LATIN AMERICAN TRADITIONAL PARTIES: the IMPACT of PARTIES' INTERNAL FEATURES on THEIR ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE, 1978-2006 By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LATIN AMERICAN TRADITIONAL PARTIES: THE IMPACT OF PARTIES’ INTERNAL FEATURES ON THEIR ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE, 1978-2006 by Laura Wills-Otero B.A. in Political Science, Universidad de los Andes, 1998 M.A. in Political Science, Universidad de los Andes, 2002 M.A in Political Science, University of Pittsburgh, 2005 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh o ` 2011 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCE This dissertation was presented by Laura Wills-Otero It was defended on December 6, 2010 and approved by Barry Ames, Andrew W. Mellon Professor, Department of Political Science, U. of Pittsburgh Steve Finkel, Daniel Wallace Professor, Department of Political Science, U. of Pittsburgh Ana Maria Bejarano, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, U. of Toronto Dissertation Director: Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Associate Professor, U. of Pittsburgh ii LATIN AMERICAN TRADITIONAL PARTIES: THE IMPACT OF PARTIES’ INTERNAL FEATURES ON THEIR ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE, 1978-2006 Laura Wills-Otero, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2011 Copyright © by Laura Wills-Otero 2011 iii LATIN AMERICAN TRADITIONAL PARTIES: THE IMPACT OF PARTIES’ INTERNAL FEATURES ON THEIR ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE, 1978-2006 Laura Wills-Otero, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2011 Why do some parties suffer more than others under similar contextual conditions? Or why are some parties able to weather difficult external environments while others fail? The aim of this dissertation is to answer these questions. My argument claims that the internal organization of parties matters, because it affects their capacity to react and survive, especially in contexts of environmental changes. Specifically, parties that rely on vertical structures, where few leaders at the central level concentrate power and control the party’s direction, are more likely to lose their political power in changing contexts than parties that rely on structures that are less hierarchical, where power is distributed among different leaders, and where leadership mobility is more likely to occur. Similarly, parties that lack democratic procedures for selecting their candidates suffer more in challenging environments than parties that have them. In non-democratic parties central leaders decide whom to nominate for public office, and party members and voters do not enjoy the possibility of participating in this process. The impossibility of voting for politicians that the electorate and party members prefer might lead them to withdraw their support for the organization. This is of particular relevance in times of crisis. This argument is developed through the observation of Latin America’s traditional parties. These parties dominated the political arena in the region during the last decades of the iv twentieth century. They played a significant role in the legitimation of democratic politics in particular when countries transited from authoritarian regimes, and in policy- making processes. However, during the early years of the 21st Century (2000-2005), many of them faded, and political outsiders with antiestablishment discourses and new parties and political movements flourished. Other traditional parties survived and were able to respond successfully to contextual challenges successfully. The findings of the study indicate that the internal characteristics of parties matter. Empirical tests show that party characteristics mediate the responses that their leaders undertake as well as the resulting electoral outcomes. This finding adds to studies that focus attention on political parties as units of analyses. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. IV PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 LATIN AMERICAN TRADITIONAL PARTIES ......................................... 11 1.2 CASE STUDIES................................................................................................. 24 1.3 PLAN OF THE DISSERTATION ................................................................... 29 2.0 DETERMINANTS OF PARTIES’ ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE: TRADITIONAL EXPLANATIONS RECONSIDERED ........................................................ 31 2.1 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 31 2.2 POLITICAL CONTEXT: THE IMPACT OF SCANDALS AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS ......................................................................................... 41 2.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 49 3.0 THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF LATIN AMERICAN PARTIES ........ 51 3.1 ORGANIZATION OF PARTIES AND THEIR ADAPTIVE CAPACITY . 53 3.1.1 Institutionalization and Internal Structure of Parties ............................... 57 3.1.2 Intraparty Conflict and Ideological Adaptation ......................................... 62 3.1.3 Ideological and Programmatic Coherence .................................................. 66 3.2 AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT ................................................................ 69 vi 3.2.1 The Internal Organization of Parties........................................................... 69 3.2.1.1 The Internal Structure ........................................................................ 71 3.2.1.2 Internal Democracy ............................................................................ 76 3.2.2 Operationalization of the Internal Characteristics of Parties ................... 81 3.2.2.1 Internal Structure ............................................................................... 82 3.2.2.2 Internal Democracy ............................................................................ 86 3.2.2.3 Leadership Mobility and Renovation ................................................ 89 3.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 90 4.0 CASE STUDIES: TRADITIONAL PARTIES IN COLOMBIA AND VENEZUELA .............................................................................................................................. 93 4.1 THE ORIGINS AND EARLY TRAJECTORIES OF TRADITIONAL PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 96 4.1.1 The origins of traditional parties ................................................................. 96 4.1.2 Political Pacts in Colombia and Venezuela and the Consolidation of ‘New’ Party Systems ........................................................................................................... 100 4.2 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CRISES .................................................... 111 4.2.1 Colombia....................................................................................................... 111 4.2.2 Venezuela ...................................................................................................... 114 4.3 ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND INSTITUTIONAL ENGINEERING ...... 118 4.3.1 Colombia....................................................................................................... 118 4.3.2 Venezuela ...................................................................................................... 132 4.4 INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF TRADITIONAL PARTIES ...................... 139 4.4.1 The Liberal Party (PL)................................................................................ 139 vii 4.4.1.1 National-Level Organization ............................................................ 140 4.4.1.2 Regional-Level Organization ........................................................... 142 4.4.2 The Conservative Party (PC) ...................................................................... 143 4.4.2.1 Party’s National-Level Organization .............................................. 143 4.4.2.2 Regional Level Organization ............................................................ 146 4.4.3 Democratic Action (AD) .............................................................................. 148 4.4.3.1 National-Level Organization ............................................................ 149 4.4.3.2 Regional-Level Organization ........................................................... 151 4.4.4 Social Christian Party (COPEI) ................................................................. 154 4.4.4.1 National-Level Organization ............................................................ 155 4.4.4.2 Regional-Level Organization ........................................................... 157 4.4.5 Recapitulating .............................................................................................. 159 4.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 164 5.0 THE EFFECTS OF PARTIES INTERNAL ORGANIZATION ON THEIR ELECTORAL PERFORMANCE, 1978-2006 ....................................................................... 165 5.1 DATA AND METHODS ................................................................................. 169 5.1.1 Dependent and Independent Variables ....................................................