After regime change: Authoritarian Legacies, Political Representation, and the Democratic Future of South America

World Politics

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 1993, Pages 464-500

  Hagopian, Frances ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTHORITARIAN LEGACY; CLIENTELISM; CORPORATISM; DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION; INSTITUTIONAL REFORM; POLITICAL REPRESENTATION; STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS;

LATIN AMERICA;

EID: 0027510779     PISSN: 00438871     EISSN: 10863338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2950726     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).
2. The flagship of this literature is Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).
3. The work has nonetheless been criticized of late for its inability to provide a causal explanation of why regime change takes place and to predict when and where it will happen. See Karen Remmer, “New Wine or Old Bottlenecks? The Study of Latin American Politics, ” Comparative Politics 23 (July 1991).
4. Peter H. Smith, “Crisis and Democracy in Latin America, ” World Politics 43 (July 1991).
5. The argument that how “transitions to democracy” take place determines the extent of the break with the past represented by the regime change has been best articulated by Terry Lynn Karl, “Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America, ” Comparative Politics 23 (October 1990).
6. Marcelo Cavarozzi was the first to critique the extended utility of the “transitions” framework to which we have all contributed. See Cavarozzi, “Beyond Transitions in Latin America” (Paper presented to the Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Washington, D.C., April 4–7, 1991).
7. On the unconsolidated state of Latin America's new democracies, see Laurence Whitehead, “The Alternatives to ‘Liberal Democracy’: A Latin American Perspective, ” Political Studies 40 (Special Issue 1992).
8. There are exceptions, most notably, J. Samuel Valenzuela and Arturo Valenzuela, eds., Military Rule in Chile: Dictatorship and Oppositions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).
9. Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., The Peruvian Experiment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).
10. Cynthia McClintock and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds., The Peruvian Experiment Reconsidered (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983).
11. Marcelo Cavarozzi and Manuel Antonio Garreton, Muerte y resurreccion: Los partidos politicos en el autoritarismo y las transiciones en el Cono Sur (Death and resurrection: Political parties in authoritarianism and the transitions in the Southern Cone) (Santiago, Chile: flacso, 1989).
12. These regimes became known as “bureaucratic-authoritarian, ” a term coined by Guillermo O'Donnell, ed., Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1973), to capture the pronounced participation of technocrats in the authoritarian regimes that swept to power in the latter phases of import-substituting industrialization. They set out to stabilize the economy, impose political order, and demobilize the popular sectors in order to reduce inflation and attract foreign investment.
13. See Karen L. Remmer, “The Political Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s “American Political Science Review 85 (September 1991). She asserts that this is true to such an extent that economic crisis has not to date favored extremist options at the polls.
14. Abraham F. Lowenthal, “The Peruvian Experiment Reconsidered, ” in McClintock and Lowenthal (fn. 5). Lowenthal makes the strongest case for change but does not commit this error.
15. The state of the literature on Brazil is reflected in Margaret J. Sarles, “Government and Politics: Brazil, ” in Handbook of Latin American Studies 47 (1985).
16. “The literature on Brazilian politics suggests that the country will never return to the pre-1964 form of democracy” (p. 554).
17. Stepan, Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).
18. Carlos Huneeus, Los Chilenos y la politica: Cambio y continuidad bajo el autoritarismo (Chileans and politics: Change and continuity under authoritarianism) (Santiago, Chile: Sa-lesianos, 1987), 162.
19. Poll conducted by the Peruvian Enterprise of Public Opinion (pop), as reported in Folha de São Paulo (Brazil), April 8, 1992, sec. 2, p. 1.
20. Graciela Ducantenzeiler, Philippe Faucher, and Julian CastroRea, “Back to Populism: Latin America's Alternative to Democracy” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 30—September 2, 1990).
21. Carina Perelli, “The New Caudillos and Democracy without Parties” (Paper presented at the Conference on Political Parties and Political Representation in the Post-Authoritarian Era, Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., November 8–9, 1991).
22. Remmer (fn. 10), 793–94, cites movement toward political pacts in several countries as reason to be optimistic about the future of democracy amid economic crisis.
23. Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).
24. The “freezing” metaphor is borrowed and adapted from Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction, ” in Lipset and Rokkan, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross National Perspectives (New York: Free Press, 1967).
25. These reasons are cited by Garretón (pp. 169-70).
26. Arturo Valenzuela and J. Samuel Valenzuela, “Party Opposition under the Chilean Authoritarian Regime, ” in Valenzuela and Valenzuela (fn. 5).
27. See Hector E. Schamis, “Reconceptualizing Latin American Authoritarianism in the 1970s: From Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism to Neoconservatism, ” Comparative Politics 23 (January 1991). Different economic policies were probably adopted because, as Alejandro Foxley has argued, economic crises were graver, political threats more serious, and international economic conditions less favorable to developing countries in the 1970s than they had been in the 1960s.
28. See Foxley, Latin American Experiments in Neo-Conservative Economics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
29. Werner Baer, Richard Newfarmer, and Thomas Trebat, “On State Capitalism in Brazil: Some New Issues and Questions, ” Inter-American Economic Affairs 30 (Winter 1976).
30. Thomas Skidmore, The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964–85 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
31. See Juan Rial, “Continuidad y cambio en las organizaciones partidarias en el Uruguay: 1973-1984, ” in Cavarozzi and Garretón (fn. 5).
32. Barry Ames, Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).
33. Current research confirms that the systematic practice of clientelism in Brazil is as pervasive as ever. Barry Ames, “Electoral Strategy and Legislative Politics in Brazil, 1978-1990” (Progress report, April 3, 1991).
34. Scott Mainwaring, “Clientelism, Patrimonialism, and Economic Crisis: Brazil since 1979” (Paper presented at the Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Washington, D.C., April 4–7, 1991).
35. Rial (fn. 33), 257.
36. On the image of the paternalistic state, see Youssef Cohen, “The Benevolent Leviathan: Political Consciousness among Urban Workers under State Corporatism, ” American Political Science Review 76 (March 1982).
37. When a labor research institute discovered in 1977 that the official inflation figures for 1973 had been doctored, labor launched a “wage recovery campaign.” For details of the campaign, see Keck (in Stepan).
38. I have borrowed the inducements/constraints dichotomy from Ruth Berins Collier and David Collier, “Inducements versus Constraints: Disaggregrating Corporatism, ” American Political Science Review 73 (December 1979).
39. Philippe C. Schmitter, “Still the Century of Corporatism, ” Review of Politics 36 (January 1974), 1.