The effects of presidential breakdowns on foreign policy in Latin America

Abstract

Presidents and their ideologies have long been thought to be important explanatory variables in Latin American foreign policy, but little is known about how presidential breakdowns, a common form of leader change, affect foreign policy. I use a qualitative structured comparison to analyze the effects of nine presidential ousters on their successors’ foreign policies. I focus on cases in which the legitimacy of the process is in a gray zone, when narrative disputes are more likely to emerge. The findings indicate that incumbents politicize foreign policy when they use it to attain public support but accommodate it to congressional interests when they need support of Congress; meanwhile, international peers respond to presidential breakdowns according to their strategic and ideological rather than normative concerns. Even though Latin America is dominated by weak states, domestic politics, especially during crises, play a major role in explaining their foreign policies. Considering the role played by presidents in foreign policymaking, understanding this kind of presidential succession is essential.

Northern theories and Southern policies. Why the most influential approaches are insufficient for teaching public policy in Latin America

“…Given that these displacements did not formally cause institutional ruptures such as those that characterized the region until the 1980s, the transit experienced was categorized as a passage “from the regime’s instability to government instability” (Negretto, 2014). According to recent research, 26 episodes of this nature took place between 1986 and 2020, half of which originated in a conflict between powers (Sposito, 2021).…”