Lowered Expectations

The greatest threat to democracy in Latin America is Latin Americans themselves.

BY SEBASTIAN CHASKEL | JULY 13, 2009

The military coup d'état in Honduras in late June that ousted President Manuel Zelaya sent shivers down Latin America's collective spine. Remembering a dark past, when armed forces routinely ousted unpopular presidents, all the region's leaders, from Cuba's left-wing Raúl Castro to Colombia's right-wing Álvaro Uribe, swiftly condemned the move. Everyone sided with the deposed Zelaya. Everyone, that is, except a large swath of Honduras's population that, despite the military's undemocratic move, were generally happy to see him go.

For America-watchers the world over, Hondurans' approval of this coup should be more frightening than the military's involvement, the media shutdown, or even the president's ousting itself. In Honduras and across Latin America, support for undemocratic activity is pervasive -- and rising. Although coups are uncommon, other, more subtle breaks with democracy are often greeted with applause. So, just decades after Latin America welcomed the democracy wave, public opinion -- not autocratic government -- is now the greatest threat to freedom in the region.

Latin Americans remain disturbingly ambivalent about democracy. Half of them say they would not mind a nondemocratic government if it solved economic problems, according to the latest Latinobarómetro poll. Vanderbilt University's Latin American Public Opinion Project finds a lack of support for the essential values on which democracy depends, such as the right to protest and the right to compete against the ruling government in elections. Perhaps Latin Americans cannot be blamed for their skepticism; democracy has brought rising crime and entrenched corruption, combined with stubbornly high poverty. The region's people have little confidence in their public institutions or political parties; only 20 percent of them think democracy has helped decrease inequality.

Related

The hidden factor that brought down Zelaya
How the U.S. economic meltdown helped create a crisis in Honduras.
By Fernando Carrera Castro

Yet even if support for democracy at home is disappointing, help from overseas has been equally deficient. A broad consensus is emerging that, though the international community was right to condemn the Honduran coup, it was amiss in not speaking up when Zelaya overstepped Congress and the courts. In fact, the international community - and particularly the Organization of American States -- has turned a blind eye as power-grabbing presidents across the region have moved to destroy democratic institutions. Only when the executive branch is threatened has the international community stepped in -- and far too often, it has only been to condemn the move.

Without public backing at home and abroad, democracy has hence fallen victim to the deep-rooted tradition of caudillos, or strongmen, in the region. Just take Venezuela, where former coup-plotter Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998 with the largest margin of victory in four decades. After drafting a new constitution to his favor, packing the courts with his supporters, and limiting journalistic freedom, he was reelected in 2006. In the past four years, the Bolivian, Colombian, Ecuadoran, and Venezuelan governments have amended -- and at times entirely redrafted -- constitutions to allow their current presidents to extend their time in office, and they have done so with popular support.

It's worth investigating why Latin America's authoritarian temperament is so hard to shake. In the meantime, we have enough evidence by now to conclude that democracy in the region will not be salvaged by the international community standing against governments and populations bent on disrupting it. In fact, there is a very real danger that foreign support for Zelaya in Honduras will make democracy seem like an idea imposed from abroad instead of borne of the people's will.

For democracy to survive, Latin Americans must regain confidence in their public institutions and political parties, feel confident in the rule of law, and trust that positive change can come through democratic means. The solution may lay closer to classrooms and dining tables in the region than to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. Until then, Latin Americans might be stuck with the undemocratic leaders they seem to want.

ADALBERTO ROQUE/AFP/Getty Images

 

Sebastian Chaskel is research associate for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

GIORGIO

11:52 PM ET

July 13, 2009

Two issues...

Just to be pedantic...

though the international community was right to condemn the Honduran coup, it was amiss in not speaking up when Zelaya overstepped Congress

I think you mean "remiss", rather than "amiss".

More importantly, your article cannot succeed as insight until you definitively prove your premiss. You casually proclaim that on the whole, Hondurans were "generally happy to see Zelaya go", but this is not actually an appropriate assumption. There is a lively debate on Honduran public opinion on the coup, and there have been protests on both sides. For you to conclude that Hondurans were in favour of the coup is an intellectually insulting assertion.

Nonetheless, you hurry on, and after citing one tangentially relevant and conditional poll, you conclude that Latin Americans as a whole don't particularly like democracy. Indeed, by the end of the article, you state that Latin Americans, as a people, are "bent on disrupting" democracy.

