Political elites, radicalism, and varieties of democracy in Latin America.

Home » Uncategorized » Political elites, radicalism, and varieties of democracy in Latin America.

The discussion about how political elites influence the quality of democracy in Latin America has gained new momentum. Based on research that goes beyond the classic opposition between democracy and authoritarianism. Instead of focusing solely on regime changes, coups d'état, or transitional processes, a significant portion of recent literature has been dedicated to understanding How do democracies function once they are already in place? And what factors explain why some are more inclusive, egalitarian, or deliberative than others?

In this context, Asbel Bohigues' work on "elites, radicalism, and democracy" stands out. By focusing directly on the attitudes and values ​​of Latin American parliamentary elites, and articulating these perceptions with different “varieties of democracy,” the study, based on data from the Latin American Elites Project (PELA-USAL) and indicators from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), shows, counterintuitively, that The ideological radicalism of elites can, in certain contexts, strengthen specific dimensions of democracy., especially the egalitarian dimension, when combined with support for democratic institutions.

Two paths in political science: democratic ruptures and the quality of democracy.

Classical literature on democratization in Latin America and Southern Europe has primarily emphasized moments of crisis.: regime collapse, transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, and processes of democratic consolidation. Authors such as Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, especially in works like "The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes" (1978) and "Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation" (1996), were central to explaining like the strategic choices of the elites They contributed to opening up regimes, negotiating pacts, and preserving or destroying democratic balances.

Similarly, the work organized by Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe Schmitter and Laurence Whitehead, “Transitions from Authoritarian Rule” (1986), consolidated an approach in which political agency – that is, the decisions of leaders and power groups – appears as a key element in understanding the third wave of democratization. Along these lines, the study by Higley and Gunther (1992) also fits. elites and democratic consolidation In Latin America and southern Europe, this reinforces the idea that attitudes, pacts, and conflicts between ruling groups shape the destiny of regimes.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the focus broadened to include considering the stability of democratic regimes and their risks.Linz (1990), in discussing the “dangers of presidentialism,” warned of the possibility that the institutional design could encourage recurring crises and even the return of the military to the political scene. Remmer (1996), in turn, analyzed The sustainability of South American democracy, relating institutional performance, socioeconomic conditions, and political support.

Later, Scott Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán further developed the comparative analysis of democracies and dictatorships in the region., in works such as “Democracies and Dictatorships in Latin America: Emergence, Survival, and Fall” (2013/2014). They showed how institutional factors, party structure, economic performance, and elite behavior combine to explain the emergence, survival, and fall of regimes over time.

At the same time, a significant portion of the literature began to question the idea of ​​democracy as a binary category.Authors such as O'Donnell (1994), in introducing the concept of "delegative democracy," drew attention to systems that, although formally democratic, They operated with practices concentrated in the Executive branch.Low quality of representation and weak institutional control. Thus, space was opened for studies that speak of "varieties of democracy" and different democratic dimensions – going beyond the simple distinction between democracy and dictatorship.

Varieties of democracy: beyond yes or no

Instead of simply asking whether a country is democratic, the varieties of democracy approach seeks to understand how democratic it is in different dimensions.The V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) project, detailed in the methodology of Coppedge, Gerring, Knutsen, Lindberg, Teorell, and colleagues (2021), measures democracy based on several components, including: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian.

The electoral dimension emphasizes the existence of competitive, clean, and periodic elections.In which citizens can choose between real alternatives and votes are counted in a minimally fair manner. Without this component, speaking of democracy becomes practically impossible, since suffrage is the central mechanism for selecting rulers in representative regimes.

The liberal dimension focuses on checks and balances and the protection of civil liberties.It involves judicial independence, legislative oversight of the executive branch, a free press, and the protection of fundamental rights. Even if a country holds regular elections, if there is an extreme concentration of power or systematic violations of rights, The liberal quality of democracy is low..

The participatory dimension assesses citizen involvement beyond just voting.Participation in organizations, mobilizations, public consultations, and instances of direct democracy. Here, it's important to understand to what extent the population can influence the political agenda and the decision-making process through channels broader than just the ballot box.

The deliberative dimension concerns how collective decisions are made.The central question is whether political institutions favor well-founded, open and respectful public debatesIn which arguments are presented, justified, and discussed, or where the logic of imposition prevails, without substantive discussion.

Finally, the egalitarian dimension is concerned with the distribution of power and resources.Having rights on paper isn't enough: it's important to verify if they actually exist. real equality in access to political participation, justice, education, health, and social protection. Democracies that concentrate power and wealth in a few groups tend to score poorly in this dimension, even if they meet basic electoral requirements.

The concept of "full democracy" adopted by Bohigues refers precisely to regimes that exhibit high levels in all five of these dimensions.In other words, it is not merely a "minimal" democracy based on competitive elections, but a political order that combines electoral integrity, respect for rights, high citizen participation, robust deliberative processes, and a strong egalitarian component.

