Interview with Dr. Dinorah Azpuru on the state of democracy in Latin America

The latest data from the Global State of Democracy Indices points to little democratic growth in Latin America. More countries are experiencing five-year statistically significant declines than are improving. International IDEA interviewed Dr. Dinorah Azpuru, Political Science Professor at Wichita State University (Kansas, United States), to obtain her point of view on what the latest data says.

How would you explain the recent overall decline in democratic performance in the region?

While the data do show a decline, there are still many countries that continue to hold elections freely and where democracy is not necessarily in decline. It is important to do a case-by-case analysis and pay attention to the type of regime that exists in each country, according to the classification used by some academic institutions, to make a good assessment.

Because most Latin American countries are considered electoral democracies (some with more developed democratic systems than others), it is important to delve deeper into what this means. These are countries where, generally, free and competitive elections take place, and basic freedoms exist, but they have serious problems related to the rule of law, judicial independence, and checks and balances (all of which are characteristics of liberal democracies). The rule of law has been the “Achilles heel” of democracy in Latin America.

Some electoral democracies have experienced a certain decline in their performance if we consider International IDEA’s indices. This reported decline is not necessarily related to the mishandling of elections, but because elected leaders implement anti-democratic actions. This is the case in countries with many populist presidents. I just published a book called Explaining Support for Populism in Contemporary Latin America, in which I analyze why voters have supported populism in the region over the last 25 years: Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (the last two countries before they became authoritarian regimes), and more recently Mexico, El Salvador, and Brazil. To clarify, being populist does not necessarily mean being authoritarian, but most populist presidents in Latin America have taken many measures to weaken democracy while strengthening themselves personally. They have taken measures such as co-opting institutions, lambasting and limiting the role of critical media, and verbally attacking and judicially persecuting critics from civil society, academia, and other sectors. Nonetheless, voters have supported them and even re-elected them several times.

According to political science, populist leaders are those who criticize the political and economic elites and present themselves as the redeemers, the only “representatives of the people.” Populist leaders often attack representative democracy as conceived in political science and try to supplant it with a supposed democracy in which they are the only real representatives. Further, populism is a phenomenon from both the right and the left.

Several problems in electoral democracies have arisen partly from citizens' choice of leaders with authoritarian tendencies. In some countries, voters have elected people, who, upon taking office, behave undemocratically. Despite this, citizens support them. Therefore, the problem lies not only in institutions or elected leaders, but also in citizens’ behavior. In my book, I found that in some countries, a loss of faith in democracy drove many citizens to elect a populist president for the first time. 

In your opinion, what are the main challenges in the region that lead citizens to second-guess democracy as the best form of government?

The decline in support for democracy is a worldwide phenomenon. Authoritarian governments, even very authoritarian ones like China or Russia, have questioned democracy, or have tried to redefine what a true democracy is, calling themselves democracies and maintaining that democracy is not what happens in Western Europe, for example. This discourse, that authoritarianism can be an option, has unfortunately been gaining traction among politicians with authoritarian tendencies. Many Latin Americans, perhaps due to the influence of social media, the weakness of democratic culture, and the influence of countries like China in the region, believe that this distortion of the concept of democracy may be acceptable, or that authoritarianism may not be so bad. But reality shows the opposite: authoritarian regimes are harmful in every sense.

There are also many domestic challenges. One is corruption. According to the statistical analysis I conducted for my book, one of the main reasons why people vote for populist leaders (and approve of their government performance over the years) is because of the perception that they are not corrupt (or are less corrupt). This is not true, but populists manage to create a bond with people, who end up believing everything they say. Meanwhile, traditional parties and politicians are generally seen as very corrupt. Regardless of populism, I have always said that corruption is the cancer of democracy in Latin America; because the rule of law is weak, the corrupt rarely face any consequences. Corruption at different levels has become a “modus vivendi” for several politicians, and this affects public opinion, causing parliaments and political parties to have low levels of credibility and trust.

Another great challenge is that, after 40 years of democracy, there is still a lot of poverty. There are structural causes, but this is also due in part to pervasive inefficiency and ineffectiveness in governmental institutions. Governance, that is, good performance, is essential to democracy. People evaluate performance in things like public works (whether roads are in good condition), the economy (whether there are jobs and aid programs), and safety. And on these issues, the balance in Latin America is negative.

Populists use the poor performance of democratic governments to their advantage, with communication strategies superior to those of traditional parties. In all the countries I analyzed in my book, people who support populist leaders have higher levels of satisfaction with democracy than in other countries. There is a very clear linear correlation between approval of the populist president and satisfaction with democracy. Their good management of social media helps people feel represented. In political science, there is a measure we call external efficacy. You ask people, “Do you think the government understands people like you?” And with populist governments, people tend to say yes, because precisely that is the idea that they convey: “I am the one who can defend you, I am the one who is going to do the things you need, I represent you.” or even, as Hugo Chávez used to say, “I am the people.”

Finally, another phenomenon that has influenced the erosion of democracy in many countries is polarization. Social media and its algorithms make people live within their echo chambers, without exposure to other points of view. Rarely do citizens know in depth what other groups say or think, leading to an increase in polarization. Polarization is not good for democracy, and populists exploit it for their convenience.

What is your interpretation of the declines observed in second-level factors related to Representation (Elected Government, Credible Elections, Effective Parliament and Free Political Parties) in Latin America?

Looking at International IDEA’s interactive map for Latin America, I observe that, overall, most countries still perform better in the Representation category (and in Participation) than in other categories. The exceptions are Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. In Nicaragua, the deterioration of Representation has been major. It has become a dictatorship and the last elections had no meaning because all real opposition was removed. In Venezuela, the Maduro government is taking measures similar to those of Ortega in Nicaragua by not recognizing the victory of the opposition in the July 2024 elections.

In countries where free elections are held, trust in elections is decreasing, as seen in academic surveys carried out in Latin America. As I mentioned earlier, the role of social media and the populist narrative against traditional politicians are partly to blame. This impacts people’s perception that parliaments are ineffective and corrupt, as some populists claim. This has affected the credibility of the elections, but, in my opinion, it is not the most concerning category. Rule of Law, on the other hand, is the region’s weak point, as I previously mentioned. The co-optation of institutions by politicians with authoritarian tendencies and the unpredictable enforcement of laws are the areas to focus on, in my opinion.

Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the institutional position of International IDEA, its Board of Advisers or its Council of Member States.