A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/95997 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Explaining Democratic Divergence: The Impact of Elite Political Culture and Political Institutions on the Democratic Performance of Colombia and Venezuela by Juan Carlos Gómez Benavides A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics and International Studies University of Warwick Department of Politics and International Studies June 2017 ii Table of Contents List of figures and tables vi Acknowledgements viii Dedication ix Declaration and inclusion of material from a prior thesis x Abstract xi List of abbreviations xii Chapter 1. 1 1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. The structure of the thesis 17 PART I. CONCEPTUALISING THE DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES TO ASSESS DEMOCRATIC DIVERGENCE Chapter 2. Explaining the drivers of democratic divergence: an empirical and theoretical approach to Colombia and Venezuela 22 2.1. Introduction 22 2.2. Explaining empirically the existence of democratic divergence 24 2.3. Explaining the drivers of regime change 34 Modernisation theory 34 Resource curse theory 36 Political institutions and political culture 40 2.4. Research design and methods 43 2.5. Conclusion 45 Chapter 3. Democratic divergence in comparative perspective: developing a new theory with new explanations 47 3.1. Introduction 47 3.2 Revisiting institutional and political culture approaches, and its link with elite and mass political values 50 Institutional approach 51 Political culture approach 53 Elite vs. mass political culture 57 3.3 Merging the two approaches: introducing the Circular Causality Model to assess democratic divergence 60 3.4 Discussion and conclusion 63 Chapter 4. Democratic divergence: conceptualising the dependent variable 65 4.1. Introduction 65 4.2. Democratic divergence: a conceptual debate 67 4.3. From transition to democratic consolidation in Latin America 73 4.4. Democratic divergence in Colombia and Venezuela 78 The democratic ‘transition’ era: 1958-1990 79 iii The democratic ‘divergence’ era: 1991-2010 82 4.5. Conclusion and discussion 87 Chapter 5. What is elite political culture? Conceptualising the first independent variable 90 5.1. Introduction 90 5.2. Political culture: a conceptual debate 91 5.3. From political culture to elite political culture 95 5.4. Political culture in Latin America 96 History and early socialisation 97 Cross-cultural variations 104 5.5. Conclusion and discussion 107 Chapter 6. Which types of political institutions? Conceptualising the second set of independent variables 109 6.1. Introduction 109 6.2. Political institutions: a conceptual debate 112 6.3. Criticism on Lijphart´s institutional approach 114 6.4. A comprehensive reform of the state to explain democratic divergence in Colombia and Venezuela 118 6.4.1. Constitutions 119 6.4.1.1 Constitutional reform and further amendments in Colombia: comparing the features and performance of the ‘transitional period’ and the ‘divergence period’ 121 6.4.1.2 Constitutional reform and further amendments in Venezuela: comparing the features and performance of the ‘transitional period’ and the ‘divergence period’ 126 6.4.1.3 Concentration of power in Colombia and Venezuela: a trade-off between the consolidation and the decline of democracy over the ‘divergence period’ 141 6.4.2. Electoral system 159 6.5. Conclusion 164 PART II. OPERATIONALISATION, MEASUREMENT AND ESTIMATION OF A MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION MODEL: TO ASSESS DEMOCRATIC DIVERGENCE IN COLOMBIA AND VENEZUELA Chapter 7. Operationalisation and measurement of the dependent and independent variables to test democratic divergence 169 7.1. Introduction 169 7.2. Operationalisation of democracy as the dependent variable 171 7.3. Operationalisation of the independent variables 175 7.3.1. Elite political culture and democracy 175 iv 7.3.2. Political institutions and democracy: electoral systems and new constitutions 181 Electoral systems and democracy 181 New constitutions and democracy 185 7.3.3. Control variables 186 7.4. Conclusion: a summary of the inputs for the multivariate regression model 187 Chapter 8. Testing democratic divergence in Colombia and Venezuela by estimating a multivariate regression model 190 8.1. Introduction 190 8.2. Data and descriptive statistics 191 8.3. Multivariate regression model 195 8.4. Estimation results 205 8.5. Discussion and final remarks 219 Chapter 9. Conclusions 224 Appendixes 235 Appendix 1. Constitutional reforms and constitutional amendments in Colombia and Venezuela 1900 – 2010 236 Appendix 2. Constitutional reforms and further amendments in Colombia and Venezuela from 1957 until 2010 237 Appendix 3. Methodological approach to operationalize political culture in Colombia and Venezuela from 1957 until 2010 288 Appendix 4. Checking for robustness: estimation of the model with different dependent variables 294 Bibliography 296 v List of figures and tables Figures Figure 1.1. Colombia and Venezuela: democratic performance according to Freedom House 7 Figure 1.2. Colombia and Venezuela: democratic performance according to Polity IV Project 7 Figure 3.1 Causality model proposed by the institutional approach to assess the process of democratic consolidation 53 Figure 3.2. Causality model proposed by the political culture approach to assess democratic consolidation 54 Figure 3.3. Circular Causality Model proposed by this study. 