Democratic breakdowns in the Andes: Populism and Popularity

• In Event: Civil Society, Left Parties, and States in Latin America: Patterns of Organization and Uneven Representation

Abstract

During the 2000s, several Andean countries experienced breakdowns of liberal democracy under “radical” leftist presidents. Existing accounts have focused on presidents’ populist linkages to society via top-down mobilization around anti-establishment discourses. They argue that particularly where institutions and party systems are weak, populist leaders who take office tend to attack institutions, consolidate power in the presidency, and develop “competitive authoritarian” regimes. However, these accounts do not fully explain cases where democracy persisted despite the election of populist presidents, such as Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador and Ollanta Humala in Peru. This paper refines these theories by introducing the variable of initial presidential popularity. Where presidents win electoral supermajorities in the context of weak party systems, they often enjoy pliable legislatures, demoralized opponents, and the possibility of ruling through plebiscitarian means. They thus have tools to undermine weak democracies, although more institutionalized regimes can resist them. Populism, especially its anti-establishment message, contributes to this process as one element that generates high levels of initial presidential popularity. Yet non-populist but popular presidents may still attack democratic institutions, even if populists’ rhetoric and vertical political organization makes them more likely to do so. This argument results from a small-n, qualitative comparison of presidents elected in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela after 2000. These cases show that presidents with initial public support above 54% generally sought to weaken democratic institutions while those with less either failed in their attempts or did not try.

Author

• Aaron E Watanabe, University of Oxford