GOVERNMENT 264: CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY IN LATIN AMERICA

Tuesday/Thursday 1:00-2:15, Diamond 122

Assistant Professor Lindsay Mayka
LRMayka@Colby.edu
Office Hours: Wednesday/Thursday 2:30-4:00 Diamond 253, or by appointment
This course examines political regimes and regime change in Latin America throughout the 20th
century, with a particular emphasis on the quality of democracy in the current period. While
countries throughout the region experienced a breakdown of democratic politics in the 1960s and
1970s, by the 1980s nearly all of these countries had transitioned to democracy. Can this new
wave of democracy be sustained? How can countries deal with their authoritarian legacies and
construct new democratic institutions? Can democracy provide meaningful representation for all
their citizens not just the elite?
After discussing how to define democracy and democratic quality, the remainder of the
course will be divided into five sections. In the first section, we will examine the breakdown of
democratic politics in the 1960s-1970s and authoritarian rule in several South American
countries. We will then assess the fault lines of these authoritarian regimes and subsequent
transitions to democracy. Sections II-V will explore the challenges associated with consolidating
and deepening these new democracies. Each section will analyze a different issue related to
democratic quality through the lens of one focus country. The issues and countries are:
Legacies of authoritarianism: Guatemala. How does the legacy of authoritarian rule
constrain the range of options for democratic governments? What role does the military
play, once it returns to the barracks? Furthermore, how should new democracies redress
human rights violations without ripping the country apart and destabilizing democracy
yet again?
Creating new democratic institutions: Mexico. What political institutions need to be
created and/or reformed in new democracies? What are the political and economic
obstacles to these institutional reforms? What role should the old ruling elite play in new
democratic politics?
Interest representation: Argentina. In the current neoliberal era, which actors gain a
voice in politics, and how is this voice expressed? Is the democratic process hopelessly
biased against the poor and other marginalized groups? In what ways do political parties
represent the interests of voters, and who do they leave out? Can NGOs, social
movements, and other associations make up for the failures of political parties
State capacity: Colombia. Latin American countries, particularly those in the Andes, are
known for their low state capacity and weak institutions, as evidenced by poor rule of
law, ineffective bureaucracies, and high levels of corruption. In what ways do low state
capacity and weak institutions limit democratic citizenship and representation, and can
reforms of the state also strengthen citizenship?
Course Objectives
1. Learn about the advances and setbacks encountered by democracies in Latin America.
Learn about the general frameworks used in studying democratic regimes in the region

and gain a comprehension of how these theories apply to the daily lives of Latin
American citizens. Understand how to apply the theoretical frameworks to other cases in
Latin America and throughout the world.
2. More broadly, in this course you will be pushed to strengthen your critical thinking skills,
learning to not only identify the causal claims of the authors you read but also to
challenge their approaches and assumptions.
3. Improve your writing and critical analysis skills through several paper assignments.
Expectations
I expect you to make this class a top priority and to treat your colleagues and me with
professional respect. You should arrive on time and ready to engage. Students must be fully
prepared at all times to discuss the readings and concepts from that days material, and that of
previous lectures. Please print out the readings and bring a copy to class. Particularly in the first
couple weeks, I need you to tackle the readings with enthusiasm. When everyone does that, we
will have set an excellent tone for the semester. In addition to readings, every class period will
require you to spend some non-reading time preparing for class. Create a habit of setting aside
non-reading time to prepare your ideas.
Attendance is mandatory, but students are allowed one free absence that wont count against
your grade. However, students may not use this absence on the day of a simulation or a debate.
Please show up on time for each class.
You can expect me to be tirelessly enthusiastic and to work hard for you, both this semester and
in future semesters when you need advising and reference letters. I will hand back work
promptly, I will make time for you, and I will provide constructive and encouraging feedback.
I encourage all of you to stop by my office hours with a question, or even if you dont have a
question and would just like to chat about the class, Latin America, or life after Colby. I am
available during the scheduled office hours, as well as by appointment in person or by skype if I
am not in the office. My skype ID is LRMayka.
You can reach me best via email at LRMayka@colby.edu. I will respond to you within 24 hours
during the week, and within 48 hours on the weekend.
Assignments
Rather than evaluating students via in-class exams, students in this course will write five papers
that analyze theories and cases covered in the course. (Yes, this means that there is no midterm
exam and no final exam.) The grade breakdown follows:
Analytical Paper #1 due October 2
Analytical Paper #2 due October 18
Analytical Paper #3 due November 1
Analytical Paper #4 due November 15
Analytical Paper #5 due December 4
Class Engagement

