Challenges and Presidential Falls in South America Author(S): Kathryn Hochstetler Reviewed Work(S): Source: Comparative Politics, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Rethinking Presidentialism: Challenges and Presidential Falls in South America Author(s): Kathryn Hochstetler Reviewed work(s): Source: Comparative Politics, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Jul., 2006), pp. 401-418 Published by: Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20434009 . Accessed: 16/07/2012 17:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Politics. http://www.jstor.org RethinkingPresidentialism Challenges and Presidential Falls in SouthAmerica Kathryn Hochstetler Since the South American countries returned to civilian government in the 1970s and 1980s, twenty-threepercent of theirelected presidentshave been forced to leaveoffice before the end of their terms. This striking rate of early presidential exits has received little systematic attention, although it should be central in debates about the quality of democracy and possible instability in presidential systems. Why and how do South Americans demand theirpresidents leave office early? Since 1978 themost serious challenges have come from civilian actors, in the legislature, on the streets, or both together.The challenged presidentswere more likely to be personally implicated in scandal, to pursue neoliberal policies, and to lack a congressional majority than their unchallenged counterparts. The presence or absence of street protests then played a cen tral role in determining which presidents actually fell. Presidentialism and Presidential Fails The contrast between presidential and parliamentary regimes is one of the fundamental dichotomiesof comparativedemocratic politics, with perennialdebates aboutwhich is more stable or more democratic.' This article looks only at presidential regimes, since its central dilemma of early ends to executive terms is only possible in presidentialism. It departs from Sartori's classic definition that a regime is presidential "if and only if the head of state i) results from popular election, ii) during his or her pre-established tenure cannot be discharged by a parliamentary vote, and iii) heads or otherwise directs the governments that he or she appoints."2 Linz points out two features that are common to all presidential systems: a directly elected president enjoys individual democratic legiti macy and is elected for a rigidly fixed term.3 These definitions form the consensual foundation formost ensuing investigations of presidentialism and its effects. In contradictionto theseexpectations, the regularemergence of challengersdemand ing that presidents leave office early suggests that direct elections in South America do not consistently give presidents legitimacy that lasts as long as it should. This study con siders only presidents who were selected by a popular vote of their populations and thus at one time possessed evidence of their individual electoral legitimacy to be the head of 401 Comparative Politics July 2006 state and government. Of the forty such presidents whose terms were over by the end of 2003, sixteenof them (fortypercent) faced challenges to their remainingin office for theirfull terms,and nine (twenty-threepercent) of their"fixed" termsended early (see Table 1). Presidents in Ecuador and Bolivia have also fallen since 2003, and President Chavez inVenezuela has narrowly survived challenges to his government. Given these developments, it is obvious that South American presidents can not assume they will hold a given and fixed term of office. The term "presidential fall" is used here to identify all the times elected presidents leftoffice before theirterms were completed,whether they resignedor were impeached or otherwise forced out of office. "Challenges" involve concrete action to convince the president to resign or to force him out early. The various challenges and falls are consid ered together on the theoretical ground that they are all equally deviations from the expected fixed termof presidentialism. All these cases resulted in new civilian presidents in short order. Presidential falls as discussed here are changes within the regime, not regime breakdowns. Uniformly, vice presidentsand legislativeleaders took constitutionalterms as presidentsafter presiden tial falls. Two challenges did include military protagonists Ecuador in 2000 and Venezuela in 2002 but they also quickly resulted in civilian regimes. The civilian natureof presidentialfalls is especiallynotable