Studied by 5 peopleWhat has been the role of the military in politics?
Has protected LATAM from external invasions, internal security, and politics
was essentially the 4th branch of gov
What was the role of the military during independence?
Independence was won by armies (except for BRAZIL), and the independence armies formed a base for the military. These militaries intervened in politics and established privileges for themselves; military officers couldn’t be tried in civilian courts.
What did militaries lack initially?
Initially, the military could not do its job of pacifying the country and defending frontiers. Because of this, borders changed rapidly, and there were frequent revolts in the 19thC. Oppositions came into power through revolts.
What did the weakness of the militaries give way to?
Caudillo's RULE and personal armies came to be due to the military's weakness. Multiple Caudillos were fighting for power.
How did the military get training?
Training from Europe: Chile hired German military →became the strongest military in LATAM→ exported expertise to other countries in LATAM
The U.S. and Britain also trained them and gave them more prestige and importance.
Meritocratic criteria of the military
Merit was used for promotion→officers had to go to school that was staffed by foreign officers→had to pass an exam(different from the past)→ART OF WARFARE
How did people become officers before schools and exams?
they fought in the war or political connections
What was one of the reasons to expand the military?
revolts by indigenous groups and regional caudillos;
Subjugation of resistance
The military started gaining more people from the Middle Class?
the MC began to represent a large sector of the educated population and started to join the military=good career
Why did discipline grow for the military?
During the 19th C the military developed, and people were proud of belonging to the military unlike the past when people felt allegiance to a Caudillo, officer, or president.
How did the military gain materials?
The missions from foreign powers were paid, but they also tried selling equipment to LATAM. LATAM could buy equipment due to the export BOOM.
What new structures and programs were put into place for the military?
Healthcare and pensions
the milt. was divided into different organizations→ made it more attractive to people
The Subjugation of Resitance
the military established a monopoly on violence- WEBER
the # of revolts decreased in the 20th C
Caudillos almost entirely disappeared
Opposition and indigenous groups could no longer overthrow the government, only the military could really overthrow gov
How did the military have an initial democratic effect?
the opposition could no longer overthrow the Gov. by arms, so they began to focus on the electoral path→ the ruling party controlled elections but began to push for democratic reforms → 20th C became more even
ex: secret ballot
Why did the military push back civilian interference?
“we know more than you”- pushed civilians back and the …
military also pushed back civilian leadersbecause they did not like them getting involved in military affairs like promotions etc
How was the military the guardian of the constitution?
4th branch→ could intervene in politics, but who checked them?
-took power for themselves and got in the way of democratization
How was the military a modernizer?
rejected traditional policies and began to embrace reform bc many officers came from the middle class → Populist overtones
ex: JUAN PERON
but some were left leaning like Juan Velasco in Peru (not the norm)
-weakened the power of traditional elites
picture: Juan Velasco
Was the military hostile to the Left?
Yes, the Cuban rev. Killed all the military officers of the Bautista Regime so they became hostile to rev. movements
IMAGE: CASTRO-CUBA
How long did military interventions tend to be?
short term; they would overthrow, take power, make some changes and cede power to civilian leader but this CHANGED IN THE 60S AND 70S
What happened to military interventions 60s and 70s?
They took power for longer times
In brazil from 64-1985
chile- 73-1990
wanted to clean society of leftist ideas bc the Cuban rev. lead to many Left wing mov. in LATAM
cold war also responsible for the shift
in Chile it lead to changes in economic policy (Pinochet)
MILITARY REGIMES TOOK POWER BY FORCE
IMAGE:PINOCHET
theory of bureaucratic authoritarianism
modernization theory
O’Donnell Theory
Modernization theory
a straight positive correlation/relationship between dev and democracy
as dev goes up so does democracy
Who challenged the modernization theory?
O’Donnell
What did O’Donnell argue?
that there is a kink to the correlation between democracy and development
the first kink:Traditional Authoritarianism-caudillos
b)Populist Authoritarianism
c)Bureaucratic Authoritarianism-military
last stage) advanced dem.
Why does modernization lead to B.A regimes?
growing eco. problems→ end of easy stage of ISI→try to produce-> debt,inflation,stagnant growth→conflict;ppl on strike want high wages→populist cohabitation begins to break
Increased popular mobilization→ urban working class mobilizes and populists encourage protests→destabilizing→makes elites + gov nervous→military intervention
The Rise of Technocrats→ppl go abroad to study→want to apply knowledge but cannot due to inflation and eco. destabilization→coup→military steps in and represses mobilizations→ gov. asks for help from the technocrats→ realize that the populist gov. is the problem→ alliance between technocrats+milt.+elites
What are the consequences of B.A regimes?
