CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO

LATINOBARÓMETRO REPORT 2006 ONLINE DATA BANK www.latinobarometro.org

196,788 INTERVIEWS IN 18 COUNTRIES 1995 - 2006

20,234 INTERVIEWS IN 2006

Orrego Luco 130 - Santiago Chile - 562 232 0345 - [email protected] CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Latinobarómetro Corporation...... 02 Online Data Bank...... 02 INTRODUCTION...... 03 ELECTION RESULTS, 2005-2006...... 06 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS...... 16 1. IMPACT OF THE ELECTIONS ON POLITICAL CULTURE...... 16 1.1. Willingness to vote for a political party ...... 16 1.2. Perception of elections ...... 16 1.3. Civic rebelliousness...... 23 1.4. Conventional political participation in elections ...... 25 2. TRUST...... 30 2.1. Reasons for not trusting institutions ...... 32 3. THE ECONOMY...... 34 3.1. Country and personal economic expectations ...... 34 3.2. Most important problem...... 40 3.3. Formation of expectations ...... 43 3.4. Employment ...... 50 3.5. Economic mentality...... 52 3.6. Conclusion...... 54 4. DEMOCRACY ...... 55 4.1. The meaning of democracy ...... 55 4.2. The level of democracy in each country...... 61 4.3. Attitudes towards democracy ...... 62 4.3.1. The role of parties and of Congress...... 62 4.3.2. Democracy as a system of government ...... 65 4.3.3. Democracy as a solution to problems...... 69 4.4. Support for democracy ...... 72 4.5. Satisfaction with democracy...... 75 5. EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT AND OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FIGURES ...... 77 5.1. Who has most power? ...... 79 6. LEFT-RIGHT SCALE...... 83 7. THE IMAGE OF LEADERS...... 88 7.1. Level of recognition of leaders...... 88 7.2. Ranking of the region’s leaders...... 89 Technical data sheet ...... 96

1 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

LATINOBARÓMETRO 1995 - 2006

TECHNICAL DATA, 2006 SURVEY: 20,234 personal interviews were carried out in 18 countries between October 3 and November 5, comprising samples of 1,000-1,200 cases that are representative of 100% of each country’s population, with a margin of error of approximately 3% for each country. For more details, see the technical data sheet for individual countries.

Organization responsible for the survey: Latinobarómetro Corporation, Santiago, Chile.

LATINOBARÓMETRO CORPORATION

The Latinobarómetro survey is produced by Latinobarómetro Corporation, a non-profit organization based in Santiago, Chile. Latinobarómetro Corporation is solely responsible for the data.

The fieldwork for the first Latinobarómetro survey was carried out in May and June 1995 and covered eight countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The survey has since been extended to a total of 18 countries and, following the incorporation of the Dominican Republic in 2004, covers all Latin American countries, with the exception of Cuba.

To date, a total of 196,788 interviews have been carried out in 11 annual surveys and of these, 20,234 interviews took place in October 2006.

Latinobarómetro strives to achieve constant progress and, for the first time this year, used samples that 1 are representative of 100% of the population of each of the 18 countries and is, therefore, representative of the region’s 500 million inhabitants.

ONLINE DATA BANK

In May 2006, Latinobarómetro launched its data bank in Spanish. This is the first opinion data bank in Spanish in Latin America and, indeed, the southern hemisphere. This initiative reflects the role of Latinobarómetro as an innovative organization that aims to play a leading role in opinion surveys in Latin America. This data bank is available online and, thanks to its latest-generation technology, requires neither statistical packets nor expert knowledge in order to access information.

The system includes a powerful search engine that allows users - journalists, analysts, political and social players and students - to locate comparative data with maximum speed through ready-made tables. It is operated by Madrid-based JDS System, which makes a minimum charge to cover operating costs.

1 In 2005, samples were representative of 100% of the population of 17 countries; the exception was Chile where this was achieved in 2006.

2 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, Latin America has been the object of many mistaken interpretations and unfulfilled expectations. It was said there was a danger of regression to authoritarianism, that a shift to the left was the region’s problem, and populism was its problem. However, beyond identifying the threats that hang over the region, social scientists have not developed a theoretical framework to explain the road its societies are taking. The explanations put forward are a function of current events and change with those events. Moreover, many of the errors in interpreting the region’s evolution and development are the result of the international elite’s mistaken expectations as to what Latin America should be doing.

In fact, none of the phenomena seen in Latin America over the past decade were foreseen. Events have surpassed the imagination of analysts, intellectuals, the media and other observers. The past, where explanations are generally sought, does not provide the key to a region that is building a new history without frontiers. Clearly, there is not a return to authoritarianism. This is demonstrated by the fact that, for different reasons and as a result of popular pressure, 14 presidents were unable to complete their term and were replaced within their country’s legal framework - not overthrown by force as was the custom - thereby marking the debut of new forms of democratic instability.

Nor is it clear what is meant by the region’s purported shift to the left. What does it mean or imply to be left-wing in the Latin America of the first decade of this third millennium? George W. Bush can clearly be termed a right-wing president, but can Tony Blair be considered a left-wing prime minister? Can Spain’s President Zapatero be considered left-wing because he has introduced a law permitting gay marriage? Is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva left-wing because of his working-class origin or is he right-wing because of his neoliberal macroeconomic policies? How many types of ‘left’ are there in Latin America? Is there a left? In Latin America, the term ‘left’, of course, evokes the revolutionary movements of the 1960s and Fidel Castro. The recent return of Sandinismo to power in Nicaragua is perhaps the most visible reminder of this period, but it was elected and with a program that, as in the case of Lula, obliges it to play by the rules of a globalized world.

In Latin America, there are old lefts and new lefts. Daniel Ortega’s left in Nicaragua has a revolutionary past while that of Evo Morales in Bolivia has neither a past nor a coalition nor experience. In Chile, Michelle Bachelet, who comes from a more institutionalized left and from a party with experience and a long democratic tradition, heads a center-left coalition that has been the most successful in the region. When people talk of the return of the left, do they mean there is a danger of non-institutional instability because the left seeks a break with the established world? If that is the reason why the left has been seen as a threat in the region, it is out of fear of a return to the past and a repeat of the old military coups.

But, as former President F. E. Cardoso has often pointed out, Latin America has left revolution behind in favor of reforms under democracy. It seems, therefore, that the alarm about the different types of left reflects mistrust as to what the left wants to achieve while in power. However, just as authoritarianism will not return in the forms it took in the past, neither will the different lefts of the region.

The demands of the revolutionary movements of the 1960s are today the demands of democracy and it is center and left-wing parties that are winning elections with promises of equality and an end to discrimination. Today, the left wears the clothes of democracy while it is not clear that democracy wants to wear the clothes of the left. The arrival of the ‘lefts’ to power through elections is good news. In Nicaragua, Ortega has stated that relations with the United States are very important for his country. If 3 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile that is not sufficient evidence of the changes that have taken place in the lefts of the 1960s, it will be up to events to prove it. Similarly, when Lula was first elected, voices of alarm were heard in Wall Street as to the possible consequences, but he adhered to the rules of the IMF and, when he was elected for the second time, the Brazilian stock market’s reacted with confidence.

It is also important to note that, in their efforts to compete, right-wing parties in many countries have also promised to combat inequality and discrimination, shifting their platform to the left. In other words, while the right has shifted left in its promises, the left has shifted right on economic policy. This has occurred not only because countries are obliged to fit into the international economic framework, but also because the region’s so-called left-wing governments have, as this survey shows, been elected by center voters. Their leaders must, therefore, answer to voters with different ideological positions, forcing them into greater moderation than they would like.

In addition to changes in the color of governments, Latin America has also seen the return of some former presidents. The return of Sandinismo in Nicaragua is one example that has attracted attention, but there are also Oscar Arias in Costa Rica and Alan García in Peru.

The 2006 Latinobarómetro survey, therefore, took place in the context of a region in which explanations that merely repeat the history of the past no longer appear to suffice. Indeed, the political phenomena of the left in its different forms, of dictatorship or of populism can no longer identify or explain what is happening in the region. These three phenomena no longer occur as they did in the past.

Moreover, the world today appears to face challenges with consequences and costs as yet unknown. The first phenomenon that distinguishes 2006 from 2005 is a clear increase in dissatisfaction in the First World as a result of the way in which affairs are being managed.

When these results were released, a worrying report had just been published in Great Britain, drawing attention to the urgent need to address the problem of global warming before the costs become impossible to contain. This is still a low priority on the list of future problems that cause concern in Latin America but, although the unsustainable costs of global warming not may seem a major worry for the region today, it is an important potential source of future instability.

Similarly, while 30 countries have announced the construction of a nuclear power plant in France that represents the largest energy project in the history of humanity, energy is an issue that divides Latin America and supply is a source of conflict among some of the region’s countries. In fact, Latin America differs from the First World in its inability to collaborate in resolving common difficulties and one of its problems is how to address the threats of the present and the future.