62 Figure 4.1. Schedler’s classification of the different definitions of democracy 70 Figure 4.2. Schedler’s definitions of democratic regression: preventing democratic breakdown (full line), and preventing democratic erosion (dotted line) 71 Figure 4.3. Schedler’s definitions of democratic progression: completing democracy (dotted line), and deepening democracy (full line) 71 Figure 4.4. Schedler’s definition of organising democracy 72 Figure 4.5. Reinterpretation of Schedler’s model used in this research to study 77 Figure 7.1. Democratic divergence: Freedom House 173 Figure 7.2. Democratic divergence: Polity IV 174 Figure 7.3. Number of pro/(non) democratic constitutional reforms and amendments 177 Figure 7.4. HHI 183 Figure 7.5. Democracy and HHI 185 Figure 8.1. Marginal effect of PC 214 Figure 8.2. Marginal effect of HHI 217 Tables Table 2.1. Key social and economic indicators in Colombia and Venezuela: a comparative analysis between the ‘transitional period’ and the ‘divergence period’ 27 Table 2.2. Freedom house index and classification: a comparative analysis between the ‘transitional period’ and the ‘divergence period’ 28 Table 2.3. Key political indicators in Colombia and Venezuela: an analysis for the ‘divergence period’ 31 Table 2.4. Performance of governance indicators in Colombia and Venezuela using a t-test in the ‘divergence period’ 33 Table 6.1. Main constitutional reforms and further amendments in Colombia: comparing the ´transitional period´ and the ´divergence period´ 125 Table 6.2. Constitutional reforms and main amendments in Venezuela: comparing the ‘transitional period’ and the ‘divergence period’ 131 Table 6.3. States of emergency issued by Uribe’s government 2002-2010 – Colombia 147 Table 6.4. Delegative laws issued by Uribe’s government (2002-2010) – Colombia 148 vi Table 6.5. Enabling laws issued by Chávez’s government (1999-2010) - Venezuela 151 Table 7.1. Description of variables 188 Table 8.1. Descriptive statistics 194 Table 8.2. Determinants of democratic divergence. 210 vii Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank the Department of Politics and International Studies (PAIS) at the University of Warwick for its continued support without which it would not be possible for me to pursue and complete this doctoral project successfully. Second I would like to thank my thesis supervisors. The support and advice of Professor Renske Doorenspleet and Professor Michael Saward for their insightful and challenging comments on previous drafts of the thesis during this period have been crucial in enabling me to progress toward completion consistently. I would like to give a special recognition to Renske who more than my supervisor she became my mentor and the person who always gave me tremendous support and encouragement when the personal problems I faced during my PhD track put me in a vulnerable position where I almost had to give up in achieving this academic dream. Renske, thank you very much your patience and kind advice at the right moment. Thank you for giving me the confidence to continue and persevere in this endeavour, which is of paramount importance for my academic and personal life. And finally, thank you for making me believe that my research project was worth the effort. I will always remember you not just as the professor who influenced my critical thinking greatly during my master and doctoral studies and introduced me to the lively and interesting debates in comparative politics and theories on democratisation, but mainly as a friend that will have a special place in my life. I would also like to thank the members of academic staff at PAIS from whom I have benefited greatly with the interactions and the knowledge I accumulated in this period that contributed to the progression and completion of my doctoral thesis. I should especially thank my friends Marijn Nieuwenhuis and Pinar Donmez for your unconditional friendship and support when I needed it most. You both made me a better person. Many thanks should also go to Alex Sutton, Eunjeong Cho, Charalampos Efstathopoulos, James Andrew, June Wang, Johanna Bergstrøm, Patricio Dalton, Zakia Shiraz, Neil Mangan, Danae Ka, Mouzayian Khalil, Malena Digiuni and Natalia Gonzalez. I am forever grateful and indebted to my mother Marlene Benavides and my father Henry Gómez, to my brother and his family for their immense support throughout this process.