-deactivation of the popular sector
-reppression of the workers→want a calm country w/out strikes and protests
-deepening industrial growth
—suppression of wages+rising inequality b/c they believe that strikes an dprotests get in the way of milt.reform
Criticisms of the theory of B.A Regimes?
-mixed predictive abilities
-coups taking place throughout LATAM, even in places without high dev.
Mex and VZ did not have coups at all and became advanced
placed an overemphasis on economic factors
-neglected international factors: cold war, US intervention, Cuban Rev.
diffusion: if militaries saw others take power, they wanted to too
Neglected Domestic Political Factors:
left-wing policies helped bring about coups→alianated the U.S. gov (ex: chile)
ineffective political institutions: long history of authoritarian rule and military intervention
weak democracy→support for coups
weak legislature
middle class growth
How common were bureaucratic authoritarian regimes?
not common in LATAM
ONLY IN CHILE, URUGUAY, BRAZIL
What were the policies under military rule?: economic
varying economic policies
-deepening state industrialization lower wages ex: Brazil and ARG
Chile DIFFERED→ abandoned the ISI model in 1970 after military comes into power→free market model→opens; the economy and privitizes→deinsutrilization occurs
1980s: everyone turns away from ISI in LATAM
How did the military try to wipe out subversion?
targeted anyone sympathetic to the left
-The National Security Doctrine: The biggest enemy of the military was internal subversion, so military intelligence was expanded and focused domestically
-radical left mainly was wiped out, and the moderate left was weakened
Political activity was restricted: press freedom was lowered, legislatures closed, and political parties banned→ new ones created in favor of elites and military
What are human right abuses?
Beatings, torture, assassination, execution, disappearance
Argentina(arg): planes fly over ocean to dump people
-preg. women abducted kept till birth-disappeared
who committed the abuses?
state security forces-military, police, intelligence agency, sometimes a particular agency in the military-under direct orders by leaders
-employed paramilitary organizations
-death squads: active duty personnel employed by someone
largest violators were state security forces
Many people were trained in the US, not necessarily just in torture but in assassinations
GUERRILLAS GUILTY TOO BUT LOWER NUMBERS
the shining path
peru- brutal car bombings, killed civilians, targeted assassinations of politicians→targeted people on the left even though they were also left because they did not want a peaceful change
Who had their rights violated
Guerrillas, military police
bystanders
people associated with the left
Why were rights violated?
casualties are bound to happen during war
-to gain info
-create fear and discipline
-lack of checks and balances
what countries had the most violations?
Central America: El Salvador and Guatemala
then colombia and Peru
southern cone: violations but lower per capita
Costa Rica and Panama very few in comparison
-Bolivia and Ecuador had fewer killings-Uruguay put ppl in jail killed less
who sought to prevent these violations?
domestic human right organizations→ emerged to denounce and keep track of who was arrested, abducted
the catholic church → in El Salvador, the archbishop was killed
-the exiled community
Who was Orlando Letelier?
an ambassador of allende gov→assasinated in Washington along with his assistant
to what extent were these efforts successful
made a diff, even if not enough
-documentation was crucial in spreading awareness and pressuring regimes to release prisoners
led to a division in regimes between hard and soft liners
How have democracies responded?