At the time the results of this survey were released, Saddam Hussein had, subject to appeal, been condemned to be hanged and the United States was under international scrutiny as regards the future of its intervention in Iraq. After more than a decade, the Democrats have taken control of both houses of Congress and the defeat of the Republicans stands as a great lesson in democracy for Latin Americans. It provides an example of a system in which the voice of voters is heard and in which, only hours after a defeat, the president changes his cabinet and advisory team. It is, in other words, an example of accountability practiced before the eyes of the entire world. This is precisely what Latin American systems of government, and many others round the world, fail to achieve with an effectiveness that affords their population the sovereignty of the vote. Since Latin America embarked on its transition, there have been few examples of such an act of democracy. Voters in the United States have power and

4 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile exercise it, and the president is a servant of this power and has to comply with the will of voters when they reject his party’s representatives.

The second important lesson of the recent elections in the United States is that the protagonists of corruption scandals were punished by not being elected. These two lessons were apparent to all those who observed the elections and it is important not to underestimate their impact through the media or the way they have affected Latin America. In the absence of leadership, ordinary voters often tend to imitate what they see in films or on the news.

The United Nations has recently elected a Korean as its Secretary General at a time when North Korea is exercising autonomy and is, apparently, committed irreversibly to the development of a nuclear program that includes atomic bombs. In addition, the United Nations itself faces the challenge of a major reform. Meanwhile, China - maintaining its traditional and imperial isolation and, as a result, seeming not to take account of what happens in the West - continues to grow at an unprecedented speed without it being possible to predict, or guard against, the future consequences of this development. Following in the footsteps of China, India is also expanding at an unprecedented rate and, in recent years, the growth of the Asian countries, in general, has been surprising.

In 2006, Latin America expanded by around 5%, its highest rate in 25 years, but lower than the rest of the world. However, growth is expected to accelerate in the future and, as this survey shows, the region’s macroeconomic situation is more solid and better able to deal with external shocks than at any other time since the start of the transition. Reforms are beginning to bear fruit. It is not impossible that the region’s growth will show a sustained increase in the coming years and may equal the average for the developing world. That is a new prospect and, with governments elected in competitive elections and new elites (although many lack experience), Latin America is on a better footing than ever before to compete.

Meanwhile, the expansion of the European Union has continued with the incorporation of Bulgaria and Rumania, taking the total of member states from 25 to 27. The entry of Turkey remains to be decided and the Muslim issue has yet to be resolved. From the viewpoint of Latin America, it seems that the West does not know how to react to Muslims. While Europe hesitates, the United States strives for domination and all others watch on, waiting to see what the First World decides. It is noteworthy that the director of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is Turkish and, as a result, the UN is under the leadership of people from the East at a time when it is the East that is setting the pace of the world’s development.

In this context, Latin America has been described as the ‘lost continent’. Different interpretations of its history and its social and economic processes or projections of its future do not explain how it is currently developing. In the eyes of the rest of the world, nothing that is happening in the region appears significant and it, therefore, seems to lack importance. It is not growing at a rate that warrants attention, it lacks nuclear power that constitutes a potential threat, and it has no wars that might give cause for concern. World leaders do not - it seems - have many reasons for interest in the continent, or time for such interest.

However, beyond single-cause explanations for populism or political or economic shifts to the left or the right, and beyond the current indifference with which it is regarded by the rest of the world, it is a new continent that abounds in possibilities and opportunities for those who are able to see what it has to offer.

5 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Perhaps for this very reason, Latin America is the continent of opportunities for those who want to look beyond the news agenda and to understand the process it is undergoing. In the Amazon jungle, it has the world’s most important ecological reserve and, in the glaciers of Argentina and Chile, its largest fresh water reserves. These assets as yet lack economic value but will acquire one in the future when the First World comes to calculate the economic cost of global warming.

2 ELECTION RESULTS, 2005-2006

Below, we present the Election Results for the region prepared by Daniel Zovatto, a member of Latinobarómetro’s International Advisory Council and director for Latin America at IDEA Internacional. Latinobarómetro would like to thank Mr. Zovatto for his detailed analysis of the political and social phenomena surrounding recent elections in the region, which made an important contribution to the interpretation of the survey’s results.

Eleven presidential elections as well as a number of legislative and other elections took place between November 2005 and the end of 2006, constituting an important opportunity to test the state of the transition of different countries and the way in which institutions work.

During this period, two Southern Cone countries (Brazil and Chile), the five Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela) and three Central American countries (Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua) as well as Mexico - in other words, 11 out of the 18 countries - held presidential elections, the results of which have drawn a new political map of the region.

In addition, simultaneous legislative elections took place in nine countries as well as a non-simultaneous legislative election in Venezuela (one year before the presidential election), a semi-simultaneous election in Colombia (two months before the presidential election) and mid-term elections in El Salvador and the 3 Dominican Republic . Moreover, referendums were held in Bolivia and Panama as well as the election of a Constituent Assembly in Bolivia.

2 Extract from “Balance Electoral de Latin America 2005 /2006”, Daniel Zovatto. 3 It should be noted that simultaneous municipal elections also took place in Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Mexico. In Brazil, there were regional elections and, in Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru, non-simultaneous municipal elections were held. 6 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

1 Elections in Latin America, 2005-2006 Country Date of election Type of election Honduras November 27, 2005 Presidential, legislative and municipal Venezuela December 4, 2005 Legislative Chile - 1st round December 11, 2005 Presidential and legislative Bolivia December 18, 2005 Presidential and legislative Chile - 2nd round January 15, 2006 Presidential 2nd round Costa Rica February 5, 2006 Presidential and legislative Colombia March 12, 2006 Legislative El Salvador March 12, 2006 Deputies (mid-term) and municipal councils Peru - 1st round April 9, 2006 Presidential and legislative Peru - 2nd round June 4, 2006 Presidential 2nd round Dominican Republic May 16, 2006 Legislative (mid-term) and municipal Colombia May 28, 2006 Presidential Mexico July 2, 2006 Presidential, legislative, regional and local Bolivia July 2, 2006 Referendum on autonomy and Constituent Assembly Brazil - 1st round October 1, 2006 Presidential, legislative and regional Ecuador - 1st round October 15, 2006 Presidential and legislative Panama October 22, 2006 Referendum on Panama Canal Brazil - 2nd round October 29, 2006 Presidential 2nd round Ecuador - 2nd round November 26, 2006 Presidential 2nd round Nicaragua November 5, 2006 Presidential, legislative and municipal Venezuela December 3, 2006 Presidential a Includes presidential elections in Honduras (November 2005), Chile (December 2005), Bolivia (December 2005) and a legislative election in Venezuela (December 2005). In addition, although their analysis does not form part of this study, non-simultaneous municipal elections took place in Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru during this period. Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

If we also consider the Canadian election of January 2006, which was won by the conservative opposition, the mid-term election in the United States in November 2006 - which represented an important defeat for President Bush and the Republicans, depriving them of control of both houses of Congress after 12 years - and the presidential election in Haiti in February 2006 in which Preval was returned to power, we see that it is not only Latin America but also the majority of the Americas that 4 went to the polls in these 14 months .

Never before had the region experienced such an intense process of simultaneous elections. The closest comparison is 1989 when there were nine presidential elections (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay). This was followed in 1994 by eight presidential elections (Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama and Uruguay). However, none of these equaled the recent wave of elections which meant the simultaneous change of most of the region’s leaders.

Below, we analyze the main trends seen in this wave of elections.

4 Elections also took place in the Caribbean: Surinam on May 26, 2005 (legislative and municipal), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on December 7, 2005 (general elections) and Guyana on August 28, 2006 (general elections). 7 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

IMPACT OF THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM ON RESULTS

THE SECOND ROUND AND SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS

A country’s electoral system is an important factor in the way its citizens perceive democracy. A second- round presidential election, as a mechanism for validating popular will, has been introduced to ensure that the elected leader has a clear mandate in 13 of the 18 countries studied by Latinobarómetro: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay.

In other words, a second round was a possibility in eight of the 11 presidential elections that took place in 2005/2006 but was, in fact, required in only four countries: Chile, Peru, Brazil and Ecuador. In the other cases, the result was defined in the first round: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia and Nicaragua. The three countries in which elections took place but the system does not include a second round are Honduras, Mexico and Venezuela.

The second round differs from country to country. In Costa Rica and Nicaragua, a small margin is required for victory in the first round (40% of the votes in both countries or, in the case of Nicaragua, 35% with a margin of 5% over the runner-up). This facilitated the triumph of Arias and Ortega in their respective first rounds. Had the classic second-round system (50% plus one vote) existed in these countries, they would have faced a second round.

As well as determining the margin required to win an election, a second round can also lead to situations such as those seen in Peru and Ecuador, the two countries out of the four in which a second round was necessary where this changed the result. In Peru, the candidate who took second place in the first round (Alan García) won the second round while, in Ecuador’s second round, Rafael Correa beat Álvaro Noboa, who had taken first place in the first round.

