Why Factions Matter: a Theory of Party Dominance at the Subnational Level
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by Hector Ibarra-Rueda 2013 The Dissertation Committee for Hector Ibarra-Rueda Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Why Factions Matter: A Theory of Party Dominance at the Subnational Level Committee: Raúl L. Madrid, Co-Supervisor Kenneth Greene, Co-Supervisor Henry Dietz Zachary Elkins Peter M. Ward Why Factions Matter: A Theory of Party Dominance at the Subnational Level by Hector Ibarra-Rueda, Lic.Adm.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2013 Dedication A María Elena, Alfredo, María de Fátima, y Fátima Helena. Acknowledgements I am blessed for having received support from numerous people to complete this exciting academic journey. I would like to thank my advisors Ken Greene and Raúl Madrid. They provided rigor and intellectual motivation to all stages of my dissertation. Ken gave me detailed and thoughtful comments that improved the quality of this study. I received generous feedback and support from Raúl not only for this project but also since the very beginning of my graduate career. Moreover, Raul’s encouragement to pursue the Ph.D. when I was completing the graduate program in Latin American Studies was crucial. Over the years, Raúl has become a true mentor and a dear friend. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee: Henry Dietz, Peter Ward, and Zach Elkins. They all gave me valuable feedback. I am particularly grateful to Henry. He has been an important source of advice and support for me since he was my advisor in LLILAS. I would also like to thank Cathy Boone for helping me improve my research project during her excellent Research Colloquium in Political Science course. Parts of this dissertation also benefited greatly from the feedback that I received from Kurt Weyland, Randy Uang, and the members of the Latin American Student- Faculty Group at the Department of Government, especially Eduardo Dargent and Calla Hummel. I would also like to thank Manuel Balán, Regina Goodnow, Susanne Martin, Paula Muñoz, Daniel Ryan, and Danilo Contreras, in particular, for their friendship and support over the years. I wish to thank Joy Langston and David Crow. During my field research, Joy gave me valuable insights that improved my research project and David provided v encouragement and support. I also want to thank all the people I interviewed during my fieldwork. I obtained valuable information from in-depth interviews with politicians, scholars, and journalists. Additional insights from some of them helped me refine the content and structure of my project. Jorge Carrillo Olea generously shared with me preliminary versions of his book México en Riesgo, and Angel Ventura Valle provided diverse historical materials. These resources enhanced my understanding of different episodes of Mexico’s politics. I would like to thank the National Council on Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) and the University of Texas at Austin for funding my doctoral studies. CONACYT gave me a five-year graduate scholarship and the Department of Government at UT provided fellowships and a number of positions as teaching assistant and assistant instructor. I could have not completed the Ph.D. program without such financial support. I am also grateful to a number of people who helped me in one way or another to get through the Ph.D. program. Annette Carlile gave me extraordinary administrative support in the Department of Government over the years. She was always patient, kind, and diligent. My dear friend Eduardo Piedra-González and his wife Vianney generously helped me in different ways when I returned to Austin to write the dissertation. Mike Smith, John Duke, Carol King, Eric Schenk, Carolyn Thompson, and Tracy Frank, in particular, helped me improve my English skills. Keith Arrington, Michael Bombardier, and Adryon Burton Denmark introduced me to the wonderful world of mindful meditation and other related activities, which have made my life more productive, fulfilling, and meaningful. My main thanks are to Alfredo, María Elena, María de Fátima, and Fátima Helena. Their permanent presence in my mind and in my heart has always given me the strength and inspiration to keep going no matter what. vi Why Factions Matter: A Theory of Party Dominance at the Subnational Level Hector Ibarra-Rueda, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2013 Supervisors: Raúl L. Madrid and Kenneth Greene What explains the resilience of formerly nationally dominant parties at the subnational level? This dissertation demonstrates that factionalism is key. When intra- party factions are united, subnational dominant parties retain power even under adverse electoral conditions. By contrast, divisions and conflicts among internal groups lead these parties to lose even in favorable electoral contexts. I test these claims using a variety of quantitative and qualitative evidence from Mexico, focusing on the electoral performance of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI) in contemporary gubernatorial elections. Democratization potentially undermines unity in dominant parties because it provides politicians with viable exit options (i.e., joining the opposition) and because authoritarian central party committees no longer control subnational politics. Yet, I argue that factions can cooperate under democracy when they were more autonomous from the center during the authoritarian period. The negotiation skills acquired in the past help them “get along” in the absence of an external enforcer. By contrast, previously subordinated factions never acquired such skills and quickly became antagonistic to each other under democracy. As I show, collaboration had positive electoral consequences in subnational elections whereas antagonism had pernicious ones. vii Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................... xi! List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xiii! List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xiv! Chapter 1: A Factional Approach of Subnational Dominant Party Persistence and Decline ............................................................................................................1! The Argument in Brief ....................................................................................4! Definitions.......................................................................................................9! Alternative Explanations for Subnational Party Dominance ........................11! The Factional Explanation for Subnational Dominant Party Persistence and Decline .................................................................................................17! Connection to Prior Research .......................................................................22! Exogenous and Endogenous Paths to Party Unity ........................................24! Likelihood of Accommodation among Fully Empowered Factions .............31! History Matters: Why Factions Cooperate or Conflict .................................35! Application of the Theoretical Framework to the Case of Mexico ..............38! Research Design ............................................................................................45! Plan of the Dissertation .................................................................................50! Chapter 2: Causes and Consequences of PRI Factionalism at the Subnational Level .......................................................................................................................53! PRI’s Internal Cohesion and Margin of Vote ...............................................54! A Tale of Two Gubernatorial Elections ........................................................68! The Origins of Factionalism .........................................................................78! Conclusions ...................................................................................................85! Chapter 3: Collaborative Factionalism in Estado de México and Coahuila ..........87! Preexisting Autonomy as Precursor of Inter-Factional Cooperation ............88! Factional Autonomy Under Authoritarianism: Estado de México and Coahuila ..............................................................................................................91! viii Political Background of PRI Governors in Estado de México, 1929-1994 .....................................................................................................91! Inception and Initial Predominance of the PRI Factions in Estado de México: From 1920 to 1942 .......................................................94! A New Era of Factional Autonomy: From 1942 to 1987 ....................98! The 1987-1989 Interlude and the Return of Local Factions in 1993 ....... ...................................................................................................107! Political Background of PRI Governors in Coahuila, 1929-1994 .....112! Beginning and Evolution of PRI Factions in Coahuila: From the 1920s to 1957...........................................................................................114! Factions Regained Relevance: From 1957 to 1993 ...........................117! Accommodation