Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Laura Tedesco
(Saint Louis University)
Peter Lambert (University of Bath)
Send message to Convenors
- Location:
- ATB G205
- Start time:
- 12 April, 2013 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
The aim of this panel is to discuss issues on leadership that include the political conditions that help the emergence of different types of leaders; the impact of leaders on the quality of democracy; and the relationship between leaders and political parties.
Long Abstract:
A democratic deficit or the gap between citizens´ aspirations and level of satisfaction is increasing in Latin America. In many countries, democracy may be seen as the preferred form of government but many remain "deeply sceptical when evaluating how democracy works" (Norris, 2011: 5). Latinobarómetro 2011 has shown that 57% of respondents in the region are not satisfied with democracy (www.latinobarometro.org). This dissatisfaction helps us to understand many presidential crises: since 1985, 23 Latin American presidents left government abruptly. These crises reflect that while civil societies may have been able to provoke the fall of presidents, they have been largely unable to avoid or to change deep-rooted political practices re-emerging under subsequent administrations. Extreme presidencialism, clientelism and populism have remained and, in some cases, emerged strengthened after deep political crisis.
From failures to saviours, political leaders are at the centre of democratic politics. Understanding the political conditions that contribute to their rise and fall lies at the core of our analysis. Leaders influence political outcomes and the quality of political regimes. It follows that different types of leaders will lead to different outcomes and different regimes. But what lies behind the emergence of different styles?
The aim of this panel is to discuss issues on leadership that include the political conditions that help the emergence of different types of leaders; the impact of leaders on the quality of democracy; the relationship between leaders and political parties and the risks or benefits of presidentialism.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Laura Tedesco (Saint Louis University)
Paper short abstract:
Some Latin American countries seem to have fallen into a political trap marked by a low-quality democratic regime run by deteriorating political leaders.The paper highlights the impact that different types of political leaders can have on how well democracy works.
Paper long abstract:
The democratic deficit or the gap between citizens' aspirations and their level of satisfaction is increasing in Latin America. Such dissatisfaction helps to understand many of the region's presidential crises: since 1985, 23 Latin American presidents have left government abruptly. While civil society may have been able to provoke the fall of presidents, it has not managed to avoid the re-emergence of deep-rooted political practices under subsequent administrations. Extreme presidentialism, clientelism and populism have not only remained, but have re-emerged strengthened after deep political crises. This article offers some ideas regarding the impact that different types of political leaders can have on how well democracy works.
Ximena Orchard (University of Sheffield)
Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the concept of mediatization of politics in the Chilean system, arguing that the emergence of personalised leaderships goes hand in hand with the ability of political actors to build their popularity around media and communication strategies.
Paper long abstract:
The construction of political leaderships that grow in the media and outside party structures is a recurring pattern in Chile, which challenges the ability political parties have to develop leaderships of national projection. It is possible to argue that the last two Chilean presidents were imposed by means of surveys to their own political parties, a pattern repeated in the current presidential race.
Mediatization of politics, as a theoretical construct, offers some insight for understanding the development of this phenomenon, which acquires unique characteristics in each country of the region, and avoids generalizations. In Chile, there are signs that indicate that media praxis has been adopted by political actors, changing not only the way in which political activity is represented in public communication spaces but how practices of political actors are organized.
Academic analysis about the place of the media in the Chilean process of democratisation has generally been centered in the characteristics of media market structures. These studies allow us to understand the limited role the media have played in terms of making political and economic power accountable. However, it will be argued that the mediatization of politics has to be studied in terms of how politics itself has been modified as a result of continuous interactions with a predominantly market-driven media system. This phenomenon that can be conceptualised as media effects on political actors has deep implications in the style of leadership that dominate the Chilean political scene.
David Close (Memorial University)
Paper short abstract:
The paper discusses how the presidencies of Alemán and Ortega have affected Nicaragua’s quality of democracy. Both have had deleterious impacts, especially since 2000. Ortega’s first administration had positive effects and his latest may yet have.
Paper long abstract:
Since 1984, Nicaragua has held six presidential elections, returning four presidents, each with a distinct governing style that affected the country's quality of democracy in terms of both institutional performance and citizen participation, whether positively or negatively. This paper considers two of those presidents—Arnoldo Alemán (1996-2001) and Daniel Ortega's first and second term (1984-90; 2006-11)—to assess their impact on the quality of Nicaraguan democracy. Both are personalistic leaders, the architects of the Liberal-Sandinista power-sharing pact of 2000, which lessened presidential accountability and turned key governmental institutions into partisan tools. Thus the two actively collaborated to undermine the quality of democracy. Further, in his second term Ortega continued centralising authority in the presidency and strengthened personalistic, caudillo-style politics in Nicaragua.
However, Ortega's first term furthered political pluralism and his second developed the Consejos del Poder Ciudadano (CPP), that offer a restricted opening for citizen participation. Though a plainly clientelistic mechanism, the CPPs recall the mass organisations of the 1980s that were the foundation for the formation of civil society organizations in the 1990s. The paper thus will analyse the quality of democracy through the operation of the usual democratic institutions and processes, as well as via the nature of citizens' political engagement. It gives particular attention to Ortega's shift and to explaining his changed behaviour.
Peter Lambert (University of Bath)
Paper short abstract:
This paper examines the administration of Fernando Lugo in Paraguay from his election in 2008 to the 'parliamentary coup' of June 2012. It argues that his bold programme of social and political reform was blocked by traditional political elites whose actions pushed the limits of democracy.
Paper long abstract:
On June 22 2012 Fernando Lugo was removed from power by Congress on the grounds of 'poor performance of duty'. This 'lightening impeachment' or 'parliamentary coup' put a premature end to an administration that had come to power on a wave of popular support and had promised a programme of social and political reforms to address Paraguay's problems of poverty, inequality and corruption. This paper examines the administration of Fernando Lugo from the popular euphoria of 2008 through his failed attempts to get his reform programme through congress to the crisis of June 2012. It will analyse Lugo's leadership, but also the challenges to the presidency and his policies and the role of political opposition, powerful lobby groups and the media to block reform and undermine his administration in ways that pushed the limits of constitutionality and indeed democracy.
Ryan Brading (Institute for the Study of the Americas)
Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the impact President Chavez's health problem has had on the growth of a democratic system in Venezuela.
Paper long abstract:
After Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela was re-elected in December 2006, Chávez organized a referendum in December 2007 to introduce a constitutional reform that would allow him to be re-elected indefinitely. Nonetheless, in spite of time and abundant resources for the campaign, Chávez lost. However, this unexpected defeat didn't stop Chávez. As the parliament was fully controlled by the Government then, a second referendum was organised. On February 15, 2009, Chávez got the constitutional amendment allowing him to run for office indefinitely. This referendum was different because it included the indefinite re-election of 'all' high-ranking politicians, not only the President. Thereupon, Chávez was re-elected in October 2012. This element of 'indefinite re-election' and democracy in Venezuela is addressed in this paper, as Chávez intended to stay in power until 2031; despite his battle and treatment with cancer - he announced to the Venezuelan people on June 30, 2011, from Havana Cuba. What is interesting is that Chávez's popularity increased after informing the nation his illness and painful recovery. What was and still is very confusing (treated as a closely guarded state secret) is the lack of specific information about Chávez's battle with cancer. This analysis investigates the extent to which Chávez's illness (before and after his death on March 5, 2013) has been used as a theme to revive Chávez's renown populist tactics, further galvanise his 'Cult of Personality', and military/democratic 'Caudillo' status - in a deeply polarised Latin American society.