First and Second Round in Elections, 2005-2006 Election results, 2005-2006 Country Electoral rule st nd 1 round 2 round Bolivia Second round with majority Evo Morales ---- 1. Luiz Inácio da Silva Luiz Inácio da Brazil Second round with majority 2. Geraldo Alckmin Silva 1. Michelle Bachelet Michelle Chile Second round with majority 2. Sebastián Piñera Bachelet Colombia Second round with majority Álvaro Uribe --- 1. Ollanta Humala Peru Second round with majority Alan García 2. Alan García Second round with reduced Costa Rica Oscar Arias --- threshold Second round with reduced 1. Álvaro Noboa Ecuador Rafael Correa threshold 2. Rafael Correa Second round with reduced Nicaragua Daniel Ortega --- threshold Honduras Simple majority Manuel Zelaya n/a Mexico Simple majority Felipe Calderón n/a Venezuela Simple majority Hugo Chávez n/a n/a: not applicable Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

8 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

The electoral climate also depends on whether a presidential election coincides or not with legislative elections. This is reflected especially in the turnout because, in the case of simultaneous elections, voters have more incentives to go to the polls.

In nine out of the 11 electoral processes that took place in 2005/2006, legislative elections coincided with a presidential election. The only two countries in which legislative elections did not take place at the same time as the presidential election were Venezuela, where they were held in December 2005, and Colombia where, in a typical case of semi-simultaneous elections, there were held two months before the presidential election.

Simultaneous Presidential and Legislative Elections

Presidential and legislative Country elections

Bolivia Simultaneous Brazil Simultaneous Colombia Semi-simultaneous Chile Simultaneous Costa Rica Simultaneous Ecuador Simultaneous Honduras Simultaneous Mexico Simultaneous Nicaragua Simultaneous Peru Simultaneous Venezuela Alternate Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006

RE-ELECTION

In seven countries, candidates stood for re-election: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In three of these cases, this was for a consecutive period and, in four, for a non-consecutive term.

The four non-consecutive cases were Bolivia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Peru and, with the exception of former president Jorge Quiroga in Bolivia, the former presidents were re-elected (Arias, Ortega and García). Of the three candidates for a consecutive term - in Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela - all were re- elected (Lula, Uribe and Chávez) with more than 60% of the vote.

9 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Re-election in Presidential Elections, 2005-2006 Candidates in elections Country Re-election Election result 2005-2006 Bolivia Non-consecutive Jorge Quiroga Not elected Brazil Consecutive Luiz Inácio da Silva Re-elected Colombia Consecutive Álvaro Uribe Re-elected Costa Rica Non-consecutive Oscar Arias Re-elected Nicaragua Non-consecutive Daniel Ortega Re-elected Peru Non-consecutive Alan García Re-elected Venezuela Consecutive Hugo Chávez Re-elected Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

At a regional level, this meant that re-election was a factor in 63% of the presidential elections held in 2005/2006 and that, in 86% (six out of seven elections), the candidate achieved another term.

In Latin America, re-election has proved a double-edged weapon, with a number of negative consequences and few positive effects. At least seven cases since 1978 appear to confirm arguments as to its dangers and drawbacks: that of Stroessner in Paraguay (with a term of office interrupted by the 1989 coup, although it should be remembered that Stroessner was re-elected in a number of successive elections and had been in power since 1954); Balaguer in the Dominican Republic (whose last term of office was cut from four to two years as a result of the fraud committed during his re-election in 1994); Fujimori in Peru (with a term cut short by his flight from the country in the face of accusations of fraud and corruption); Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada in Bolivia (who had to resign halfway through his term); and the mediocre second governments of Carlos Andrés Pérez (who was impeached) and Rafael Caldera in Venezuela. In addition, although Menem in Argentina completed his second term, he did so amid economic problems, high unemployment and innumerable accusations of corruption.

Looking at the last quarter of century, the cases of Cardoso in Brazil (consecutive) and of Sanguinetti in Uruguay (non-consecutive) were moderately positive experiences of these two types of re-election, although in both cases, their first term was more successful than their second.

Today, 40% of the region’s countries are governed by re-elected leaders. While in 2004, there was only one non-consecutively re-elected president (Leonel Fernández in the Dominican Republic), there are now, just two years later, three consecutively re-elected presidents (Chávez, Lula and Uribe) and four who have been non-consecutively re-elected (Arias, Fernández, García and Ortega). At no other time since the return of democracy in 1978 has the region had so many re-elected presidents.

EVOLUTION OF THE ELITES

CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT OR CONTINUITY

In five countries, the incumbent government retained power (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela) while the opposition won the election in the other six (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru).

Three of the incumbent governments that retained power did so as the result of a consecutive re-election (Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela) while, in Chile, the Concertación obtained its fourth consecutive term

10 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile since the return of democracy in 1990 and, in Mexico, the Partido Acción Nacional obtained another term.

In the case of the opposition victories, it should be remembered that two of these countries were governed by temporary presidents (Bolivia and Ecuador) while, in a third country, the party of the incumbent president did not present a candidate (Peru) and, in a fourth, the government party faced the election with important internal divisions (Nicaragua). In Costa Rica, the corruption scandals that affected two former presidents of the government party (Partido Unidad Social Cristiana), combined with the fact that this party had held office for 12 of the previous 16 years, resulted in the worse election defeat of the party’s history.

Continuity or Change of Government Elections, 2005-2006

Country Continuity vs. change

Bolivia Change Brazil Continuity Chile Continuity Colombia Continuity Costa Rica Change Ecuador Change Honduras Change Mexico Continuity Nicaragua Change Peru Change Venezuela Continuity Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

The incumbent government also won the non-simultaneous legislative elections that took place in Venezuela and Colombia as well as the mid-term elections in the Dominican Republic and El Salvador.

As regards the direct exercise of democracy, the government was also the clear victor in the two referendums that took place. In the first of these, the Autonomous Referendum in Bolivia on July 2, the “No” (supported by the government) obtained 57% of the vote while the “Yes” took 42%. Similarly, in the referendum on the expansion of the Panama Canal, which took place in Panama on October 22, the “Yes” (supported by the government) obtained 77.8% to 22.2% for the “No”.

Another very important electoral process during this period was the election of Bolivia’s Constituent Assembly on July 2, which was also won by the government.

11 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

ELECTION PARTICIPATION

Election participation increased in some countries and dropped in others. The results show a drop as compared to the previous election in six countries (Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico and 5 Nicaragua) . This was most marked in Honduras and Mexico where turnout fell by 11 percentage points and five percentage points, respectively. By contrast, an increase was seen in five countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela), reaching 18.82 percentage points and 12.40 points in the case of Venezuela and Bolivia, respectively.

Average turnout in the 11 elections was 72.09% and, as compared to previous presidential elections, represented a slight increase from 69.94% in 1978-2004 to 70.18% in 1978-2006.

Average Participation in Elections, 1978-2004 & 1978-2006

Average 78-04 Average 78-06 Country Difference (%) (%) Argentina 81.22 81.22 - Bolivia 74.20 75.67 1.47 Brazil 83.44 83.40 -0.04 Chile 91.71 90.70 -1.01 Colombia 44.45 44.53 0.08 Costa Rica 78.08 76.47 -1.61 Ecuador 72.35 -72.33 -0.02 El Salvador 51.70 51.70 - Guatemala 55.01 55.01 - Honduras 73.57 70.93 -2.64 Mexico 71.25 67.02 -4.23 Nicaragua 1 80.67 80.01 -0.66 Panama 72.70 72.70 - Paraguay 67.06 67.06 - Peru 81.68 82.69 1.01 Uruguay 88.61 88.61 - Venezuela 2 72.51 72.85 0.34 LATIN AMERICA 69.94 70.18 0.24 1 Based on preliminary data for participation in the 2006 presidential election provided by the Consejo Electoral de Nicaragua. 2 Based on preliminary data for participation in the 2006 presidential election provided by the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela on December 3, 2006, with 95.24% of the votes counted. Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

Far from showing a drop, participation in these elections has, as shown below, had a very positive effect on the image of democracy and its institutions.

5 Based on the preliminary figure for electoral participation (78%) provided by Roberto Rivas, president of the Consejo Electoral de Nicaragua: http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=40186 12 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Participation in Presidential Elections, 2005-2006

Turnout in previous Turnout in 2005/2006 Country election election (%) (%) Bolivia 72.10 (2002) ↑ 84.50 (2005) Brazil 82.26 (2002) ↑ 83.25 (2006) Chile 89.94 (1999) ↓ 87.67 (2005) Colombia 46.47 (2002) ↓ 45.04 (2006) Costa Rica 68.86 (2002) ↓ 65.20 (2006) Ecuador 64.98 (2002) ↑ 72.20 (2006) Honduras 66.30 (2001) ↓ 55.08 (2005) Mexico 64.00 (2000) ↓ 58.57 (2006) Nicaragua 79.42 (2001) ↓ 78.00 1 (2006) Peru 82.28 (2001) ↑ 88.70 (2006) Venezuela 56.50 (2000) ↑ 74.882 (2006) 1 Preliminary data provided by Roberto Rivas, president of the Consejo Electoral de Nicaragua. 2 Preliminary data from the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela as of December 3, 2006, with 95.24% of the votes counted.

