This essay assesses the situation of democracy in Latin America in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Although we cannot speak ofa generalized pattern ofdemocratic erosion in the region, several trends present concerns for democratic forces. Our analysis identifies four distinct trajectories: democratic erosions (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Nicaragua), democratic stagnation (Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, and Paraguay), stable but defective democracies (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru), and regimes that, despite obvious problems, can be considered as high-quality democracies (Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay). The essay concludes by identifying four factors that may explain the divergent trajectories: levels of development, state capacity, party system institutionalization, and the nature of political leadership.

Este artículo evalúa la situación de la democracia en América Latina a mediados de la primera década del siglo XXI. Si bien no es posible hablar de una erosión generalizada de la democracia en la región, existen algunas tendencias que constituyen fuentes de preocupación para las fuerzas democráticas. Nuestro análisis identifica cuatro trayectorias: casos de erosión democrática (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras y Nicaragua), situaciones de estancamiento (Colombia, Guatemala, Haití y Paraguay), democracias estables pero defectuosas (Brasil, México, Argentina y Perú) y regímenes que, a pesar de sus indudables problemas, pueden sin embargo considerarse como de alta calidad (Chile, Costa Rica y Uruguay). El ensayo concluye identificando cuatro factores que permitirían explicar estas trayectorias divergentes: el nivel de desarrollo, la capacidad estatal, la institucionalización de los partidos, y la naturaleza del liderazgo político.

In this paper we build a defense of the study of regions in comparative politics. We discuss two analytical problems that demand a detailed focus on specific regions: causal heterogeneity and intra-regional diffusion 565 patterns. The first section of the paper argues that the three major analytical strategies in comparative politics (case studies, comparative studies and large- N work) have for the most part failed to conceptualize regions in a systematic way. In sections two and three we illustrate the issue of causal heterogeneity, showing that the effects of per capita income on democracy have been different in Latin America and in other regions of the world. Sections four and five address intra-regional diffusion of regime types. We show that, at least in the Latin American case, intra-regional dissemination has been stronger than cross-regional dissemination. Our conclusions emphasize the need to avoid simplistic generalizations about regions as homogeneous entities.

En este artículo ofrecemos una defensa de los estudios regionales en política comparada. Se debaten dos problemas que requieren un foco detallado en regiones específicas: la heterogeneidad causal y las pautas de difusión intra-regionales. La primera sección sostiene que las tres estrategias analíticas clásicas en política comparada (estudios de caso, estudios comparativos y análisis cuantitativo) generalmente han fallado en conceptualizar la esfera regional de manera sistemática. En las secciones dos y tres ilustramos el problema de la heterogeneidad causal, mostrando que los efectos del ingreso per cápita sobre la democracia han sido diferentes en América Latina y en otras regiones del mundo. Las secciones cuarta y quinta exploran la difusión intra-regional de los regímenes políticos. Demostramos que, al menos en América Latina, la difusión intra-regional ha sido más fuerte que la difusión interregional. Las conclusiones enfatizan la necesidad de evitar.

This paper re-examines the relationship between organized labor and democracy in Latin America. Several influential scholars have argued that organized labor is consistent champion of democracy and that consequently, strong labor movements make democratic outcomes more likely. We show that evidence from Latin America calls these claims into question and that organized labor has frequently supported non-democratic regimes. We then seek to explain variation in labor support for democracy in post-1945 Latin America. Based on a comparative analysis of nine countries in Latin America, we argue that labor movements' regime orientation hinged on two factors: the nature of their partisan alliances and the perceived regime alternatives.

Este trabajo reexamina la relación entre el movimiento obrero organizado y la democracia en América Latina. Varios estudios influyentes han argumentado que el movimiento obrero organizado es un defensor consistente de la democracia y que, por lo tanto, los movimientos obreros fuertes hacen más probables los resultados democráticos. La evidencia que aquí se presenta de América Latina pone en cuestión estos argumentos, y muestra que el movimiento obrero organizado con frecuencia ha apoyado regímenes no democráticos. A continuación se intenta explicar la variación en el apoyo del movimiento obrero a la democracia en América Latina post-1945. A partir de un análisis comparado de nueve países latinoamericanos, se sostiene en este trabajo que la orientación hacia el régimen de los movimientos obreros depende de dos factores: la naturaleza de sus alianzas partidarias y las alternativas de régimen percibidas.

