OFM (10,547); MEP (3,738); URD (2,641); PUAMA (1,837), and several minor parties.

Venezuela 575

2.7.2 Senate 1947–1998

Until 1988 elections to the chamber of deputies (Cámara de Diputados)and the senate (Senado) took place on a single ballot (tarjeta pequeña).Therefore, the results were identical to those of the chamber of deputies. In 1993 and 1998 the elections to the chamber of deputies and the senate were held on separate ballots. In 1999 the senate was abolished.

Year 1993 1998 Total number % Total number % Registered voters 9,688,795 46.3 10,991,482 47.0 Votes cast 5,829,216 60.2 5,884,588 54.5 Invalid votes 989,169 17.0 776,201 13.2 Valid votes 4,840,047a 83.0 5,108,567 86.8 AD 1,165,322 24.1 1,246,567 24.4 COPEI 1,103,896 22.8 518,976 12.1 La Causa R 1,005,816 20.8 151,960 3.0 Convergencia 650,352 13.4 119,951b 2.3 MASa 526,197 10.9 465,977 9.1 ORA 41,157 0.9 24,794 0.5 MEPa 26,545 0.5 15,140b 0.3 URD 25,732 0.5 16,680 0.3 MIN 23,459 0.5 19,138 0.4 MVR – – 1,008,693b 19.8 Proyecto Venezuela – – 518,235 10.2 PPT – – 171,469b 3.4 Apertura – – 123,948 2.4 IRENE – – 63,422 1.2 Renovación – – 61,992 1.2 PCV – – 24,929b 0.5 SI – – 24,384b 0.5 Others 266,868c 5.5 429,705d 8.4 a The sum of all parties’ votes (4,835,344) does not correspond to the figure given in the official records (4,840,047). b These parties formed the Polo Patriótico together with GE and IPCN (see below under ‘others’). c Others include PCV (14,159 votes), GE (10,709), and 147 minor parties. d A total of 260 other parties, among them UDH (21,550 votes), GE (9,271), IPCN (7,027), O-PINA, PQAC, RENACE, MR, IPV, FS, OFM, PROCA, MDP-BR, OFI, FRENTE, OCIM, DR, MERI, MOS, and ROGE.

Venezuela576



Year 1947 1958 1963 1968 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 110 100.0 132 100.0 179 100.0 214 100.0 AD 83 75.5 73 55.3 66 36.9 66 30.8 COPEI 16 14.5 18 13.6 39 21.8 59 27.6 URD 4 3.6 34 25.8 29 16.2 18 8.4 PCV 3 2.7 7 5.3 – – – – UFR 3 2.7 – – – – – – PRP 1 0.9 – – – – – – PSV 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 MENI – – 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 IPFN – – – – 22 12.3 – – FDP – – – – 16 8.9 10 4.7 AD–OP – – – – 5 2.8 – – MAN – – – – 0 0.0 1 0.5 MEP – – – – – – 25 11.7 CCN – – – – – – 21 9.8 UPA – – – – – – 5 2.3 FND – – – – – – 4 1.9 PRIN – – – – – – 4 1.9

Year 1973 1978 1983 1988 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 200 100.0 199 100.0 200 100.0 201 100.0 AD 102 51.0 88 44.2 113 56.5 97 48.3 COPEI 64 32.0 84 42.2 60 30.0 67 33.3 MASa 9 4.5 11 5.5 10 5.0 – – MEP 8 4.0 4 2.0 3 1.5 2 1.0 CCN 7 3.5 0 0.0 – – – – URD 5 2.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 2 1.0 PCV 2 1.0 1 0.5 3 1.5 1 0.5 MIRa 1 0.5 4 2.0 2 1.0 – – OPINA 1 0.5 0 0.0 3 1.5 1 0.5 PNI 1 0.5 – – – – – – CC – – 1 0.5 – – – – LS – – 1 0.5 1 0.5 – – MIN – – 1 0.5 1 0.5 – – VUC – – 1 0.5 – – – – NA – – – – 1 0.5 – – LCR – – – – 0 0.0 3 1.5 NGD – – – – 0 0.0 6 3.0

Venezuela 577

Year 1973 1978 1983 1988 (cont.) Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % MAS/ MIRa – – – – – – 18 9.0 FORMULA 1 – – – – – – 2 1.0 ORA – – – – – – 2 1.0 a In 1988 MAS and MIR contested the elections together.

Year 1993a 1998b 2000c

Seats % Seats % Seats % 203 100.0 207 100.0 165 100.0 AD 55 27.1 61 29.5 30 18.2 COPEI 53 26.1 26 12.5 8 4.9 La Causa R 40 19.7 5 2.4 3 1.8 Convergenciad 26 12.8 6 2.9 1 0.6 LAPYd – – – – 3 1.8 MAS 24 11.8 24 11.6 21 12.7 MEP 1 0.5 1 0.5 – – MIN 1 0.5 1 0.5 – – NGD 1 0.5 – – – – ORA 1 0.5 2 1.0 – – URD 1 0.5 1 0.5 – – PV – – 20 9.7 7 4.3 MVRe – – 35 16.9 77 46.7 CONIVEe – – – – 3 1.8 PPT – – 11 5.3 1 0.6 PCV – – 2 1.0 – – PJ – – – – 5 3.0 ABP – – – – 1 0.6 MIGATO – – – – 1 0.6 PUAMA – – – – 1 0.6 UNT – – – – 3 1.8 Apertura – – 3 1.4 – – Renovación – – 2 1.0 – – IRENE – – 3 1.4 – – Othersf – – 4 1.9 – – a In 1993, the total number of seats to be elected by personalized proportional representation in the 23 regional constituencies was 189. 102 of these were single member district seats and the remaining 87 list seats. Nine extra seats and five compensatory additional seats were added, for a total of 203. The extra seats were awarded when the number of single member seats won by a party in a constituency was higher than the number of seats it was entitled to in the proportional distribution. The party kept the extra seats.b In 1998, the total number of seats to be elected by personalized proportional representation in the 24 regional constituencies for the chamber of deputies was 189. 88 of these were single or

Venezuela578

multi-member district nominal seats elected by plurality and 101 list seats. 18 compensatory seats were added, for a total of 207. c In 2000, there were three indigenous seats elected by plurality in three special indigenous single member constituencies. The other 162 seats were elected by personalized proportional represen-tation in 24 constituencies. 97 were nominal seats elected by plurality in single or multimember districts, and 65 were elected by list vote. d LAPY is the denomination used by Convergencia to run in single member districts and avoid that the seats gained at this level get subtracted from the list seats in the state of Yaracuy. Thus, Convergencia-LAPY are the same party and got four seats (one list and three nominal), all in Yaracuy.e CONIVE was the denomination used by the indigenous sector of the MVR in order to run for the three indigenous seats that they won. Therefore, these three seats are actually MVR seats. Two of the 77 seats won with the votes of the MVR were actually allocated to members of one of its coalition partners in the state of Lara, namely the OFM. In 1998, the MVR, MAS, PPT, PCV, SI, MEP among others were coalition partners for the legislative elections, this coalition was denominated the Polo Patriótico (Patriotic Pole). For 2000, this alliance was basically inte-grated by MVR and MAS with other minor parties joining in some constituencies. f In 1998, there were four other parties with one deputy each: SI, UDH, OFM, and MDP-BR.