Political elites as a key to explanation

Much of the discussion about the quality of democracy has focused on public opinion in general., measuring, for example, citizens' support for democracy or trust in institutions. However, Bohigues' study draws attention to a point that is often overlooked: The attitudes of political elites can have a direct impact on the "rules of the game." and about how these rules are changed, preserved, or distorted.

Following the line of authors such as Anduiza Perea (1999), who highlight the ability of politicians to strongly influence institutions.The research starts from the premise that Knowing what parliamentarians think and what they value is crucial.If elites support democracy only instrumentally, for convenience, or if they flirt with authoritarian solutions, this tends to affect the stability and quality of the regime.

The study relies on two main axes to measure the vision of the elites.Support for democracy and ideological radicalism. Democratic support is primarily garnered through favorable attitudes towards elections and political parties, considered as basic institutional pillars. Radicalism, on the other hand, is measured by the extreme positions that parliamentarians take on the left-right ideological scale.

Instead of treating radicalism as something automatically negative, the study differentiates between anti-democratic radicalism and "democratic radicalism."The latter refers to elites who occupy extreme positions on the ideological spectrum, but who, at the same time, They clearly support democracy, elections, and the party system.The central hypothesis is that this type of radicalism can, in certain contexts, contribute positively to certain varieties of democracy.

This represents a counterpoint to more traditional interpretations, such as those of Mainwaring and Pérez-Liñán., which are often associated intense ideological polarization leading to democratic instabilityBohigues' proposal is that, since democracy is "the only game in town," programmatic clarity—often associated with firmer ideological positions—can strengthen public debate, representation, and, in some cases, even the egalitarian dimension of regimes.

PELA-USAL and V-Dem: databases for understanding elites and context.

To put these ideas to the test, the study uses two large databases. which, combined, allow for a comprehensive portrait of the relationship between elites and democracy in Latin America between 1995 and 2015.

On one hand, the Latin American Elites Project (PELA-USAL), from the University of Salamanca, constitutes an observatory of parliamentary elites that, since the early 1990s, Interviews with members of parliament and senators from virtually all Latin American countries.Over two decades, more than 8.000 interviews were collected in 18 countries, covering 95 legislatures (or country-year combinations). This material reveals, in great detail, ideological positions, perceptions about institutions and democratic values ​​of parliamentary elites.

On the other hand, V-Dem offers detailed contextual indicators. on the multiple dimensions of democracy in the same countries and period. The methodology presented by Coppedge and colleagues (2021) systematically describes How are the electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian indices constructed?, based on a vast database and expert assessments.

Furthermore, the study engages with other sources of contextual data., such as Latinobarometer and the World Bank, to capture socioeconomic conditions, democratic trajectory and elements of political cultureTaken together, these bases allow us to analyze the extent to which factors such as economic development, the history of democracy, institutions, and geopolitical variables modulate the effect of elite attitudes on different varieties of democracy.

This results in a two-stage model.First, the context (economic, institutional, cultural, and historical) shapes the attitudes of political elites; then, these attitudes influence, in different ways, each of the five dimensions of democracyIt is not assumed that all dimensions move as a single unit: they can respond to different combinations of factors, including potentially contradictory ones.

Multi-method approach: HJ-Biplot, QCA, and process tracing

To test his hypotheses, Bohigues adopts a mixed-methods strategy that combines quantitative and qualitative techniques.The idea is to take advantage of the best of each approach, recognizing that none of them, in isolation, allows for establishing strict causality, but Triangulation reinforces the robustness of the proposed correlations and mechanisms..

First, the author uses the HJ-Biplot as a multivariate analysis tool. To explore the relationships between elite attitudes (support for democracy and radicalism) and indices of different types of democracy. The HJ-Biplot allows visualization How countries and variables are distributed within the same graphic space., facilitating the identification of patterns, associations, and potential trade-offs between democratic dimensions.

Secondly, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) with fuzzy sets (fsQCA) is used. to investigate What combinations of conditions are sufficient to produce "full democracy"?This technique, widely used in comparative studies, works with sectoral logic (sets) and focuses on causal configurations, rather than isolated effects. Thus, it is possible to identify, for example, contextual arrangements and elite attitudes that, together, are associated with high levels in all democratic dimensions.

Finally, the study uses comparative process tracing. to analyze in depth two paradigmatic cases: Uruguay and El SalvadorBoth present elites with similar characteristics in terms of radicalism and support for democracy, but exhibit different results regarding the presence of full democracy. The objective is to track the causal mechanisms over time, examining how the democratic trajectory (path dependence) conditions the impact of radicalism and elite support.

The combined use of these methodological tools is especially useful for students and researchers from specific countries.In many comparative studies, countries end up being reduced to binary variables, with little contextual information. Here, on the contrary, There is an explicit effort to reconstruct the political context of each case.This makes the book valuable for both regional analyses and focused studies, for example, on Uruguay, Costa Rica, or El Salvador.

Key findings: support, radicalism, and varieties of democracy

In the chapter dedicated to the influence of elites in different varieties of democracyThe study tests the hypothesis that Support for democracy and the radicalism of elites have distinct – and sometimes opposing – effects on each dimension.The empirical results obtained through the HJ-Biplot are revealing.

