The Meaning of Democracy among Latin American Legislators
Manuel Alcántara
Universidad de Salamanca
[email protected]
Margarita Corral
Vanderbilt University
[email protected]
Abstract. During the last decades we have seen an increasing support for democracy in Latin
America. However, little is known about what political elites have in mind when they think of
that abstract idea. This paper analyzes the concepts to which democracy is linked in fifteen
Latin American countries, and how perceptions of democracy have changed since the midnineties. It also assesses the implications of conceiving democracy in normative, political and
economic terms. Data comes from the Project of Parliamentary Elites in Latin America
conducted by the University of Salamanca.
Paper prepared for delivery at the meeting “Opiniones de la Élite Parlamentaria y de los Ciudadanos en América
Latina” in Salamanca, December 12-13. It has been elaborated under the research project: “Calidad y
profesionalización de la política en América Latina”, funded by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. Ref. CSO200908971.
1 Defining democracy has been one of the efforts that has generated the most debate in the
discipline of political science. The presence of more or less requisites has led to definitions of
various ranges from the classic minimalist definitions for which opt authors such as Schumpeter
(1942) or Przeworski et al (1996), to middle-range or broader definitions which encompass
several dimensions or prerequisites (Karl 1990). Minimalist definitions of democracy evolve
around the idea of a system in which rulers are selected by competitive elections while broader
conceptions include other dimensions related to freedom, participation, accountability or civilian
control over the military, among others. Some of these broad conceptions would refer to what
has been called liberal democracy. Liberal democracy may be loosely characterized as a political
system that protects individual and collective liberties, guarantees horizontal and vertical
accountability, rule of law, and military subordinated to the elected civilian officers (Diamond
1999). However, the processes of democratization that took place during the Third Wave of
democratization introduced some challenges in the understanding of democracy given the
“hybrid” components of these new regimes (Diamond 2002). Many of these political systems
have been classified as illiberal democracies, that is to say regimes that hold relatively open, free
and fair elections but unable to grant rule of law and protect basic freedoms and rights (Smith
2005, Zakaria 1997).
Nonetheless, one thing is what scholars point out as requisites for democracy and another
quite different is what political actors understand and how they define their ideal of democracy.
In this regard, a wide body of research has emerged trying to classify different understandings of
democracy, especially among the mass public. Some of these categorizations distinguish
between procedural versus substantive terms (Dahl 1956), normative versus instrumental
approaches (Bratton and Mattes 2001, Sarsfield and Echegaray 2006, Carrión 2008) or
2 definitions in terms of liberty and freedoms, institutions and processes and social benefits
(Dalton 2007).
Over the course of recent decades, we have seen an increasing support for democracy in
Latin America. Since the eighties officials are elected on competitive, periodical and free
elections in all the countries of the region except Cuba. Political crisis are solved through
constitutional mechanisms (Marsteintredet, 2008). Democracy has become “the only game in
town” (Linz and Stepan, 1996). However, little is known about what political elites have in mind
when they think of that abstract idea. The objective of this paper is to assess how parliamentarian
elites in Latin America understand democracy and its implications for their satisfaction with
democracy. We will rely on survey data from the Project of Parliamentary Elites in Latin
America (PELA) conducted by the University of Salamanca and directed by Manuel Alcántara.
The Meanings of Democracy
Some of the studies on democracy have focused on how political actors understand that
abstract concept. Assessing the different meanings has been possible thanks to the development
of surveys in the last decades. The majority of these studies have been carried out at the citizenry
level (Baviskar and Malone 2004, Bratton and Mattes 2001; Bratton, Mattes and Gymah-Boadi
2005, Camp 2001, Carrión 2008, Dalton 2007, Lagos 2008, Shin and Jou 2007, Ottemoeller
1998, Schedler and Sarsfield 2004) and to a less extent at the elite level (Alcantara 1998, Mateos
2008) or comparing both levels (Miller et al 1997).