amnesty laws were put in place: only for laws before amnesty laws, so they argue that the disappearances were an ongoing crime because the bodies are still gone
-hard to get them for those war crimes
-vast majority that violated human rights were not prosecuted
-truth commissions are more common: create a full account of all the assassinations and tortured and human right violations
provide some information, but not complete information about guilt
-no persecution just reports
Brazil: a history of military interventions
The emperor of Brazil was overthrown in 1889→military took power_>returned to civilian rule 1930: election Getulio Vargas← lost but Vargas did not accept and revolt that spread to the military + members of the state military forces→vargas gained power
Brazil had short-term interventions until 1964 → military would step in get rid of the leader and hold new elections and then civilian rule again
The policies of Getulio Vargas
vargas is a populist
ISI
-state led industrilization
-governed by decree
-tried to mobilize and control labor mov. through unions and elections. suspended the Brazilian constitution to cut down on fighting → replaced the constitution with his own → called elections off to stay in power
-security forces under Vargas would censor and arrest opposition and use torture during interrogation
The fall of Vargas and military intervention (TWICE)
1943 Vargas moves to the left a bit to get support in 1945 military wants him to resign→sent to exile on his ranch
-resigns →general close to him wins→runs again and wins
Vargas’s second term problematic
-corruption: palace security chief tried to assassinate a journalist who criticized Vargas, but killed the bodyguard who was in the airforce →military demands he steps down
→committed suicide in 1954
Kubitscheck elected in Brazil
-strong growth
-moves capital to brazilia in the interior
-industrialization grows→automobile production → costs a lot of money
-deficits
Kubitscheck succeeded by Janio Quadros
Launches stabilization policy because the government had a large deficit→ gets criticism only 7 months in office resigns → congress rejects his resignation but later on accepts and his VP took over
-NO ONE LIKES AUSTERITY POLICIES
THE RISE AND FALL OF JOAO GOULART
a contested rise to power
-center leftists-military opposed him →compromised- can be president but has to govern through cabinet accountable to Congress (congress can get rid of his ministers)
-starts campaign to restore power→restored by plebiscite
economic problems: goulart
need for stabilization-Goulart supported the left, so he backed away from those and increased spending
-deficit and inflation increases
-growth decline
-US aid is slowing cause of the leftist leader
-edge on a debt crisis bc cannot pay
a fragmented congress: goulart
his party does not control congress-no solid alliance
wants land reform, nationalize oil refineries, and reform constitution to strengthen him, but cannot do this
-wants to bypass congress through plebiscite
social mobilization and polarization : goulart
polarized between left and right, demonstration in the street, left is getting more power but right has mobilized to stop them
-left begins a campaign to unionize soldiers which the officers hate
-peasants are carrying out acts to seize land and want their land seizures recognized, landlords are fighting off land invasions in the countryside
-in the cities, there are a lot of strikes
Increasing fear of coup from above: Goulart
fear of Goulart becoming dictatorial and arm revolution group or reform his constituion by himself
however he could not because of opposition but not enough to impeach - isolation
military intervenes: goulart
naval mutiny last straw→(center + right wing) overthrow him
-u.s. gov knew about the coup plans and essentially support it by restoring aid to Brazil afterwards
-goulart flees into exile w/in 24 hours of coup
presidency is vacant→military takes over
The military in power
bureaucratic authoritarian regime
-political repression
-sev. diff. leaders which are generals and none of them are elected, but power isn’t as personalized as it was in Chile
-Gov was coalition of military officers, civilian technocrats, and some traditional right-wing politicians
economic growth: military in power- The Brazilian Miracle
from 1967-1964 10% growth per year which is insane
-exports quadrupled, industrial workers doubled
-military regime did pretty well on this part
continued social problems: brazil
low wages
inequality (between regions, so a lot of internal migration (south is much wealthier and was growing faster, also a movement to the interior, which led to the burning of the Amazon
Chile before 1950
-long democratic history
1830-1973 only two interruptions of constitutional rule
Not full democracy
Limited suffrage (women get vote in mid 1900s, illiterates in 1970)
Great deal of gov intervention in elections during this time, but pretty democratic by all standards
social and economic changes Chile
urbanization industrilization
-depended on copper
-u.s companies gain control of copper-resentment
the three main social groups chile
elites: right wing
-mining an industrial elites
-land owning elites
middle class: centrist
-state workers and private sector
-large middle class from industrialization
working class: emerged from industrialization- leftist
NOT A LOT OF IMMIGRATION
growing labor activism
social security benefits- to diffuse activism
1917-20 repression against anarchist and activists
after 1910 naco syndicate organized strikes
RISE OF LEFT WING PARTIES -COMMUNIST AND SOCIAL PARTY-20TH C
INTENSE PARTY COMP. CHILE 50-1970
DEMOCRATIC AND COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS
NO ONE HAD MORE THAN 25% OF VOTE - HAD TO FORM COALITIONS WHICH WERE WEAK
CENTER PARTIES HELD SWING VOTES
RIGHT WING VICTORIES IN CHILE
GENERAL CARLOS IBANEZ (1942) HAD AUSTERITY MEASURES THAT WERE HATED BY THE LEFT
-JORGE ALESSANDRI IN 1956-RIGHT WING NOT CENTER-31% OF VOTE, ALLENDE GOT 29%, EDUARDO FREI 21% (CENTRIST)
-MADE US NERVOUS
-ALESSANDRI HAD AUSTERITY POLICY, SMALL AGRARIAN REFORM, TRIED TO GET MORE us INVOLVED IN MINING NOT SUCCESFUL
WHEN DID CHILE SWING TO THE CENTER? 1964
EDUARDO FREI
Right didn’t believe they had enough support on their own so went with Frei- Christian Democrat
Exploited fears another Cuba in Chile if Allende is elected
US supported Frei, CIA contributed more than half of campaign expenses without him knowing
Won with 56% of vote, but Allende had only improved popularity as well
FREI’S REFORMS (MIDDLE PATH)
PARTIAL OWNERSHIP IN US COPPER COMPANIES TO GET PROFIT FOR CHILE-BUT LARGE PROFITS FOR US=NOT SUCCESFUL
-LAND REFORM: PROVIDES LAND TO 28K PEASANTS BUT NOT AS MUCH AS PROMISED
-POPULAR PARTICIPATION PROGRAM- TRIED OT GET CHRSITIAN DEM PARTY IN THE STUDENT WORKER UNIONS, AND COOPERATIVES THAT THE LEFTISTS HAD LONG HAD ON LOCK
-PEOPLE WANTED MORE RAD. CHANGE SO NOT POPULAR
WHEN DID CHILE SWING LEFT?
