Suchergebnisse

[EN] Between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 every Latin American electoral democracy held legislative and, with the exception of Mexico, presidential elections. On the heels of a region-wide swing to the political left, many observers wondered what next might be in store. But it was almost a given that elections remained the only legitimate pathway power in the region during this period. Elections had become institutionalized in Latin America. Hence, the 2013-2017 election cycle granted as good an opportunity as any to take stock of party-system dynamics and representation in the region. This opportunity was not lost on Manuel Alcántara, Daniel Buquet, and María Laura Tagina, editors of Elecciones y partidos en América Latina en el cambio del ciclo (2018, 7).These accomplished scholars compiled twenty chapters spanning all eighteen electoral democracies in Latin America from 2013 to 2017. As stated in their introductory chapter, the book's goal is to focus on "las transformaciones acaecidas en los respectivos sistemas de partidos a lo largo de las últimas décadas" and the extent to which, "marcaron un punto de inflexión… respecto de su desarrollo previo, o bien confirmaron tendencias preexistentes" (7). To undertake such a massive endeavor, the editors enlisted country experts from the ranks of doctoral students up to some of the most renowned political scientists in the region. The result is an extremely rich collection of essays that helps students of the region appreciate patterns of change within and between countries in the 2013-2017 cycle. My review analyzes three central aspects of the volume: (a) comparative approach; (b) theoretical puzzle; and (c) theoretical-conceptual innovation. Let us consider each in turn.

This essay reviews the following works:The Fates of Political Parties: Institutional Crisis, Continuity, and Change in Latin America. By Jennifer Cyr. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. v + 269. $99.99 hardcover. ISBN: 9781107189799. Los sistemas de partidos en América Latina, 1978–2015. Tomo 1: México, América Central, y República Dominicana; Tomo 2: Cono Sur y países andinos. Edited by Flavia Freidenberg. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto Nacional Electoral, 2016. Pp. vii + 465 and vii + 543. Collection ISBN: 9786078510078. Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. By Noam Lupu. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Pp. xii + 247. $32.99 paperback. ISBN: 9781107423206. Changing Course in Latin America: Party Systems in the Neoliberal Era. By Kenneth M. Roberts. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp. ix + 330. $35.99 paper. ISBN: 9780521673266.

Support for democracy is crucial to democratic stability. Yet the nature and range of democratic belief systems, and whether these belief systems are idiosyncratic to specific individuals and polities or are more general, remain largely unknown. Such unknowns complicate an already daunting measurement task. Extant survey‐based measures are fraught with validity problems and say little about the democratic beliefs individuals most strongly hold or reject. To address these problems, this study blends focus groups, interviews, and Q‐sort methodology to examine patterns of subjective, behavioral renderings of democratic support profiles. It finds seven shared profiles of beliefs concerning democracy, alternative regimes, and political and civil freedoms across Chile and Argentina. Their resemblance to democratic belief systems found with other methods bolsters their validity and generalizability. The analyses reveal the relative weight of each orientation within each belief profile and their intensity across profiles. In so doing, they identify which items are crucial for within‐ and across‐case comparisons. Altogether, these insights should inform survey‐based approaches to detecting and describing the democratic support profiles latent in the polity.

No political institutions enjoy less public trust than political parties. Understanding the implications of this phenomenon for representative democracy requires theoretically informed conceptualizations of party trust and distrust and theories about their underlying cognitive processes. In this vein, the present study conceptualizes party trust and distrust as perceived party trustworthiness, it models citizens' subjective standards as rubrics of party trustworthiness, and it derives rubric-based measures of party trust/distrust. The analyses identify rubrics that: (1) prize integrity and competence, (2) stress internal politics and competence, and (3) give priority to responsiveness and integrity. The rubric-based measures of party trust/distrust converge with a classic measure of party trust and, thus, bolster the conceptual validity and theoretical utility of this research. The results suggest new ways by which to measure party trust and distrust on public opinion surveys. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

No political institutions enjoy less public trust than political parties. Understanding the implications of this phenomenon for representative democracy requires theoretically informed conceptualizations of party trust and distrust and theories about their underlying cognitive processes. In this vein, the present study conceptualizes party trust and distrust as perceived party trustworthiness, it models citizens' subjective standards as rubrics of party trustworthiness, and it derives rubric-based measures of party trust/distrust. The analyses identify rubrics that: (1) prize integrity and competence, (2) stress internal politics and competence, and (3) give priority to responsiveness and integrity. The rubric-based measures of party trust/distrust converge with a classic measure of party trust and, thus, bolster the conceptual validity and theoretical utility of this research. The results suggest new ways by which to measure party trust and distrust on public opinion surveys.

Distrusting democrats seek accountability and advocate reform in established democracies. Do they behave similarly in new democracies? Using AmericasBarometer survey data, cluster analysis identifies five profiles of democratic support in Chile: democrat, delegative, fair-weather, illiberal, and autocrat. Chilean distrusting democrats are more active in protest politics but less active in electoral politics than other Chileans, especially fair-weather democrats. The support profiles better predict these behaviors than the classic Linzian and Churchillian measures of democratic support. Thus, distrusting democrats in Chile only partially emulate their counterparts in established democracies, suggesting citizen-led democratic reforms in new democracies could be far more challenging. Adapted from the source document.

Distrusting democrats seek accountability and advocate reform in established democracies. Do they behave similarly in new democracies? Using AmericasBarometer survey data, cluster analysis identifies five profiles of democratic support in Chile: democrat, delegative, fair-weather, illiberal, and autocrat. Chilean distrusting democrats are more active in protest politics but less active in electoral politics than other Chileans, especially fair-weather democrats. The support profiles better predict these behaviors than the classic Linzian and Churchillian measures of democratic support. Thus, distrusting democrats in Chile only partially emulate their counterparts in established democracies, suggesting citizen-led democratic reforms in new democracies could be far more challenging.