Most of the studies around the world have found that citizens tend to embrace a liberal
definition of democracy highlighting elements such as liberty, freedom, and civil rights (Camp
2001, Carrion 2008, Dalton et al 2007) whereas elites emphasize different aspects depending on
the region. While elites in post-soviet societies tend to stress law, order and the rule of law
3 (Miller et al 1997), legislative elites in Latin America identify democracy firstly with protection
of individual liberties, secondly with respect to human rights and thirdly with the election of
officials (Alcantara 1998, Mateos 2008).
Different scholars provide different dimensions regarding the meanings attached to
democracy. The basic classification rests upon the distinction between normative and
instrumental conceptions of democracy. In other words, citizens holding a normative view of
democracy associate this term with certain values considered as desirable (namely liberty,
equality, justice), while those who have an instrumental point of view link democracy to certain
means and outcomes (i.e. economic growth, development, or the production of other goods and
utilities) (Bratton and Mattes 2001).
These two basic dimensions might cause some tensions given that while citizens might
support democracy in a normative way, their support may decrease if they value outcomes. In
fact, the UNDP (2004) identified Latin American citizens as ambivalent given that even though a
large proportion of them support the idea of democracy, they could be willing to sacrifice it for
economic development. Also, it has been found that in this region, citizens define democracy in
normative terms although they would be willing to endorse undemocratic practices expressing
justification for military coups or limiting the voice of the opposition (Carrion 2008).
This same tension is found in other regions such as Africa, where citizens support
democracy also normatively but hold instrumental concerns (Mattes and Bratton 2007).
From the point of view of Latin American elites democracy was considered an
ideological battlefield during the decades of 1960 and 1970 when alternatives between “formal”
and “real” democracy were in dispute.
4 Therefore, we might expect a relationship between different conceptions of democracy
and other attitudes towards democracy such as satisfaction with the democratic regime. As Miller
et al (1997) point out, “individual’s understanding of democracy is relevant to assessments of
how well the government is perceived as fulfilling the expected norms of a democracy” (p. 185).
Legislators’ views of democracy are important for at least three reasons. First, because
they are the political system’s workers in the realm of the representative body. As such, their
conceptualization of democracy is relevant when they act politically on their duty. In a certain
way they politically guide society and their views could play a leading role. Second, because
their views have to be compared with those of the citizens to see to what extent they match
according to some ideas of the theory of representation. Finally, because any single study on the
quality of democracy has to be based primarily not only on a normative way, but also on the way
political actors define the rules of the game. This definition could also be different depending on
the recent political events of the country, such as the political transition process, the historical
legacies and the social cleavages. Political elites follow formation processes not always in the
same way and as a consequence their views are not similar.
To what extent do legislators in Latin America support democracy? What do they have in
mind when they think of democracy? What are the missing parts they see in order to have a
consolidated democracy? These are some of the questions we aim to answer. We also intend to
assess the impact of these views of democracy and democratic consolidation on satisfaction with
democracy in the region.
5 The meaning of Democracy in Latin America
In order to assess how Latin American legislators understand democracy, we rely on
survey data conducted in 15 parliaments1 by the Latin American Elite Project (PELA) at the
University of Salamanca. These are face to face interviews which form a representative sample
of national legislators. We consider here the countries with data available from the latest
legislative period where interviews have taken place. We also underline that we have considered
Honduras, which suffered a coup d’etat in 2009 (Llanos and Marsteintredet, 2010).
Before we assess the different views of democracy among Latin American legislators, we
present the levels of preference for democracy over authoritarian regimes and those of
democratic stability and satisfaction with the way democracy is working in the region.
