Mera Georgetown 0076D 13512.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NATIONAL DEMOCRACIES, LOCAL AUTOCRACIES: THE UNEVEN DEMOCRATIZATION OF SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS IN ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL 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 Manuel E. Mera, M.A. Washington, DC August 25th, 2016 Copyright 2016 by Manuel E. Mera All Rights Reserved ii NATIONAL DEMOCRACIES, LOCAL AUTOCRACIES: THE UNEVEN DEMOCRATIZATION OF SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS IN ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL Manuel E. Mera, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Matthew Carnes, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Once a country has democratized at the national level, what allows it to retain autocratic enclaves in its provincial governments? In Latin American democracies, many provinces and states display autocratic characteristics that are at odds with the national democratic context. These autocratic characteristics can vary from minor differences in the transparency of electoral procedures or rule of law to full-blown provincial autocracies, with political persecution, control of the media, limited division of power and clientelistic use of the provincial budget. To address this empirical puzzle, the dissertation relies on a multi-method approach that combines statistical analyses with qualitative case studies, fieldwork and archival research conducted in four provinces in Argentina and Brazil. I argue that subnational autocracies are possible in a context of low economic diversification, which facilitates the homogenization of social and economic interests and limits the number and strength of opposition parties. Undiversified economies with a dominant economic sector, such as San Luis (Argentina) and Bahía (Brazil), create a network of interests aligned with the incumbent and reduce the support for the opposition parties. In more diversified economies, such as Mendoza (Argentina) and Minas Gerais (Brazil), the inter- capitalist competition transfers economic actors’ demands to the political arena, financing opposition parties whenever they feel they are being unheard. The statistical analysis offers support for the argument in the rest of the subnational units of Argentina and Brazil, and controls iii for alternative hypotheses. Desegregating countries along territorial divisions allows me to explore the interrelationships between different regions and levels of the political system. This research helps the existing literature build a more robust explanation of the internal dynamics of democracies in Latin America. iv For Geraldine Ad majorem Dei gloriam v Acknowledgements This dissertation concludes the long process of the Ph.D. program that started even before the beginning of coursework in 2009. Since I began with the process of application until this concluding work, I have counted on the generous help of a long list of people that I owe, in small or large part, the place where I’m now. I’d like to start by thanking the Georgetown University and its Government Department for letting me experience, first hand, the work of an amazing group of scholars, whom were able to motivate me with their energy, hard work and sharp analysis of the world we live in. Among them, I owe a special thanks to Matthew Carnes who is a role model as a person, teacher and researcher. He stepped in when I needed his help the most, and has been a great advisor in the building of this dissertation. I worked with Matt even before we both joined the Government Department in 2009. Since then he has always been a reference and, as a student or a teaching assistant, I always admired his passion. I often joked with him by saying that on Sundays he preached the gospel but in class he preaches political science; same passion, different audiences. The Georgetown community is very lucky to have him as a prominent member. Desha Girod was my first professor in the program and her course on Methodology of Comparative Politics changed the game for me. It was an eye-opening course that shaped how I now understand political science. I was also lucky to have her for my last course, closing the cycle with what would be the initial proposal for this dissertation. Other professors also had a deep impact on my development as a political scientist: Marc Howard, Gerard Mara, Andy Bennett, Dan Hopkins, Kent Weaver, Keir Lieber, Eric Langenbacher and Clyde Wilcox, among many. A special acknowledgement also goes for the other two members vi on my dissertation committee, Diana Kapiszewski and Michael Bailey. Diana is a passionate scholar with a very sharp eye and great knowledge on research methods. Mike has the ability to make the most difficult statistical analysis simple and appealing as well as communicate the most complex ideas. I was lucky to have them both debating my work. If I had to describe the Government Department in one word, that would be: passion, which is the engine that drives good scholars. I’m honored to have worked with all of them, or as I like to say, jugar en primera. I would like to make a special mention for Eusebio Mujal-León. He is a mentor and a friend. Everyone called him Sam, but maybe because of our Latin roots I was one of the few that called him Eusebio. Since the first day we got together for a coffee in Buenos Aires, before I started the program, until the last lunch we had together last year, we shared a common understanding, a common language. Eusebio fought for me since day one, and gave me all the support in the world without asking for anything in return. I have tried to pay him back with my hard work and my friendship, but I don’t think I can ever thank him enough for all the things he’s done for me. He was my advisor during most of the dissertation, and his insights on Latin America helped me build the foundations of my work. During these difficult times I think of him often and I wish that one day we could have another talk on Argentine politics as the many we had in the past. ¡Fuerza Eusebio! Georgetown University was the ideal place for my work, and I’m a better scholar thanks to that. The Government Department, The Center for Latin American Studies and the Graduate School, provided financial support for the extended fieldwork I did in Argentina and Brazil. The Office of International Programs also deserves an acknowledgment, as my work as Resident vii Director for the Buenos Aires program let me visit family and friends while working with some wonderful Georgetown students, and that was an important part of my life during those years. My life and work in Washington DC wouldn’t have been possible without the many people that opened doors for me in Buenos Aires, so I would like to acknowledge Carlos Acuña, Jorge Bataglino, Silvina Ramos, Catalina Smulovitz and José María Ghio for their help, advice and support during the application process. The same goes for all those generous men and women that helped with the difficult task of organizing fieldwork in four provinces of two different countries, specially Bertha Maakaroun and Roberto Roitman, that went beyond the call of duty to provide contacts and arrange interviews with key politicians. I want to thank those scholars that provided insightful comments on my work, and with whom I expect to mantain the debate open as my research moves forward. Among them, I would like to mention Joseph Colomer, Otavio Dulci, Carlos Gervasoni, Agustina Giraudi, Alfredo Montero and Paulo Dantas Neto. I also want to extend my gratitude to those whom assisted me during the long moths of writing: Paula Szewach, Celina Rivero and Martín Trombetta. Last, a special thanks to my father-in-law Nicolás Davies who went through the tedious process of proofreading the dissertation without complaining and, most importantly, for free. During the many years that my wife and I lived in Washington we were able to build a network of family and friends that made us believe we had two parallel lives, one in Buenos Aires and one in DC. My friends and colleges from the Government and History Department challenged me with their insightful comments and brightness, and made my life better with their friendship: Daniel Ortega, Devin Finn, Anjali Dayal, Caity Brown, Meir Walters, Navid Hassanzadeh, Soha El Achi, Bruno Blazetto, Daniel Cano, Fouad Pervez, Michael Weintraub, viii Jen Dresden among many, many others. They are all a big part of this work, as they commented on the various drafts of the proposal and contributed with original ideas and approaches to my work. If something makes DC different, it is how it’s a reference for all those interested in politics and policymaking, and that attracted many friends to town: Jacob, Bernardo, Vanina, Agus, Alexis, Laura, Alessandra, Liz, Mariana and Angelica, all helped make DC our home. Guadalupe Rojo and Jerónimo Torrealday play a fundamental role throughout this story, as together we walked through the difficult path of the Ph.D. program from the beginning right through till the end. Counting on people that know exactly what you are going through is one of the most valuable supports any person can have, and Guadi and Jero have always been that reference. Finally, I can’t forget to mention the Roza family: my uncle, aunt and cousins that embraced Geraldine and I as one of their own, and with whom we celebrated memorable Christmases and holidays. Vivian, Silvia, Edward, Dave, Chris, Carmen, Jorge and the kids were our family abroad throughout these years. Back in Argentina I was able to count on the great support of my family. My parents, Jorge and Malena, have always challenged me to be the best person and professional I could be.