Peter H. Smith "Cycles and Shapes of Democracy in Latin America" April 25, 2003

Professor Peter H. Smith spoke on cycles and shapes of democracy in Latin American in the Center for Latin American Studies Conference Room. Professor Harley Shaiken, the Chair of the Center, listens in the foreground.

Charting the Rhythms of Latin American Democracy:
Linear or Cyclical?
Chris Cardona, Department of Political Science

The “third wave” of democracy, as characterized by Samuel Huntington, is a global trend in which countries from regions as diverse as Western Europe and Latin America have, in the last three decades, transitioned from authoritarian to democratic regimes within a few years of each other. Conventional wisdom suggests that these transitions are one-way movements, and that they represent new experiences for the countries involved. Peter H. Smith, Professor of Political Science and Simon Bolívar Professor of Latin American Studies at UC San Diego, offered an alternative picture for Latin America based on a quantitative analysis covering the whole of the 20th century.

Professor Smith undertook the arduous task of coding each year between 1900 and 2000 as democratic, semi-democratic, oligarchic or authoritarian for 19 Latin American countries, based on the degree to which elections were free and fair. This massive analytic effort yielded a database that allows us to chart the rhythms of Latin American democracy during the 20th century and to address a fundamental question: are these rhythms linear or cyclical?

Professor Smith suggested that the answer to this question varies by region within Latin America. In Central America, the data indicate that most of the countries are currently experiencing democracy for the first time. They began the century under oligarchic rule — meaning domination by ruling elites who restrict voting to a small proportion of the population — or authoritarianism. Aside from brief experiments thwarted by foreign intervention, Central American countries only began to experience democratic openings during the 1970’s. One would therefore expect these countries to take a different attitude toward democracy than those of South America, which by and large experienced the “third wave” as one of redemocratization.

Three South American countries — Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay — experienced early episodes of democratization near the turn of the 20th century. By 1940, most South American countries had developed some form of electoral democracy. The period from 1940 to 1977 marked one “cycle” of democracy for the region, a cycle that has, in Professor Smith’s data, a distinctly “M” shape, indicating an initial surge, a sharp decline, and then a resurgence, all within this 37-year period. By the late 1970’s, however, most South American countries had fallen victim to an authoritarian regression. A new cycle of democracy began in the mid-1980’s and has continued to the present day. For Professor Smith, this historical experience with democracies that “failed” has led South American countries to adopt a much more limited form of democracy than they did during the earlier cycle of democratic opening.

This difference between South American and Central American historical experiences with democracy has had profound effects on the quality of current democracies in Latin America. The desire to avoid a repetition of the breakdown of democracy has led democratic leaders in South America to forge bargains with outgoing authoritarian elites that have resulted in a restriction of civil liberties and an impoverishment of political representation. The end result is that democracy is no longer “dangerous,” that is, it does not pose a threat to existing political and economic power relations — as did the more wide-ranging democratic openings of the mid-20th century.

In Central America, the novelty of democracy has had a dual impact. On the one hand, these countries have the potential to experiment with extending democratic liberties beyond electoral participation into the social and even economic realms. On the other, they lack experience with democratic governance, leading them to model practices from other countries, particularly South American ones. It is the latter tendency that has prevailed, leading Central American countries to mirror the practices of their South American neighbors. As a result, Professor Smith’s data show a cross-regional convergence on a model of “illiberal democracy.”

Democracy thus appears to have taken on a cyclical rhythm in South America during the 20th century, while in Central America its evolution has been more linear. Despite these differences, both regions face a common challenge: avoiding the “hollowing out” of democracy that Guillermo O’Donnell has identified as resulting from the co-existence of formal democratic rights with violations of civil liberties and ineffective channels of political representation. Professor Smith’s diagnosis of the prevalence of “illiberal democracy” in contemporary Latin America points to some of the historical reasons for this troubling condition. It also serves to remind us that we must view democracy as more than the existence of free and fair elections. Without the protection of civil liberties and the practice of political representation, electoral democracy will remain an exemplar of unfulfilled potential.

After his presentation, Professor Smith talks with Professor Nancy Appelbaum, a visiting faculty member at the Center for Latin American Studies this spring.