1
We take into account the following legislatures: Argentina 2009-2013, Bolivia 2010-2014, Chile 2010-2014,
Colombia 2006-2010, Costa Rica 2010-2014, Ecuador 2009-2012, El Salvador 2009-211, Guatemala 2008-2012,
Honduras 2010-2014, Mexico 2009-2011, Nicaragua 2007-2011, Panama 2009-2013, Paraguay 2008-2013, Peru
2006-2011 and Uruguay 2009-2014. 6 Table 1. Preference for democracy in Latin America
Argentina Chile Uruguay Ecuador Colombia Nicaragua Costa Rica Bolivia Panama Honduras Paraguay Mexico Guatemala Peru El Salvador % who prefer democracy over an authoritarian regime 100 100 100 98.94 98.89 98.51 98.21 97.92 96.88 96.67 95.83 94.9 89.69 88.46 88.06 N 70 86 78 94 90 67 56 96 64 90 72 98 97 78 67 Source: PELA
Table 1 shows how Latin American legislators prefer democracy as the best form of
government. The percentage of parliamentarian elites who prefer democracy is larger than 88%
in every country. In three countries - Argentina, Chile and Uruguay - all legislators are in favor
of this type of government. The lowest percentages are found in Guatemala, Peru, and El
Salvador. Therefore, we can say that the immense majority of elites in Latin America choose
democracy over authoritarianism. The question does not allow us to differentiate between those
in favor of participative democracy and the rest. In principle, followers of participative
democracy are very critical of the functioning of representative democracy, but when they are
interviewed with this precise question, they add their response to the others.
7 Figure 1. Democratic Stability and Satisfaction with democracy in Latin America
Legislators were also asked about their assessments of the stability of and satisfaction
with democracy. In this case, we observe more variation across countries than when we asked
about their preference for democracy. On the one hand, Figure 1 depicts the percentage of
legislators who consider the democracy in their countries as very or somewhat stable. Again,
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay appear at the top of the ranking. At the other end, we find
Nicaragua, Ecuador and Guatemala where percentages are below 60%. It seems that the
perceptions of democratic stability are not linked to the level of political polarization (Uruguay
and Chile are highly polarized) but rather to the level of less institutionalized political discourse
rooted in populist claims or very weak party systems. However, this explanation has to be
analyzed in future research because such an explanation does not apply to Mexico and El
Salvador.
8 On the other hand, this figure shows levels of satisfaction with the way democracy works.
Overall, we observe lower levels of satisfaction than of democratic stability. The interpretation
of these lower levels is linked to two different circumstances. First, the dramatic increase of
criminal violence which is perceived as a general failure of the political system (democracy),
which is the case in Mexico and some Central American countries. Second, the existence of
different problems dealing with corruption or heavy confrontation between government and
opposition, as could be the case in Argentina, Paraguay and Ecuador.
Figure 2. Parties and Elections as Essential to Democracy
There are two elements considered as essential to democracy: elections and political
parties (Dahl, 1971). Figure 2 shows the extent to which these two elements are seen at the core
of democracy in Latin America. We observe that elections are considered as the best way to
9 express political preferences by more than 88% of legislators in every country. This a key
element of the political change in Latin America during recent decades where the electoral
process is not repudiated because its “class character” or its fraudulent makeup contributing to
sustain the façade of being a legitimate democracy. Elections, although still imperfect in their
administration and management (Hartlyn, et al 2009), have became the essential democratic tool
accepted by all political parties.
However, agreement on the key role of political parties is in general lower, especially in
countries such as Mexico or Bolivia where percentages are below 60%. These low levels are
striking given that most of them have been elected through political parties. Politicians in Latin
America come from political parties because in most of the countries, candidates have to be
endorsed by parties2. Ironically, it is also interesting to see the Argentina case which is at the top
of the list of countries where political parties are considered essential for democracy, while in
actuality, Argentina is a country with severe problems of institutionalization of its party system
(Pérez and Natalucci, 2010)
In turn, we can say that legislators in Latin America prefer democracy as the best form of
government where elections are seen as key. However, they express some concerns about its
stability and especially about its performance.
However, we would like to assess what ideas are behind the concept of democracy. We
query the PELA questionnaire and observe the answers provided when legislators are asked to
name the two main advantages of democracy. Interviewers show legislators the list of advantages
that appears on Table 2. This table presents an index based on the sum of both responses. We
weighted them so that the first answer has a double value. This way we see that “protection of
2
It is not the case of Bolivia after the recent electoral reform. For all the cases see Alcántara and Tagina (2011). 10 rights and liberties” is considered as the main attribute of democracy in most countries. The
index is especially high in Argentina, Ecuador and Nicaragua. In Honduras and Uruguay, the
main advantage of democracy is the possibility of electing public officials. Finally, economic
growth is seen as the main advantage in Colombia.
