More Inclusion, Less Liberalism in Bolivia

Anria, Santiago

doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0037

Cited by 54 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With few exceptions, a technocratic elite with no links to grassroots organizations was invited into the party and then appointed to key positions. While organizations allied with the MAS have managed to retain significant bottom-up influence in the selection of candidates for national and local office, there is no established, unified procedure that regulates the selection of nominees (Anria, 2016).…”

Section: Lost Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Opportunity Squandered? Elites, Social Movements, and the Government of Evo Morales

Farthing¹

2018

Latin American Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over its 12 years in power, Bolivia's MAS government has made significant advances in expanding inclusion and reducing poverty. In the process, it has steadily been transformed into a hegemonic force that is increasingly dependent on expedient and pragmatically based compromises with economic elites. Concurrently, social movement influence and participation in the government have steadily declined. After 2009, when an uprising by Eastern elites had been quashed and MAS gained a congressional majority, the MAS missed an opening to advance its original project of structural change, opting instead for a more expedient strategy that has kept it in power at the cost of accommodating elites and debilitating social movements. Durante sus 12 años en el poder, el gobierno MAS de Bolivia ha logrado avances significativos en expandir la inclusión y reducir la pobreza. En el proceso, se ha transformado continuamente en una fuerza hegemónica que depende cada vez más de compromisos oportunos y basados en pragmatismo con las élites económicas. Al mismo tiempo, la influencia y la participación en el gobierno de los movimientos sociales ha disminuido continuamente. Después de 2009, cuando un levantamiento de las élites del Este se suprimió y el MAS ganó una mayoría en el Congreso, el MAS perdió una oportunidad para avanzar en su proyecto original de cambio estructural, optando por una estrategia más conveniente que lo mantuvo en el poder a costa de acomodar a las élites y debilitar los movimientos sociales.

show abstract

Section: Lost Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Opportunity Squandered? Elites, Social Movements, and the Government of Evo Morales

Farthing¹

2018

Latin American Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They certainly meet the conditions outlined by Levitsky and Way (2010a). However, the classification of these regimes has been the subject of considerable controversy (Mejía Acosta 2011; Wolff 2012; Anria 2013, 2016; De la Torre and Ortiz Lemos 2015; Conaghan 2011, 2016; Vera Rojas and Llanos-Escobar 2016; Tockman 2017).…”

Section: Regime Dynamics In the Andes: Assessing The Risk Of Muerte Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some scholars suggest that Bolivia has a strong claim to classification as a democracy (Anria 2016; Tockman 2017), while others place it in the category of competitive authoritarianism, or at least moving in that direction (Levitsky and Loxton 2013, 117–18; Lehoucq 2008; Weyland 2013). Since the election of Evo Morales and the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) in 2005, the content and boundaries of rights and freedoms have shifted in Bolivia.…”

Section: Regime Dynamics In the Andes: Assessing The Risk Of Muerte Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tensions reached a critical level around 2008–9, but they were resolved peacefully, through elections, rather than by force. Morales’s dependence on social movement support, both inside and outside the MAS, made it highly unlikely that he could successfully hold on to power in the face of an electoral defeat or a collapse of popular support (see, e.g., Mejía Acosta 2011; Anria 2016).…”

Section: Regime Dynamics In the Andes: Assessing The Risk Of Muerte Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making Sense of Competitive Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Andes

Cameron

2018

Lat Am Polit Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly attention has increasingly shifted from diminished subtypes of democracy to hybrid regimes, particularly competitive authoritarianism. Such regimes retain democracy's formal features while failing to meet its minimum standards. When properties of distinct concepts like democracy and authoritarianism are combined, however, confusion, inaccuracy, and mischaracterization of cases may occur. By disaggregating political systems into electoral institutions, surrounding rights and freedoms, constitutionalism, and the rule of law, this article complicates the binary distinction between a midrange definition of democracy and competitive authoritarianism. A number of Andean cases are found to fall on the spectrum of defective democracies between these categories. Defective democracies break down when rulers violate the conditions necessary for institutionalized alternation in power by means of public participation and loyal opposition in an electoral regime. Given leaders' reliance on electoral legitimacy, however, even defective democracies may prove surprisingly resilient.

show abstract

“…Heinisch and Fallend ) and in Bolivia more recently (e.g. Anria ) have had a much more moderate impact on democracy.…”

Section: What the (Ideational) Study Of Populism Can Teach Usmentioning

confidence: 99%

What the (Ideational) Study of Populism Can Teach Us, and What It Can't

Hawkins

Kaltwasser

2017

Swiss Political Sci Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their hasty response to the recent wave of populist victories, many analysts have ignored previous scholarship on populism. In contrast, contributors to this special issue draw from well-tested approaches to populism that allow them to build on previous work, especially work based on an ideational approach. In doing so, they highlight at least three things that a more scientific approach to populism can teach us. First, populism is not a new phenomenon, nor is the current wave necessarily stronger than previous ones; second, populist ideas exist at the level of individual voters and matter for political behavior; and third, populism has both positive and negative consequences for democracy. At the same time, contributions to this special issue allow us to highlight at least three limitations of the current ideational approach: it fails to comprehend other political ideas clearly and how they interact with populism; it lacks a theory about different modes of political organization pursued by populist forces; and it inadequately theorizes about the impact of populist forces on party systems.The year 2016 will go down in history as the year when populist forces changed the political scene in the Western world. At least, this is the narrative that many academics and pundits have constructed after the Brexit referendum in the UK and the electoral victory of Donald Trump in the US. Hundreds of newspaper articles and op-eds developed similar versions of this type of argument, each one bringing the issue of populism to center stage. Nevertheless, it is wrong to assume that populism is a new phenomenon that has just come to the surface in the year 2016. In addition, the results of the 2017 national elections in countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands have shown that populist forces are not necessarily the main winners. What is more worrying is that in reaching these conclusions, many journalists and scholars overlook the existence of a coherent wealth of research on populism that should be used and built upon (c.f. Rovira ). This is a major strength of this special issue of the Swiss Political Science Review. All of the contributors are well aware of the academic debate on populism, and in consequence, they not only build upon an existing body of literature but address blind spots and propose new avenues of research. The articles that we discuss here show that the way ahead consists not only in studying populism per se, but in linking the analysis of populism with other academic literatures and traditions (e.g. media studies, nativism, partisanship, political representation, and political psychology).

show abstract

More Inclusion, Less Liberalism in Bolivia

Cited by 54 publications

References 6 publications

An Opportunity Squandered? Elites, Social Movements, and the Government of Evo Morales

An Opportunity Squandered? Elites, Social Movements, and the Government of Evo Morales

Making Sense of Competitive Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Andes

What the (Ideational) Study of Populism Can Teach Us, and What It Can't

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About