Consolidating Mexico’s Democracy: The 2006 Presidential Campaign in Comparative Perspective by Jorge I. Domínguez et al (review)

The Latin Americanist, September 2010 did not differ very much from those of his predecessor, but that he ended up pleasing the agribusiness more than Cardoso, considering other policies beyond land distribution itself. Nonetheless, Samuels (Smith) stresses the surprising uniqueness of Brazil in a scenario of weak partisanship, as commonly assumed in Latin America. Exceptions in some countries and periods must be recognized in the region, and PT in Brazil is a case in point, that can be understood through long-term party organization, recruitment efforts, and interested people in politicized social networks. Uglla’s study (Smith) of one aspect of Chile’s constitutional changes convincingly shows that the consensus was hardly met, which differs from more current views on the topic. The previous authoritarian Constitution of 1980 mattered greatly, and Concertacı́on accepted the reforms because it expected to make room for advancing more democratic reforms further on, which did not happen. In terms of founding issues, Carey (Smith) focuses on the questions of reelection that have been rejected since Independence , and stresses that the changes recently made did not make clear the implications of its adoption. Finally, Manzetti and Wilson (Blake and Morris) present a bleak but strong argument that support for corrupt governments—and the “democratic deficits,” we could add—will continue as long as there is reliance on clientelism plus tolerance (90), arguing against the popular belief that the passing of time may be the solution for this diminishing illiberal component of democracies in Latin America. In any case, given all the above, Blake and Morris conclude that the Latin American anticorruption glass may be “one quarter full rather than three quarters empty” (194). Some social scientists, like myself, may add another quarter in the changing half. Eduardo R. Gomes Department of Political Science Universidade Federal Fluminense CONSOLIDATING MEXICO’S DEMOCRACY: THE 2006 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. By Jorge I. Domı́nguez et al. Boston: Johns Hopkins UP, 2009, p. 384, $70.00. The 2006 Mexican presidential race was “no boring affair putting Tweedledee against Tweedledum,” as noted by a contributor to this excellent volume on the 2006 campaign. Its main conclusion is indeed that the campaign mattered, and that it mattered a lot. According to MIT’s Mexico Panel Study, on which much analysis is based, half of voters switched candidates at least once. The real story of the 2006 race is therefore that political factors—mobilization of voters, assessment of candidates, and the framing of issues—proved decisive. This volume is of interest to any student of campaign effects and party strategies, as its main strength lies in the comparative implications of these findings. 98 Book Review One strong chapter is Alberto Dı́az-Cayeros et al’s study of the effects of the social program Oportunidades and the health care Seguro Popular. They find that the governing PAN did “buy off segments of the poor” (240) through these programs, yet as offered on a universalistic basis, this is hardly clientelism. A strong implication is that health insurance and cash-transfer programs can pay significant dividends for governments of the right. In 2006, Mexicans abroad could finally vote in a presidential election, yet only 0.46 percent did so, overwhelmingly for Felipe Calderón. Yet Jorge Domı́nguez finds that this lopsided support is not reflected among expatriates in general. Rather, socioeconomic determinants appear decisive , as Calderón’s supporters, wealthier and more educated, were more adept at overcoming excessive bureaucratic hurdles to voting. I suspect similar patterns might appear among other expatriate communities. As the number of countries with external voting provisions is rising, this is a model chapter for replication in other contexts. Chapters on candidate nomination are instructive and timely. David Shirk argues that to understand an election one must understand how candidates are nominated, and details the crucial role of internal party politics. One omitted point is the effect of the cancellation of PRD’s primary. After Cuauhtémoc Cardenas was pushed to decline, the PRD founder refused to campaign for the victor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) in Michoacán, the PRD’s heartland, or even confirm that he would vote for him. This merely strengthens...