Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Political development includes state development, rule of law, and political accountability (Fukuyama 2011/2014; Huntington 1968). Bolivia, Paraguay, and Mozambique are challenged as late economic developers (Wallerstein 1974) with some advantages (Gerschenkron 1966). All three opened politically in the Third Wave (Huntington 1991; Polity IV). All have dominant parties, including MAS in Bolivia (Madrid 2012; Weyland, et al 2010; Levitsky/Roberts 2011), Colorados in Paraguay (Abente Brun 2010; Marsteintredet et al 2013), and FRELIMO in Mozambique (Newitt 2017; Manning 2010; Hanlon). Yet nuanced differences existed in political development in the three. Mozambique’s Conselho Constitucional displayed independence from the executive not observed other cases. FRELIMO’s Political Commission is hierarchical, undemocratic and has “bureaucratic families” (see Ai Camp 1980), yet limits individual terms as did Mexico with sexenio. Paraguay has had limited terms for presidents, but Bolivia is different. Bolivia possesses independent print media, while Mozambique has only independent Savannah and Diario de Mocambique. Differences due to non-mutually exclusive factors. LeBas (2011) posits “pre-existing mobilizing structures that transcend ethnic cleavages” underpinning parties in Africa, and the civil war in Mozambique contributed to this process, whereas Bolivia’s ayllus/tribes were structurally different from those of Mozambique modified through complex process of economic transition (author). Paraguay had a distinctive integration of Guarani culture into elites earlier in history. Institutional legacies of precocious urbanization and mineral extraction in colonial times affected Bolivia (Klein 2003; Malloy/Gamarra 1988; Laserna; Acemoglu and Robinson 2002). Mozambique fieldwork includes 44 interviews in July 2018, fieldwork in Bolivia intermittently 1997-2008, and Paraguay in 2004-5.