Is Latin America a More Democratic Place Today Than It Was in 1945?
Is Latin America a more democratic place today than it was in 1945?
Given the word and time restrictions, an in depth analysis of each Latin American country’s democratic progression across the time period would simply not be feasible. Instead I will attempt to look at Latin America’s progression as a whole and will provide examples of specific countries situations where relevant, in particular Venezuela.
Firstly it is important to distinguish between two ideas. One is democracy. For democracy to work, there must be free and fair elections. There must be more than one political party. The people of the country should have a good education so that they can make informed choices. They should share a common culture. All must accept the idea that everyone has equal rights. Finally, there must be rule by law, not by power. In other words there must be a separation of power, which means that the judiciary has to be a completely different body from the governing power of the country. Many nations in Latin America have had difficulty achieving democracy because all these factors are not present. The second idea is that of democratic culture. This involves the existence of constitutions, respect for rights, transparency when it comes to policies and governmental decisions and crucially, no corruption.
Latin America, when viewed as a whole, is generally viewed as a more democratic place now than in 1945 but it would be wrong to assert that during the past 68 years Latin American countries have undergone a steady increase in democracy. Brazil is a prime example of a country that has gone through fluctuations in democracy throughout the period.
Currently in Latin America, despite being in a state of relative poverty when compared to the rest of the world, the majority of countries have become, at least formally, electoral democracies. 13 countries are now classed as free, 8 as partially free, with only Cuba and Haiti being deemed as not. Venezuela, following the
Given the word and time restrictions, an in depth analysis of each Latin American country’s democratic progression across the time period would simply not be feasible. Instead I will attempt to look at Latin America’s progression as a whole and will provide examples of specific countries situations where relevant, in particular Venezuela.
Firstly it is important to distinguish between two ideas. One is democracy. For democracy to work, there must be free and fair elections. There must be more than one political party. The people of the country should have a good education so that they can make informed choices. They should share a common culture. All must accept the idea that everyone has equal rights. Finally, there must be rule by law, not by power. In other words there must be a separation of power, which means that the judiciary has to be a completely different body from the governing power of the country. Many nations in Latin America have had difficulty achieving democracy because all these factors are not present. The second idea is that of democratic culture. This involves the existence of constitutions, respect for rights, transparency when it comes to policies and governmental decisions and crucially, no corruption.
Latin America, when viewed as a whole, is generally viewed as a more democratic place now than in 1945 but it would be wrong to assert that during the past 68 years Latin American countries have undergone a steady increase in democracy. Brazil is a prime example of a country that has gone through fluctuations in democracy throughout the period.
Currently in Latin America, despite being in a state of relative poverty when compared to the rest of the world, the majority of countries have become, at least formally, electoral democracies. 13 countries are now classed as free, 8 as partially free, with only Cuba and Haiti being deemed as not. Venezuela, following the
Bibliography: * Charles H. Blake & Stephen D. Morris (1999), Corruption and Democracy in Latin America, published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. * R.A.Dahl (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, published by Yale University Press. * Alan Doig and Robin Theobald (2000), Corruption and Democratization. * S.M.Lipset (1959), Some Social Requisites of Democracy, Economic Development and Political Illegitimacy. * A.Przeworski (2000), Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-being in the World 1950-1990, Cambridge University Press.