2.8.2 Senate 1947–1998

Year 1947 1958 1963 1968 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 46 100.0 51 100.0 47a 100.0 52a 100.0 AD 38 82.6 32 62.7 22 46.8 19 36.5 COPEI 4 8.7 6 11.8 8 17.0 16 30.8 UFR 2 4.3 – – – – – – PCV 1 2.2 2 3.9 – – – – URD 1 2.2 11 21.6 7 14.9 3 5.8 IPFN – – – – 5 10.6 – – FDP – – – – 4 8.5 2 3.8 AD–OP – – – – 1 2.1 – – MEP – – – – – – 5 6.6 CCN – – – – – – 4 7.7 FND – – – – – – 1 1.9 PRIN – – – – – – 1 1.9 UPA – – – – – – 1 1.9 a The table shows only the elected senators. In addition, former presidents of the country joined the senate as life-time senators.

Venezuela 579

Year 1973 1978 1983 1988 Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % 47a 100.0 44a 100.0 44a 100.0 46a 100.0AD 28 59.6 21 47.7 28 63.6 22 47.8 COPEI 13 27.7 21 47.7 14 31.8 20 43.5 MASb 2 4.3 2 4.5 2 4.5 – – MEP 2 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 URD 1 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 CCN 1 2.1 0 0.0 – – – – NGD – – – – 0 0.0 1 2.2 MAS/ MIRb – – – – – – 3 6.5 a The table shows only the elected senators. In addition, former presidents of the country join the senate as life-time senators. b In 1988, MAS and MIR contested the elections together.

Year 1993 1998 Seats % Seats % 50 100.0 54 100.0 AD 16 32.0 21 38.9 COPEI 14 28.0 6 11.1 La Causa R 9 18.0 1 1.9 Convergencia 6 12.0 3 5.5 MAS 5 10.0 5 9.2 MVR – – 8 14.8 PPT – – 4 7.4 ProyectoVenezuela

– – 3 5.5

PCV 0 0 1 1.9 Apertura – – 1 1.9 Renovación – – 1 1.9


1947 Total number % Registered voters — – Votes cast — — Invalid votes — — Valid votes 1,172,543 — Rómulo Gallegos (AD) 871,752 74.3 Rafael Caldera (COPEI) 262,204 22.4 Gustavo Machado (PCV) 38,587 3.3

Venezuela580

1958 Total number % Registered voters 2,913,801 – Votes cast 2,722,053 93.4Invalid votes 111,220 4.1 Valid votes 2,610,833 95.9 Rómulo Betancourt (AD) 1,284,092 49.2 Wolfgang Larazabal (URD) 903,479a 34.6 Rafael Caldera (COPEI) 423,262b 16.2 a Includes 84,451 votes from PCV and 18,312 votes from MENI. b Includes 15,564 votes from IR and 11,405 votes from PST.

1963 Total number % Registered voters 3,367,787 –Votes cast 3,107,563 92.3Invalid votes 188,686 6.1 Valid votes 2,918,877 93.9Raúl Leoni (AD) 957,574 32.8Rafael Caldera (COPEI) 589,177 20.2Jovito Villalba (URD) 551,266a 18.9Arturo Uslar Pietri (IPFN) 469,363 16.1Wolfgang Larazabal (FDP) 275,325 9.4 Raúl Ramon Giménez (AD-OP) 66,880 2.3 Germán Borreglas (MAN) 9,292 0.3 a Includes 24,128 votes from PSV and 16,163 votes from MENI.

1968 Total number % Registered voters 4,134,928 – Votes cast 3,999,617 96.7 Invalid votes 278,957 7.0 Valid votes 3,720,660 93.0 Rafael Caldera (COPEI) 1,083,712a 29.1 Gonzalo Barrios (AD) 1,050,806b 28.2 Miguel A. Burelli (URD) 826,758c 22.2 Luis Beltran Pietro (MEP) 719,461d 19.3 Alejandro Hernández (PSO) 27,336 0.7 Germán Borreges (MAN) 12,587 0.3 a Includes 16,501 from MDI. b Includes 15,370 votes from API, 12,403 votes from AIR and 1,308 votes from OPIR. c Includes 240,337 votes from FDP, 132,030 votes from FND and 14,749 votes from MENI. d Includes 68,417 votes from PRIN and 5,513 votes from OPINA.

Venezuela 581

1973 Total number % Registered voters 4,737,152 – Votes cast 4,571,561 96.5 Invalid votes 196,880 4.3 Valid votes 4,374,681 95.7 Carlos Andrés Pérez (AD) 2,130,743a 48.7 Leonardo Fernández (COPEI) 1,605,628b 36.7 Jesus A. Paz Gallarraga (MEP) 221,239c 5.1 José Vicente Rangel (MAS) 186,255 4.3 Jovito Villalba (URD) 134,478 3.1 Miguel A. Burelli (OPINA) 33,977 0.8 Pedro Tinoco (PNI) 29,399d 0.7 Otherse 32,962 0.8 a Includes 2,168 votes from PRN. b Includes 35,165 votes from FDP, 20,350 votes from IP and 3,394 votes from MPI. c Includes 30,235 votes from PCV. d Includes 4,001 votes from MD. e Martín Garcia V. (PSD) 11,965 votes; Germán Borregales (MAN) 9,331; Pedro Segnini L. (FND) 6,176; Raimundo Verde Roja (MDI) 3,754, and Alberto Solano (FE) 1,736.

1978 Total number % Registered voters 6,223,903 – Votes cast 5,449,801 87.6 Invalid votes 116,888 2.1 Valid votes 5,332,913 97.9 Luis Herrera Campins (COPEI) 2,487,318a 46.6 Luis Piñerua O. (AD) 2,309,577 43.3 José Vicente Rangel (MAS) 276,083b 5.2 Diego Arria (CC) 90,060c 1.7 Luis Beltran Prieto F. (MEP) 59,947 1.1 Américo Martín (MIR) 52,287 1.0 Héctor Mujica (PCV) 29,305 0.5 Othersd 28,336 0.5 a Includes 56,920 votes from URD, 8,623 votes from FDP and 7,076 votes from OPINA. b Includes25,478 votes from VUC. c Includes 18,854 votes from MDT. d Leonardo Montiel (MORENA) 13,918 votes; Alejandro Gómez S. (FUN) 8,337, and Pablo Salas Castillo (CCN) 6,081.