1970-ALLENDE WINS
-LEFT (SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST ALLIANCE)
US DID NOT SUPPORT CANDIDATE BC DID NOT KNOW IF RIGHT OR CENTER WOULD BE MORE POP. SO THEY GO OUT AGAINST ALLENDE
ALLENDE WINS 36%, ALESSANDRI 35%, CD GETS 28%
under Chilean constitution, if any candidate receives under 50% of the
vote, the Chilean congress must certify the winner of the election
○ CIA tries to persuade Chilean congressmen to not vote for Allende
through bribes and causing financial panic in Chile. None of these
plans worked
○ CIA also got involved in unconstitutional plans such as funding a
military coup. The coup plotters tried kidnap Schneider because he was
the leader of the military
■ Schneider resists so he is shot and killed. This upset Chileans
very much and actually created more support for Allende, the
opposite of what the US want
The Allende gov. - revolution by legal means
-this rev. does not fit the class definition for a revolution-bc it was through democratic means
-wanted socialism of red wine and empanadas that fit Chile’s needs and goals
-freezes prices and raises wages to give workers more purchasing power, leads to short-term income distribution but then leads to shortages when sellers won’t sell at gov mandated prices
-nationalized copper companies, super popular in Chile, but don’t provide compensation because of the illegally high copper profit made by the US
-Nationalized coal and steel and private banks as well
US cuts off investments in Chile and all loans
-peasant land occupation
-leads to rising concern about property rights
-Allende finds opposition in Congress and can’t submit any constitutional changes, wants a plebiscite but doesn’t have time
1972 Chile had growing economic problems
-reform but also the US making things difficult on an international level
-people selling their goods really high on the black market, and there is sabotage by enemies of Allende
-people didn’t invest because of fears of property rights (land occupations and nationalizing stuff)
-major trade deficit because not producing
What did the US try to do to undermine Allende?
Spent 7 million to undermine Allende through campaigns and funding opp.
Political Difficulties- Allende
The far left was pushing for radical action like land occupation, but moderates like the communist thought significant change would cause a coup
-still did better in the March 1973 elections than the March 1970, but still had a majority of seats in the legislature
-Christian democrats didn’t support Allende
-The middle class was starting to go against him too
-Opposition lacked 2/3 needed to impeach Allende
How did presidentialism worsen the Crisis?
Arturo Valenzuela argues that the Chilean Crisis would have been solved more efficiently with parliamentary system
-Executive and leg. elected sep. in presidential system, but in parliamentary system the PM has to form a GOV where they are in the majority so they have more support
-in the presidential system, pres has a fixed term and only way to get rid of him is major vote, but in parliamentary system, you just need to lose a key vote for the gov to fall
-this encourages the military to step in to solve the issue
rising social instability-ALLENDE
opposition was carrying out protests and terrorist attacks, but the supporters of Allende did the same thing
-opposition was a genuine concern and was funded by the US
Military coup in Chile
Commander in chief of army and minister of defense Carlos praaat resigns from pressure and is replaced by General Augusto Pinochet who is believed to be a strict constitutionalist
-coup begins, navy seizes port, airforce bombs presidential palace
-way out of pocket for Chilean history
-Allende commits suicide instead of being captured
-most violent coup in history of South America, so many executions, Caravan of death which is military officers that would take Allende supporters out of jail so they could execute them
Pinochet regime- repressive regime
Highly authoritarian, closed legislature, took control of universities, banned some political parties, and banned some labor unions. CDP thought the coup would end but it didn’t
widespread human right violations that even extend to other countries to try and get everyone who fled
Personalist rule - pinochet
Wasn’t bureaucratic authoritarian regime
he rose to top of military regime and made himself president
Did Pinochet last in power?