25%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%

Analytical Papers
The principal objective of each Analytical Paper is to creatively demonstrate mastery of course
readings, discussions, lectures, debates, simulations, and films. No outside research is necessary.
The purpose of these writing assignments is two-fold: 1, to provide students with the opportunity
to reflect more carefully on the course material than is possible with a time-crunched in-class
exam; and 2, to provide feedback on writing.
All papers must be double-spaced, size 12 Times New Roman font with 1 inch margins. The
first analytical paper will be 6 pages and will cover the material from Section I. Students will
write four papers, 4-5 pages in length, for Sections II-V. These papers are due at 5 pm on the
day (not the class) after we complete that section (i.e. on Wednesdays and Fridays). Please
submit your papers electronically via moodle. If you turn it in at 6 pm, that counts as a full day
late. Barring a documented emergency, the paper due dates are final and will be marked down a
full letter grade for each day late. Please note that you are responsible for ensuring that you
properly upload your final draft onto moodle on time. If you upload a rough draft, thats the
draft I grade. If you have technical difficulties and cant upload until 5:15, I will count the paper
as late.
Class Engagement
Students are expected to attend and to be active participants in all classes. The class engagement
grade for this class is not a residual category simply showing up to without engaging with the
material is not sufficient! Your grade will include your overall participation during lectures,
your performance during the simulations, and the quality of your participation in one of two
debates we will do throughout the semester.
Simulations: We will undertake three simulations this semester: one on Chiles
democratic transition, one on Guatemalas peace process, and one on social movements
in Argentina. For each simulation, approximately 2/3 of students will be participants
while the remaining 1/3 will be observers. Thus, each student will participate in two
simulations. Each participant will prepare in advance for her or his role. Observers
watch the exercise, possibly playing a small role (e.g., casting ballots or asking questions
of the core participants). At the end of the simulation, observers will discuss the final
outcome and provide feedback on their classmates performance.
Debates: We will hold two formal debates in this course: one on Mexican democracy
under the PRI, and one assessing democracy in the region as a whole. For each debate,
half of the students will be active debaters, while the second half will be in the audience.
Each student will serve as a debater in one of the two debates. I will provide the debate
topic and debaters will be divided into two opposing teams. Each team will meet outside
of class to plan the details of their argument and coordinate the different roles each team
member will play. On the day of the debate, those in the audience will have the
opportunity to pose follow up questions to each team. In the final 10 minutes of class,
the audience will vote to determine who won the debate and will critique each side.
Grading
The class is not curved; you will be evaluated on your own merits rather than on how you
compare to your peers. Written assignments will be graded according to the following criteria:
Critical thinking and analytic rigor
3

 Conceptual clarity and structure

Use of evidence and course materials
Overall quality of writing and mechanics
Grading Standards
A

Exceptional work. Demonstrates superb understanding of the course material and

outstanding critical thinking and analytic rigor. Goes beyond simply answering the
prompt to craft a creative and insightful analysis. Communicates information in a clear,
concise, and mechanically correct manner. An A grade will only be given if work is
exceptional.
Good work. Demonstrates a strong grasp of course material and good analytic rigor, but
with some errors (e.g. faulty assumptions in logic or some incorrect descriptions of an
authors argument). May have some problems with structure or mechanics but overall
easy to understand the main gist. Solid work, but not the most original or insightful
analysis.
Mediocre work. Applies some course material and themes, but demonstrates
considerable misunderstanding of material. Difficult to discern the students argument
and the logic supporting this argument. A number of problems with structure and
mechanics.
Poor work. May attempt to apply some course materials and themes, but demonstrates
very serious errors or misunderstanding of course material. The student doesnt appear
to have any argument, and the assignment lacks structure entirely and has extensive
problems with mechanics. Shows little effort.
Very poor work. Assignment is unrelated to course material and fails to address the
prompt and guidelines. Reflects a lack of effort.

