Introduction

Author(s):  
Cynthia McClintock

During the third wave, like most democratizing countries worldwide, Latin American countries replaced plurality rules for presidential election with runoff rules. To date, most scholars fear the proliferation of political parties under runoff and favor plurality. I argue, however, that Latin American leaders were correct to adopt runoff. Runoff established a virtuous circle: amid lower barriers to entry, opposition parties and new parties held greater respect for the democratic process and this respect was in turn important to elites’ toleration of their entry. By contrast, plurality often facilitated political exclusion by long-standing dominant parties and exacerbated cynicism and polarization. Although the larger number of parties under runoff was problematic, and measures for the amelioration of the problem are important, the number of parties was considerable under plurality; runoff enabled democracies to cope, increasing the legitimacy of their elected presidents.

Author(s):  
Cynthia McClintock

During Latin America’s third democratic wave, a majority of countries adopted a runoff rule for the election of the president. This book is the first rigorous assessment of the implications of runoff versus plurality for democracy in the region. Despite previous scholarly skepticism about runoff, it has been positive for Latin America, and could be for the United States also. Primarily through qualitative analysis for each Latin American country, I explore why runoff is superior to plurality. Runoff opens the political arena to new parties but at the same time ensures that the president does not suffer a legitimacy deficit and is not at an ideological extreme. By contrast, in a region in which undemocratic political parties are common, the continuation of these parties is abetted by plurality; political exclusion provoked disillusionment and facilitated the emergence of presidents at ideological extremes. In regression analysis, runoff was statistically significant to superior levels of democracy. Between 1990 and 2016, Freedom House and Varieties of Democracy scores plummeted in countries with plurality but improved in countries with runoff. Plurality advocates’ primary concern is the larger number of political parties under runoff. Although a larger number of parties was not significant to inferior levels of democracy, a plethora of parties is problematic, leading to a paucity of legislative majorities and inchoate parties. To ameliorate the problem, I recommend not reductions in the 50% threshold but the scheduling of the legislative election after the first round or thresholds for entry into the legislature.


Author(s):  
Cynthia McClintock

Runoff has been advantageous in Latin America and could be in the United States also. Amid the legitimacy deficits of the 2000 and 2016 elections in the United States, popular demand for change in electoral rules is strong. Although ranked-choice voting is the most common innovation in the United States, it is complex and relatively untested. By contrast, runoff has been tested in Latin America and shown to be successful. Runoff opened the electoral arena to new parties but, at the same time, assured that the president had majority support and was not at an ideological extreme. By contrast, plurality often facilitated political exclusion by dominant parties and exacerbated cynicism and polarization. Although the number of parties was larger under runoff, the concomitant problems can be ameliorated by such measures as the scheduling of the legislative election after the first round and raising the threshold for entry to the legislature.


Author(s):  
Cynthia McClintock

This chapter describes plurality advocates’ arguments against runoff and reports the cross-national evidence for and against them. Plurality advocates’ concerns about outsiders and voter fatigue were not borne out. However, runoff advocates’ concerns about legitimacy deficits and ideological extremes under plurality were warranted. The chapter also confirms that runoff lowered barriers to entry—especially important in the Latin American context of inaccurate pre-election opinion polls. Although the entry of new parties was a factor in the larger number of parties and paucity of legislative majorities under runoff, it was also helpful due to the authoritarian proclivities of many long-standing Latin American parties and the need, after the Cold War, to incorporate the left into the political arena.


Author(s):  
Miguel Carreras ◽  
Igor Acácio

Latin American political systems experience significant levels of institutional uncertainty and unpredictability. One of the main dimensions of this institutional and political instability is the high level of electoral volatility in the region. In the last 30 years, traditional parties that had competed successfully for several decades abruptly collapsed or weakened considerably in a number of Latin American countries. New parties (or electoral movements) and political outsiders have attracted considerable electoral support in several national and subnational elections in the region. Even when the main partisan actors remain the same from one election to the next, it is not uncommon to observe large vote swings from one established party to another. While some scholars and observers expected that the instability in electoral outcomes would decline as democracies aged and consolidated, electoral volatility has remained high in recent decades in many Latin American countries. However, in other Third Wave Latin American democracies (e.g., Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Uruguay), the patterns of interparty competition have been much more stable, which suggests we should avoid blanked generalizations about the level of party system institutionalization and volatility in the region. Cross-national variation in the stability of electoral outcomes has also motivated interesting scholarly work analyzing the causes and the consequences of high volatility in Latin American democracies. One of the major findings of this literature is that different forms of institutional discontinuity, such as the adoption of a new constitution, a significant enfranchisement, electoral system reforms, and irregular changes in the legislative branch (e.g., a dissolution of Congress) or in the executive branch (e.g., a presidential interruption), can result in higher volatility. Another major determinant of instability in electoral outcomes is the crisis of democratic representation experienced by several Latin American countries. When citizens are disenchanted with the poor performance and moral failures (e.g., corruption) of established political parties, they are more likely to support new parties or populist outsiders. Weak party system institutionalization and high electoral volatility have serious consequences for democratic governability. Institutionalized party systems with low electoral volatility promote consensus-building and more moderate policies because political parties are concerned about their long-term reputation and constrain the decisions of political leaders. In contrast, party systems with high volatility can lead to the rise of outsider presidents that have more radical policy preferences and are not constrained by strongly organized parties. Electoral volatility also undermines democratic representation. First, the fluidity of the party system complicates the task of voters when they want to hold the members of the incumbent party accountable for bad performance. Second, high instability in the patterns of interparty competition hinders citizens’ ability to navigate programmatic politics. Finally, electoral volatility augments the cognitive load required to vote and foments voter frustration, which can lead to higher rates of invalid voting.