Venezuela582

1983 Total number % Registered voters 7,777,892 – Votes cast 6,792,208 87.3 Invalid votes 331,443 4.9 Valid votes 6,460,765 95.1 Jaime Lusinchi (AD) 3,775,341a 58.4 Rafael Caldera (COPEI) 2,166,467b 33.5 Teodoro Petkoff (MAS) 223,194c 3.5 José Vicente Rangel (MEP) 221,918d 3.4 Jorge Olavarria (OPINA) 32,254 0.5 Otherse 41,591 0.6 a Includes 86,408 votes from URD and 2,284 votes from VOI. b Includes 80,074 votes from ICC, 12,174 votes from NGD, 11,565 votes from CIMA, 11,258 votes from FUN and 10,115 votes from MIO. c Includes 40,424 votes from MIR and 13,062 votes from IRE. d Includes 67,681 votes from PCV, 44,340 votes from NA, 25,157 votes from LS, 7,833 votes from GAR and 2,108 votes from SI. e Gonzalo Pérez H. (MIN) 19,528 votes; Luis Rangel B. (RN) 8,820; Andrés Velázquez (LCR) 5,917; Vinicio Romero (CONFE) 3,236; Alberto Solano (FE) 1,650; Juan Iarra Riverol (PNV) 1,363; Adolfo Alcala (EI) 1,077.

1988 Total number % Registered voters 9,185,647 – Votes cast 7,518,663 81.9 Invalid votes 187,276 2.5 Valid votes 7,331,387 97.5 Carlos Andrés Pérez (AD) 3,879,024 52.9 Eduardo Fernández (COPEI) 2,963,015 40.4 Teodoro Petkoff (MAS/ MIR) 200,479 2.7 Godofredo Marín (ORA) 62,896 0.9 Ismenia Villalba (URD) 61,684 0.8 Edmundo Chirinos (PCV) 59,034 0.8 Othersa 105,255 1.4 a Vladimir Gessen (NGD) 27,833 votes; Andrés Velázquez (LCR) 24,561; Gastón Guisandes (OPINA) 10,720; David Nieves (LS) 10,065; Jorge Olavarria (LNR) 9,969; Alberto Marini Urdaneta (FUN) 5,821; Luis Hernández Campos (CCN) 2,589; Luis Alfonso Godoy (Nosotros PSN) 2,532; Leopoldo Díaz Bruzual (NA) 2,528; Alejandro Peña Esclusa (PUV) 2,168; Rómulo Abrue Duarte (FEVO) 1,513; José Rojass Contreras (NOR) 1,176; Hernández Escarrá Quintara (MNV) 1,412; Alberto Solano (FE) 818; Napoleón Barrios (MPDIN) 736; Arévalo Tovar Yajur (ONI) 432; Rómulo Yordi Carvajal (PUEBLO) 382.

Venezuela 583

1993 Total number % Registered voters 9,688,795 – Votes cast 5,829,216 60.2 Invalid votes 212,517 3.6 Valid votes 5,616,699 96.4 Rafael Caldera (Convergencia) 1,710,722 30.5 Claudio Fermín (AD) 1,326,287 23.6 Oswaldo Alvarez Paz (COPEI) 1,276,506 22.7 Andrés Velásquez (La Causa R) 1,232,653 21.9 Othersa 71,531 1.3 a Modesto Rivero (ORA) 20,814 votes; Nelson Ojeda Valenzuela (FPI) 18,690; Luis Alberto Machado (RDLI) 6,851; Fernando Bianco (CEM) 5,590; José Antonio Cova (NGD) 4,937; Gabriel Puerta Aponte (MDP) 3,746; Rhona Otolina (FORMULA 1) 3,633; Romulo Abreu Duarte (FEVO) 1,554; Jesús Tang (PN) 1,251; Blas García Núñez (PEV) 1,198; Juán Chacín (PODER): 981; Carmen de González (CCN) 866; Felix Díaz Ortega (NOR) 780; Temístocles Fernández (IT): 640.

1998 Total number % Registered voters 11,013,020 – Votes cast 6,988,291 63.8 Invalid votes 450,987 6.5 Valid votes 6,537,304 93.5 Hugo Chávez (MVR)a 3,673,685 56.2 Henrique Salas Römer (PRVZL)b 2,613,685 40.0 Irene Sáez (IRENE)c 184,568 2.8 Othersa 65,890 1.0 a Chávez was also supported by MAS, PPT, PCV, IPCN, GE, MEP, SI, and AA. b Salas was also supported by AD, COPEI, and PQAC. c Sáez was supported by COPEI until a few days before the elections, when the party switched it support to Salas. d Luis Alfaro Ucero (ORA, URD, RENACE, VU, ICC, FIN, ONDA) 27,586; Miguel Rodríguez (Apertura) 19,629; Alfredo Ramos (La Causa R) 7,275; Radamés Muñoz León (NR) 2,919; Os-waldo Suju Rafo (FS) 2,901; Alejandro Peña Esclusa (PLV) 2,424; Domenico Tanzi (Participa)1,900, and Ignacio Quintana (OPINA) 1,256.

2000 Total number % Registered voters 11,720,660 – Votes cast 6,637,276 56.6 Invalid votes 348,698 5.3 Valid votes 6,288,578 94.7 Hugo Chávez (MVR)a 3,757,773 59.8 Francisco Arias-Cárdenasb 2,359,459 37.5 Claudio Fermín (Encuentro) 171,346 2.7 a Also supported by MAS, PCV, SI, IPCN, AA, MEP, GE, and NRD. b Arias-Cárdenas was nominated as an independent candidate, supported also by LCR, ID, MIN, MDD, MDP-BR. He got 872,229 votes for his personal ticket.

Venezuela584


Head of State Years Remarks Cipriano Castro 1899–1908 Regional caudillo. Led a revolution and as-

sumed power on 24/10/1899. Juan Vicente Gómez 1908–1935 Assumed power on 19/12/1908 by a coup

d’état. De facto dictator until his death on 17/12/1935.

Victoriano Márquez B. 1915–1922 Assumed presidency as provisional presi-dent on 03/05/1915.

Juan Vicente Gómez 1922–1929 Formally assumed presidency on 03/05/1922. Juan Bautista Pérez 1929–1931 Formally assumed presidency on 03/05/1929. Pedro Hriago Chacín 1931 Assumed presidency after Bautista’s resi-

gnation on 24/06/1931. Juan Vicente Gómez 1921–1935 Formally assumed presidency on 13/07/1931. Eleazar López Contreras

1935–1941 Army officer. Assumed presidency after Gómez’ death on 17/12/1935.

Arminio Borjas 1936 Temporary president between 19/05 and 25/05/1936.

Isaís Medina Angarita

1941–1945 Army officer. Assumed presidency on 05/05/1941. Overthrown by a coup d’état on18/10/1945.

Rómulo Betancourt 1945–1948 Proclaimed as provisional president by the government junta on 18/10/1945. The go-vernment junta was composed by UniónPatriótica Militar and Acción Democrática.The elections to the Constitutional Assem-bly in 1946 as well as the presidential and parliamentary elections in 1947 were orga-nized under his government.