Academic Misconduct
Plagiarism and cheating will not be tolerated. Examples include: turning in a paper written by
someone else, quoting someone elses work without proper citation, and turning in a paper
written for another class. Any such misconduct will result in an automatic F for the class. The
work students submit should be entirely their own.
From the Colby Catalogue:
Plagiarism, cheating, and other forms of academic dishonesty are serious offenses. For the first
offense, the instructor may dismiss the offender from the course with a mark of F (which is a
permanent entry on the student's academic record) and will report the case to the department chair
and the dean of students, who may impose other or additional penalties including suspension or
expulsion. This report becomes part of the student's confidential file and is destroyed six years after
graduation or the last date of attendance. A second offense automatically leads to suspension or
expulsion. Students may not withdraw passing from a course in which they have been found guilty
of academic dishonesty. A student is entitled to appeal charges of academic dishonesty to the
Appeals Board. The decision of the board shall be final and binding.
The College also views misrepresentations to faculty within the context of a course as a form of
academic dishonesty. Students lying to or otherwise deceiving faculty are subject to dismissal from

the course with a mark of F and possible additional disciplinary action.

Student accountability for academic dishonesty extends beyond the end of a semester and even
after graduation. If Colby determines following the completion of a course or after the awarding of
a Colby degree that academic dishonesty has occurred, the College may change the student's grade
in the course, issue a failing grade, and rescind credit for the course and/or revoke the Colby
degree.

Electronic Devices
Laptops may only be used by those with special learning needs that have consulted with me
beforehand. Cell phones should be turned off during class. I will reduce your participation
grade if I find you using an electronic device to use the internet or to text.
Special Accommodations
If you need disability-related accommodations in this class or if you have emergency medical
information you wish to share with me, please see me privately after class or at my office.
Required Texts
Daniel Wilkinson. 2002. Silence on the Mountain: Stories of Terror, Betrayal and
Forgetting in Guatemala. Durham: Duke University Press.
Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring, eds. 2005. The Third Wave of
Democratization: Advances and Setbacks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steven Levitsky and Mara Victoria Murillo, eds. 2005. Argentine Democracy: The
Politics of Institutional Weakness. University Park: Penn State Press.
Gabriel Garca Mrquez. 2008. News of a Kidnapping. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
All other readings for this course have been posted on moodle.
If you took Government 398, Democratization in Latin America, please speak with me.

Thursday, September 5 Introduction: The Quality of Democracy in Latin America

Tuesday, September 10 Conceptualizing Democracy
Robert Dahl. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale
University Press. Pgs. 1-16.
Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. What Democracy Is and Is Not.
Journal of Democracy 2(3): 75-88.
David Collier and Steven Levitsky. 1997. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual
Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics 49(3): 430-451.
SECTION I: THE BREAKDOWN OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMES, MILITARY RULE,
AND TRANSITIONS TO DEMOCRACY
Thursday, September 12 The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes
Arturo Valenzuela. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press. Pgs. 81-110.
Nancy Bermeo. 2003. Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Pgs. 138-176.
Optional background reading: Mary Helen Spooner. 1994. Soliders in a Narrow Land:
The Pinochet Regime in Chile. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 16-48.
Tuesday, September 17 Military Rule, 1960s-1980s: Brazil
Karen Remmer and Gilbert Merkx. 1982. Bureaucratic Authoritarianism Revisited.
Latin American Research Review 17(2): 3-40.
Thomas Skidmore. 1973. Politics and Economic Policy Making in Authoritarian
Brazil, 1937-71, In Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future, ed. Alfred
Stepan. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pgs. 3-46.
Alfred Stepan. 1973. The New Professionalism of Internal Warfare and Military Role
Expansion, In Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future, ed. Alfred Stepan.
New Haven: Yale University Press. Pgs. 47-65.
Film Screening: Four Days in September/O Que Isso Companheiro? Time and Location
TBA
Thursday, September 19 Military Rule, 1960s-1980s: Chile and Peru
Hector Schamis. 1991. Reconceptualizing Latin American Authoritarianism in the
1970s: From Bureaucratic Authoritarianism to Neoconservatism. Comparative Politics
23(2): 201-220.
Arturo Valenzuela. 1991. The Military in Power: The Consolidation of One-Man
Rule, In The Struggle for Democracy in Chile, eds. Paul Drake and Ivn Jaksic.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 21-72.
Jane S. Jacquette and Abraham Lowenthal. 1987. The Peruvian Experiment in
Retrospect. World Politics 39 (2): 280-296.
Tuesday, September 24 Transitions to Democracy: Overview
6

Terry Lynn Karl. 1990. Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America.

