Parties, Elections, and Political Participation in Latin America
Parties, Elections, and Political Participation in Latin America
ByJorge I Dominguez
Edition 1st Edition
First Published 1994
eBook Published 4 February 2014
Pub. location New York
Pages 424 pages
eBook ISBN 9781315049021
Dominguez, J., Dominguez, J. (1994). Parties, Elections, and Political Participation in Latin America. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315049021
First Published in 1994. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KENNETHP.LANGTON University Michigan RONALD RAPOPORT
derives large extent difficulty incorporating working class and other popular strata political system. European countries also decades
radicalized middle class.! dubious cases ofPeronismo and Varguismo, especially their early stages. 1945, there element autonomous popular participation movement. situation changed course, as shall see later. Peronismo, contrast, spite being heavily centred figure, included from start an element active trade unionism, which become increasingly dominant. broad popular political coalitions
threat to the system as represented parties working-class support, such as Socialists Spain, Apristas Peronistas Argentina. threat result military versus civilian conflict rather versus working class confrontation, which basis problem, various types popular parties Latin America attempted following pages, special emphasis on Argentina Brazil. peculair traits present these two countries should interpreted in light contrasting experience Latin America, which suggests possible alternative structures.
transformation regime working-class-based parties withstood previous persecution under General Ibanez's dictatorship 1931, challenge Ibaiiez's second coming as a populist leader in 1952. populist challenge overcome partly adapting Socialist Party course Ibanez, being largely working-class-based, would elements movement, together perma- coalition Peronista (which happen, though, probably because enough sectors bourgeoisie, military other decided
nationalism difficult those parties adjust conditions developed country. contrast between European immigrant dominated Buenos Aires culture country quite considerable, whatever difference there might Chile auto- matic protection afforded under sword Damocles massive importations after ended. system domination, against operated, above all economic front, which was controlled between landed interests foreign
develop. Paulo: larger country, one would firmer ground expecting development labour party. happen, least recently, partly because political battle national level incorporated other actors country affect conditions Paulo. Besides, Paulo being intensively industrialized within rural milieu, internal migration
internal migrants Paulo become populist variety political structure, leadership, including sectors bourgeoisie middle classes, incapable auton- omous and organized expression. Neither Varguista parties (both Social Democratico Trabalhista pre-Goulart days) Adhemar Barros's Partido Social Progresista, whose
Cuban sugar-dominated econ- provided ideal conditions formation party radical temper. After short-lived stages hegemony Revolucionarios Autenticos attempt Peron Ibanez populism Batista, repression intensification pressures towards revolution. emergence revolutionary Jacobin elite result special conditions existing level poten- dominant class, bureaucracy. these conditions combine others among masses, revolutionary situation develops. exist, conflagration materialize. masses
popular splendour some years before. Anyway, movement portant part Fidel Castro's access power. Nicaraguan situation shows some similarities, exception numerous trade-union sector exist. revolutionary formula included 'Jacobins' various social course various Argentine governments (both military Right-wing Peronista) violently repressed revolutionary attempts, armed forces having greater degree discipline internal cohesion those available Batista Somoza. frontal opposition dominant moderate Peronista
urban rural workers, peasants (where exist). course always incorporate middle-class elements, middle classes are included, differ Aprista, middle-class populist parties. strong support among middle classes participation workers peasants), labour party?
classical Peronista alliance: an elite drawn sectors bourgeoisie military urban industrial workers, general highly unionized, though recent experience internal migration. alliance between extremes can expected unstable Mexican PRI, survived decades forecasts about impending division between Right. In Peronismo, contrast working-class unions stronger, capitalist element weaker marginal class, peasant sector non-existent practical purposes.
achieve this, except Rojas Pinilla, whose movement, proved short lived. these 'imitation' instances domination masses leadership great cannot included in egory popular parties analysed, again possible exception Rojas Pinilla's Alianza Nacional Popular (ANAPO). during first presi- dencies control state over labour movement high. unions strong enough, and electoral support so vast, party included among
completely incapable realization. threat system considerable and enough, and violence exerted sides surely become historical memory country. memory could, gener- ations, interpreted in sense 'next time' determined effort should toppling the regime.