Rómulo Gallegos 1948 Constitutional president. Assumed power on 15/02/1948. Dismissed by coup d’état on 24/11/1948.

Carlos Delgado Chalbaud

1948–1950 Assumed power as head of the military jun-ta that had emerged after the coup d’étatagainst the Gallegos government. Assassinated on 23/11/1950

Germán Suárez Flamerich

1950–1952 Assumed power as provisional president on 23/11/1950.

Marcos PérezJiménez

1952–1958 Army officer. Declared himself president on 02/12/1952. Ousted after a civil-military rebellion on 23/01/1958.

Venezuela 585

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Wolfgang Larrazabal Ugueto

1958–1959 Military. President of a civil-military junta that had been established after the downfall of the Jiménez dictatorship on 23/01/1958.

Edgardo Sanabría 1958 Assumed provisional presidency on 14/11/1958.Rómulo Betancourt 1959–1964 Constitutional president. Assumed power on

13/02/1959.Raúl Leoni 1964–1969 Constitutional president. Assumed power on

11/05/1964.Rafael Caldera López

1969–1974 Constitutional president. Assumed power on 11/03/1969.

Carlos Andrés Pérez 1974–1979 Constitutional president. Assumed power on 12/03/1974.

Luis Herrera Cam-pins

1979–1984 Constitutional president. Assumed power on 12/03/1979.

Jaime Lusinchi 1984–1989 Constitutional president. Assumed power on 02/02/1984.

Carlos Andrés Pérez 1989–1993 Constitutional president. Assumed power on 02/02/1989. He was formally dismissed from office on 21/05/1993, and subjected to trial by the Supreme Court. He was found guilty of mismanagement of public funds.

Octavio Lepage 1993 Provisional president. Assumed presidency while being Chairman of the Congress on 21/05/1993 until 05/06/1993.

Ramón J. Velásquez 1993–1994 President designated by Congress on 05/06/1993 to replace Pérez.

Rafael Caldera 1994–1999 Constitutional president. Assumed presi-dency on 02/02/1994.

Hugo Chávez Frías 1999– Constitutional president. Assumed presi-dency on 02/02/1999; re-elected on 30 July 2000. This second term was inaugurated in 19 August 2000.

Venezuela586

3. Bibliography


‘Bases para la Convocatoria de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente aproba-das en referéndum el 25 de abril de 1999’. Gaceta Oficial de la Repúbli-ca de Venezuela 36669, 25 March 1999 (The proposal for the referéndum).

Consejo Nacional Electoral (1999). ‘Resultado del Referendo Consultivo’. Revista del CNE, 6 (mayo-junio): 9–11.

Consejo Nacional Electoral – INDRA (1998). Resultados Electorales. Vene-zuela 1998 (CD-ROM). Caracas: Consejo Nacional Electoral.

Consejo Nacional Electoral – INDRA (1999a). Resultados Electorales. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente de 1999. <http://constituyente.cantv.net.> (as of 30 July 1999).

Consejo Nacional Electoral – INDRA (1999b). Resultados Referendo Diciembre 1999. <http://referendum.cantv.net/refer.htm.> (as of 20 De-cember 1999).

Consejo Nacional Electoral (2000). República Bolivariana de Venezuela Elecciones 2000 (CD-ROM). <http://www.cne.gov.ve/estadisticas.asp.>.

Consejo Supremo Electoral (1969). Estatutos y leyes electorales de Venezue-la desde 1936 hasta 1952. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral.

Consejo Supremo Electoral (1983). La estadística evolutiva de los partidos políticos en Venezuela 1958–1979. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral.

Consejo Supremo Electoral (1987). Los partidos políticos y sus estadísticas electorales 1946–1984 (2 Vols.). Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral.

Consejo Supremo Electoral (1994). Elecciones 1993 (2 Discs). Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral.

‘Constitución de la República de Venezuela del 23 de enero de 1961’, in Lasconstituciones latinoamericanas 1988, Vol 2. México: Universidad Na-cional Autónoma de México.

‘Ley Electoral’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 24/05/1958. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Electoral’. Gaceta Oficial de la República

de Venezuelal, 22/12/1959. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Electoral’. Gaceta Oficial de la República

de Venezuela, 31/03/1964. ‘Ley Orgánica Del Sufragio’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela,

17/09/1970.‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio’. Gaceta Oficial de

la República de Venezuela, 18/01/1973. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio’. Gaceta Oficial de

la República de Venezuela, 06/09/1973.

http://referendum.cantv.net/refer.htm

http://www.cne.gov.ve/estadisticas.asp

http://constituyente.cantv.net

Venezuela 587

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 6 de julio de 1977’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 29/09/1977.

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 22 de agosto de 1988’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4059 (extraordinary issue), 10/11/1988.

‘Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 1 de septiembre de 1989’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4124 (extraordinary issue), 14/09/1989.

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 26 de febrero de 1992’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4422 (extraordinary issue), 07/05/1992.

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 29 de julio de 1993’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4618 (extraordinary issue), 20/08/1993.

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 16 de mayo de 1995’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4918 (extraordinary issue), 02/06/1995.

‘Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política del 13 de diciembre de 1997’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 5200 (extraordinary issue), 30/12/1997.

‘Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política del 13 de diciembre de 1997’ (Reprint due to mistake). Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 5219 (extraordinary issue), 13/03/1998.

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política del 27 de mayo de 1998’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 5233 (extraordinary issue), 28/05/1998.

Oficina Central de Estadística e Informática (1993). El censo 90 en Venezuela. Caracas: OCEI.

Oficina Central de Estadística e Informática (1998). Proyecciones de Pobla-ción por Estado. Publicaciones Electrónicas. Caracas: Fundación de Ediciones Oficiales de Estadística e Informática.


Abente, D. (1987). ‘Venezuelan Democracy Revisited’. Latin American Re-search Review, 22/1: 225–240.

Alcántara Saez, M. (1999). Sistemas políticos de América Latina, Vol. 1: América del Sur (2nd edn.). Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.

Alvarez, A. (1994). ‘La crisis de hegemonía de los partidos políticos venezolanos’, in A. Alvarez (ed.), El sistema político venezolano: crisis y transformaciones. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 131–154.

Venezuela588

Baloyra, E. (1993). ‘Venezuela. Elecciones generales. 5 de diciembre de 1993’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano, 10/julio-diciembre: 31–42.

Baloyra, E. and Martz, J. (1979). Political Attitudes in Venezuela. Societal Cleavages and Political Opinion. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press.

Bautista Urbaneja, D. (1988). ‘El sistema política, o cómo funciona la máquina de procesar decisiones’. Síntesis, 5: 143–170.

Betancourt, R. (1967). Venezuela. Política y petróleo. Barcelona/Caracas/Mexico: Seix Barral.

Boeckh, A. and Hörmann, M. (1992). ‘Venezuela’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nu-scheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 2: Südamerika. Bonn: Dietz, 510–536.

Bracho, P. (1992). El partido político contra la sociedad. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia.