No miliary officer had lasted so long in power in the post war era
How did Pinochet consolidate power?
-used carrot and stick
-controlled information, he was the only one who knew what was going on, boosted military expenditure to get support, forced anyone against jim to retire including head of police
-rotated generals so they wouldnt gain support
DINA: DID ALL THE HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATIONS→watched opposition and other members of military
Took advantage of the disciplined constitutionalist nature of history
-there wasn’t any history of intervention, so he used that for himself
What was Pinochet’s base of support?
-military, political rights, catholic groups, business associations, conservative intellectuals , and technocrats
The Chicago Boys-technocrats-trained at the University of Chicago in economic
-returned to Chile to become professors-insulated them from political pressure→ did all the liberal plans they wanted
-intense free market reform
Neoliberal reforms
-privatized state-owned companies, social security, healthcare, vouchers in the education system
removed barriers to foreign trade and investments
deregulated the economy
social policy reforms
the effect of neoliberal reform -pinichet
brought down inflation→generated economic growth
-reduced wages and worsened income distribution in Chile
-consolidated Pinochet support from right, elite, and business class- in the beginning even had middle class
-gave him the popularity for new constitution in 1980 that allowed him to rule till 1990
What were the Huntington waves of democratization?
1st wave: 1828-1926
critics say this is too long of a period to be a wave
-29 democracies in the world which represented nearly half of independent countries
-followed by backsliding and democracies fall
What were the Huntington waves of democratization?
second wave: 1943-1962
by 1932 there are only 12 democracies because of backsliding and repression
-more democracies, but now that there are more independent countries it’s only a 1/3 of all countries
by 1973 only 30democracies instead of maybe 39
What were the Huntington waves of democratization?
Third wave starts in 1974
-this is LATAM
-virtually all LA countries become democratic now (there a lot of backsliding, but it happened)
by 1990, 59 countries are democratic which is almost half of all nations
-debate over whether third wave has continued or if we are in period of backslide now
-depends on what countries count as dem.
what is democracy?
free and fair elections
-equal playing field for candidates, access to media, no favoring by electorate system, are certain candidates barred from running
never truly fair due to money and access to media
electoral system always favors certainn candidates
-in the US, senate favors rural states
-opposition often discriminated against by making it very hard to get on the ballot or tilting the electoral system
Levels of inclusion in elections -can all adult citizens vote
-some argue that the results of elections matter-
democracy only comes with alteration of power, and the ruling party cedes power
-not enough for democracy
what is a democracy
civil liberties:
other necessary side of dem
-speech assembly, media: need free speech and information to have free politics
what is democracy?
horizontal accountability:
other argue that this is part of dem.
ability of one branch of gov to check the power of another
-checks and balances
what is a democracy?
eliminating authoritarian enclaves
-specific area of the country that isn’t democratic
-rule of law throughout entire state and spheres of influence
-others say this is just a feature of a strong democracy
what is a dem?