1976 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Peeler

Colombia remains one of a very small group of countries in Latin America which retain competitive, liberal-democratic political institutions at this writing. Indeed, Colombia's civil government, recognizing a modicum of individual liberties and conducting periodic elections, has been shattered on relatively few occasions since the mid-nineteenth century, a record equalled or surpassed by few other Latin American countries. The Colombian political system is still dominated by the two traditional political parties (Liberal and Conservative) which arose in Colombia and elsewhere in the region in the nineteenth century. In almost every other country they have long since passed into oblivion or insignificance. This continued dominance by the traditional parties is commonly attributed to their successful mobilization of mass support, especially among the peasantry. The Colombian parties (unlike their counterparts elsewhere) early moved beyond being mere elite factions by using traditional authority relationships, clientelistic exchanges and ideological appeals to develop durable bases of mass support.


1967 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-86
Author(s):  
Donald W. Bray

In a majority of Latin-American countries the coup d'etat rather than the ballot is still the institutionalized mechanism for transferring political power. Some states, like Haiti and Paraguay, are clearly in the “prehistory” of modern political parties. Nevertheless, in the twentieth century the political party with a developed ideology has become a major feature of Latin-American political life.


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-42
Author(s):  
Jorge Rojas Hernández

Historically, Latin American social development has been diverse and heterogeneous. It depends on the use of natural resources (with greater or less added value and productive diversity), the influence of social movements, the role of political parties, the level of education, and the prevailing culture. Inequality and social exclusion are still prevalent in most Latin American countries. Poverty and environmental deterioration tend to be correlated. Therefore strategies for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change must consider measures for overcoming poverty and reducing inequality. El desarrollo social en América Latina es históricamente muy diverso y heterogéneo. Depende del uso de los recursos naturales — con mayor o menor valor agregado y diversidad productiva —, de la influencia de los movimientos sociales, del papel de los partidos políticos, del nivel educacional alcanzado y del tipo de cultura imperante en las diferentes sociedades. Aún persiste la desigualdad y altos índices de exclusión social en la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos. Pobreza y deterioro del medio ambiente suelen correlacionarse. Los pobres por lo general viven en territorios degradados y vulnerables. Las estrategias de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático deben, en consecuencia, contemplar medidas de superación de la pobreza y disminución de los niveles de desigualdad social y ambiental.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3 - Sup2) ◽  
pp. 169-177
Author(s):  
Fabio Andrés Díaz Pabón

Unlike other Latin American countries, Colombia has consistently been governed by centre-right or right-wing political parties. The absence of political space for the Left in this country allowed governments to portray protests as subversive and criminal. However, starting in 2008, right-wing politicians have embraced, supported and used the protest as a tactic; undertaking, calling for, and giving support to various protest movements across the country. This has had an unexpected consequence: right-wing parties, government institutions, and even some sectors within the security and armed forces now see protests as valid and normal. Drawing on a brief historical analysis of protest movements in Colombia since 1948, and particularly after 2002, this article argues that to understand the recent normalization of this form of political expression we should look at changes in the dynamics of competition within the Right.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1866802X2097503
Author(s):  
Nordin Lazreg ◽  
Alejandro Angel ◽  
Denis Saint-Martin

Conventional wisdom indicates that politicians in Latin America are all wealthy. However, the literature on both political elites and social origins of political parties indicates that we should expect differences in the capital accumulation of politicians depending on their ideological position. This study seeks to explore that question using financial disclosure forms made available in six Latin American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and the Dominican Republic. We calculate the median wealth of the main political parties in each country and compared them according to their ideological position on the left–right continuum. We consistently find that the most right-leaning party in each country had a higher median wealth than the most left-leaning one. This relation is non-linear since centrist parties often represent anomalies in the distribution of wealth. When there are no ideological differences, we do not observe significant wealth differences either.


1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather MacIvor

AbstractThis article summarizes the cartel model of party structure and tests it against the experience of the Canadian party system in the 1990s. Four claims are evaluated: that the three dominant parties in the House of Commons before 1993 colluded to exclude new parties; that they used state subsidies in their own interest; that the 1993 election result was a backlash against the cartel parties; and that Canadian parties are adopting new leadership selection methods in order to allow their leaders greater autonomy. The article concludes that the first two claims are valid while the latter two are not, and discusses some of the implications of these findings for Canadian parties and for the cartel model itself.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document