Comparative Politics 23(1): 1-21.
Barbara Geddes. 1999. What Do We Know about Democratization after 20 Years?
Annual Review of Political Science 2: 115-144.
Alfred Stepan. 1985. State Power and the Strength of Civil Society in the Southern
Cone of Latin America. In Bringing the State Back in, eds. Peter Evans, Dietrich
Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pgs. 317343.

Thursday, September 26 Transitions to Democracy: Chile and Brazil

Manuel Antonio Garretn. 1991. The Political Opposition and the Party System under
the Military Regime, In The Struggle for Democracy in Chile, eds. Paul Drake and Ivn
Jaksic. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Pgs. 211-250.
Thomas Skidmore. 1989. Brazils Slow Road to Democratization: 1974-1985, In
Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation, ed. Alfred Stepan.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pgs. 5-42.
Film Screening: No Time and Location TBA.
Tuesday, October 1 Democratization Simulation
*** Wednesday October 2 PAPER #1 DUE 5 PM
SECTION II: LEGACIES OF AUTHORITARIANISM: GUATEMALA
Thursday, October 3 Democratization and Civil-Military Relations
Wendy Hunter. 1997. Continuity or Change? Civil-Military Relations in Democratic
Argentina, Chile, and Peru. Political Science Quarterly 112(3): 353-375.
Susanne Jonas. 2000. Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemalas Peace Process. Boulder:
Westview Press. pp. 17-68.
Deborah Yashar. 1997. The Quetzal is Red: Military States, Popular Movements, and
Political Violence in Guatemala, In The New Politics of Inequality in Latin America:
Rethinking Participation and Representation, eds. Douglas Chalmers, Carlos Vilas,
Katherine Hite, Scott Martin, Kerianne Piester, and Monique Segarra. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. pp. 239-260.
Tuesday, October 8 The Military Regimes Human Rights Abuses
Daniel Wilkinson. 2002. Silence on the Mountain: Stories of Terror, Betrayal and
Forgetting in Guatemala. Durham: Duke University Press.
Recommended: Listen to What Happened at Dos Erres, This American Life ep. 465.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/465/what-happened-at-dos-erres
Thursday, October 10 Implementation of the 1996 Peace Accords
Mitchell Seligson. 2005. Democracy on Ice: The Multiple Challenges of Guatemalas
Peace Process. In The Third Wave of Democratization: Advances and Setbacks, eds.
7

Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.
202-231.
Susanne Jonas. 2000. Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemalas Peace Process. Boulder:
Westview Press. pp. 137-165.

Thursday, October 17 Simulation: The 1996 Peace Accords

*** Friday, October 18 PAPER #2 DUE 5 PM
SECTION III: CREATING NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS: MEXICO
Tuesday, October 22 Mexicos Incomplete Democratic Transition
Beatriz Magaloni. 2005. The Demise of Mexicos One-Party Dominant Regime: Elite
Choices and the Masses in the Establishment of Democracy, In The Third Wave of
Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks, eds. Frances Hagopian and
Scott Mainwaring. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 121-146.
Chappell Lawson, Mexicos Unfinished Transition: Democratization and Authoritarian
Enclaves, Mexican Studies 16, No. 2 (summer 2000), pp. 267-287.
Thursday, October 24 Informal Institutions
Gretchen Helmke and Steven Levitsky. 2006. Introduction, In Informal Institutions
and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America, eds. Steven Levitsky and Gretchen
Helmke. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. .
Ma. Amparo Casar. 2002. Executive-Legislative Relations: The Case of Mexico (19461997), In Legislative Politics in Latin America, eds. Scott Morgenstern and Benito
Nacif. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 114-144.
Tuesday, October 29 Subnational Institutions
Caroline Beer. 2001. Assessing the Consequences of Electoral Democracy: Subnational
Legislative Change in Mexico. Comparative Politics 33(4): 421-440.
Edward Gibson. 2012. Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal
Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-7, 112-147.
Thursday, October 31 Debate: Does a PRI Presidency Undermine Mexican Democracy?
*** Friday, November 1 PAPER #3 DUE 5 PM
SECTION IV: INTEREST REPRESENTATION: ARGENTINA
Tuesday, November 5 Changes to the Interest Regime
Philip Oxhorn. 1998. Is the Century of Corporatism Over? Neoliberalism and the Rise
of Neopluralism, In What Kind of Democracy? What Kind of Market? Latin American in
the Age of Neoliberalism, eds. Philip Oxhorn and Graciela Ducatenzeiler. University
Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 195-217.
8