Este artigo examina duas diferenças entre os sistemas partidários das democracias industriais avançadas e os de países menos desenvolvidos, particularmente em termos do nível de institucionalização. O argumento geral é que os sistemas partidários dos países menos desenvolvidos são menos institucionalizados. De modo mais específico, mostramos primeiro que a maioria das democracias e semi-democracias em países menos desenvolvidos têm uma volatilidade eleitoral muito mais alta e menos estabilidade eleitoral do que as democracias industriais avançadas. E, em segundo lugar, boa parte da literatura sobre partidos e sistemas partidários pressupõe o contexto de sistemas partidários institucionalizados com partidos fortemente enraizados na sociedade e supõe ainda que vínculos programáticos e ideológicos estão na raiz dos vínculos estáveis entre eleitores e partidos. Nos sistemas partidários da maioria das democracias e semi-democracias dos países menos desenvolvidos, os vínculos programáticos e ideológicos entre eleitores e partidos são mais fracos. Nessa mesma direção, os vínculos entre eleitores e candidatos são mais personalistas nas democracias e semi-democracias dos países menos desenvolvidos do que nas democracias industriais avançadas.

This paper examines two differences between the party systems of the advanced industrial democracies and party systems of less developed countries, particularly in terms of the level of institutionalization. The overarching argument is that the party systems of less developed countries are less institutionalized. More specifically, we first show that most democracies and semi-democracies in less developed countries have much higher electoral volatility and less electoral stability than the advanced industrial democracies. Second, much of the literature on parties and party systems assumes the context of institutionalized party systems with strong party roots in society and further presupposes that programmatic or ideological linkages are at the root of the stable linkages between voters and parties. In the party systems of most democracies and semi-democracies in less developed countries, programmatic or ideological linkages between voters and parties are weaker. In this direction also, linkages between voters and candidates are more personalistic in democracies and semi-democracies of less developed countries than in the advanced industrial democracies.

This paper is about two related subjects: how to classify political regimes in general, and how Latin American regimes should be classified for the 1945-1999 period. We make five general claims about regime classification. First, regime classification should rest on sound concepts and definitions. Second, it should be based on explicit and sensible coding and aggregation rules. Third, it necessarily involves some subjective judgments. Fourth, the debate about dichotomous versus continuous measures of democracy creates a false dilemma. Neither democratic theory, nor coding requirements, nor the reality underlying democratic practice compel either a dichotomous or a continuous approach in all cases. Fifth, dichotomous measures of democracy fail to capture intermediate regime types, obscuring variation that is essential for studying political regimes. This general discussion provides the grounding for our trichotomous ordinal scale, which codes regimes as democratic, semi-democratic or authoritarian in nineteen Latin American countries from 1945 to 1999. Our trichotomous classification achieves greater differentiation than dichotomous classifications and yet avoids the need for massive information that a very fine grained measure would require.

Dans cet article, on examine deux sujets voisins: comment classer les régimes politiques en général et comment on devrait les classer en Amérique Latine pour la période 1945-1999. En vue de ceci, l’auteur aboutit à cinq observations: 1º un classement des régimes politiques doit se baser sur des concepts et des définitions solides; 2º il doit prendre appui sur des normes explicites et des lois convergentes; 3º il comprend forcément quelques appréciations subjectives; 4º la discussion sur les évaluations dichotomiques face aux évaluations continues en démocratie crée un faux dilemme. En aucun cas, ni la théorie démocratique, ni les exigences des normes, ni la réalité sous-jacente à la pratique démocratique obligent à une approche dichotomique ou continue; 5º des évaluations dichotomiques en démocratie n’arrivent pas à saisir des types de régimes intermédiaires, ce qui empêche d’observer les variations, essentielles à l’étude des régimes politiques. Cette discussion générale fournit la base pour la construction d’une échelle de partage en trois, d’après laquelle on classe les régimes en démocratiques, semi-démocratiques ou autoritaires dans dix-neuf pays d’Amérique Latine entre les années 1945-1999. Ce classement par trois non seulement permet une distinction plus fine que celle des classifications dichotomiques mais aussi fait l’économie de bon nombre d’informations qu’une évaluation plus soigneuse exigerait.

Tomando como referência a Assembléia Nacional Constituinte brasileira de 1987-88 os autores examinam uma questão que assinalam ser insuficientemente tratada na bibliografia: a da disciplina partidária em nações latino-americanas. Os autores não encontram provas de uma disciplina partidária sólida, e examinam as conseqüências disso.

The question of party discipline in Brazil is examined with reference to the Constitutional Congress of 1987-88. The authors do not find evidence of a strong party discipline and examine the consequences of this. More studies such as this are urgently needed, they argue.