Most of the countries of South America experienced two notable institutional phenomena during the 1990s: the reform or rewriting of constitutions and the emergence of direct democracy mechanisms. This paper examines the latter process through a cross-national comparison. The introduction of direct democracy mechanisms is typically driven by traditionally excluded political interests. It takes two forms, both involving the failure of representative democratic institutions. In most cases, these traditionally excluded interests win control over the constitutional reform and rewriting process, although this is not a necessary condition for the emergence of direct democracy. Drawing illustrations from 12 cases of constitutional reform, this paper links arguments about direct democracy in the United States and Western Europe, institutional change, neopopulism, and the decline of the party system in Latin America. LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY43: 3
Divided government has been virtually the norm in Ecuador since the demise of the last military regime in 1979, as a result of both historical experience and political institutions, particularly electoral rules. It appears in several forms thanks to these rules, which allow a mixed‐party presidential ticket, the survival of many small parties, and a small assembly. Relations between executive and legislature are best described as ‘muddling through’, with some presidential powers balanced by the legislature's powers of scrutiny and possible impeachment.
In Elections and War, Kurt Taylor Gaubatz asks how the electoral process affects a democratic state's decision to go to war. The question is an interesting one, as it brings the fundamental trait of democracy-elections-squarely into the debate about the democratic peace. Moreover, to his credit, Gaubatz uses a combination of case study and statistical analysis to support his arguments. That the book raises more questions than it answers indicates the complex nature of the question at hand and illuminates a rich field for future research.As this is a study of the interaction of domestic and international politics, Gaubatz employs a two-level model. For each level, he specifies the important actors, the structure, and the outcomes. Although the model includes arrows linking these six components and two levels, several of the proposed relationships get lost as the argument advances. This gives the book a bit of a choppy feel that detracts from the overall effectiveness of the work.The main argument is that electoral politics tend to reduce incentives for state leaders to enter wars in the period just before an election. This is not because voters avoid imposing the costs of war on themselves. Indeed, democratic societies may become virulently war prone. Using case studies, Gaubatz shows that public mood in fact shifts between belligerence (the United States prior to the Spanish-American War) and isolationism (the United States between the two world wars). During an election period, government leaders become increasingly influenced by public mood. If conflict looms on the horizon, additional pressure emerges from "legitimate" antiwar elites, who use the political space opened by elections to air their views. Antiwar elites thus raise the costs to government leaders contemplating war entry by disrupting the social unity necessary for such an undertaking. The preelectoral period becomes a risky time for leaders to enter a war.Gaubatz presents three cases to show that elite-level opposition emerges even when the public's mood is belligerent. He examines British attitudes leading up to the Crimean and Boer Wars and U.S. attitudes leading up to the Spanish-American War. The cases provide strong evidence about the aggressive tendencies of democratic citizens. As presented, however, they do a less effective job at illuminating the interaction between mass and elite views. For example, the antiwar opponents always lose-the war is entered, in line with public demands. Indeed, Gaubatz notes, "politicians who attempted to resist the tides of public passion did so at considerable risk to their politi-216
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.