However, an increase in abstention was seen in the mid-term elections in the Dominican Republic and El Salvador and in the legislative elections in Venezuela and Colombia. The lowest turnout was the 25% of registered voters seen in Venezuela’s legislative elections which were boycotted by opposition. This was followed by a turnout of 40.5% in Colombia which continues to be the country with the region’s lowest level of electoral participation.

The highest turnout (58%) was seen in the Dominican Republic, followed by El Salvador (52.5%), although this was still well below the average turnout in presidential elections. This data appears to show that turnout depends heavily on the type of election and on the legitimacy of institutions. In a region in which Congress has less legitimacy than the president, it is normal to find a lower turnout in non- simultaneous elections, whether these are legislative or take the form of a plebiscite.

No clear tendency can be observed in the case of direct democracy. While in Panama, participation in the referendum on the Canal reached only 43%, the turnout for Bolivia’s referendum was, at 84.51%, the same as for the presidential election of December 2005 which was, in turn, the highest in the country’s electoral history.

GOVERNABILITY

The success of governments depends on their ability to obtain the Congressional majorities required to approve their program.

Out of the 11 presidents elected in 2005/2006, only four have their own legislative majority: Morales in Bolivia, Bachelet in Chile, Uribe in Colombia and Chávez in Venezuela. In the other seven countries (Brazil, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru), the administration will be obliged to reach agreements - sporadic or, preferably, longer-term arrangements - if it is to implement its program. El Salvador’s President Antonio Saca is also in this position because, despite his victory in the mid-term elections, he did not achieve an absolute majority. By contrast, Leonel Fernández in the Dominican Republic did obtain his own majority in that country’s mid-term elections.

13 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Democratic Governability in Elections, 2005-2006

Governability by winning party Country Lower house Upper house Bolivia Own majority Without majority Brazil Without majority Without majority Chile Own majority Own majority Colombia Own majority Own majority Costa Rica Without majority n/a Ecuador Without majority a n/a El Salvador Without majority n/a Honduras Without majority n/a Mexico Without majority Without majority Nicaragua Without majority n/a Peru Without majority n/a Dominican Rep. Own majority Own majority Venezuela Own majority n/a a The alliance led by the president-elect, Rafael Correa, did not present lower-house candidates. N/a: Not applicable. Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

UPCOMING ELECTIONS, 2007-2009

Between 2007 and 2009, half the countries of Latin America - nine out of 18 - will hold a presidential election: Argentina and Guatemala in 2007, the Dominican Republic and Paraguay in 2008, and 6 Uruguay, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile and Panama in 2009.

6 Honduras and Chile will hold presidential elections again in 2009 because they have a four-year term of office and the previous election took place in 2005. 14 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Presidential Elections, 2005-2009

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Southern Cone Argentina X Brazil X Chile X X Paraguay X Uruguay X Andean Region Bolivia X Colombia X Ecuador X Peru X Venezuela X Central America & Caribbean Mexico X Costa Rica X El Salvador X Guatemala X Honduras X X Nicaragua X Panama X Dominican Rep. X Source: Zovatto, Daniel. 2006.

RESULTS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

The table below sets out the results of the 11 presidential elections that took place in Latin America between November 2005 and December 2006.

Results of Presidential Elections in Latin America, November 2005-December 2006 Country Date of Election Name of President Party/Coalition Vote Honduras November 27, 2005 Manuel Zelaya Partido Liberal Hondureño 49.9% Bolivia December 18, 2005 Evo Morales Movimiento al Socialismo 53.7% Chile7 January 15, 2006 Michelle Bachelet Concertación por la Democracia 53.5% Costa Rica February 5, 2006 Oscar Arias Liberación Nacional 40.9% Colombia May 28, 2006 Álvaro Uribe Primero Colombia 62.4% Peru8 June 4, 2006 Alan García Partido Aprista Peruano 52.6% Mexico July 2, 2006 Felipe Calderón Partido Acción Nacional 35.9% Brazil9 October 29, 2006 Luis Inácio Lula da Silva PT/PRB/PC do B 60.8% Nicaragua November 5, 2006 Daniel Ortega Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional 38.1% Ecuador 9 November 26, 2006 Rafael Correa Alianza MPAIS/PS-FA 56.7% Partido Movimiento V República y Venezuela December 3, 2006 Hugo Chávez 62.9% Aliados Source: Latinobarómetro

7 Second round 8 Second round 9 Second round 9 Second round

15 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

1. IMPACT OF THE ELECTIONS ON POLITICAL CULTURE

1.1.Willingness to vote for a political party

The first impact of the elections was on the power of the vote, reversing a trend seen since 2000 under which a majority said they would not vote for a political party. In the period 2005-2006, the number who said they would vote for a party increased from 49% to 53% while 47%, down from 51%, said they would not do so.

It is a citizen’s experience of interaction in an election competition that gives political parties their validity. During elections, parties are visible, they issue propaganda and become known whereas, in periods without elections, it is people who “represent parties” that are visible and this is not the same as the institution of a party which is seen so clearly during an election through its logos, banners and messages. As we will see throughout this report, this is not the only case in which Latin Americans show that things have value to the extent that they can be seen and touched and are alive. In this mistrustful continent, democracy needs to be seen and witnessed in everyday practice. That is why elections strengthen political parties and, therefore democracy.

VOTE FOR A POLITICAL PARTY TOTALS LATIN AMERICA, 1996-2006 Q. If elections were held this Sunday, which party would you vote for? * ‘Vote for a party’ includes all those cases in which interviewees mentioned a political party. ** ‘Not vote for a party’ includes ‘Vote void/blank’, ‘Nor vote/none’, ‘Not registered’ and ‘DNK /DNA’.

70

60 55 58 53 54 54 56 51 52 51 50 49 49 47 48 46 46 44 45 42 40

30

20

10

0 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006

Vote for a political party Not vote for a political party

Source: LATINOBARÓMETRO 1996-2006.

1.2. Perception of elections

The positive impact of the elections is also seen in the increasing validity of the electoral process. This is reflected in an increase in the perception that elections are clean, which rises from 37% to 41% between 2005 and 2006. At the same time, the perception that elections are rigged drops from 54% to 49%.

16 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CLEAN OR RIGGED ELECTIONS LATIN AMERICA,1995-2006 Q. Generally speaking, do you think the elections in this country are clean or rigged?

70

60 55 49 52 54 50 46 49 39 40 44 39 37 41 37

30

20

10 12 10 8 9 8 10

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 2005 2006

Clean Rigged DNK/DNA

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006

However, Latin America still has a long road ahead as regards the development of its population’s perception of elections. There are only five countries - Uruguay (without an election) and Chile, Venezuela, Panama and Costa Rica (all with elections in 2005/2006) - in which a majority of voters say that elections are clean. In the other 13 countries, less than 50% say that elections are clean (referring to the last election to take place in their country).

There are, of course, many reasons why an election may be considered rigged. This may have to do with the cleanliness of electoral competition, with the perception of the degree of pluralism that exists in a country - that is, the opportunity the different options have to compete in the election - or with the more usual concept of fraud on the day of the election through the modification of the electoral register or the votes themselves. The latter may be because the register has not been properly compiled or because the state fails to provide sufficient guarantee that the process is carried out correctly. Today, with the existence of international election observers, this type of fraud is more difficult to commit and less common than in the past. However, the other less direct types of fraud perceived by the population can be massive in a given country at a given moment.

This indicator of the perception of election cleanliness is, therefore, above all an indicator of the value of the vote. If citizens perceive that there is real competition, that this is clean, that candidates have balanced access to propaganda, etc., then it is they who decide the election result. Otherwise, this depends on a series of other factors - of which the cleanliness of the election is only one - that undermine their power. Although the question asked in this survey theoretically refers to the act of voting on election day, the answer is broader and should be understood as an indicator of the validity of the vote for the citizen to the extent it represents an assessment of the electoral process as a whole.

In Ecuador, the fieldwork for the survey was carried out immediately before the first-round presidential election which took place on October 15 and immediately afterwards, with a pause during the days of the election. The perceived lack of cleanliness in the electoral process was very high (79%).

17 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CLEAN OR RIGGED ELECTIONS TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Generally speaking, do you think the elections in this country are clean or rigged? Answer shown ‘The elections in this country are clean’.