This is not a particularly thorough argument.

I won't bring into play all the counterfactuals and arguments against an endemic dislike for democracy in Latin America, but I would urge you to link to your sources when you cite them, and try to be a bit more intellectually demanding of yourself. Two polls, anecdotal evidence on Chavez and a general feeling aren't really good enough reasons to comfortably assess a continent's attitude towards that malleable, amorphous ideal that is democracy.

 

ELIZABETH DICKINSON

9:04 AM ET

July 14, 2009

thanks for pointing out

thanks for pointing out "remiss" rather than "amiss." You're quite right, an we'll correct this now.
 

SEBASTIAN CHASKEL

1:16 PM ET

July 15, 2009

Re: "Two Issues"

Dear Giorgio,

Thank you for your comments on my piece.

In response to your comment about assuming that Hondurans were “generally happy to see Zelaya go," please note that the assertion refers to “a large swath of Honduras's population,” as stated in the same sentence above. I was not trying to describe Hondurans’ attitudes in general, but merely pointing out that a significant percentage of the population supported Zelaya’s removal from power. A recent widely-reported Gallup poll shows that over 40 percent of Hondurans believe the coup was justified.

In terms of the lack of support for democracy in the region, I have asked the FP editors to add links above to the 2008 Latinobarometro poll and the website for Vanderbilt's LAPOP reports so you can take a first-hand look at the data. You can also browse Latinobarometro’s reports dating back 13 years at www.latinobarometro.org by clicking on “Informes.” There you can see that polling data has found year after year an ambivalent attitude toward democracy at best.

Vanderbilt’s LAPOP reports delve deeper into the democracy question. The most recent survey found support for democracy worryingly low throughout the region, and especially in Honduras. In fact, the report states that Hondurans exhibited “the characteristics of a political culture… that could put democracy at risk,” as Honduras ranked second only to Haiti in exhibiting such traits. These two polls are obviously relevant to what happened in Honduras and what we are seeing across the region.

I agree with you about the difficulty of assessing “a continent's attitude towards that malleable, amorphous ideal that is democracy,” but believe that what I have written is based on the best information we have available: polling data that spans countries and years and the easily observable popular, although undemocratic, actions by political actors throughout the region, not just in Venezuela. It does strongly suggest a deep problem in terms of support for democracy in Latin America.

If you have information to the contrary, I would also appreciate if you could share it.

 

GIORGIO

10:48 PM ET

July 15, 2009

Re: Your Response

Before anything else, Mr. Chaskel, thanks for posting the links, it's very useful to be able to quickly follow up on what an article is saying, especially when it makes far-reaching points.

The problem of a political culture not germane to the kind of liberal capitalist democracy we find in North America and Western Europe is a serious one, and I agree that it manifests itself in Latin America. I believe that a lot of Hondurans were in favour of the coup, and that many people across Latin America tend to view democracy, the way we think of it, with scepticism. A few points though.

Firstly @KJ, just because a move is "popular" does not make it "democratic". This is one of the most important distinctions in political philosophy. Apart from the inherent doubt we must always show when asked to believe that something is "popular", even if it is not democratically vetted (see South-East Asian dictatorships a la Suharto and their exhortations that Asians don't want democracy), we must also be aware that democracy offers a lot more to society than just majority rule. Even if 50% plus one person in Honduras was in favour of the ouster, it wouldn't make it democratic. The coup was not "a democratic move that skips the democratic process".

Secondly, @Mr. Chaskel, I agree with you that democracy's hold on Latin America's political culture is at times tenuous, but I don't agree with you in your assertions that Latin Americans seem "bent on disrupting" democracy. The poll you brought up concerning democracy's effect on inequality is telling: The average Latin American has a lot more to worry about than rigorous democratic ideals. This does not mean that Latin Americans see democracy as mutually exclusive with economic development, although Latin Americans called Hugo Chavez (and Zelaya) certainly think so.

Chile, a country which experienced impressive neoliberal-style capitalist expansion during Pinochet's rule now has an extremely strong consensus-based political culture in its concertacion government, a coalition held together by a general fear of returning to the junta days.

Take a look at this Latinobarometro poll, http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12607297

It shows that on the whole, since the 2001 spike jingoism and terror that made authoritarianism attractive across the world (America being at the forefront of this trend at the time), democracy has on the whole become more preferable than any other form of government, and the trend is increasing, if problematically. Tolerance for authoritarianism "under certain circumstances" is also decreasing.

