Marifeli Perez-Stable

Published in The Miami Herald
October 11, 2007

These days democracy is its own worst enemy in Latin America. Where equality before the law is just a phrase, institutions are fiefdoms and economic growth doesn’t sustain improving living standards, democracy sows a popular desencanto, a malaise and populism steps in. That’s what happened in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Popular desencanto sounds the alarm and is, in fact, a tribute to democracy. Citizens wouldn’t be disillusioned but for their understanding of their rights and how democracy should work. Latin America’s democrats must respond to the malaise within democratic institutions and a market economy. If so, democracy is strengthened and populism founders.

Unfortunately, vested interests — clientelistic politics that divvy up state coffers, economic duopolies or monopolies that resist competition and unions that block reforms — stand in the way. For democracies to deliver, the principal actors must reach agreements, either in grand or piecemeal fashion.

• Mexico is a good example. In the mid-1980s, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) — then the political kingpin — crafted a consensus on free trade and privatization of state enterprises. Still, neither the PRI nor Vicente Fox succeeded in moving most second round reforms. President Felipe Calderón, in conjunction with the PRI, has begun forging agreements to enact some of them, one at a time, e.g., pension and fiscal reforms.

• Ecuador is not a good example. On Sept. 30, President Rafael Correa won a resounding majority in the assembly that will draw a new constitution. Even if not exactly like Venezuela’s, the Ecuadorean charter almost certainly will strengthen presidential powers at the expense of checks and balances.

Like Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Correa rode into the presidency on a wave of righteous desencanto with traditional politicians and their political parties. Chávez has long governed autocratically and is now seeking indefinite reelection. Trying to follow suit, Morales is facing an effective opposition in the constituent assembly, which might be disbanded. We will soon see what Correa proposes for Ecuador.

Messianic leaders and democracy don’t mix well. Democracies thrive on negotiation, compromise and incremental change. National dignity, their people’s happiness, and building 21st-century socialism are ends so unassailable that all means must be put at their service. And, yes, only messianic leaders know best.

Correa’s stated disposition to dialogue only with people of goodwill doesn’t augur well. However discredited and diminished, Lucio Gutiérrez and Alvaro Noboa — a former president and the candidate Correa defeated last year — won minority representation in the constituent assembly and shouldn’t be disqualified a priori. In a democracy, citizens choose the opposition. Winners must learn to live with the full manifestation of the popular will.

Uncertainty is good for democracy. Provided their rights are respected and the rules of engagement are fair, the opposition always has a chance of winning the next election. Chávez has clearly loaded the playing field in his favor and would strip it of any vestige of fairness if the proposed constitutional amendments go into effect. Messianism may yet be dulling his political instincts. Urging Venezuelans to moderate their alcohol intake and limit their endless shopping could well backfire.

Military coups and leftist guerrillas no longer threaten democracy in Latin America. Instead, dispirited democracies — which pave the way for messianic leaders — are their own worst enemy. A populist candidate’s winning of a free-and-fair election may sound democracy’s death knell.

Latin American democrats need to govern with tomorrow in mind. Peru’s Alan García has learned from his disastrous first term (1985-1990). Second acts aren’t common in politics, however, particularly when a Chávez — perhaps a Morales or a Correa — wins a democratic election and erects himself as the nation’s savior.