Uruguay 83 Chile 69 Venezuela 56 Panama 55 Costa Rica 55 Argentina 47 Brazil 44 Mexico 40 Bolivia 37 Dominican Rep. 36 Guatemala 32 Peru 32 Nicaragua 30 Colombia 29 Honduras 27 El Salvador 23 Ecuador 21 Paraguay 20 Latin America 41

0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

The survey’s question on vote-buying gives an idea of what people consider to be clean elections. When comparing results by country for 2005 and 2006, it is seen that the perception of vote-buying drops very significantly in all those countries in which elections were held, with the exception of Chile where it held steady at 15%. The drop in Mexico from 55% in 2005 to 20% in 2006 is particularly noteworthy. This was followed by Ecuador, with a drop from 30% to 12%, and Nicaragua with a drop from 22% to 11%. The smallest reduction in the perception of vote-buying was in Venezuela. There was also a small drop in the perception of vote-buying in a number of other countries with elections.

18 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

VOTE BUYING LATIN AMERICA, 2002–2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. Have you known of someone who was pressured to vote in a certain way or received something in exchange for his or her vote in the last presidential election? Answer shown ‘Yes’.

80 Dominican Rep. 51 Paraguay 31 70 Argentina 28 Guatemala 27 Venezuela 27 60 Honduras 23 Mexico 20 50 El Salvador 19 Uruguay 19 40 Colombia 19 Peru 18 30 Panama 17 29 Brazil 17 Bolivia 20 24 17 21 Chile 15 Costa Rica 13 10 Ecuador 12 Nicaragua 11 0 Latin America 21 2002 2005 2006 0 102030405060

Source: Latinobarómetro 2000-2006.

On election turnout, the survey found that 73% said they had voted, which is very much in line with the actual 70% turnout shown above. Only 1% of those surveyed said they had been prevented from voting.

However, by country, the levels of turnout as reported in the survey differ from actual turnout (see table). It is, in fact, difficult for surveys to determine exact turnout when they are not carried out close to an election. People who didn’t vote tend to say they did so because this is considered the politically correct answer. This indicates the extent to which elections have become an established part of the public agenda and climate of opinion, changing people’s views although not their behavior.

FRAMEWORK OF PERCEPTIONS IN WHICH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS TOOK PLACE 1.-Cleanliness of electoral process: Generally speaking, do you think the elections in this country are clean or rigged? 2.-Vote-buying: Have you known of someone who was pressured to vote in a certain way or received something in exchange for his or her vote in the last presidential election? 3.- Effectiveness of vote: Voting is effective in changing things. 4.- Election participation: Did you vote in the last presidential election? COUNTRIES WITHOUT ELECTIONS Election Participation Clean elections Vote-buying Effectiveness of vote Reported Real in survey 2005 2006 2005 2006 2006 2005 2006 Uruguay 87 83 21 19 71 94 90 89.6 (2004) Panama 54 55 24 17 50 85 77 76.9 (2004) Argentina 51 47 31 28 69 83 82 78.2 (2003) Dominican Republic 36 36 37 51 65 76 77 72.8 (2004) Paraguay 34 20 37 31 39 57 55 64.3 (2003) El Salvador 33 23 24 19 62 63 66 67.3 (2004) Guatemala 23 32 29 27 53 62 59 57.9 (2003)

19 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Average Latin America 45 42 29 27 58 74 72 72.4

COUNTRIES WITH ELECTIONS IN 2005/2006 Chile 70 69 15 15 54 69 71 87.6 (2006) Costa Rica 55 55 22 13 62 64 64 65.2 (2006) Colombia 27 29 24 19 55 61 61 45.04 (2006) Brazil 26 44 25 17 53 83 84 83.25 (2006) Honduras 25 27 31 23 53 60 63 55.08(2006) Mexico 22 40 55 20 56 61 78 58.57 (2006) Ecuador 20 21 30 12 52 84 83 72.19 (2006) Bolivia 18 37 33 17 50 70 78 84.50 (2006) Peru 13 32 31 18 47 80 88 88.7 (2006) Nicaragua 21 30 22 11 69 62 64 78.00 (2006) Venezuela 49 56 29 27 71 68 64 74.88 (2006) Average Latin America 31 40 29 17 57 69 73 72.09

DID YOU VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTION? LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. In the last election, which of the following did you do?

Voted in the last election 73

Didn't vote for other reasons 8

Was not registered to vote 7

Decided not to vote in the last election 7

Didn't have time 2

Was prevented from voting 1

Doesn't answer 1

Don't remember / DNK

0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

20 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

DID YOU VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTION? TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In the last election, which of the following did you do? *Answer shown ‘I voted in the last election’.

Uruguay 90 Peru 88 Brazil 84 Ecuador 83 Argentina 82 Mexico 78 Bolivia 78 Panama 77 Dominican Rep. 77 Chile 71 El Salvador 66 Venezuela 64 Costa Rica 64 Nicaragua 64 Honduras 63 Colombia 61 Guatemala 59 Paraguay 55 Latin America 73 0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

The effectiveness of the vote serves as an additional indicator of electoral behavior through which to analyze the legitimacy of democracy as regards the sovereign power of the voter.

However, out of the 73% who voted, only 57% say that voting to “elect people who defend my position” is “the most effective way to change things”. In other words, 16% voted without being very convinced of the value of the vote while 19% say that it is not possible to contribute to change things whatever one does, and 14% say that the most effective option is to participate in protest movements and demand change directly.

21 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOTE: WHICH IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CHANGE THINGS? LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. What is the most effective way in which you can contribute to change things: vote to elect people who defend your position, participate in protest movements and demand change directly, or do you think that it’s not possible to contribute to change things?

Vote for people who defend my position 57

It's not possible to contribute to change 19

Participate in protest movements and demand 14 change directly

None of the above 6

DNK/DNA 4

0 102030405060

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

VOTING IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CHANGE THINGS LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. What is the most effective way in which you can contribute to change things: vote to elect people who defend your position, participate in protest movements and demand change directly, or do you think that it’s not possible to contribute to change things? Answer shown ‘Vote for those who defend my position’.

Venezuela 71 Uruguay 71 Nicaragua 69 Argentina 69 Dominican Rep. 65 Costa Rica 62 El Salvador 62 Mexico 56 Colombia 55 Chile 54 Guatemala 54 Brazil 53 Honduras 53 Ecuador 52 Bolivia 50 Panama 50 Peru 47 Paraguay 39 Latin America 57 0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

Perception of the effectiveness of voting is lowest in Paraguay where, at the same time, 20% say that the elections are clean (the last elections there took place in 2003) and 31% say that vote-buying took place. The countries in which voting is perceived to be most effective are Venezuela and Uruguay, both with 71%, followed by Nicaragua and Argentina with 69%.

22 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

1.3. Civic rebelliousness

In many countries, a significant percentage of voters (a regional average of 14%) believe that participation in protest movements is the most effective way to change things. The region’s most civically rebellious country is Guatemala with 25%, followed by Brazil and Peru (22%), Bolivia (18%) and the Dominican Republic and Paraguay (17%). The least civically rebellious countries are El Salvador (6%) and Chile (7%). In Mexico, where so many people have recently protested in the streets, the figure reaches 13% and it can, therefore, be concluded that the region’s capacity for mobilization is fairly large.

PARTICIPATION IN PROTEST MOVEMENTS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CHANGE THINGS LATIN AMERICA, 2006

Q. What is the most effective way in which you can contribute to change things: vote to elect people who defend your position, participate in protest movements and demand change directly, or do you think that it’s not possible to contribute to change things? * Answer shown ‘Participate in protest movements and demand change directly’.

Guatemala 25 Brazil 22 Peru 22 Bolivia 18 Dominican Rep. 17 Paraguay 17 Nicaragua 14 Colombia 14 Mexico 13 Ecuador 13 Costa Rica 12 Honduras 12 Panama 12 Venezuela 11 Uruguay 9 Argentina 8 Chile 7 El Salvador 6 Latin America 14 0 10203040

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

Civic rebels are less inclined to support democracy (50%) than the overall population (59%) and show greater disapproval of the president’s performance (44% as compared to 37% of the rest of the population), have less confidence in the president (57% vs. 50%) and in the government (59% vs. 55%).

23 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

PROFILE OF CIVIC REBELS LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. With which of the following statements do you agree most? ‘Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government’, ‘Under some circumstances, an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one’, ‘For people like me, it does not matter whether we have a democratic or a non-democratic regime’. Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the government headed by (NAME OF PRESIDENT)? Q. Please, look at this card and tell me how much confidence you have in: ‘The president and ‘The government’ * Answers shown ‘A lot of confidence’ plus ‘some confidence’ and ‘a little confidence’ plus ‘No confidence’. **DNK/DNA not shown. Confidence in president Has 42 Support for democracy confidence 48

Democracy is preferable to any 50 Doesn't other type of government 59 57 have Under some circumstances, an 50 29 confidence authoritarian government can be 15 preferable to a democratic one For people like me, it doesn't 15 Confidence in matter whether we have a 17 democratic or non-democratic government

Has 41 Approval of government confidence 44 49 Approves of government 55 Doesn't 59 have 44 55 Disapproves of government 37 confidence

0 1020304050607080 0 1020304050607080

Rest of population Civic rebels Rest of population Civic rebels n=17.388 n=2.845 n=17.388 n=2.845 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

We will see below that conventional participation is not growing and it can, therefore, be deduced that it is direct non-conventional participation in protest movements that is in full development in the region.

