Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America Terry Lynn Karl Comparative Politics, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Oct., 1990), 1-21. Stable URL: httpflinksstor.orgsici?sici=0010-4159%28 199010%2928%3A LC L3ADODILAGAE2.0.COWSB2-Z, ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at fp (fw. jstor orglaboutitersihtml. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless You. have obtained prior permission, you ray not download an entire issue of &joumal or multiple copies of aricies, and You may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR twansmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sercen or lnted page of such transmission. Comparative Politics is published by Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York. Please contact the publisher for further pemmissions regarding the use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/ovwerjstor org/joumalsyPhD hurl Comparative Polities ©1990 The City University of New York ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarks of ISTOR, and are Registered in the US. Patent and Trademase Office. For mote information on ISTOR contact jstor-info@umich edu, ©2003 IsTOR hup:thrww itor orgy ‘Thu Oct 2 18:20:22 2003Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America Terry Lynn Karl “The demise of authortaian rule in Argentina, Rolivia, Bratil, Chile, Reuador, Peru, and Uruguay, when combined with efforts at political liberalization in Mexico and the recent lection of civilian presidents in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, represents political watershed in Latin America. This wave of regime changes ia the 19808 places a number of questions on the intllecial and political agenda forthe continent, Will hese newly emergent and fragile democracies in South America be able 10 survive, especially in the context of the worst economic recession since the 1930s? Can the liberalization of suthortaran rule in Central America and the possible praspect of honest competitive elections in Mexico be transformed into genuine democratic transitions? Will previously consolidated poftical democracies such as Venenvela and Costa Riea be able to ‘extend the basic principles of citizenship into economic and social realms, or will chey be “deconsolidated” by this challenge and revert toa sole preoccupation with survivability? Behind suck questions lies a ceneal concern expressed by Dankwart A, Rustow almast ‘wenty years ago: “What conditions make democracy possible and what conditions make it Uhrive?”? This aricle addresses Rustow's query by arguing the following. Fis the manner in whieh theorists of comparative polities have sought to understand democracy in developing counties has changed as the once-dominant search for prerequisites of ‘democracy has given Way to a more processriented emphasis on contingent choice. Having ‘undergone this evolution, theorists should now develop an inteactive approach that seeks explicitly ta relate stmctural constraints tothe shaping of contingent choice, Secood, i is no longer adequate to examine regime transitions wnt lage, that is, [oom the general category ‘of authoritarian rule co that of democracy. Such broad-gauged efforts must be complemented by the idemification of different types of democracy that emerge from distintive modes of regime transition as well as an analysis of theit potential politica, economic, and social ‘consequences, Before these issues and their implications for the seudy of Latin America can be addressed, however, a definition of democracy must he established. Defiuing Democracy Defining democrécy is no simple tsk bectuse the retolution of number of disputes over ‘rh its prospects and evaluation rests on haw the cerm ke {s operationalized. If, for ‘example, democracy is defined in a Schumpeterian manner as a polity that permits the choice Ddesween elites by citizens voting in regular and competitive elections, the militarized ‘countries of Central America could be elasified as political democracies by maay scholars, ust as they are (with che exception of Sandinista Nicaragua) by U.S. polieymakers.* But if the definition is expanded to include a wider range of political conditions fiom lack of 1Comparative Paliies Oetaber 1990 ‘esicitions on citizen expression, to the absence of discrimination against panicular politcal parties, 10 freedom of association for al interests, to civilian conus] over the military — these same countries (with the exception of Costa Rica) could scarcely he clesifed under this rubric, ‘The problem is campounced when a number of substantive properties —such a8 che predominance of institstions tha faithfully wansate individual preferences ino public policy through majocitarian mle, the iscoeporation of an ever-increasing proportion of the population into the process of decision making, and the comtinuoss improvement of economic equity through the actions of governing instistions—are included either as ‘components or empirical comelites of democratic nule.* Approaches that stipulate socioeconomic advances for the majoity of the popslation and active involvement by subordinate clastes united in 2utenomous popular organizations as defining, conditions intrinsic to demacracy are hard-pressed wo find "aecual” democratic regimes to study. Often they ae incapable of identifying significant, if incamplete, changes towards democratization in the political realm. Moreover, they are cat off from investigating empirically the hypothetical relaionship between compeciive political forms and progressive economic ‘outcomes because this important issue is assumed away hy the very definition af regime type. While these substantive properties are ethically desirable (0 most democrats, such ‘conceptual breadth renders the definicion of democracy virally meaningless for practical pplication Foc these ceasons, I ill settle for a middle-range specification of democracy. It is defined 4s "a set of inscicuions that permits the entre adult population wo set as citizens by choosing heir leading decision makers in compestive, fir, and regularly scheduled elections which ‘ate held in the context of the rule of law, goaranvees for political freedom, and limited miliary prerogatives." Specified in this manner, democracy is political concept involving several dimensions: (1) contestation over policy and political competition for afice; (2) participation of the citizenry through partisan, associational, and other forms of collective action; 3) accountability of rulers (othe ruled through mechanisms of representation and the rule of law; and (4) eeilisn conte over the tila. Tis this later dimension, sa important inthe Jatin American contest, which sets my definition aparc from. Rober Dabl’s classic notion of a“ proceaural minimam."s A middle-range definition of this sort avoids the Seylla ‘of an overly narrow reliance on the mere presence of elections without concomitant changes in civil-mitary relations and the Charybais of an overly brosd assumption af social snd economic equality. While perhaps less than fully suisfactory from a normative perspective, ithas the advantage of permitting a systematic and objective investigation ofthe relationship between democratic politcal for and the long-range pursuit of equity, ‘The Futile Search for Democratic Preconditions the questions raised by democratization cemi relatively unchanged from the past, the answers tbat are offered today come fiom a different direction. This becomes evident though a brief comparison ofthe divergent theeces about the origins of democratic regimes hae have dominated the study of Latin America. The scholarship thar preceded the new 2