Brewer-Carías, A. R. (1979). ‘50 años en la evolución institucional de Venezuela, 1926–1976’, in R. J. Velásquez (ed.), Venezuela moderna. Medio siglo de historia 1926–1976. Caracas: Fundación Eugenio Mendoza/Ed. Ariel.

— (1985). El Estado incomprendido. Reflexiones sobre el sistema político y su reforma. Caracas: Vadell Hermanos Editores.

— (1988). Problemas del estado de partidos. Caracas: Comp. Jurídica Venezolana.

— (2002). Golpe de Estado y Proceso Constituyente en Venezuela. Mexico City: UNAM.

Bunimov-Parra, B. (1968). Introducción a la sociología electoral venezolana.Caracas: Editorial Arte.

Canache, D. (2002). ‘From Bullets to Ballots: The Emergence of Popular Support for Hugo Chávez’. Latin American Politics and Society, 44: 69–90.

Canache, D. and Kulischeck, M. (eds.) (1998). Reinventing Legitimacy. De-mocracy and Political Change in Venezuela. Westport, Conn.: Green-wood Press.

Combellas, R. (1988). La democratización de la democracia. Caracas. Comisión Para la Reforma del Estado (COPRE) (ed.) (1988). La Reforma del

Estado. Proyecto de reforma integral de Estado. Caracas: COPRE. Coppedge, M. (1994). Strong Parties and Lame Ducks. Presidential Partyar-

cy and Factionalism in Venezuela. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.

Coronil, F. (1997). The Magical State. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chi-cago Press.

Crisp, B. (1997). ‘Presidential Behavior in a System with Strong Parties: Ve-nezuela, 1958–1995’, in S. Mainwaring and M. S. Shugart (eds.), Presi-dentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 160–199.

Venezuela 589

Crisp, B., Levine, D., and Molina, J. (2003). ‘The Rise and Decline of COPEI in Venezuela’, in S. Mainwaring and T. Scully (eds.), Christian Demo-cracy in Latin America: Electoral Competition and Regime Conflict. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Crisp, B. and Levine, D. (1998). ‘“Democratizing the Democracy”? Crisis and Reform in Venezuela’. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 40/2: 27–63.

— (1999). ‘Venezuela: características y posible futuro democrático’. AméricaLatina Hoy, 21: 5–25.

De la Cruz, R. (1988). Venezuela en busca de un nuevo pacto social. Cara-cas: Alfadil.

Ellner, S. (1988). Venezuelas Movimiento al Socialismo. From Guerilla De-feat to lnnovative Politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Ellner, S. and D. Hellinger (eds.) (2003). Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict. Boulder, Colo.: Lynn Rienner.

Eweil, J. (1984). Venezuela. A Century of Change. Stanford, Calif.: Universi-ty of Stanford Press.

Gil Yepes, J. A. (1978). El reto de las élites. Caracas: Ed. Tecnas. Gómez Calcaño, L. and López Maya, M. (1988). ‘Venezuela: los actores

políticos ante la reforma del Estado’, in C. Acuña et al. (eds.), Hacia un nuevo orden estatal en América Latina? Democratización/ moderniza-ción y actores socio-politicos. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 185–237.

Guzmán, F. (ed.) (1986). La reforma del sistema electoral venezolano. Cara-cas: CSE.

Hellinger, D. (1991). Venezuela. Tarnished Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Herman, D. L. (1980). Christian Democracy in Venezuela. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.

— (ed.) (1988). Democracy in Latin America. Colombia and Venezuela. New York: Praeger.

Herman, D. L. and Myers, D. J. (1985). ‘The Venezuelan Election 1983’, in H. J. Penniman (ed.), American Enterprise Instituto Election Yearbook 1983. Durham, S.C.: Duke University Press.

Hernández, J. (1995). ‘Efectos políticos del sistema de representación proporcional personalizada en la elección de diputados al Congreso Nacional’. Cuestiones Políticas, 15: 37–51.

Hillman, R. (1994). Crisis and Transition in Venezuela. Boulder, Col.: Lynne Renner.

Karl, T. L. (1986). ‘Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Transition to Demo-cracy in Venezuela’, in G. O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America. Balti-more/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 169–219.

Venezuela590

Koeneke, H. (1995). ‘Análisis de la campaña electoral’, in CENDES (ed.), ElProceso Electoral de 1993. Análisis de sus resultados. Caracas: CEN-DES, 43–67.

Kornblith, M. (1996). ‘Crisis y transformación del sistema político: nuevas y viejas reglas de juego’, in A. Alvarez (ed.), El sistema político venezola-no: crisis y transformaciones. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezue-la, 1–31.

— (1998). Venezuela en los noventa. Las crisis de la democracia. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela-IESA.

Levine, D. H. (1973). Conflict and Political Change in Venezuela. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

— (1987). ‘Venezuela’, in M. Weiner and E. Özbudun (eds.), Competitive Electi-ons in Developing Countries. Durham, S.C.: Duke University Press.

— (1989). ‘Venezuela: The Nature, Sources and Prospects of Democracy’, in L. Diamond, J. J. Linz, and S. M. Lipset (eds.), Democracy in Develo-ping Countries. Vol. 4: Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Renner.

López Maya, M. (1987). ‘Las Elecciones de 1946 y 1947’. Boletín de la Aca-demia Nacional de la Historia, LXX/278: 440–449.

López Maya, M., Gómez Calcaño, L., and Maingón, T. (1989). De Punto Fijo al Pacto Social. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Acta Científica Venezolana.

Lopez Maya, M. and Lander, L. (1999). ‘Triunfos en tiempos de transición. Actores de vocación popular en las elecciones venezolanas de 1998’. América Latina Hoy, 21/abril: 41–51.

McCoy, J. (1988). ‘The State and the Democratic Compromise in Venezue-la’. Journal of Developing Societies, 4: 85–104.

McCoy, J., Serbín, A., Smith, W., and Stambouli, A. (eds.). Venezuelan De-mocracy Under Stress. Miami, Fl.: University of Miami.

McDonald, R. H. (1971). Party Systems and Elections in Latin America. Chi-cago, Ill.: Markham Publishers.

Magallanes, M. V. (1977). Los partidos políticos en la evolución histórica de Venezuela. Caracas: Monte Avila Editores.

— (ed.) (1986). Reformas electorales y partidos políticos (Colección del Cincuentenario 1). Caracas: CSE.

— (ed.) (1987). Sistemas electorales, acceso al sistema político y sistema de partidos (Colección de Cincuentenario 3). Caracas: CSE.

Maingón, T. (1995). ‘Los procesos electorales: un marco referencial para su estudio’, in CENDES (ed.), El Proceso Electoral de 1993. Análisis de sus resultados. Caracas: CENDES, 7–19.

Maingón, T. and Sonntag, H. (1992). ‘Del rito democrático a la protesta silenciosa (elecciones de 1988 y 1989)’, in M. Magallanes (ed.), Liderazgo e Ideología. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral.