Table 2. Advantages of Democracy
Advantages of Democracy Economic Growth Protection rights and liberties Elected officials Equality of opportunities Respect human rights and minorities Participation in decisions Better income distribution Conflict resolution by peaceful means Participate in politics through parties N Advantages of Hon. Democracy Economic Growth 20.87 Protection rights and 52.75 liberties Elected Officials 94.51 Equality of 50.54 Opportunities Respect human rights 15.39 and minorities Participation in 34.06 decisions Better income 5.5 distribution Conflict resolution by 3.3 peaceful means Participate in politics 23.07 through parties 78.29 Costa Rica 7.15 30.96 128.05 70.53 79.08 67.19 94.64 105.46 82.09 51.66 45.57 23.27 39.99 48.83 42.09 48.42 32.56 21.48 60.71 30.35 25.62 24.59 59.71 45.45 25.38 32.03 25.12 30.53 30.22 14.8 28.57 36.3 11.94 30.04 29.51 13.26 34.74 72.1 29.3 18.96 10.47 19.45 21.43 12.5 22.5 27.87 37.32 32.06 19.4 30.09 14.59 5.26 5.82 11.42 19.64 12.79 13.44 11.86 10.54 2.33 15.96 24.99 13.91 32.84 27.98 69 95 86 90 56 94 Arg. Bol. Chile Col. 8.79 41.06 18.6 Ecu. El Guat. Salv. 17.91 37.22 67 13.5 97 Mex. Nicar. Pan. Par. Peru Uru. 21.57 52.94 45.31 21.13 41.36 0 66.82 104.42 84.38 81.69 81.58 78.2 61.52 27.94 39.07 47.9 41.36 88.47 37.07 38.23 28.12 52.11 32.63 34.61 14.41 19.11 32.81 32.39 50.19 35.9 56.4 16.17 12.51 40.85 18.86 35.89 13.37 16.18 17.19 9.87 16.39 10.26 13.41 11.76 6.25 4.23 3.77 2.56 15.41 13.23 34.38 9.86 13.86 14.09 11 N 91 98 68 64 71 80 78 As other studies at the citizenry level have shown (Carrion 2008), Latin American elites
link democracy to the protection of liberties and the respect to human rights. Interviews
celebrated in the nineties showed that there was a common pattern for all the countries, although
there were minor national differences due to the “memory effect” (the way the recent historical
events affected the redemocratization process) (Alcántara, 1998). Protection of liberties was the
principal advantage of democracy for all the countries studied except for Panamá (that was
economic growth) and México and Honduras (the election of officials). The second advantage of
democracy was much less concentrated: respect for human rights was considered in Argentina,
Costa Rica and Chile; and the election of officials was cited in Dominican Republic, Uruguay
and Venezuela (Alcántara, 1998).
The PELA project also inquires about the challenges that democracy is facing in terms of
its consolidation. On the one hand, legislators are asked to name the most relevant characteristics
for democratic consolidation. Table 3 shows an index considering those responses. It is a
weighted sum of the two responses they give. On the other hand, legislators evaluate some
problems according to their level of threat to democratic consolidation.
12 Table 3. Democratic Consolidation
Arg.
Civil control of the military
Consensus on the constitution
and on the main institutions
Decentralization and regional
democratization
Moderation of extreme left
and right parties
Free and fair elections
An independent
constitutional court
Economic agreements
between the gov., unions
and business
Democratic values among the
citizenry
Civil control of
the military
Consensus on the
constitution and
on the main
institutions
Decentralization
and regional
Democratization
moderation of
Extreme left and
right parties
Free and fair
elections
An independent
constitutional
court
Economic
agreements
between the gov.,
unions and
bussiness.
Democratic
values among the
citizenry
N
Chile
Col.
Costa
Rica
Ecu.
El
Salv.
15.71
2.35
4.66
0
8.52
10.45
17.53
128.25
62.66
110.67
69.25
31.14
90.43
68.65
41.23
27
32.44
46.71
102.09
80.34
36.18
14.93
82.47
5.97
17.76
0
2.47
1.85
12.77
17.91
9.27
11.94
58.5
24.48
71.64
74.72
61.7
83.59
64.94
31.28
46.03
23.31
7.41
31.14
20.22
44.79
24.73
19.43
18.84
49.18
9.6
25.86
15.97
22.38
30.93
70.15
48.08
43.31
32.91
54.94
54.26
37.31
28.87
68
96
86
86
55
94
67
97
Mex.