Scott Mainwaring. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of

Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 20-60.
Steven Levitsky and Mara Victoria Murillo. 2006. Building Castles in the Sand? The
Politics of Institutional Weakness in Argentina, In Argentina Democracy: The Politics
of Institutional Weakness, eds. Steven Levitsky and Mara Victoria Murillo. University
Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 21-44.

Thursday, November 7 The Role of Parties in Interest Representation

Juan Carlos Torre. 2006. Citizens versus Political Class: The Crisis of Partisan
Representation, In Argentina Democracy: The Politics of Institutional Weakness, eds.
Steven Levitsky and Mara Victoria Murillo. University Park: The Pennsylvania State
University Press. pp. 165-180.
Steven Levitsky. 2006. Crisis and Renovation: Institutional Weakness and the
Transformation of Argentine Peronism, 1983-2003, In Argentina Democracy: The
Politics of Institutional Weakness, eds. Steven Levitsky and Mara Victoria Murillo.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 181-206.
Tuesday, November 12 The Role of Civil Society in Interest Representation
Enrique Peruzzotti. 2006. Demanding Accountable Government: Citizens, Politicians,
and the Perils of Representative Democracy in Argentina, In Argentina Democracy: The
Politics of Institutional Weakness, eds. Steven Levitsky and Mara Victoria Murillo.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 229-249.
Javier Auyero. 2006. Protest and Politics in Contemporary Argentina, In Argentina
Democracy: The Politics of Institutional Weakness, eds. Steven Levitsky and Mara
Victoria Murillo. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 250268.
Film Screening: The Dignity of the Nobodies/La Dignidad de los Nadies Time and
Location TBA.
Thursday, November 14 Simulation: Social Movements in Argentina
*** Friday, November 15 PAPER #4 DUE 5 PM
SECTION V: STATE CAPACITY: COLOMBIA
Tuesday, November 19 The Relationship between State Strength and Democratic Quality
Guillermo ODonnell. 1993. On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual
Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries.
World Development 21: 1355-1369.
Ana Mara Bejarano and Eduardo Pizarro Leongmez. 2005. From Restricted to
Besieged: The Changing Nature of the Limits to Democracy in Colombia. In The
Third Wave of Democratization: Advances and Setbacks, eds. Frances Hagopian and
Scott Mainwaring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 235-260.

Thursday, November 21 How Illicit Actors Un

ermine Representation
Gabriel Garca Mrquez. 2008. News of a Kidnapping. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Tuesday, November 26 State Weakness and Citizen Rights
Gustavo Galln. 2007. Human Rights: A Path to Democracy and Peace in Colombia,
In Peace, Democracy, and Human Rights in Colombia, eds. Christopher Welna and
Gustavo Galln. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. pp. 353-411.
Tuesday, December 3 Guest Lecture via Skype: Candice Camargo and Hector Herrera
Watch The War We Are Living http://video.pbs.org/video/2163553429
*** Wednesday, December 4 PAPER #5 DUE 5 PM
SECTION VI: PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Thursday, December 5 Debate: What is the Future of Democracy in Latin America?
Frances Hagopian. 2005. Conclusions: Government Performance, Political
Representation, and Public Perceptions of Contemporary Democracy in Latin America,
In The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks, eds.
Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.
319-362.

10