sincenoncivilian actors also ineffective ly threatened presidents during this time. Linz's expectation that themilitary would step in as a moderating power to handle conflicts between the executive and legislature is ratherdramatically disproved.4 Consequently, the focus is on challenges to presidents from civilian actors, in the leg islature or in civil society. Many studies of presidential falls in South America have focused on elite negotiations that bring down presidents in one country, treating street protests as background pressure on elites.5 Others, however, give central place to the role of mass protest in a specific presidential fall.6While these articles provide valuable information about the unfolding of crisis moments, the study of presidential falls needs to be advanced in two ways in order to understand the general phenomenon in South America and perhaps beyond. First, all of these studies suffer from the methodological error of selecting on the dependent variable from the standpoint of understanding the causes of presidential falls. They select cases because the presidents fell and lack corresponding cases where presi dents remain in office whole terms despite efforts to throw them out. This article uses a tool from studies of social movements, protest event analysis, to correct this method ological problem. Protest event analysis uses media sources to document the occurrence of unconventional forms of collective action as a first step in assessing the causes or consequences of that action.7 This technique is used to document all of the sixteen times since 1978 that South American mass publics or congressional elites have moved to demand early ends to presidential terms (see Table 2). Most of the failed efforts are largely forgotten since they did not succeed, but they are as crucial in understanding 402 KathrynHochstetler Table 1 Fates of Popularly Elected South American Presidents, 1978-2003 Country President Term Minority Scandal Neoliberal Outcome Argentina Alfonsin 1983-1989 Yes No No Resigned Menem I 1989-1995 Yes No Yes Completed MenemII 1995-1999 Yes Yes Yes Completed De laRia 1999-2001 Yes No Yes Resigned Bolivia PazEstenssoro 1985-1989 Yes No Yes Completed PazZamora 1989-1993 Yes Yes Yes Completed Sanchezde Lozada 1993-1997 Yes Yes Yes Completed Sanchezde Lozada 2002-2003 Yes No Yes Resigned Brazil Collorde Mello 1990-1992 Yes Yes Yes Impeached;resigned; convicted CardosoI 1995-1998 Yes No Yes Challenged;completed CardosoII 1999-2002 Yes No Yes Challenged;completed Chile Aylwin 1990-1994 Yes No Yes Completed Frei 1994-2000 Yes No Yes Completed Colombia Turbay 1979-1982 No No No Completed Betancur 1982-1986 Yes No Yes Completed Barco 1986-1990 Yes No No Completed Gaviria 1990-1994 No No Yes Completed Samper 1994-1998 No Yes No Challenged;completed Pastrana 1998-2002 Yes Yes Yes Completed Ecuador FebresCordero 1984-1988 Yes No Yes Challenged;completed Borja 1988-1992 Yes No Yes Challenged;completed DurdnBallen 1992-1996 Yes Yes Yes Completed Bucaram 1996-1997 Yes Yes Yes Voted"incapable" Mahuad 1998-2000 Yes Yes Yes Civil/militarycoup; voted "desertion" Paraguay Rodriguez 1989-1993 No No Yes Completed Wasmosy 1993-1998 Yes Yes Yes Challenged;completed Cubas 1998-1999 No Yes Yes Resignedfacing impeachment Peru Belainde 1980-1985 No No Yes Completed Garcia 1985-1990 No Yes No Completed FujimoriI 1990-1995 Yes No Yes Impeached;completed FujimoriII 1995-2000 No No Yes Completed FujimoriIII 2000-2000 Yes Yes Yes Resigned,voted "incapable" Uruguay SanguinettiI 1985-1990 Yes No No Completed Lacalle 1990-1995 Yes No Yes Completed SanguinettiII 1995-2000 Yes No Yes Completed Venezuela HerreraCampins 1979-1984 Yes No No Completed Lusinchi 1984-1989 No No No Completed Perez 1989-1993 Yes Yes Yes Impeached;voted "desertion" Caldera 1994-1999 Yes No Yes Completed Chavez 1999-2000 Yes No No Completed Note:This listdoes not includepresidents whose termsended early for reasons of illnessor death, nor presidents whose termshad not ended by 2003. The textand notes in thesection "Why Presidents are Challenged" explains how thecases were coded. presidential falls as the successful ones. There are three inductively identified reasons for challenges: the president's neoliberal economic policies, his personal involvement in scandal, and his minority status. In all forty presidencies, each of these is a risk factor for presidents who want to complete their terms, as challenged and fallen presidents dis proportionately shared these characteristics compared to the full set of presidents.