Marta Sosa, J. (1984). Venezuela: elecciones y transformación social.Caracas: Ediciones Centauro.

Venezuela 591

Martz, J. D. (1966). Acción Democrática. The Evolution of a Modern Politi-cal Party in Venezuela. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Martz, J. D. and Myers, D. J. (eds.) (1986). Venezuela. The Democratic Ex-perience. New York: Praeger.

Mijares, A. (1967). La evolución política de Venezuela 1810–1960. Buenos Aires: Ed. Universitaria de Buenos Aires.

Molina, J. (1989). ‘Las elecciones nacionales de 1988. Ruptura de algunos mitos, respaldo a liderazgos regionales y debilitamiento del bipartidis-mo’. Cuestiones Políticas 4: 67–80.

— (1991). El sistema electoral venezolano y sus consecuencias políticas. Va-lencia (Venezuela): Vadell Hermanos – Instituto Interamericano de De-rechos Humanos.

— (1994). ‘Beyond the Party List: Electoral Reform in Venezuela’, in S. Na-gel (ed.), Latin American Development and Public Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 165–185.

— (1995). ‘Los venezolanos abandonan el hábito de votar: la abstención en las elecciones de 1993’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano, 13/enero-junio: 161–182.

— (1998). ‘Evolution of the Party System in Venezuela, 1946–1993’. Jour-nal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 40/2: 1–26.

— (1999). ‘La democracia venezolana en una encrucijada: las elecciones na-cionales y regionales de 1998’. América Latina Hoy, 21/abril: 29–40.

Molina, J. and Pérez, C. (1994). ‘Venezuela: ¿un nuevo sistema de partidos? Las elecciones de 1993’. Cuestiones Políticas 13: 63–90.

— (2001). ‘Venezuela’, in Manuel Alcántara Sáez and Flavia Freidenberg (eds.), Partidos Políticos de América Latina. Países Andinos. Salaman-ca, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

— (2001). ‘The presidential and parliamentary elections of the Bolivarian re-volution in Venezuela: change and continuity (1998-2000)’. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 21: 219–247.

Navas Blanco, A. (1998). El comportamiento electoral a fines del siglo XIX venezolano. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.

Nohlen, D. (2004). Sistemas electorales y partidos politicos. Mexico: UNAM. Nohlen, D. et al. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de

América Latina. IIDH: San José, Costa Rica. Oropeza, A. (1985). Evolución constitucional de nuestra República. Caracas. Oropeza, L. J. (1983). Tutelary Pluralism. A Critical Approach to Venezue-

lan Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Peeler, J. A. (1985). Latin American Democracies. Colombia, Costa Rica and

Venezuela. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Penniman, H. (ed.) (1980). Venezuela at the Polis. The National Elections of

1978. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Venezuela592

Pereira, V. (1998). ‘Problemas familiares de los partidos políticos: cambios de rumbo en la socialización política de los venezolanos’. Cuadernos del CENDES, 40: 139–158.

Ramos Jiménez, A. (1987). Venezuela. Un sistema político en crisis. Mérida: Kappa Editores.

Rey, J. C. (1989). El futuro de la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: Idea. — (1991). ‘La democracia venezolana y la crisis del sistema populista de

conciliación’. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 74: 533–578. Rey Martínez, J. C. (1988). ‘El futuro de la democracia en Venezuela’. Sínte-

sis (Madrid), 5: 171–220. Rey Martínez, J. C. et al. (1981). El financiamiento de los partidos políticos y

la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: CSE. Rodríguez, F. (1996). ‘Política, militares y democracia en Venezuela’, in A.

Alvarez (ed.), El sistema político venezolano: crisis y transformaciones.Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 155–189.

Romero, A. (1988). ‘El sistema política venezolano’. Ciencia Política, 13: 59–79.

Salamanca, L. (1997). Crisis de la modernidad y crisis de la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela-Ildis.

Sanoja, J. (1998). Historia Electoral de Venezuela 1810–1998. Caracas: CEC-El Nacional.

Sonntag, H. R. (1988). ‘Estado y desarrollo sociopolítico en Venezuela’. Sín-tesis (Madrid), 5: 97–142.

Spoerr, W. (1990). ‘Demokratie in Venezuela: Präsidentialismus, Parteien und Wahlen’. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee (Hamburg), 23/l: 19–33.

Vaivads, H. (1999). ‘La teoría de realineamiento partidista. Una aproximación explicativa para el caso venezolano’. Cuestiones Políticas, 22: 133–146.

— (1994) ‘Las elecciones de 1993 y sus efectos sobre los partidos políticos y el sistema de partidos’. Cuestiones Políticas, 22: 91–104.

Veneziano, A. (1988). ‘La crisis del sistema político y la alternativa reformista en Venezuela’. Cuadernos de CLAEH (Montevideo), 48: 17–31.

Villabona Blanco, P. (1986). ‘Política y elecciones en Venezuela’. Revista de Estudios Politicos, 53: 215–237.

Welsch, F. (1995). ‘Cultura política y resultados electorales’, in CENDES (ed.), El Proceso Electoral de 1993. Análisis de sus resultados. Caracas: CENDES, 19–29.

Welsch, F. and Carrasquero, J. V. (1996). ‘¿Desconsolidación de la democra-cia en Venezuela? Rendimiento y legitimidad normativa’. CuestionesPolíticas, 16: 45–73.

Welsch, F. and Werz, N. (1990). Venezuela. Wahlen und Politik zum Aus-gang der achtziger Jahre. Freiburg: Arnold Bergstraesser lnstitut.

Glossary

The following glossary of key concepts of elections and electoral sys-tems refers to those definitions only that are systematically applied in this handbook.

Absentee voting: Under an absentee voting provision a person entitled to vote and unable or unwilling to go to the assigned polling station on election day may still cast his/ her vote. Voting takes place before elec-tion day by mail or before or on election day at a different and some-times special polling station than the one originally assigned. In the special case of external or overseas voting, embassies and military bases function also as polling stations for absentees. In most cases there is an application deadline for absentee voting before the elections. In electoral systems with more than one constituency it deserves special attention to which constituency absentee and especially overseas ballots are added.

Absolute majority system: An electoral system in which a candidate be-comes elected if he or she has received more than half of the valid votes.If no candidate reaches the necessary absolute majority, runoffs usually ensue among only the two candidates with the highest shares of votes. In order to avoid a runoff, in some cases the parliament decides.

Alternative vote (system): An electoral system in which voters rank can-didates according to their preferences. The decision rule is the absolute majority of first preference votes. If no candidate obtains the necessary absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of first prefer-ence votes is eliminated, and his/ her votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates on the basis of the voters’ second preferences. This procedure is repeated until one candidate obtains an absolute ma-jority.

Binomial system: An electoral system in which all MPs are elected in two-member-constituencies on a closed and non-blocked list of parties or electoral alliances, i.e. each elector has one vote. The decision rule is plurality. This electoral system tends to favor the second largest political forces in a country: only if the winning list receives twice as many votes as the list which finishes second, both seats will be given to the winning

Glossary594

list (to the candidate with the second largest number of votes on this list).

