Democracy in Latin America: Political Change in Comparative Perspective by Peter H. Smith (review)

Book Reviews DEMOCRACY IN LATINAMERICA: POLITICAL CHANGE I N COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. BY PETER H. SMITH. NEW YORK: OXFORD UP, 2005, r.379, $25.00. Many books on Latin American politics are entitled ”Democracy in Latin America...”, however, most of them are constricted in their approach. While some present a political version of the process of democratization, others highlight the implosion of social movements and a few expel the relationship between democracy and public opinion. However, fewer of them have a holistic and comparative approach as Peter H. Smith does in this book. Marshalling an impressive array of research methods and valiantly combining quantitative with qualitative analyses on the political, economical and social factors of democratization, Peter H. Smith examines processes of democratization in Latin America from 1900 to the present. The book traces the origins of democracy, examines the adoption of electoral institutions, assesses policy performance, explores political representation of women, workers, and indigenouspopulation, and evaluates trends in public opinion.It does so by sophisticated data analysis, covering nearly 70 different indicators of political regimes, government expenditures, electoral data, political status of women, public opinion, and economic and social indicators. The book is about the role of the military in Latin America, the influence of external actors, and the negative impact of the Cold War in democratization processes, the constant struggle of women, workers and indigenous populations, cycles of electoral democracies, and varieties of presidentialism and gridlocks caused by executive-legislative fragile relationships. It is also about the State capacity and policy performance, the politics of social equity and freedoms, and rights and illiberal democracy. In sum, it is a book about historical perspectives, the electoral arena, and the qualities of democracy in Latin America. In a nutshell the last paragraph of the book, on page 345, summarizes the whole tale of Latin American democracies. As the author argues, Latin America is a region where democracy has arisen and survived against formidable odds; it is a region where citizens have struggled with determination for fundamental rights; it is a region where a vast range of political experimentation (left,centre, right) has converged in the direction of democracy, and it is a region of the unexpected, which might well surprise the world once again, hopefully with better development and more equity. The book starts with a rather droning tale of the recent emergence of the “left” in Venezuela and Brazil, comparing and contrasting Chavez and Lula, initial resemblance and contrasts. As the book progresses on part 1,the narrative becomes much more dynamic and interesting, analyzing historical perspectives. It suggests three cycles of electoral democracies: i) from 1900 to 1939, dominated by oligarchic competition, ii) from 1940 to 1977, marked by the partial rise and near-complete demise of electoral democracy (27) and iii) from the 1978 to 2000, when nearly 90% of Latin Americans were enjoying electoral democracies at last. In fact, the breakdown stresses that despite a systematic transition toward democracy, political stability was TheLatin Arnericanist, Spring 2007 endemic in Latin America (42-3).And three lessons have been learned: 1) regime transitions did not inexorably lead to democracy; 2) most transitions led somewhere else, and 3) all transitions were afflicted by uncertainty (72). Moreover, the author claims that with this periodization a clear pattern can be established regarding the relationship between democracy and development in Latin America, to some extent contrary to modernization theory. In the first cycle, a blueprint is suggested that the higher the level of development, the greater the prospects for transitions to democracy, as it was in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile (the three more prosperous countries of the time), which underwent shifts towards democracy-although without success. The second cycle reveals a somewhat similar trend, where no country in the least-developed category underwent shifts toward democracy. And during the third and most recent cycle, the relationship between democracy and development weakened markedly, as every country in the region, regardless of developmental level, came to enjoy a democratic experience (of course with the exception of Cuba!). An important debate in political sciencestillremains on the causation of the relationship between democracy and development (although some analysts claim that with their dichotomous research they have put...