Nationalization of Parties and Party Systems in Latin America: Concept, Measurement and Recent Development in the Region (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Nationalization of Parties and the Brazilian Party System
2019
What is the level of nationalization of political parties and of the Brazilian party system? In this paper, we use the Jones and Mainwaring (2003) measure to assess the degree to which electoral support from political parties is homogeneous among state federative units. For that, we used data from the electoral disputes for the Chamber of Deputies between 1998 and 2014 made available by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE). Methodologically, we calculated the index of nationalization based on the distribution of party votes by state and described the data based on descriptive statistics techniques and graphical tools. The results of this work indicate that the Brazilian party system seems to be structured among the three largest parties with representation in the Federal Chamber of Deputies: PMDB, PT and PSDB. However, this does not mean that these parties are large in all units of the federation.
Seven Imperatives for Improving the Measurement of Party Nationalization with Evidence from Chile
2013
Party nationalization measures are often used to describe and measure the nature of political parties and party systems. However, the term “party nationalization” is imprecise, with little consensus on how to measure it or evaluate its implications. This article advances the literature on nationalization in a number of crucial ways. We make seven concrete suggestions for improving the measurement of party nationalization in theoretical terms and then demonstrate the problems and biases with existing studies through a theoretical discussion and application to Chilean political parties. Given that our theoretical and empirical analyses show there is important weaknesses in all nationalization measures, we argue in favor of approaching the phenomenon with a variety of tools in order to avoid misleading conclusions.
Party Systems in Latin America
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020
Since the beginning of the third wave of democratization in the late 1970s, Latin American party systems have confronted several challenges, and they have frequently been transformed. There have been various types of changes. While some systems collapsed in the 1990s (e.g., Venezuela and Peru), others realigned (Colombia, Chile, and Uruguay), or expanded (Argentina and Mexico), or were able to become consolidated and ensure their stability over time (e.g., Brazil). What factors explain the transformations in party systems during the past three decades, and how can Latin American party systems be classified according to their attributes? In trying to answer these questions, scholars of Latin America have undertaken studies that are both theoretically and empirically rich. Their work has increased our knowledge of the party systems and representative democracies in the region. Different factors have been highlighted in order to explain the changes these systems have undergone since the third wave of democratization. Some works emphasize the importance of institutional reforms introduced by politicians or by constitutional assemblies. The questions they address are the following: What political reforms have been introduced into Latin American political systems, and what effects have they had on the party systems in different countries? The researchers do not limit their attention to reforms of electoral systems. For example, some of them also study decentralization processes and their effects on party systems. From a different perspective, other authors focus on changes in electoral preferences and their effects on the configuration of political power, exploring how regional economic, political, and social changes have affected voter preferences and the political configuration of party systems. Still others consider the crises of democratic representation in these countries, underlining the decline in the programmatic character of parties as an explanatory variable for the crises and noting that the level of institutionalization of a party system declines when parties abandon this distinctive feature and become clientelistic or personalistic instead. On the other hand, in order to describe party systems and to observe the changes they have undergone, academics have proposed a set of concepts and measurements that make it possible to identify their levels of institutionalization (i.e., stability vs. volatility), nationalization, and programmatic structuration, among other aspects. The operationalization of these concepts has provided researchers with useful data for describing, comparing, and analyzing the party systems of the region transversely over time. Understanding the transformation and characteristics of Latin American party systems over time sheds light on both the progress democratic regimes have made and the setbacks they have suffered within specific countries and in the region at large. Keywords: Latin America, party systems, electoral reforms, voter realignment, democratic representation, fragmentation, institutionalization, volatility, nationalization, party system structuration, Latin American politics
This article explains variation in the electoral trajectories of Latin American traditional parties since transitions to democratic governments in the late 20th century until the first half of the 2000s, when democracies were already consolidated. This article addresses the question of why some parties suffer more than others under challenging contextual conditions, or why some parties are able to weather difficult external environments, e.g. economic crises, institutional reforms or political scandals, while others fail. This study argues that the internal organization of parties matters: it affects their ability to react and survive, especially in contexts of environmental change. Variation in parties' internal characteristics explains different outcomes in their electoral performance. An empirical analysis of 48 traditional parties over almost three decades (1978–2006) provides support for this argument.
Party Membership in Latin America. Party Strategies and the Role of Party Members
Contrary to the situation in Europe, comparative study of party membership in Latin America is virtually nonexistent. The goal of this essay is to fill this gap in the study of party politics and the internal organization of parties in the region. This essay examines the statutes of the principal political parties in Latin America and analyzes the role given to party members in fifty-one political parties in the region. This information is organized into three categories: entry requirements; members' rights; and members' duties (in formal terms). The essay argues that these aspects are rather homogenous among Latin American countries; unlike the situation in Europe, they cannot explain differences in party membership growth rates. The essay evaluates six alternative hypotheses, concluding that the varying levels of party membership in Latin American countries are the result of a combination of historical factors, candidate selection procedures, and party strategies.
'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America
Although Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits.