Paarlberg Georgetown 0076D
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DIASPORA OUTREACH BY LATIN AMERICAN PARTIES A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Michael Ahn Paarlberg, M.P.P. Washington, DC April 24, 2017 Copyright 2017 by Michael Ahn Paarlberg All Rights Reserved ii DIASPORA OUTREACH BY LATIN AMERICAN PARTIES Michael Ahn Paarlberg, M.P.P. Thesis Advisor: Matthew Carnes, Ph.D. ABSTRACT How do parties in migrant-sending countries campaign abroad? This study explores transnational campaigning by political parties among diaspora communities, using a mixed methods approach, including a region-wide quantitative comparison using polling and a series of hierarchical models, documentation of party travel records, and interviews with 45 politicians, party officials, and campaign strategists in Mexico, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic. This study seeks to examine why and how parties in migrant-sending countries engage migrants as a matter of electoral strategy. What advantage do migrants lend parties in elections—particularly if, as evidence shows, their impact through direct voting is minimal—and how do parties seek to exploit and maximize this advantage? This study finds that two chief factors explain party outreach to diaspora communities: the partisan skew of the diaspora, and the infrastructure of the party in the diaspora. It also finds that parties believe diaspora campaigning pays off in votes in the home country due to the influence migrants are perceived to have over their relatives through remittances; however, models show this perceived influence to be exaggerated. iii Thanks to my family and to my dissertation committee for the feedback and support. Dedicated to my father, Don Paarlberg, Jr. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Case Selection .............................................................................................. 29 Chapter 3. El Salvador: Skewed Support, Uneven Infrastructure ................................. 57 Chapter 4. Mexico: Skewed Support, Weak Infrastructure ......................................... 107 Chapter 5. Dominican Republic: Unskewed Support, Strong Infrastructure............... 138 Chapter 6. What Is Diaspora Influence? Evidence from Polling ................................. 177 Chapter 7. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 219 Appendix 1. Interview Subjects ................................................................................... 239 Appendix 2. International Travel Records for Mexican Parties, 2006 - 2012 ............. 241 Appendix 3. Glossary of Abbreviations....................................................................... 243 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 245 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Parties by Skew and Infrastructure ................................................................. 30 Figure 2. FMLN Party Structure .................................................................................... 66 Figure 3. ARENA Party Structure ................................................................................. 67 Figure 4. Billboard: Salvadorans in Washington ........................................................... 88 Figure 5. Billboard: Salvadorans in New York ............................................................. 89 Figure 6. Billboard: Salvadorans in California .............................................................. 90 Figure 7. Public Garbage Bin, San Miguel .................................................................... 95 Figure 8. Net Out-Migration, Dominican Republic ..................................................... 146 Figure 9. Remittances to Dominican Republic, Total and Percentage of GDP ........... 146 Figure 10. Effectiveness of Diaspora Activity by Party .............................................. 228 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Diaspora Size and Remittance Levels .............................................................. 44 Table 2. External Voting Rights by Country ................................................................. 46 Table 3. Campaign Finance Laws for Migrant-Sending Countries ............................... 48 Table 4. Average Age of Major Parties for Migrant-Sending Countries ....................... 50 Table 5. Party System Institutionalization and Polarization .......................................... 51 Table 6. Campaign Visits to the U.S. by Parties in Major Sending Countries .............. 53 Table 7. Skew, Infrastructure, and Diaspora Outreach by Party, El Salvador ............... 58 Table 8. Skew, Infrastructure, and Diaspora Outreach by Party, Mexico ................... 108 Table 9. Mexican Diaspora Vote vs. Total Vote, 2006 and 2012 ................................ 114 Table 10. Skew, Infrastructure, and Diaspora Outreach by Party, DR ........................ 139 Table 11. Dominican Diaspora Vote vs. Total Vote, 2004 - 2016 .............................. 149 Table 12. Response Count for Key Dependent Variables ........................................... 183 Table 13. Response Count for Key Independent Variables ......................................... 184 Table 14. Which Candidate Do You Support in the 2016 Election? ........................... 184 Table 15. Which Party Do You Generally Support? ................................................... 185 Table 16. Frequency of Family Communication and Subject Matter .......................... 186 Table 17. Efforts and Perception of Influence Over Relatives in the DR .................... 186 Table 18. Exposure to Diaspora Campaign Tactics ..................................................... 187 Table 19. Logistic Regressions of Influence over Relatives’ Voting Behavior .......... 189 Table 20. Dependent Variables .................................................................................... 200 Table 21. Independent Variables ................................................................................. 201 vii Table 22. Respondents Communicating with Relatives in the U.S., by Country ........ 202 Table 23. Respondents with Family Communicate Compared to Overall Population 203 Table 24. GLLAMM Tests for Voting/Basic Level Political Behaviors ..................... 206 Table 25. GLLAMM Tests for Nonvoting/Higher Level Political Behaviors............. 207 Table 26. Estimates for Family Communicate Including vs. Excluding Remit .......... 211 Table 27. GLLAMM Tests for Basic Level Political Behaviors with Interactions ..... 212 Table 28. GLLAMM Tests for Higher Level Political Behaviors with Interactions ... 213 viii Chapter 1. Introduction In El Salvador’s presidential election of 2009, both candidates, ARENA’s Rodrigo Ávila and FMLN’s Mauricio Funes, visited the United States to campaign among Salvadoran communities there – this despite the fact that Salvadoran citizens residing abroad did not have the right to vote. Yet the two candidates, and their parties, went about seeking support differently, each looking to capitalize on this “electorate” in their own way. While ARENA’s activities were largely limited to closed door meetings with close supporters and international development officials, the FMLN mobilized its base committees in the U.S., organizing party militants among the Salvadoran diaspora to lobby Congress and the State Department for statements of neutrality, and to call family members in El Salvador to reassure them that an FMLN victory would not negatively impact relations with the U.S. or interrupt the flows of remittances. Funes won, in the FMLN’s first victory in a general election, thus ending a 20-year unbroken period of rule for the incumbent ARENA party. Funes and Ávila are not alone. Many politicians and parties from migrant-sending countries campaign abroad, including many Latin American countries in the United States, among both voting and non-voting electorates. In the United States alone, within the past five years, candidates from Mexico,1 Haiti,2 the Dominican Republic,3 Jamaica,4 Guatemala,5 and Peru6 have visited and campaigned among diaspora communities residing in such cities as 1 Perasso, Valeria. “La campaña electoral mexicana contagia a California.” BBC Mundo, June 27, 2012. http://www.bbc.com/mundo/movil/noticias/2012/06/120627_mexico_elecciones_voto_extranjero_eeuu_vp.shtml 2 Charles, Jacqueline. “Controversial Haiti presidential candidate Jovenel Moise makes Miami stop.” Miami Herald Nov. 22, 2015. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article45957085.html 3 Telemundo 47. “Candidatos llegan a Nueva York.” June 2, 2015. http://www.telemundo47.com/noticias/Hipolito- y-danilo-llegan-a-nueva-york-272684571.html 4 Henry, Balford. “Holness takes campaigning to New York.” Jamaica Observer Sept. 13, 2015. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Holness-takes-campaigning-to-New-York_19228540 5 “Guatemaltecos en Los Angeles: ‘…solo le decimos a Jimmy que no nos olvide.’” Hoy, Oct. 27, 2015. 6 EFE. “El candidato presidencial Kuczynski visita a Peruanos en los Estados Unidos.” La Conexion USA April 26, 2016. http://laconexionusa.com/noticias/201604261409974_lc140997426.asp 1 Boston,7 Miami,8 Los Angeles,9 New York,10 Chicago,11 Providence,12 and Washington, DC.13 Many