Nicar.
Pan.
Par.
Peru
Uru.
4.4
46.25
13.23
17.18
5.56
80.65
1.28
108.78
46.17
55.89
35.93
59.72
70.25
64.11
26.37
9.22
27.93
70.31
66.67
1.41
25.64
3.3
94.72
26.46
6.26
1.39
61.5
5.12
114.28
21.51
73.53
60.93
86.12
14.84
62.82
6.6
10.26
58.83
70.32
56.95
22.84
32.04
0
71.85
10.29
9.38
2.78
48.52
33.33
33.83
29.69
20.83
68
64
72
36.25
91
Guat.
5.97
N
Hon.
Bol.
97
75.65
77
78
13 Consensus on the constitution and main political institutions, decentralization and
regional democratization, and free and fair elections are the three aspects most frequently
mentioned by legislators across Latin America. Improving these three aspects would contribute
to the consolidation of democracy in their countries. A decade ago the situation was not very
different. Consensus on the constitution and main political institutions was also the principal
characteristic for the democratic consolidation but the confidence in the electoral process was the
second and decentralization and regional democratization the third, both changed their place in
the preferences scale (Alcántara, 1998).
Also related to democratic consolidation, PELA asked respondents about the extent to
which a series of problems are threatening the democratic consolidation process in their
countries. Taking into account the whole sample of countries, we observe that the problems that
are threatening democracy the most are poverty, debt, insecurity and drug trafficking. Table 4
shows the results of a factor analysis with all the problems that are threatening democracy in
Latin America. A principle component factor analysis was conducted with the ten problems
mentioned in the questionnaire. The analysis yields three factors that allow us to create three
reliable indexes of problems undermining democratic consolidation.
14 Table 4. Threats to democratic consolidation (Rotated factor loadings)
Variable
Factor1
Factor2
Factor3
Uniqueness
Relations Armed
ForcesGovernment
0.0918
0.1201
0.8182
0.3077
Economic Crisis
0.2687
0.5828
0.4404
0.3943
Terrorism and
Political Violence
0.7157
0.0971
0.2825
0.3986
Malfunction of
judicial power
0.7435
0.1725
0.1867
0.3825
Drug trafficking
0.7254
0.3058
0.0400
0.3786
Debt
0.2502
0.5459
0.4284
0.4558
Insecurity
0.4191
0.6908
-0.1156
0.3338
Laboral conflicts
0.0087
0.7471
0.3129
0.3438
Poverty
0.2515
0.7624
0.0341
0.3543
Citizens’ lack of
political interest
0.4867
0.0820
0.3057
0.6629
Conflicts between
the legislative and
executive power
0.4432
0.1000
0.5869
0.4492
Corruption
0.6908
0.4175
0.1094
0.3365
The first index contains the following variables: “terrorism and political violence”,
“malfunction of the judicial power”, “drug trafficking”, and “corruption” (the scale reliability
coefficient is 0.79). The index –economic and social problems- contains the following variables:
“economic crisis”, debt, insecurity, labor conflicts and poverty (the scale reliability coefficient is
0.79). Finally, the variables “conflicts between the legislative and the executive powers” and
15 “relations between the armed forces and the government” form a third scale (the scale reliability
coefficient is 0.53).
The Meanings of Democracy and Consolidation and their impact on Satisfaction with
Democracy
So far, our results show a picture of how Latin American parliamentarians conceive
democracy and the threats to democratic consolidation. However, we would like the
implications, if any, of holding different kinds of conceptions of democracy. This section
attempts to assess these implications on satisfaction with democracy.
Some scholars have pointed out how different conceptions of democracy have an impact
of attitudes towards it (Bratton and Mattes 2001, Miller et al 2011). We intend to assess the
extent to which instrumentalist versus normative and participative conceptions affect satisfaction
with democracy among Latin American legislators. We ran an OLS regression predicting life
satisfaction among legislators across countries.
