Abstract
This paper identifies and examines critically the theoretical changes enclosed in recent research on transition from authoritarian rule, democratization and democratic consolidation in Latin America. Three broad dimensions of democracy - political, legal-organizational and participatory - are inferred from these debates. The first, and by far most widely used, is a conglomerate of individual rights (of expression, association, suffrage, etc.) and competitive elections. The second adds to the first the conditions necessary to guarantee the exercise of citizenship (e.g. limitation of military prerogatives or equal implementation of the law); the third focuses on the process of citizen empowerment via organized collective action.
After culling from this literature a number of theoretical innovations (such as the critical reappraisal of authoritarian rule; the reconceptualization of the state; the shift in emphasis from structure to process; or the reconceptualization of the relation between politics and society and between capitalism and democracy), the paper shows how these innovative elements and the three conceptions of democracy defined above are interwoven in analyses of democratic transition and consolidation, and what balance between gains and unresolved problems this research effort represents.
The paper concludes on a note of caution, arguing that too many analysts have assumed that, with time, democratic electoral procedures would have a domino effect on non-democratic practices in other realms, which by and large has not been the case. As a result, we lack a theory of the transition from military guardianship to autonomous civilian rule; from the corporatist, clientelistic, corrupt and despotic state to the law abiding and accountable state; and from incomplete and ineffective to full and effective citizenship. To overcome this lacuna, we need to problematize the relationship between the different dimensions of democracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.