From Second-Best to First-Best Veto Point: Explaining the Changing Uses of Judicial Review and Referendums in Uruguay

Abstract

The use of veto points to block policy change has received significant attention in Latin America, but the different institutional venues have not been analyzed in a unified framework. Uruguay is exceptional in that political actors use both referendums and judicial review as effective ways to oppose public policies. While the activation of direct democracy mechanisms in Uruguay has been widely studied, the surge in the use of the judicial venue remains underexplored. This article argues that veto point use responds to the ideological content of policies adopted by different coalitions and the type of interest organization affected. It shows that policy opponents predominantly activate referendums when center-right coalitions rule and judicial review when center-left coalitions govern. It illustrates the causal argument by tracing the politics of court and referendum activation. This approach helps to bridge the gap between research on direct democracy and judicial politics, providing a unified framework.

Direct Democracy in the Hands of the Opposition Under Alternating Ideological Coalitions in Uruguay (1985–2022)

“…The Frente Amplio also joined the campaign. The signature-gathering campaign required the deployment of a large number of activists, in a difficult context marked by the pandemic that severely limited people's mobility (Antía & Vairo, 2023).…”

“…We know less about the subsequent use of these mechanisms during the period of alternation between the two major ideological blocs in government that began in 2005 when the centre-left coalition was elected to govern and continued in 2020 when a new centre-right coalition began to rule (see Antía and Vairo 2023). Did the use of MDDs – for example, the issues and actors involved – change when the political context changed?…”