The data presented here shows that electoral competition is limited and that an important percentage of citizens perceive that different positions do not compete on a level playing field. This is fertile ground for a mass uprising of those who believe that electoral processes fail to do justice to their demands and do not allow them to influence the course of events. In Mexico, which in the past has experienced proven cases of electoral fraud, this is a particularly propitious environment for the suspicions of fraud voiced in the last election and the resulting protests.

A lack of interest in collective and civic affairs - which has so often been discussed - is not a feature of Latin America’s civic rebels. Instead, this type of participation shows how citizens have been changing the way they participate, shifting away from participation in political parties and conventional methods in favor of seeking more effective and faster ways to achieve change through simple protest. Rather than representing a process of democratic instability, this indicates the existence of two phenomena: on the one hand, citizens’ willingness to become involved in processes through which they believe they can have influence or, that is to say, in which their actions are perceived as effective and, on the other hand, a certain failure on the part of institutions to interpret the demands of these electors. In other words, there are democratic demands for which channels of expression do not exist and, rather than a lack of civic culture, this reflects a deficit in what institutions offer. In order to address this problem, it would seem essential to strengthen the party system.

24 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

1.4. Conventional political participation in elections

We saw above that part of the region’s population views protest movements as a vehicle for change and, below, we present a series of indicators gathered during the past decade which show that conventional political participation is on the decline.

As discussed above, the type of political participation that is declining is that of a conventional nature which is perceived as less effective, while new informal types of participation, which are seen as more effective, have emerged.

In two of the five questions on conventional political participation - participation in demonstrations and the signing of petitions - a drop is seen throughout the decade.

This is particularly significant at a time of elections in which we have seen high voter mobilization and close-run contests with high turnouts. In other words, conventional forms of participation are not interpreting people’s demands and they are seeking new forms of integration, pressure and participation.

CONVENTIONAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q1. How frequently do you do each of the following things? Talk politics with friends. Try to convince someone of your political ideas. Work for a political party or candidate. * Answer shown ‘Very frequently’ plus ‘frequently’. Q2. Now I want you to look at this card. I am going to read out a variety of political activities that people can undertake and I would like you to tell me if you have ever done any of them, if you would ever do any of them, or if you would never do any of them. Answer shown ‘Have done this’.

Talk politics with 26 friends

Try to convince someone of my 16 political ideas

Sign a petition 14

Take part in authorized 12 demonstrations

Work for a political 9 party or candidate

0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

The frequency with which people talk about politics increased from 28% in 1995 to a peak of 31% in 1998, but then dropped to 26% in 2006. The country in which people most often talk about politics is Venezuela (47%) and those in which they do so least often are Ecuador, Honduras and El Salvador (18%).

25 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

FREQUENCY OF TALKING POLITICS LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. How frequently do you do each of the following things? Talk politics with friends. * Answer shown ‘Very frequently’ plus ‘frequently’.

50 Venezuela 47 Brazil 35 Uruguay 31 Peru 31 40 Dominican Rep. 26 Nicaragua 26 Paraguay 26 30 30 Colombia 26 30 31 28 Bolivia 26 27 26 27 26 Mexico 25 Chile 22 Argentina 20 22 Costa Rica 21 Panama 20 Guatemala 20 10 Honduras 18 El Salvador 18 Ecuador 18 Latin America 26 0 01020304050 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2003 2005 2006

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006

FREQUENCY OF TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE OF POLITICAL IDEAS LATIN AMERICA,1995-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. How frequently do you do each of the following things? Try to convince someone of your political ideas. * Answer shown ‘Very frequently’ plus ‘frequently’.

50 Venezuela 32 Brazil 27 Peru 20 Nicaragua 40 18 Bolivia 18 Dominican Rep. 17 Colombia 17 30 Paraguay 16 Costa Rica 15 Honduras 14 20 Guatemala 13 13 15 16 17 16 17 16 Mexico 13 14 Panama 12 12 10 Ecuador 11 El Salvador 10 Uruguay 10 Argentina 9 0 Chile 8 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2003 2005 2006 Latin America 16

0 10203040 Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006

Belying arguments that interest in politics has declined, the frequency with which people try to convince others of their own political views increased from 12% in 1995 to 16% in 2006, indicating that there are ever more citizens willing to make their points of view known. In Venezuela, the figure reached 32% while it was lowest in Chile (8%).

26 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

In 1995, the percentage of people working for a political candidate or party was 8% and rose to 12% in 1996 before falling to 6% in 2005 and increasing again to 9% in 2006. In other words, the elections halted a drop in this type of activity seen since 1996 and brought a small recovery, but it remains to be seen whether this change of trend will be maintained.

FREQUENCY OF WORKING FOR A POLITICAL PARTY OR CANDIDATE LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. How frequently do you do each of the following things? Work for a political party or candidate. * Answer shown ‘Very frequently’ plus ‘frequently’.

30 Venezuela 25 Dominican Rep. 13 Costa Rica 10 Nicaragua 9 Guatemala 9 Paraguay 20 9 Colombia 9 Panama 8 Honduras 8 Uruguay 8 12 Mexico 8 Brazil 10 8 8 Bolivia 10 9 8 Peru 6 6 Ecuador 6 Chile 5 El Salvador 4 Argentina 4 0 Latin America 9 1995 1996 2000 2005 2006 0 102030 Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006

The number of people signing a petition was first measured in 2002 when it reached 17%, but dropped to 14% in 2006. This form of participation has not proved effective and is, therefore, losing validity. It should be noted that much research has been done on the use of petitions and, in the literature, this is used as an indicator of social capital in First World countries. However, in Latin America, it has never been important and many researchers have interpreted this as indicating a low level of social capital. This is a good example of the mistakes that social scientists can make when they assume that the same phenomena are expressed in the same way in different cultures. We have learned from Latinobarómetro surveys that indicators of this type are not appropriate for measuring social capital in a region that communicates verbally, rather than in writing, and in which it is “contacts” that are important, not impersonal written interaction. The deficiencies of the region’s postal systems alone are sufficient evidence that this type of written communication is less effective and not very popular.

27 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

SIGNING A PETITION LATIN AMERICA, 2002-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. I am going to read out a variety of political activities that people can undertake and I would like you to tell me if you have ever done any of them, if you would ever do any of them, or if you would never do any of them. Signing a petition. Answer shown ‘Have done this’.

50 Brazil 37 Uruguay 26 Dominican Rep. 20 Venezuela 19 40 Colombia 16 Paraguay 15 Costa Rica 14 30 Mexico 14 Argentina 14 Peru 11 Guatemala 10 20 Chile 10 17 16 Honduras 14 9 Bolivia 8 Panama 7 10 Ecuado r 6 Nicaragua 5 El Salvado r 4 Latin America 0 14 2002 2005 2006 0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 2002-2006.

In 1995, 25% of the region’s inhabitants were willing to participate in an authorized demonstration but this has since dropped to 12%, representing a very significant decline in conventional political participation.

Just as the signing of petitions is not a very relevant activity in Latin America, this indicator shows that authorized demonstrations are not a popular way of sharing opinions. While, in the First World, participation in authorized demonstrations has been a very popular form of participation used regularly by minorities, it is unauthorized demonstrations that are most popular in Latin America and appear to be used not by minorities but by any group which needs channels of expression and does not feel represented by democratic institutions. The region’s social capital does not, therefore, find expression through conventional participation in the form of associations that have a long-term impact on the course of events. Here, in Latin America, strong pressure is used to demand change in the short term. Social capital consists in the will to join together with others to exert pressure for change and, rather than being reflected institutionally - as was the case in the democracies of First World once they had become established - it is expressed non-conventionally in a bid to consolidate democracy. Anyone who lives in the region, with the exception of environmental organizations, knows that there are two ways of doing this - to appear on television or take to the streets. That is why politics has become media-geared.

28 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

TAKING PART IN AN AUTHORIZED DEMONSTRATION LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. I am going to read out a variety of political activities that people can undertake and I would like you to tell me if you have ever done any of them, if you would ever do any of them, or if you would never do any of them. Taking part in an authorized demonstration. Answer shown ‘Have done this’.