Blank votes: Blank votes, i.e. leaving the ballot blank, are seen in Latin America as a form of protest against the government and many statistics list blank votes separately from invalid votes.

Candidacy: The form of candidacy is particularly important because the relationship between voter and representative can be influenced by dif-ferent institutional arrangements. A fundamental distinction must be drawn between individual candidacies and party lists, i.e. between vot-ing for certain candidates (in SMCs or small MMCs), or for lists of par-ties or independents (in MMCs).

Closed and blocked list: A list system (also referred to as simply closed list) which allows the voter to cast his/ her vote only for one fixed list of party candidates, without being it possible for him/ her to express his/ her preferences within this list. See list.

Closed and non-blocked list: A list system which allows the voter to de-cide who should represent the party in Parliament by letting him/ her choose between the candidates of a given list. See list.

Combined electoral system: Generalized expression for electoral sy-stems in which more than one principle of decision is applied (like in mixed-member proportional systems, compensatory systems or segmen-ted systems).

Compensatory system: A combined electoral system with more than one tier of seat allocation where the additional tier systematically favors those parties which were disadvantaged in the preceding step of seat allocation. Contrary to the segmented system, where the allocation of parliamentary seats takes place separately according to the majority principle and to proportional representation, the parts of a compensa-tory system are interconnected insofar as the unsuccessful votes of the majority part are additionally taken into account in the allocation of the PR-seats. By this hyper-proportional procedure, smaller parties or alli-ances are partially compensated for their disadvantage in the distribution of the majority seats.

Glossary 595

Constituency (or Electoral District): The territory in which elections are held is divided into constituencies in which candidates are elected. The number of constituencies in an election may range from one—all representatives are elected nationwide—to as many as there are representatives to be elected (i.e. parliamentary seats). Single-member constituencies (SMCs) where only one candidate is elected can be distinguished from multi-member constituencies (MMCs) of small size (2–5 seats), medium size (6–10 seats) and large size (11 or more seats). The district magnitude is hence measured with reference to the number of seats to be distributed in the constituencies. The lower the number of constituencies, and the higher the number of seats awarded in each district, the stronger is the proportional effect of the electoral sys-tem.

Decision rule: see Principle of decision.

Deposit: Electoral laws frequently provide for candidates to pay a cer-tain amount of money to get on the ballot. As a rule, a candidate will only be refunded after an election, if he has achieved a minimum of the vote share or has won a seat. While deposits tend to reduce the number of frivolous candidacies, they may also be exclusionary for candidates who cannot pay or raise the money for the deposit. An alternative to the deposit is the requirement of a certain number of certified supporters.

D’Hondt method: A highest average formula with the sequence of divi-sors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Favors larger parties. See Electoral formulae.

Droop quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one (V/[M+1]). Identical to Hagenbach–Bischoff quota.

Electoral formulae: Where seats are distributed proportionally, a spe-cific method of calculation has to be used. Although there are manifold methods, most of them can be classified into two basic categories, namely those based on average formula and those based on a quota. The typical feature of the highest average formula—the best known exam-ples are the d’Hondt formula and the Saint-Laguë formula—is as fol-lows: The votes gained by the various political parties are divided by a series of divisors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. in the case of the d’Hondt formula)so that decreasing numerical series result for each party. The seats are allocated to the highest numbers of quotients. The advantages of this

Glossary596

method of distribution are its simplicity and the fact that all seats are dis-tributed in just one step. Under quota systems, on the other hand, a quota is calculated. The number of seats the relevant parties will gain will be the same as the number of times their vote total can be divided by the quota. Examples are the Hare, Droop or Hagenbach-Bischoff quota, cal-culated by dividing the number of total votes cast by a certain divisor. These formulae do not allow for a one-step seat allocation, so the re-maining seats have to be distributed in a second stage, often by the method of largest remainder of votes or by the greatest average method. The same effect on seat distribution as the Hare quota in combination with largest remainder has the Hare-Niemeyer formula. In comparison to average formula systems, the quota systems normally produce a more proportional outcome, thereby favoring smaller parties.

Electoral system: Set of formal rules according to which voters may ex-press their political preferences in elections and which enables the con-version of votes into parliamentary seats (in the case of parliamentary elections) or into executive positions (in the case of elections for Presi-dent, governors, mayors, etc.). These rules affect the following spheres: constituencies, candidacies, voting procedures, and modes of seat allo-cation.

External voting (or overseas voting): A provision which enables the vot-ing age population living or staying abroad to cast their vote outside their home country. External voting is a special case of absentee voting.

First vote: In a combined electoral system with two votes to be cast (e.g. segmented system), the first vote refers to the candidate vote (usually in SMCs) and the second vote to the party vote (in MMCs).

Gerrymandering: This term refers to the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to suit the interests of political parties. It entails a de-liberate political manipulation and exploits the varying spatial distribu-tion of support for the various political parties. This tactic is named after Elbridge Gerry, a governor from Massachusetts who cut out a safe sala-mander-shaped district for himself in Boston.

Greatest average: Method for the allocation of remaining seats. The seats that cannot be distributed under the electoral quota are allocated later to those parties with the highest average number of votes per seat(parties that have suffered most from the application of the electoral

Glossary 597

quota benefit most from the additional allocations). See Electoral formu-lae.

Hagenbach-Bischoff quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), di-vided by the district magnitude (M) plus one (V/[M+1]). See Electoral formulae.

Hare quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the dis-trict magnitude (M): (V/M). See Electoral formulae.

Hare-Niemeyer formula: The number of seats for each party is calcu-lated by dividing the valid votes of each party (PV) by the total number of valid votes (TV), and subsequently multiplying the result by the dis-trict magnitude (M): SP (seat portion) = ([PV/TV]*M). The greatest in-teger (GI) less or equal to the SP determines the number of seats given to each party. Remaining seats are given to the parties according to their largest remaining SP: (SP–GI). Identical with Hare quota together with Largest remainder. See Electoral formulae.

Highest average formula: see Electoral formulae.

Largest remainder: Formula used to allocate the remaining seats. The seats that cannot be distributed under the corresponding electoral quota are allocated successively to those parties with the largest remainder (to-tal votes of the respective party minus its successful votes). See Elec-toral formulae.

List, forms of lists: The different forms of party lists influence the rela-tionship between the voter and the candidates or between the candidates and their parties. The strictly closed and blocked list permits only voting en bloc for a political party, and does not allow the voter to express his/ her preferences for or rejection of a given candidate. Instead, party committees decide the sequence of the candidates on the lists. Closed and blocked lists thus tend to increase the dependence of the representa-tives on the political parties. On the other hand, the parties can plan the composition of the party in Parliament (experts, minorities, women, etc.). On the contrary, preferential voting within a closed, (but) non-blocked list permits voters to decide who should represent the party in Parliament. This decision is only pre-structured by the party committees. A representative therefore feels less dependent on his/ her party. The open (i.e. non-closed and non-blocked) list allows voters to cross party

Glossary598

lines and enables them to compile their own lists. Consequently, an openlist may be considered as a mere proposal by the parties.