We created three different variables regarding different meanings that parliamentarians
associate with democracy taking into account all the variables that appear on Table 2: normative
(liberties and freedom, equality), participative (participate in politics, selecting public officials)
and economic/social outputs (economic growth and income distribution). These are dummy
variables that take the value of 1 if the legislator names one of the variables within these
categories as the main advantage of democracy in the first place.
Also we want to assess the impact of perceiving different threats or problems. We
selected the categories extracted by the factor analysis performed above. Again, we have three
16 categories of problems: malfunction of the system, economic/social and conflict between
powers.
We also include ideology and being part of the parliamentary opposition. Following
Anderson’s argument (1997), we could expect that legislators who support the presidential
candidate who won the elections are more satisfied with the way democracy works. Finally, we
include some socioeconomic variables as controls such as age, gender and education and also,
we control by country (by including variables to capture fixed effects, Uruguay is the baseline).
17 Table 4. Determinants of Satisfaction with Democracy
Participative view of
democracy
Normative view of democracy
Malfunction of the system
Economic social/prob
Conflicts between branches
Ideology
Opposition
Male
Age
Education
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Constant
R-squared
N
Coefficient
0.003
Std. Err.
0.063
0.009
-0.110**
-0.050
-0.110***
0.038***
-0.425***
-0.024
0.001
-0.034
-0.398***
-0.353**
-0.231**
-0.233*
0.096
-0.602***
-0.266**
-0.385**
-0.227**
-0.532***
-0.432***
-0.208*
-0.467***
-0.432***
3.952***
0.25
1103
0.058
0.041
0.046
0.029
0.010
0.042
0.048
0.002
0.021
0.113
0.111
0.103
0.120
0.122
0.114
0.121
0.110
0.114
0.114
0.113
0.125
0.110
0.119
0.208
Note: * significant at p<0.10, **significant at p<0.05, ***p<0.001
Table 4 shows the results of the regression and we observe that different views of
democracy do not have any impact on satisfaction with democracy. Only perceiving some
problems or threats has a statistically significant impact, in the expected direction. Those who
perceive conflicts between the armed forces and the government or between the government and
the legislative are less satisfied with democracy. Also those who perceive problems such as
terrorism and political violence, malfunction of the judicial power, drug trafficking, and
18 corruption, are less satisfied with democracy. These two indexes have a statistically significant
impact. On the contrary, those who perceive social economic problems are less satisfied too but
the effect is not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the variable with the highest impact is
belonging to the government or opposition. Those in the opposition are by far much less
satisfied with democracy than those in the government. Ideology has also a statistically
significant impact; those to the right are more satisfied than those to the left.
Finally, age, gender and education do not have any statistically significant impact on
satisfaction with democracy.
19 Conclusions
What politicians have in mind when they use the word democracy is relevant due to the
important role they play in politics. It is possible, however, that some of them do not have a clear
meaning of this concept. Some of the results we have presented at the end might open new
avenues of research. For example, exploration of the relationship between variables such as age,
education and democracy, or the role of the political careers shaping different conceptualizations
of democracy. In this sense there is an interesting field for further research.
In this paper, it was our aim to demonstrate whether or not the different conceptions of
democracy and consolidation of democracy by the legislative elite in Latin America are linked to
their satisfaction with democracy. One principal idea that we have to emphasize is the
homogeneous vision of democracy that exists across countries. On the other hand, we have
shown how problems of everyday life that affect democracy can be divided into political, social
and economic terms, and how these affect the formulation of theoretical conceptions of
democracy.
Our results allow us to sustain that democracy is understood by the majority of legislators as a
classical liberal concept, something that has not changed during the last decade. Conceptions of
democracy are not related to satisfaction with its performance. Rather, it is the logic of power of
being part of the officialist party that explains satisfaction with democracy as well as the
perception of certain problems.
A more comprehensive idea of what politicians have in mind when they say the word democracy
is also connected with their environment. One future line of research suggests the necessity to
take to take into account more data that taps into other social and economic factors.
