Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper endeavors to answer the following question: to what extent does the Bolivian electoral system have an impact on executive-legislative dynamics? And how does the electoral system facilitate or undermine coalition building in this country? The study proposes that because the Bolivian mixed system of plurality and proportional representation (PR) for legislative elections, and the congressional election of the president due to the executive electoral formula, have categorically determined the allocation of power in the political system, the interaction between the executive and the legislative branches of government is profoundly influenced by it. The paper analyzes the period starting with the second half of the Quiroga administration until the resignation of President Sanchez de Lozada, and the coming to power of President Carlos Mesa in 2003 to 2004. The first part of the paper provides a brief assessment of the most significant electoral arrangements in Bolivia and of executive-legislative relations before 2000-2002. The second part deals with the period starting in 2000. This section specifically deals with (a) a brief analysis of the effects of the 1997 electoral reform on the ability of marginalized sectors of society to occupy prominent political spaces in subsequent electoral scenarios, and on the potential ability of legislators to better respond to social (local) demands and (b) the ability citizens had to openly question the status quo through the popular mobilization movements of 2000. An analysis of the President and Congress' responsiveness to citizens' demands in 2000 is provided. The third part of the paper analyzes the 2002-2004 period concentrating on the Sanchez de Lozada administration, and the electoral and governing coalition that temporarily helped sustain his regime. In this section, the impact of the electoral system on the formation of the coalition is analyzed. This is also evaluated against other factors that influenced the institutional interaction between Sanchez de Lozada and the 2002 Congress. This is done, starting in June 2002, using a model of executive-legislative relations that integrates a process-oriented approach along a confrontation-accommodation continuum. Similarly, the collapse of coalition governments and coalitional politics in Bolivia that took place in October 2003 is analyzed, as well as the first signs of the restructuring of the political system undertaken by President Mesa in the first part of 2004. The last section provides some conclusions and reflections based on the overall analysis provided through the paper. The project relies on research conducted by the author as a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) Electoral Observation Mission to Bolivia for the June 2002 elections. Data is also extracted from national and international newspapers and periodicals covering Bolivian current politics as well as the results of interviews with key political actors and experts in Washington, DC and La Paz, Bolivia. The paper also utilizes other secondary sources.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: ABSTRACTDuring the nineties, the Organization of American States developed collective mechanisms for defending democracy in the western hemisphere. A process began with the declaration of Santiago, passed through the protocol of Washington and achieved a major watershed in the approval of the Inter American Democratic Charter in Lima, September 11, 2001. This institutional development represented a commitment to democratic constitutional continuity in the whole continent. The preservation of democracy was not anymore a question of internal jurisdiction of specific member states but an issue of hemispheric concerns. ]This paper discusses the implementation of the Inter American Democratic Charter to three specific cases of democratic crises that occurred in 2005: 1) The deposition of president Lucio Gutierrez of Ecuador in a combination of popular mobilization and impeachment by the National Congress after Gutierrez twice sacked out the highest judicial authorities of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador, 2) the resignation of president Carlos Mesa in Bolivia after massive mobilizations of civil society against his government; and 3) the invocation of the IADC by Nicaraguan president Enrique Bolanos under the assumption that democracy was at peril because the National Assembly, dominated by opposition parties (FSLN and PLC) passed constitutional reforms that significantly reduced his presidential prerogatives. The crises are discussed in the following framework: First, I discuss the sources and the development of the specific crisis and; Second, I concentrate on the OAS response to it. The central approach is to look at the building of a functioning democracy as a long term project, trying to understand not only the immediate sources of instability or the short term effects of the OAS intervention but also assessing the impact of the OAS response in the long term consolidation of democracy in the country and the wide effects of the intervention in the international regime and the norm of hemispheric democratic solidarity.Why is this analysis relevant? The crises in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua seem to approach situations of democratic governance that the region would likely face in the next decade. During the 1990?s, the OAS developed a doctrine of democratic solidarity coherent with the prevailing interpretation of the non-intervention norm recognized in the OAS Charter. The Declaration of Santiago and the protocol of Washington clearly defined situations in which the hemispheric organization should react and how to react to situations of political upheaval in a state member. This refers essentially to cases of a military coup or a foreign military intervention. Short of these two extreme cases, any intervention was doctrinally questionable. The Inter American Democratic Charter expressed a continental consensus on supporting democracy beyond these extreme cases. The main disruptions of democratic consolidation in the region have its roots today in the explosive socioeconomic situations in some countries, the dysfunctional system of political parties and the low performance of courts, parliaments and other state institutions that make difficult the observance of the rule of law and the constitutional compliance with the balance of the public powers of the state.This paper analyzes the OAS responses to three crises of this kind, searching for common problems and lessons that can help international organizations, states and civil society groups to draw useful conclusions about the tools and methods to use in future situations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: With the “third wave” of democratization, many cross-national surveys have examined Latin Americans’ opinions on democratic legitimacy, asking whether democracy is “always preferable to any other form of government,” or, alternatively, whether “in certain circumstances an authoritarian government could be preferable.” The percentage always supporting democracy appears to be low and declining in many countries. While legitimacy has long been theorized as key to democratic consolidation, it is to date empirically unclear how such attitudes impact either citizen political behavior or government stability. This paper examines the case of Bolivia in an effort to answer whether and how Bolivians’ attitudes towards democracy and authoritarianism impact behaviors from voting to participation in social movements. Bolivia is a “most likely” case for the impact of legitimacy on stability, since surveys indicate that support for democracy is low, and protests have led to the downfall of two democratically elected presidents since 2003. Through analysis of nationwide survey data, I show that democratic legitimacy does have a small impact on voting. Strikingly, however, expressed support for democracy has little effect, either positive or negative, on participation in community problem-solving activities or engagement in protest. Using qualitative data from interviews, I argue that this is because of the “essentially contested” nature of democracy—the term means a great many different things to different people. Thus, two people with identical responses to questions about their support for democracy can believe it to be consistent with even radically opposed types of behavior.