Majority principle: see Principle of decision.

Majority representation: see Principle of representation.

Majority system: see Absolute majority system.

Mixed-member proportional system: An electoral system in which two votes are cast. Unlike the segmented system, the number of seats per par-ty list is determined by the second vote according to proportional repre-sentation in national or regional MMCs. Yet, a fixed number of seats (lower than the seat total) is allocated directly to winning candidates ac-cording to the plurality system in SMCs or MMCs determined by the first vote. The seats won by candidates—which are usually associated with a party and are also on this party’s list—are subtracted from the party’s seat total. If there are fewer seats per party than seats per (party) candidates, the elected candidates remain in parliament as additional members (surplus seats). Usually, the mixed-member proportional sy-stem—also known as the German model—does not cause many of such additional members of parliament and has therefore hardly any effect upon the proportionality of votes and parties: it is in effect a personali-zed system of proportional representation.

MMC, Multi-member constituency: see Constituency.

Multiple vote: see Vote(s).

Open (i.e. non-closed and non-blocked) lists: A list system which allows voters to cross party lines and enables them to compile their own list of preferred candidates disregarding their party affiliation. See List.

Overseas voting: see External voting.

Parallel system: see Segmented system.

Plurality system: An electoral system in which a candidate (in SMCs or MMCs) or a party list (in MMCs) is elected if he/ she/ it receives more valid votes than any other candidate or party list. Unlike in the absolute

Glossary 599

majority system, the plurality of valid votes—not the majority—is suffi-cient to get elected.

Preferential voting: see Alternative vote system.

Principle of decision: The decision principle is the formula that deter-mines the winners and losers of an election. If the decision principle is the majority formula, it will be the majority of votes cast that will decide who wins and who loses the election (majority principle, i.e. either by plurality or by an [absolute] majority). If the proportional formula is the principle of decision, the result of an election is decided according to the proportion of votes cast obtained by each candidate or party (propor-tional principle).

Principle of representation: There are two basic principles to classify electoral systems according to their impact they are intended to have upon the votes/seats relationship: majority representation and propor-tional representation. The objective of majority representation is to pro-duce a parliamentary majority for one party or for a coalition of parties; this is achieved by the disproportion between votes and seats inherent in majority electoral systems. Proportional representation, on the other hand, aims at reflecting the existing social forces and political groups in a given country as accurately as possible, i.e. a more or less proportional relation between votes and seats.

Proportional principle: see principle of decision.

Proportional representation (PR): 1. see principle of representation. 2.An electoral system in which the share of seats reflects the share of votesin a constituency. The fewer the number of constituencies, and the larger they are, the more proportional is the overall effect of the system. The size of the constituencies creates natural thresholds which infringe pro-portionality, and legal thresholds have analogous effects. Furthermore, the electoral formula applied may have disproportional effects on the votes/seats ratio. An electoral system with only one (national) constitu-ency and without a legal threshold is called pure PR. If there is more than one constituency the system is called PR in multi-member constitu-encies. In some countries, a part of Parliament is elected in (regional) MMCs and another part in one national constituency (e.g. in Guate-mala): the system is then labeled PR in multi-member constituencies with an additional national list. In contrast to the segmented system,

Glossary600

only one principle of decision is applied and the vote counts twice. See also Combined electoral system.

PR in multi-member constituencies: see Proportional representation.

PR in multi-member constituencies with an additional national list: see Proportional representation.

Pure PR: see proportional representation.

Quota systems: see Electoral formulae and Droop, Hagenbach-Bischoff and Hare quota.

Runoff: see Absolute majority system.

Saint-Laguë formula: A highest average formula with the sequence of divisors 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc. In comparison with the d’Hondt formula it tends to favour smaller parties. See Electoral formulae.

Second vote: In a combined electoral system with two votes to cast (e.g. in a segmented system), the second vote refers to the party vote (in MMCs) and the first vote to the candidate vote (usually in SMCs).

Segmented system (or parallel system): Two electoral systems are used to elect members of a parliamentary chamber separately: for a fixed por-tion of seats, proportional representation in medium- to large-sized (of-ten national) MMCs is applied; for another portion of seats, MPs are elected in SMCs by plurality or absolute majority. These two parts of the segmented system are not connected in any way and their respective electoral formulae are also applied separately. This is the basic differ-ence to compensatory systems, where the different parts of the electoral system are interconnected and the disproportional effect of the initial seat allocation by the majority principle is reduced by a hyper-propor-tional formula that favors smaller parties.

A valuable indicator of the degree of proportionality of a segmented system is the ratio between the number of MPs elected by majority prin-ciple and the number of MPs elected by PR.

SMC, Single-member constituency: see Constituency.

Glossary 601

SNTV, Single non-transferable vote: A plurality electoral system in MMCs in which the voter can only cast one vote. Seats are distributed by plurality according to the number of votes for the single candidates. The larger the constituencies, the more SNTV tends to proportional repre-sentation. Unlike in STV, in SNTV there is no quota, additional prefer-ences cannot be given, and there is only one count of the votes.

STV, Single Transferable Vote (also PR-STV): An electoral system in which voters can rank candidates according to their preferences in MMCs. In a multiple-round counting process, surplus votes of candi-dates who have reached the STV Droop Quota are transferred to second preference candidates proportionally to all second preferences of the voters of the successful candidate. Likewise, candidates with the lowest share of votes are eliminated and the corresponding votes are transferred to the next preference. The counting process continues until all seats of the constituency are filled. STV is also called PR-STV to distinguish it from the alternative vote.

STV Droop quota: One plus the greatest integer (GI) less than or equal to the total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magni-tude (M) plus one: 1+ (GI V/[M+1]). See Electoral formulae.

Thresholds of representation: A legal threshold (or hurdle) of represen-tation is a certain, legally fixed number of votes or seats that a political party (or candidate) has to reach in order to be allowed to participate in the allocation of seats. Legal (or artificial) thresholds differ from natural thresholds, which may result from districting, i.e. from the size of the constituencies.

Vote(s): Depending on the electoral system, voters can either cast one, two or a series of votes. If there is one vote, this is usually either for a single candidate, a closed and blocked list of a party or a candidate on a closed and non-blocked list. If the voter is entitled to two or more votes, he may cast them in favor of one candidate on a closed and non-blocked list exclusively (cumulative voting), of more than one candidate on a closed and non-blocked list (preference voting) or of candidates on vari-ous lists (panachage; see open list). Two votes are also the rule in com-bined electoral systems, where the first vote is to be cast for a candidate and the second vote for a party. The term multiple vote refers to an elec-toral system in which the voter may cast as many votes as seats are to be filled in the constituency.

Elections in the Americas v2.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Elections in the Americas v2.pdf