20 References
Alcántara, Manuel. 1998. “Democracia y valores democráticos en la clase política
latinoamericana. Una segunda aproximación”. Revista Mexicana de Sociología. Vol, 60 nº 2:
147-165.
Alcántara, Manuel and María Laura Tagina (eds.). 2011. América Latina: Política y elecciones
del bicentenario (2009-2010). Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Anderson, Christopher J. and Christine A. Guillory. 1997. “Political Institutions and
Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian
Systems.” The American Political Science Review, 91(1): 66-81.
Bakistar, Siddhartha, and Mary Fran T. Malone. 2004. What Democracy Mean to Citizens-and
Why It Matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe. 76:3-23
Bratton, Michael, Robert Mattes, and E. Gyimah-Boadi. 2004. Public opinion, democracy, and
market reform in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press
Camp, Roderic Ai. 2001. Citizens Views of Democracy in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Carrión, Julio. F. 2008. “Illiberal Democracy and Normative Democracy: How is Democracy
Defined in the Americas.” In Michell A. Selison. Challenges to Democracy in Latin American
and the Caribbean: Evidence from the AmericasBarometer 2006-2007. Nashville: Vanderbilt
University.
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Dalton, Russell, J. , Doh C. Shin, and Willy Jou. 2007a. “Popular Conceptions of the Meaning
of
Democracy: Democratic Understanding in Unlikely Places.” Center for the Study of
Democracy. UC Irvine
Diamond, L. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Diamond, Larry. 2002. “Thinking About Hybrid Regimes.” Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 2135
21 Hartlyn, Jonathan, Jennifer McCoy and Thomas M. Mustillo. 2009. “La importancia de la
gobernanza electoral y la calidad de las elecciones en la América Latina contemporánea”.
América Latina hoy. Vol. 51: 15-40
Karl, Terry Lynn. 1990. “Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America”. Comparative
Politics, Vol. 23, No. 1. pp. 1-21.
Lagos, Marta. 2008. “Latin America’s Diversity of Views.” Journal of Democracy. 19(1):111125
Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan. 1996. “Hacia la consolidación democrática”. La Política 2: 29–49
Llanos, Mariana and Leiv Marsteintredet. 2010. “Ruptura y continuidad: la caída de “Mel”
Zelaya en perspectiva comparada”. America Latina Hoy. Vol. 55: 173-197.
Mateos, Araceli. 2008. “The Meanings of Democracy and Institutional Trust”, in Manuel
Alcántara (ed), Politicians and Politics in Latin America . Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Marsteintredet, Leiv. 2008. “Las consecuencias sobre el régimen de las interrupciones
presidenciales en América Latina”. América Latina hoy. Vol. 49: 31-50
Miller, Arthur H., Vicki L. Hesli and William M. Reisinger. 1997. Conceptions of Democracy
Among Mass and Elite in Post-Soviet Societies. British Journal of Political Science. 27, 157–
190
Munck, Gerardo. 2009. Measuring Democracy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press
Ottemoeller, Dan. 1998 “Popular Perceptions of Democracy: Elections and Attitudes in
Uganda”. Comparative Political Studies. 31: 98
Pérez, German J. and Ana Natalucci. 2010. “La matriz movimientista de acción colectiva en
Argentina: la experiencia del espacio militante kirchnerista”. América Latina hoy, Vol. 54: 97112.
Przeworski Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 1996. What
Makes Democracies Endure” Journal of Democracy 7, no1
Sarsfield, Rodolfo, and Fabián Echegaray. 2006. “Opening the Black Box. How Satisfaction
with Democracy and its Perceived Efficacy Affect Regime Preference in Latin America.”
International Journal of Public Opinion Research.18:153-73.
Schedler, Andreas, and Rodolfo Sarfield. 2004. “Democrats with Adjectives: Linking Direct and
Indirect Measures of Democratic Support.” Afrobarometer Working Papers # 45. (November
2004).
22 Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1976 [1942]. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York:
Harper&Row.
Smith, Peter H. 2005. Democracy in Latin America: Political Change in Comparative
Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Development Program. 2004. Democracia en América Latina. Hacia una
Democracia de Ciudadanos y Ciudadanas. http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/democracy-undppublication.htm.
Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs, 76, no 6: 22-43
23