The first observation is relatively intuitive.: The greater the support for democracy from the elites, the better the performance of countries in dimensions such as electoral and, in some cases, liberal, deliberative, and egalitarian.Elites who wholeheartedly defend elections and parties tend to reinforce both the integrity of the electoral process and the space for debate and inclusion.

The effect of radicalism, however, proves to be more complex.In certain contexts, it is observed that The more radical a country's elite is, the higher the egalitarian dimension of its democracy tends to be.even though this may be accompanied by lower levels in the electoral, liberal, or deliberative dimensions. This association suggests that More extreme ideological positions may push for redistributive policies and a reduction in inequalities.even if they create tensions with other institutional rules and practices.

One of the most interesting findings is that support for democracy is not necessarily an indispensable condition for the existence of a full democracy., when analyzing the factor configuration via fsQCA. In at least one identified combination, It is possible to find full democracy without the support of the elites for democracy being clearly necessary.This indicates that favorable structural and institutional contexts can partially compensate for the ambivalence of certain elites.

At the same time, the results show that radicalism, in interaction with other variables, can create sufficient conditions for the presence of full democracy.In other words, not only is radicalism not inevitably harmful, but it can be a contributing factor. necessary in certain paths to democratic strengtheningespecially when combined with a consolidated democratic trajectory and good socioeconomic conditions.

The radical-democratic path: Uruguay x El Salvador

To better understand the mechanisms behind this so-called "radical-democratic path"The study compares two cases with elites that are similar in terms of radicalism and, to some extent, support for democracy: Uruguay and El SalvadorThe central question is to explain why the first achieves levels of full democracy, while the second does not, despite sharing conditions that, in theory, should lead to similar results.

Comparative process tracing points to the decisive importance of the democratic trajectory.In the Uruguayan case, the political elites have been... supporting democracy consistently over time...even when they occupy strong ideological positions. This has allowed parties and leaders to learn, historically, to "play the democratic game," building routines of programmatic competition, respect for the rules, and peaceful alternation of power.

In El Salvador, on the other hand, full support for democracy by the elites is a more recent phenomenon.The legacy of armed conflict, violent polarization, and institutional fragility has hindered the consolidation of a robust consensus around democratic rules. Even though ideological radicalism exists, a combination with a shorter trajectory of democratic support This results in a different effect, not translating into full democracy.

This contrast highlights the logic of path dependence.The past matters, a great deal. Elites who have historically socialized in contexts of respect for democratic institutions tend to channel radicalism towards... Clear and competitive programmatic disputes, but within the rules.In contexts where democratic commitment is late or weak, Radicalism can degenerate into destructive polarization., blocking reforms and eroding trust among political actors.

This discussion engages, in an interesting way, with the famous report of the American Political Science Association (1950). about a more responsible two-party system in the United States. At the time, it was argued that more ideologically diverse parties would help voters choose clear alternatives. However, the subsequent experience of extreme polarization in the US showed that Significant differences can undermine dialogue and cooperation.Bohigues' study suggests that, in fragile party systems like those in Latin America, A certain degree of programmatic radicalism can still be beneficial.provided it is grounded in unequivocal support for democracy.

Theoretical and empirical relevance of the study

One of the great contributions of the work lies in breaking with the purely binary view of democracy.Instead of simply asking whether a country is democratic or not, the author works with the idea of Democracy as a multidimensional and graduated phenomenon, aligning itself with the most recent perspectives from comparative studies and from V-Dem itself.

Another virtue is filling an important gap in the literature on the attitudes of political elites.While public opinion polls on support for democracy have multiplied, Systematic empirical evidence about what elites think was much scarcer.The extensive use of PELA-USAL data helps to correct this imbalance, bringing the analysis closer to... actors who have the real capacity to redefine institutions and policies.

From a substantive point of view, the counterintuitive finding regarding the positive role of radical elites in certain circumstances This is especially relevant to the contemporary debate on polarization. Many studies tend to treat ideological polarization as something invariably negative for Latin American party systems. associating it with legislative blockages, governance crises, and democratic erosion.Bohigues' research, however, shows that It is necessary to distinguish between anti-democratic radicalism and democratic radicalism.which could broaden the range of proposals and deepen the debate on equality.

Finally, in dialogue with classic authors such as Linz, Stepan, O'Donnell, Schmitter, Whitehead, Higley, Gunther, Mainwaring and Pérez-LiñánThe study is part of a well-established tradition, but It goes beyond the emphasis on ruptures, transitions, and consolidation.In his own words, after a country reaches the minimum to be considered democratic, "life and democracy go on," and it is precisely in this institutional day-to-day life that decisions are made. How inclusive, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian will this democracy be?.

All this body of evidence and reflection helps to better understand why, in Latin AmericaDemocracies that share similar labels can function in such different ways.By focusing on elites, their attitudes, and their radicalism, in dialogue with historical and institutional contexts, the work offers a rich map of the possibilities and limitations of democracy in the regionThis shows that, under certain conditions, even ideological extremes can act as levers for deepening democracy, rather than being inevitable threats to its survival.