Latin American Leaders: Charismatic Leadership or True Democracy?
On February 12th,2016, INCIPE organized a Working Breakfast meeting, titled Latin-American Leaders: Charismatic Leadership or True Democracy? to discuss the novel Latin America’s Leaders. Both authors of the novel, Dr. Laura Tedesco and Ms. Rut Diamint, attended the event.
In the midst of the constantly changing political climate in Latin America thanks to the Década Ganada (Earned Decade) hopes and expectations have not taken long to appear. The evolution of this region has done nothing but keep proving itself, improving in economic and social aspects. Latin America has ceased to be guided by the Occidental powers, which focus more on their own problems like the financial crisis or the disproportionate amount of terrorism they are presently dealing with. Currently, the relationship between the Western powers and Latin America is practically that between partners, as they are on more equal grounds. This long awaited independence that the countries yearned for brings up the question: Will they know how to handle it?
The quality of the politics and the democracy in the region are fundamental for development. As mentioned before, the macroeconomic and social environments have improved, though the quality of the democracy in certain countries is worrisome; since 2008, the region has suffered 20 presidential crises while taking part in the famous Third Wave Democratization.
In the face of this issue, Professors Laura Tedasco and Rut Diamint conducted a study of 349 political leaders from Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela, who they interviewed throughout four years. One of their main objectives was to find the reason for why the leaders, once elected democratically, tended to augment their own power. The results show a clear correlation between political leaders and the political party systems, as well as between leadership and the quality of the democracy. To address all of these correlations they specified three branches to study: the political context, the leader’s followers and resources, and the leader’s impact on the quality of the democracy.
The study of these indicators allowed the researchers to establish four types of political leaders in these countries: the democracy enhancer, who reinforces the existing institutions; the ambivalent democrat, who respects the institutions but occasionally challenges them to increase his own power; the soft power usurper, who manipulates institutions according to his needs in a quest to increase his own power; and the power usurper, a born manipulator. These categories match almost exactly with the degree of a leader’s accumulation of power.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. On one hand, the increase of “populist” leaders began in the 1990’s in response to the Washington Consensus. Implemented to control external debt, this policy introduced economic reforms that caused discontent in the Latin American society. Another important problem is the persistence of clientelism at vertical and horizontal levels, although at different levels depending on the country. That none of the mechanisms for political ascent are institutionalized is another cause for clientelism as well as corruption. Additionally, the extreme political polarization in Latin American countries has increased the conflict between government opponents and supporters. Lastly, the only way to eliminate Latin America’s barriers is awareness on the part of the population on the role they must play. They must participate as citizens in the democratization of these countries and in turn end the egocentrism of their political leaders.
Members of diverse fields attended the Working Breakfast, including International Relations analysts and academics. The event ended with a questionnaire where the attendees shared their perspectives on different topics, especially political corruption.
Marina Dorado
INCIPE