Rule of Law
Consistent application of law to everyone
People can’t agree on a metric for democracy
Democracy with adjectives
Disagreements on what constitutes democracy has led to qualifying adjectives to include countries as democratic (semi, partial, etc)
economic factors and democracy
probalistic relationship with factors of democracy, the theories cant hold 100% of the time
development and Democracy: Modernization Theory and its Critics
Probably most widely accepted theory of democracy
Posits Relationship between economic development and democracy
As countries develop, more likely to be democratic
Lots of studies show that this is true in general
Less agreement on why this is the case and wheter the relationship is causal or just a correlation
Others argue that with development comes the strengthening of the landed elites which puts the peasants down
They were an obstacle to democracy, and development strengthened bourgeoisie so the opposition led to democracy
Others argue development strengthened urban force that now is demanding democracy
Others argue that development leads to education which leads to democracy
modernization theory critics
Exceptions like Singapore and Saudi Arabia who are developed but not democratic
Botswana and India aren’t too developed but they’re democratic
Modernization fans say this is just a general theory and it can have exception
Other critics say the economic development doesn’t cause democracy but it sustains it
I like this one the best
inequality and democracy
Inequality inhibits democracy is the claim
Economic inequality leads to political radicalism and guerrilla movements which leads to violence and oppression on both ends
Some scholars argue that where there are high levels of inequality, elites don’t want to democratize cause they have so much to lose
However there are a lot of highly unequal democracies
Like the US
economic openness and democracy
Idea is that elites are less likely to resist democracy if they know they can avoid taxation by shifting their wealth overseas
As long as economy is open, you can get your money out of the country and it helps with winning the elites
Economic liberalization is good because takes away resources for authoritarian govs who would have taken control of economy to keep themselves in power
Political freedom goes with economic freedom: comes with decentralization
Critics:
Economic liberalization can actually destabilize democracy through protest and hardships
Natural Resources and Democracy
Theory: natural resource wealth can undermine democracy because it inhibits manufacturing industrialization
Oil rich middle east is not usually democratic which they use as evidence
When rulers have natural resource wealth, then they don’t need to tax population they just extract that wealth so the population which is not getting taxed might not demand democracy
Taxation usually comes with the call for representation
Oil regimes can use revenue to buy patronage and support, or security
Exceptions: US and Norway
Many people suggest correlation between natural resource wealth and authoritarian rule is so various may be other factors like religion
Cultural Values and Democracy
Some modernization theorists argue development affects democracy not through class structure but by changing social values so that people value democracy more
Development leads to more social classes, female participation in the labor force= does that mean changing social values
Values conducive to Democracy (emancipative values): gender equality over patriarchy, tolerance over conformity, valuing individual autonomy of authority, valuing participation
Religious authority can undermine democracy if you value it too much
Critics:
Democracy changes cultural values, not the other way around
Just because people value democracy doesn’t mean they are gonna get it if the rulers are oppressive
Masses having right values doesn’t mean they can achieve democracy
religion and dem.
They argue religious beliefs are transmitters of social value
Protestantism helps foster democracy because it’s associated with individualism, tolerance, pluralism, and civic association
Some argue protestant missionaries spread democracy by spreading literacy and civil society/organizations
Catholicism is criticized as bad for democracy, Islam too
Catholicism is too hierarchical for democarcy
Islam leads to suppression of women’s rights which has negative impact on democracy
Both religions don’t advocate enough division against church and state
Critics
Look at all the democratic LA countries that are hella Catholic
In some countries, Church vocally supported democratic revolutionaries (El Salvador)
Only difference is Protestant countries are usually more developed than Catholicism
Protestantism associated with slavery, colonial rule, and many Protestant govs fought against democracy
Ethnic Diversity and Democracy
Ethnic Diversity bad because creates division and ruling ethnic group will undemocratically keep power over other ethnic groups
In general there isn’t a correlation between ethnic diversity and democracy if you look at the facts
In many places, ethnic diversity leads to democracy by creating opposition parties
Civil Society and democracy
Civil society is non-gov organizations that individuals participate in (clubs)
Active civil society is good for democracy because some of the organizations push for democracy, protest, monitor gov, etc
They’ve drawn attention to civil rights abuses, lobbied foreign countries, served as watchdog organization
Media often counted as civil society
Help generate trust between citizens which can help democracy
Critics
Not all civil society is good for democracy: the KKK, fascists, the Nazi party had lots of support from civil society
international factors and democracy
Fact that there are waves suggest that international factors are big
International economic conditions and democracy- The Debt Crisis
Economic crisis can shake up politics, and authoritarian regimes were in charge at the time so they lost support and power
1930s Debt Crisis helped Latin America, but it hurt some countries
International Political Factors - the end of the Cold War
Cold War was bad for democracy because US and USSR supported authoritarian govs as long as they were allies
Undermined democratic govs during Cold War
This is why we get so much spread of democracy in the 1980s-90s
Guerrilla movements aren’t being supported to same extent, and US isn’t going after communist countries as much
Diffusion of Democracy
Neighboring countries can place pressure on countries to conform either to democracy or revolution or authoritarianism
Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold
Splits within the Regime
Often begins with this
Causes: economic crisis, human rights violations, sector or regime wants to give up power, etc
Soft liners want to give up power or liberalize, hard liners want to hang onto power and repress
Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold
Countries will compromise with liberalizing without democratizing
However, citizens now use rights given to them
Popular upsurges are strikes, media, protests, vocal asks for change
Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold
Gov Makes Choice: Repress or democratize?
Repression: some countries return to authoritarianism
Democratization: if softliners prevail, you see real democratization
Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold
Deciding the terms of the transition
Elections, who can participate, electoral system, who can vote, political institutions for voting on, role of military in new gov
Note
Flashcard