Regime betterment or regime change? A critical review of recent debates on liberal democracy and populism in Latin America

Abstract

In the past three decades, debates in Latin American political theory have shifted from struggles over competing regime-types to a discussion about the meaning and potential of democracy. After the region-wide consolidation of democracy, a new political consensus was reached: democracy became the only acceptable form of legitimate rule. The latter was no small accomplishment for a region like Latin America where political struggles often entailed a clash not only over different political programmes but also, frequently, over alternative forms of regime. Regime change consequently was an ingrained aspect of political dynamics. In a scenario of political and institutional instability, authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, and democratic regimes frequently succeeded one another without being able to establish the ground for the consolidation of a stable political order.The emergence of a democratic consensus throughout the continent marked the end of the era of institutional instability, inaugurating the most prolonged period of democratic rule in the region. The calls for regime change were consequently abandoned in favor of an agenda that sought to consolidate and improve the workings of the new democratic regimes. Such novel concerns were reflected in academia with the creation of a vibrant field of democratization studies and in the axis that organized the two central subfields of analysis: "consolidology" and the "quality of democracy"approaches. The first one dominated the agenda in the initial post-transition years; its main concern being how to how to stabilize existing regimes to prevent an authoritarian reversal. Once it become clear that democratic rule had developed strong roots in most of the region, the "quality of democracy" subfield gained prominence.The quality of democracy approach focused on what it considered was a selective pattern of democratic institutionalization that gave birth to a peculiar form of polyarchy. The outcome of democratization in Latin America resulted in a delegative form of polyarchy that while adopting the basic features of democratic rule, exhibited notorious rule of law deficits that set these regimes apart from the Western model of representative polyarchy. Delegative democracy was the term that gained prominence to denominate this subtype of polyarchy.Delegative democracy's distinguishing feature was the absence of effective checks on Executive power due to the poor functioning of the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. To overcome such deficits, O'Donnell and others argue, it was imperative to strengthen and further develop the network of state agencies responsible for enforcing governmental accountability. As is clear from the previous description, political debates were channeled into a common concern: how to preserve and strengthen existing institutional structures.The previously described democratic consensus found a major political and conceptual contender in the works of proponents of populism as radical democracy. Pro-populism ar...

Acerca de las y los autores

“…La teoría y la práctica del populismo contemporáneo pone fin al consenso liberal de la tercera ola, proponiendo un modelo democrático alternativo que requiere para su realización del desmantelamiento de muchos de los elementos constitutivos del modelo liberal de rendición de cuentas (Peruzzotti, 2017c). Es por ello que los defensores de la democracia liberal consideran que la irrupción populista supuso el agotamiento del impulso democratizante que signó a la tercera ola y el inicio de un periodo de reversión democrática.…”

The Crisis or consolidation of populism in Mexico?

“…2 Sobre el concepto de proyectos políticos, ver [9]. 3 Ver [10] para un breve pero excelente resumen del debate contemporáneo sobre el populismo en América Latina. Para la aplicación contemporánea del concepto, ver [11].…”

“…La mayoría de ellos son políticos impresentables e incompetentes. Este agrupamiento oportunista gobierna a nivel federal y en varios estados, en abierto conflicto con la tecnocracia saliente, lo cual ha provocado una aguda escaséz de capacidades de gobernanza 10 .…”

“…Para consolidar su control sobre los gobiernos subnacionales, López Obrador creó la figura de los delegados federales de programas sociales en los estados (mejor conocidos como "superdelegados"). Las facultades de estos funcionarios son enormes, pues en promedio, el 85% de los recursos de los estados y municipios del país __________ 10 Sobre la importancia de considerar las capacidades estatales en el estudio de los regímenes políticos, ver Hincapié y Olvera [31]. provienen de "transferencias federales", es decir, del dinero recaudado por el gobierno federal.…”

What makes collaborative water governance partnerships resilient to policy change? A comparative study of two cases in Ecuador

“…In the past decade and a half, the region experienced growth of demands for a renewed involvement of the State in the direct provision of services and the implementation of water policy. One key challenge states faced to meet these demands was the creation of public sector organizations capable of promoting meaningful stakeholder participation in decision making in a context of high political and policy volatility (Eakin and Lemos 2006, Falleti 2010, Peruzzotti 2017. These characteristics make Latin America an exciting place to study how changes in regulations affect the evolution of stakeholder participation in natural resources governance, an aspect often overlooked in the dominant literature about Europe and the United States (Pahl-Wostl et al 2008, Henry andVollan 2014).…”