50 Venezuela 26 Uruguay 20 Paraguay 16 Brazil 40 16 Dominican Rep. 14 Colombia 14 Costa Rica 13 30 Guatemala 12 25 Peru 12 23 Nicaragua 11 Honduras 11 20 21 Bolivia 11 17 Me xico 10 14 Chile 12 13 12 9 10 Argentina 9 Panama 7 Ecuador 6 El Salvador 2 0 Latin America 12 1995 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2006 0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006

In other words, the different interpretations of the level and nature of political participation are one of the great misunderstandings about what is happening in Latin America because they are measured conventionally with instruments that are not appropriate to the region. It is a mistake both to talk about the absence or weakness of social capital or civil society and to call for greater incentives for participation because these correspond to forms of participation that are valid in other cultures and political and historic situations and are often not suited to local idiosyncrasies. Instead, the present data suggests it is the political parties that should form social capital because they must, by definition, interpret and represent people’s interests. The data reveals a demand that is not being properly satisfied. That is to say, there are insufficient channels for the potential and latent capital that exists and this is seen in the fact that the region’s streets are full of demonstrators protesting to defend their rights. If participation is measured as practiced by Latin Americans, we find it in all those countries in which citizens have risen up to claim their right to a dignified life. The cases of Mexico and Bolivia are emblematic. Never before in democracy have there been so many peaceful protest movements controlled by the police and state security services. There are countries like Mexico and Chile where, for different reasons, the number of demonstrators has reached one million.

These protest movements underscore the deficiencies of an institutionally-structured civil society with social organizations that defend specific groups, except perhaps in the case of indigenous and environmental issues which have emerged most recently. An important part of the population is willing to defend its rights, but lacks channels of organization. That is not the same as a lack of social capital, but rather a lack of social capital and civil society of the type seen in the First World. Latin America is clearly developing a different form of expression of social capital.

The 11 elections that took place between the 2005 and 2006 Latinobarómetro surveys had a very positive impact in all the above areas. Disenchantment with conventional politics is more than evident, with the political parties as the main victims. It is interesting to observe that people are not indifferent to the weakness of the parties and, as a substitute, rapidly create movements by which they feel more represented. This is the case in countries, such as Bolivia, in which there has been a renewal and change

29 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile of the governing elite. In Latin America, voters are moving ahead of the elite, creating important opportunities for political parties to gain support among these movements which express popular demands.

2. TRUST

Latinobarómetro surveys provide detailed analysis of levels of trust in institutions, different types of people and groups of people.

The main indicator used in the literature is interpersonal trust, based on a question designed by Ronald Inglehart in the World Values Survey to measure the level of trust within societies. However, we already know that this indicator is not appropriate for Latin America since it not only shows a drop during the years in which democracy was established in the region, falling from 20% to 16% in 2006 before increasing to 19% in 2005 and 22% in 2006, but also fails to show the relationship with objective indicators of growth that is found in the First World.

INTERPERSONAL TRUST LATIN AMERICA, 1996-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Generally speaking, would you say that you can trust most people, or that you can never be too careful when dealing with others? *Answer shown ‘One can trust most people’.

30 Guatemala 32 Uruguay 32 Venezuela 25 29 Ecuador 29 23 22 Mexico 28 21 Dominican Rep. 27 20 20 19 19 Argentina 24 Honduras 17 17 23 16 16 Bolivia 23 15 Peru 22 Nicaragua 21 Colombia 20 10 El Salvador 17 Costa Rica 17 Panama 13 5 Paraguay 13 Chile 13 Brazil 5 0 Latin America 22 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006

In other words, open interpersonal trust - that towards unknown third parties - is not a phenomenon found in Latin American societies. There trust is shown towards known people with whom people have had some experience or interaction. This is what we have referred to in previous surveys as trust built on networks and on sets of ties. It is this sort of trust, which develops in families, among people who work together and among those who interact physically or virtually, that shows a relationship with growth indicators.

While only 22% of Latin Americans trust third parties, 58% trust their neighbor and, apart from firemen, the Church, radio and television, it is neighbors who inspire most trust.

30 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

TRUST IN … LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. Please look at this card and tell me how much trust you have in…. * ‘Answer shown ‘A lot’ plus ‘some’.

Firefighters 82 Church 71 Radio 69 TV 64 Neighbor 58 President 47 Electoral tribunal 47 Newspapers 44 Armed forces 44 Government 43 Private companies 42 Police 37 Judiciary 36 Parliament/Congress 27 Political parties 22

0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

In order to analyze trust, it is necessary, therefore, to start from this basis which is different from the way in which trust occurs in other cultures. As shown in the table below, trust in different institutions has fluctuated over the past decade.

However, in 2006, the situation was different because trust in most institutions increased (apart from the Church, the police and Congress). This is particularly the case of television in which trust has increased by 50% since 1996 and, after dropping to a low of 36% in 2003, rose to 44% in 2005 and then to 64% in 2006. This 20-point increase has to do with the 11 elections that took place in 2005/2006.

Trust in Institutions, 1996-2006 1999- 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Church 76 74 78 77 72 71 62 71 71 71 Television 50 46 45 42 49 45 36 38 44 64 President - 39 38 39 30 - 31 36 43 47 Armed forces 41 42 38 43 38 38 30 40 42 44 Government - - 28 - - 25 24 30 36 43 Large companies - - - - 36 32 30 42 - - Private companies ------38 42 Municipality - - - - 31 32 34 37 - Banks - - - - - 36 27 41 39 - Police 30 36 32 29 30 33 29 37 37 37 Judicial system 33 36 32 34 27 25 20 32 31 36 Congress 27 36 27 28 24 23 17 24 28 27 Political parties 20 28 21 20 19 14 11 18 18 22 Nº CASES 18,719 17,767 17,739 18,038 18,135 18,522 18,658 19,607 20,209 20,234 Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006

31 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Television is the most important source of information and, as shown in the graph below, the frequency with which people watch the news increased, with a positive impact on trust in television. The percentage of people who did not see the news on television on any day of the week dropped from 21% in 2004 to 14% in 2006 and, as only 3% did not answer this particular question, an average of 83% of the region’s population watched the news on television in 2006 as compared to 79% in 2005 and 77% in 2004.

This provides a new indicator of what we have termed ‘experienced democracy’. Latin Americans do not perceive things conceptually but to the extent that they experience them and the experience of an electoral competition, of voting and of receiving information about the elections meant an increase of trust in institutions in general. This indicates that, in order to build trust, it is necessary for citizens to experience interaction with institutions. Congress and the church are the two institutions that did not benefit from this phenomenon.

In addition, the past decade shows that trust is not an area in which large cultural changes can be expected in the short term and that the region will continue to build its democracy and development with segmented trust. This is in marked contrast to the way in which First World countries built their democracies and implies a different route to development, a fact that should be borne in mind when predicting the specific nature of changes.

FREQUENCY OF WATCHING TV NEWS LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 Q. How many days during the last week did you watch the news on television?

80

70

60

50

43 41 40 41 34 37 36 38 30 33 30 28 26 23 30 25 23 23 2123 25 21 21 20 21 19 19 22 21 18 22 17 21 18 10 11 12 11 12 4 3 8 3 2 2 3 123 0 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

DNK/DNA 1-3 days 4-6 days 7 days None

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995 – 2006.

2.1. Reasons for not trusting institutions

In previous surveys, we found that Latin Americans do not trust institutions because they perceive that, in general, they do not provide equal treatment. Institutions tend to discriminate for different reasons, producing a marked perception of inequality and inequality itself.

32 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

In fact, we see that 66% of the region’s inhabitants believe they suffer discrimination while 19% gives poverty as the principal reason for unequal treatment. Discrimination is found in different social segments, with education and age as well as poverty identified as causes. In a continent with a previously young population but which is starting to age rapidly, the list of those who suffer discrimination now also includes the elderly. Being a woman is mentioned in only 3% of cases, although gender, unlike age, has long been an issue on the region’s news agenda and in the formation of opinions.

REASONS WHY NOT EVERYONE RECEIVES EQUAL TREATMENT TOTALS LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. Of all the reasons for which people in this country are not treated equally, which one affects you most? Or do you think that all people are treated equally in (country)?

Don't feel discriminated against by anyone 24 For being poor 19 For not having sufficient education 10 For being old 10 For not having connections 7 In (country) everyone is treated equally 6 Color of s kin 5 DNK/DNA 4 For being young 3 Fir being a w oman 3 For being homosexual 2 For being nobody 2 For being handicapped 2 Religion 1 For being an immigrant 1 For being a man 1

0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarometro 2006.n= 20.234

Trust is, in the end, built out of the common good and equal treatment, both of which are elements in the construction of the societies in which we live.

33 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

3. THE ECONOMY

Economic performance and its implications

Per capita GDP in the region contracted by 1.3% and 2.3% in 2001 and 2002, respectively, reflecting the impact of the Asian financial crisis. However, after an expansion of 0.4% in 2003, growth accelerated to 4.4% in 2004, the highest rate in 14 years, and in 2006 is estimated to have reached 5,3%, a level that is expected to be maintained in 2007.

It is important to put these numbers in perspective. Over the past 15 years, the region’s highest growth rate was 3.5% in 1994 and 1997, but both these years were followed by a downturn (-0.6% in 1995 and 0.6% in 1998). In other words, during the past 15 years, Latin America had not previously experienced two consecutive years of growth above 3%.