writing 1983) countries are en- tering stable democratic experience. there important, electorally valid conservative party, government- supported Partido Democratico Social (PDS), confused Varguista Partido Social Democratico (PSD). Argentina there electoral equivalent, as Right composition. Brazil Argentina conflict military against civilians, dominant sectors against working class, urban rural. capacity political parties manage conflict future democratic institutions in those two countries depends.
patrimonial past still mainly subject or parochial rather participant orientation,2 together societal structures which access patronage national budget factors enhance presidents Latin America relative institutions republican government.
incumbents manage their share almost invariably declined election brought power. Chile 1946, Costa 1974, Venezuela 1963, Colombia 1978, Dominican Republic (these genuinely competitive
presidents Latin American nations may threatened actors as well, foreign governments, corporations, political parties; domestic business elites; students, unions, groups using demonstration; guerrilla bands engaged rebellion. these actors
that or to order to of or and urban than customary failure to promote electoral victory for their both and other that important Prior to that
erstwhile supporters mobilize power fairly personal basis. Potential candidates within president's party administration begin criticize before establish their legitimacy Followers search future patronage
of attendant of that urban population urban of South urban that job of or of that constitutional The Case to that
social mobilization (assessed indicators urbanization literacy) demands array political groups previously marginal relevance politics. Thus, between average annual growth countries, exception already substan- There further anomaly considered before conclude. Initially might reasonable assume
successor presidential elections and show a consistent decline United States. seems case, however, although evidence mixed Unfortunately purposes, Latin American countries (including Costa Rica, Uruguay, Venezuela
victory) incumbent president's party. However, late-in-the-term election showed incumbent gains well. Escalating violence, including government Liberals latter's withdrawal presidential later year, partly account outcome. that-midterm-and resulted victories defeat factions supporting government, accord expectations. Incidentally, Brazil's congressional elections under post- authoritarian regime (with military presidents)
evidence indicates there pronounced tendency incumbent administrations Latin America experience either turnover diminished pluralities subsequent or successor presidential elections assuming, continuance of genuinely competitive contests. off-year elections, although sketchy, partly contrasting pattern, reject polls government electorate. supposedly strong Latin American president therefore, surprisingly strong ability determine Paradoxically, despite existence highly repressive authori- tarian regimes, those Chile Argentina, those
legitimacy Stepan, 1971; Fitch, 1977). Modern Latin American presidents terms ensuring succession their political followers. weakness, turn, militates against effective continuity policy beyond presidential would appear
Delllocratization Brazil Southern Cone
least dominant party hegemony challenged at elite level in 1988. argument about significance of formal denl0cratization rests research three neighhorhoods Mexico <:ity: inner-city slum, initially settled "invasion," 1950s, governnlent-built housing develop- Three Areas euphemistically call inner-city area-is densely populated sections of Mexico <:ity. IOl'atl·d blocks central plaza. covers some sixty city blocks, houses about 100,000 people. lJntH World War area-along neighboring inner-city neighbor-
Determinants Popular-Authoritarian The American printed with the the Courtesy University Enrique and Evalua- American Reprinted with the permission Courtesy versity John Participation in Latin Structure, Concentration and Latin American 60. Reprinted with the the Latin American tesy University Sterling Charles and Kenneth Change in the One-Party Dominant Journal ofDevelopingAreas ofDeveloping ofInteramerican
Electoral Behavior: Peronism." (1977): 1423-46. permission American Political Science Association. ofYale Baloyra, "Criticism, Cynicism, Political (1982): Reprinted permission Courtesy Popular Parties: Brazil Argentina Latin American Perspective." (1984): 250-68. Reprinted permission Govern-
ByPolitical Science Review Journal Areas. Journal Areas. Government Opposition
Edgardo. Towards Democracy Period." (1990): 155-68. Reprinted mission Oxford University Press. Courtesy Univer- Social Science Library. Eckstein, Susan. "Formal Versus Substantive Democracy: Poor People's Politics Mexico City." (1990):
ByInternational Opinion Research Mexican Studies