I'm not trying to say that Latin America has impeccable democratic credentials, or that its people are vastly in favour of democracy if only imperialists would get out of the way. That is for populist demagogues to say. I am saying, though, that in a continent plagued by inequality and destitute poverty (which so often breed support for populist klepto-socialism), Latin America's intermittent but important flashes of democracy should be respected and encouraged, rather than being consigned to nonentity, which is what you do when you conclude that Latin Americans are "bent on disrupting" democracy, and that "the greatest threat to latin american democracy is latin americans themselves".

It would be better phrased: "the greatest threat to Latin American democracy is some Latin Americans and an array of domestic and international structural pressures." Not as sexy, I know, but I feel it's warranted.

 

SJH71

2:07 PM ET

July 14, 2009

shameful journalism

It's stunning to witness the ignorance of commentators such as the author of this piece. To refer to the "military coup" in Honduras without reference to the terms of the country's constitution, and the fact that two of the three civil branches of government were in opposition to the other, and that the "military coup" installed a civilian leader. It is therefore worthy of serious consideration whether the "coup" was in opposition to the rule of law or in support of it.

You would think an article like the following link would shame such authors into at least a consideration of the sovereign law of the country they purport concern for:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story

 

EXOTTOYUHR

4:29 PM ET

July 14, 2009

He has the wrong enemy.

That's certainly the case -- Zelaya was ousted because he was trying to pull a Vladimir Putin. As the article SJH71 linked to observes, the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered Zelaya's arrest, and with very good reason:

"No amendment [to the Honduran constitution] can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela."

 

GIORGIO

3:07 AM ET

July 15, 2009

No, it was a military coup

It doesn't matter if civilian institutions were in support of it, or if the leader they installed was civilian. What makes it a military coup is the fact that the military acted in a manner outside of its remit to expel the democratically elected president without due judicial and political process. The military's involvement in the matter further blurs the independence of the judiciary in this case, as well.

No matter how much of a potential demagogue Zelaya was (and there is mounting evidence to support that claim), it doesn't mean that the action taken was not a coup. The link you provide is a classic example of observers shouting about how bad Zelaya was, with the implication being that if he is bad enough, then his ouster could not constitute a coup. This is simply not the case.

The fact that Honduras doesn't have any clear impeachment procedures may make this kind of ouster a political reality, but it doesn't make it any less of a military coup.

 

KJ

6:52 PM ET

July 15, 2009

the big picture

Arguing over the text of the Honduran constitution masks the big picture of Chaskel's points.

The real contribution of this article is to open the discussion of trends in Latin America and to note that this coup is a particularly noticeable symptom of a general illness.

But, what is to be done? Should Hondurans, who are currently serving as the most popular example of this general dilemma, put up with an undemocratic leader and wait for the democratic process to sort out his fate (provided he does not "amend" the rules of that process in the constitution)? Or, should an undemocratic leader be ousted undemocratically by a large coalition of constituents (an arguably "democratic" move that skips the democratic process)?

Dilemmas like these have plagued and will continue to plague Latin America for some time, despite the initial hope that adopting democracy would ease many of the political, economic, and social tensions historically present in the region.

Since full "democracy" [insert long argument over how to define "democracy" here] was not enshrined in Latin America in the short-term, the only other option is to believe democracy could emerge in the long-term. Thus, Hondurans cannot solve the present problem with a short-term solution (military coup, or whatever you want to call Zelaya's ouster); rather, they should put up with an unpopular leader for the sake of their tenuous democracy. In the words of rational choice-ers, future gains must take precedent over immediate gains in order to achieve, eventually, the most beneficial outcome. Ask anyone: this is hard to do in almost any scenario, especially when the average person measures the success of a government (democratic or not) by the size of his/her wallet.

The polls reflecting Latin America's general dissatisfaction with "democracy" have been worrying Latin America-watchers for some time and this recent Honduran crisis is just another indication of the long road ahead. Thanks to Chaskel for keeping his eyes on the big picture.

 

SJH71

11:52 AM ET

July 17, 2009

rule of law

On the contrary, arguing about the text of the Honduran constitution is the essence of the issue. Lasting democracies and well-functioning societies in general are grounded in institutions which are subordinate to and based on the rule of law, which outlasts the individuals in power. Honduras was trying to do exactly what countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia are not, which was subordinating its leader to the rule of law. To argue that this is anti-democratic is absurd.