Latin America: Politics, Politics…Its all about Politics

Serious challenges

Latin American governments and societies face many serious problems and challenges. Not the least of these are deep social and economic disparities, coupled with social exclusion, persistent grinding poverty and fragile safety nets. The region has experimented with various economic models - the import substitution model and in some cases variants of the command-control economy. These have proved largely a failure, and almost by default, the free market model has been generally adopted. While this model has brought greater sustained economic growth and stability, it has been less successful in addressing problems of social and economic exclusion. The potential for serious social unrest remains strong in many countries, and the tools available to confront the challenge are limited. The burden lies not just with the private sector to generate more jobs, but also with governments.

President Raul Alfonsin, symbol of Argentina's transition to democracy

The transition to democracy has not always been positive

On the whole, the transition from dictatorship to democracy in Latin America – while still evolving – has been positive. No longer does the military oppress or torture its own citizens, nor do leaders rule with an iron fist. The days when power resided in an all-powerful executive with the legislature used as a rubber stamp are likely gone. These changes, however, have brought unforeseen consequences.

Power has shifted from the executive to the legislative branch, and judiciaries have become less of a partisan political instrument. Presidents have ceded power, but there remains the impression that they are responsible for resolving the country’s ills, and they are blamed if little or nothing is done. Presidents are now reluctant to rule by fiat or executive order, even though constitutions may allow for this. As a result, the approval ratings of leaders – usually high immediately after an election - plummet rapidly.[1]Public expectations from their presidents remain high, but many – particularly the older generations – often look back fondly to “the good old days” when the dictator made the trains run on time and clamped down on crime. Democracy often appears vacillating and chaotic.

The other side of the coin is the legislature. Again, public opinion polls[2]award congresses and political parties low approval levels. People find their politicians neither effective nor relevant, although legislative branches have amassed considerably more authority and power over the past 10 to 15 years. While presidents have not responded to the demands and aspirations of the people, neither have congresses. To be fair, considerable political energy is expended as the executive and legislative branches continue to feel each other out as they attempt to reach a political power-sharing balance between themselves.

Multi party politics at work

The multi-party system doesn’t help

The vast majority of Latin American countries have chosen the US model of governance – along with some European influences, particularly from France. While the US model clearly has major problems: imagine the USA with three of four major political parties, none of which are willing to work with the others, each winning 25% to 35% of the popular vote…  Most Latin American countries field an even larger number of political parties, many of which are populist and/or personality-based. Only in rare instances do parties adhere to ideology-based platforms. As a further complication, in many cases it is the elite that stocks congress and uses the legislature to further its own ends. The poor remain under-represented and often resentful.

The problem would be less acute if, more often than not, the president’s party won a majority in Congress, but this is rarely the case. The general rule of thumb is that the percentage of the popular vote won by presidential hopefuls is reflected in the composition of the new congress – i.e.: if a presidential candidate wins 30% of the popular vote he will likely gain around 30% of the seats in congress. Since presidents rarely win more than 50% of the popular vote, the minority congress is a systemic problem that administrations find difficult to deal with. In countries where there are run-off elections, the composition of congress is determined on the first ballot, which, again, greatly reduces the chances for any single party to win a majority.

In some cases, such as that of Peru, deputies are chosen from a list – if the party wins 25% of the popular vote, the first 25% of congressional candidates are appointed to office. They represent no specific constituency and it is difficult for a citizen to identify with a particular member of congress, unless one happens to be from his hometown. Members often don’t feel beholden to the voter, and pursue their personal agenda rather than that of the party or its people.

National interests come second due to the political gridlock

Parliamentary gridlock

In Latin American political systems, compromise or coalition is difficult to achieve. Personal or party objectives take precedence over vital national interests.[3]Experience in coalition building remains low and is employed largely on an ad hoc basis when interests coincide on specific issues.[4]The concept of coalition implies power sharing, to the point of including potential rivals in cabinet, a difficult pill for most politicians to swallow.

In essence, a sort of power vacuum has emerged, where neither the executive nor legislature appear able or willing to address effectively the problems facing the nation. Others are taking up the “slack”.  The private sector has created jobs – but not enough and not as well paid as they could be. Non-profit and non-governmental organizations have attempted to fill gaps in education and health where the government has not been present, and community groups have tried to help themselves when appeals to government for assistance have failed. This trend has distanced the populace, particularly the poor, from its government, which in any case is often poorly represented or non-existent in rural areas.

If citizens see what they consider as legitimate demands being ignored by their leaders, they may well seek more radical options. The emergence of populist, nationalist leaders has been one consequence – although the “system” has a tendency to de-radicalize such leaders, to the subsequent disappointment/frustration of voters. We have seen this in Peru where twice in recent history[5]voters elected indigenous presidents, but found them wanting. Unless governments become more relevant to the population at large, the option of violence to counter inaction cannot be excluded.

---

[1] One major exception is Colombia where the current president and his predecessor  (Santos and Uribe) enjoy(ed) extremely high approval ratings.

[2] We find the annual regional public opinion polls conducted by the Chilean think tank Latinobarometro to be particularly good in judging regional and individual country attitudes towards democracy, and how they have evolved over time.

[3] While politicians in “developed” countries are little different, and re-election plays a major role in planning party platforms and positions, it can be argued that in the “north” politicians may take public opinion into account to a greater extent than their Latin American counterparts. It may also be true that the issues facing northern governments are rarely as acute as those facing developing countries – although the response of the EU and the USA to the current financial crisis suggests otherwise. Also, the resources to meet public demands are greater in developed countries.

[4] At the federal level, Canadian politicians appear not to understand the concept of “coalition”, or they see it as an anathema to their political credo.

[5] Alejandro Toledo and Ollanta Humala

Photo credits:
President Raul Alfonsin by Sydney Morning Herald
Multi party system at work by Carnegie Endowment
Shanties by The Daily Mail