Latin Americans know that, after a good year, there will be a bad one. These ups and downs have been characteristic of the region’s economy and most transitions have taken place without sustained growth, economic stability or constant improvement in the economic situation of the country and its inhabitants.

This three-year cycle of sustained growth raises a number of questions. Is Latin America entering a new phase? What explains this increase in growth without precedent in the region’s recent history? Is it a result of the reforms implemented in the 1990s, or of the increase in the price of natural resources, or a combination of both?

The region is experiencing a boom characterized by very favorable terms of trade (high prices for raw materials, such as copper, and for oil) and this has meant record exports. Higher growth has also meant a drop in unemployment which reached 11% in urban centers during 1999 but fell to an estimated 8.7% in 2006. In addition, the region’s foreign debt dropped as a percentage of GDP from 42.2% in 1999 to 26.8% in 2005 and, in 2006, is estimated to have been less than 26%. A smaller foreign debt means that less resources have to be devoted to interest payments and more are available for other uses. In the case of government debt, for example, this means more resources for social programs and, in the case of businesses, for investment or dividend distribution.

Economic reforms are beginning to bear fruit and, after taking 15 years to control inflation, the region has stronger economies that are more resilient to external shocks. In fact, macroeconomic data shows that Latin America’s present situation is the best in 15 years.

It is equally important to remember that the two youngest generations of Latin Americans have never experienced a sustained economic boom and it is precisely these generations that have grown up in democracy. In other words, the region has never had such a positive overall outlook as it has today.

As seen below, this has a great impact on the expectations of the population which reflect this positive outlook, indicating that if 2006 was the best year so far, expectations for 2007 are even higher.

3.1. Country and personal economic expectations

In view of the above, an increase in expectations was predictable and is, in fact, seen in the data below.

Country’s present economic situation

34 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

People’s expectations as regards their country’s economic performance show a rise and 18% of the region’s inhabitants consider that their country’s present economic situation is very good/good, which represents an increase of seven points from 11% in 2005, while the percentage that consider it very bad/bad drops from 47% in 2005 to 35% in 2006. By contrast, in 2001, this figure reached 61% and, in 2006, dropped below 40% for the first time.

However, as the graph shows, there are quite wide differences between countries. While 43% of Venezuelans consider that their country’s present situation is very good/good, probably reflecting the president’s fiscal policy and the price of oil, only 6% of Nicaraguans hold this view. There are only five countries in which 20% or more consider the situation very good/good: Venezuela (43%), Argentina (34%), Brazil (28%), Chile (26%) and Mexico (20%).

COUNTRY’S PRESENT ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 1996-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. In general, how would you describe the country’s present economic situation? Would you say it is very good, good, about average, bad or very bad? * Answer shown ‘Very good’ plus ‘good’. 35 Venezuela 43 Argentina 34 30 Brazil 28 Chile 26 25 Mexico 20 Panama 17 Honduras 17 20 Uruguay 17 18 Dominican Rep. 17 15 Ecuador 14 Costa Rica 14 11 Colombia 13 10 10 Bolivia 13 8 887 8 7 8 Guatemala 12 5 El Salvador 8 Peru 7 Paraguay 7 0 Nicaragua 6 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Latin America 18 0 102030405060

Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006.

35 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

COUNTRY’S PRESENT ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 1996-2006 Q. In general, how would you describe the country’s present economic situation? Would you say it is very good, good, about average, bad or very bad?

70

60 61 59 57 56 53 54 54 50 47 47 47 40 41 36 38 37 36 38 42 33 35 30 32

20 18 10 10 11 8 887 8 7 8 0 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Very good/good About average Very bad/bad

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006

Country’s past economic situation

One in three Latin Americans thinks that their country’s present economic situation is better than in 2005, with this indicator showing a rise of six percentage points. This is its highest level since Latinobarómetro began to measure the indicator in 2001 when the figure reached 14%. The indicator is highest in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil.

COUNTRY’S PAST ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 2001- 2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Do you consider the country’s present economic situation to be much better, a little better, about the same, a little worse or much worse than 12 months ago? * Answer shown ‘Much better’ plus ‘a little better’. 35 Venezuela 59 Argentina 58 30 31 Brazil 50 Uruguay 40 25 25 Dominican Rep. 37 Colombia 34 21 Bolivia 31 20 Chile 31 18 Mexico 30 15 16 Honduras 25 14 Panama 24 Peru 23 10 Guatemala 21 Costa Rica 19 5 Ecuador 18 Nicaragua 16 Paraguay 0 15 El Salvador 12 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Latin America 31 0 1020304050607080

Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006.

36 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

COUNTRY’S PAST ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 2001-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Do you consider the country’s present economic situation to be much better, a little better, about the same, a little worse or much worse than 12 months ago? * Answer shown ‘Much better’ plus ‘a little better’. 35 10

30 31 8 6 25 25 4.4 4.0 4 20 21 3.0 18 2 situation 15 16 14 0.4 0 10 -1.3 -2.3 -2 Country's past economic economic past Country's Growth of per capita GDP capita per of Growth 5 -4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Past economic situation Growth of per capita GDP

Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006. /CEPAL

Country’s future economic situation

Four in ten Latin Americans think that their country’s economic situation will be much better/better in 2007 as compared to 2006. This indicator shows an increase of eight points over the previous Latinobarómetro survey in 2005 and 16 points over 2001. The graph shows a clear change of trend as compared to the years between 2001 and 2005. Again, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina occupy the top three places.

37 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

COUNTRY’S FUTURE ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 2001-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Over the next 12 months do you think that, in general, the country’s economic situation will be much better, a little better, about the same, a little worse or much worse than now? * Answer shown ‘Much better’ plus ‘a little better’.

50 Venezuela 62 Brazil 55 45 Argentina 54 Uruguay 49 40 Dominican Rep. 45 39 Panama 44 Colombia 35 41 31 Chile 40 Peru 39 30 Mexico 30 39 28 Bolivia 38 25 Nicaragua 25 35 Honduras 23 32 20 Costa Rica 31 Guatemala 29 Ecuador 15 22 Paraguay 21 El Salvador 15 10 Latin America 39 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 102030405060

Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006.

In other words, people take a positive view of their country’s present economic situation, considering that it is better than in 2005 and will be even better in 2007.

Personal economic situation: past, present and future

The second indicator of economic expectations refers to people’s personal situation, with 30% of the region’s inhabitants considering that their present situation or that of their family is very good/good. The figure is highest in Argentina (48%) and lowest in Peru (14%). By contrast, it should be remembered that only 18% of the region’s inhabitants consider that their country’s situation is very good/good.

Argentina is experiencing high economic growth after the crisis of 2001 when per capita GDP fell by 11.7% while Peru has been growing at over 2% since 2001, a situation not seen there in the 1990s. However, the percentage of the population that considers their personal economic situation to be very good/good is the lowest in the region.

38 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

PRESENT PERSONAL ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 1996-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. In general, how would you describe your present economic situation and that of your family?. Would you say it is very good, good, about average, bad or very bad? * Answer shown ‘Very good’ plus ‘good’.

Argentina 35 48 Brazil 44 Venezuela 41 30 30 Colombia 38 Costa Rica 37 Chile 32 25 25 Paraguay 32 23 Uruguay 31 20 21 20 21 Mexico 29 19 19 Guatemala 18 28 17 Honduras 27 15 Ecuador 25 Bolivia 25 Dominican Rep. 10 20 Panama 20 Nicaragua 19 5 El Salvador 15 Peru 14 Latin America 30 0 0 102030405060 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Latinobarómetro 1996-2006.

Out of the region’s inhabitants, 35% think that their personal economic situation and that of their family is much better/better than in 2005. This is very similar to the percentage that think their country’s economic situation is better than in 2005. The figure is highest in Venezuela (55%) and lowest in El Salvador (19%).

PAST PERSONAL ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA,2001-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Do you consider your economic situation and that of your family to be much better, a little better, about the same, a little worse or much worse than 12 months ago? * Answer shown ‘Much better’ plus ‘a little better’.

40 Venezuela 55 Brazil 51 35 35 Argentina 47 Colombia 43 30 31 Bolivia 41 27 Mexico 37 25 Honduras 36 23 23 24 Dominican Rep. 36 20 Costa Rica 36 Uruguay 33 15 Guatemala 33 Panama 31 Chile 10 30 Peru 29 Nicaragua 5 29 Paraguay 26 Ecuador 22 0 El Salvador 19 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Latin America 35 0 102030405060

Source: Latinobarómetro 2001-2006.

39 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Almost half the region’s inhabitants - 49% - consider that their personal economic situation and that of their family will be much better/better in 2007 than in 2006. This indicator is highest in Brazil (70%) and lowest in El Salvador (23%). Brazil is one of the motors of the Latin American economy and, therefore, the high expectations of Brazilians are an indicator of the region’s potential growth. Brazil has recently held a presidential election and expectations there partly reflect the positive climate created by this election and voters’ hopes of change under the new government. This is a particularly important source of pressure on the government since Lula’s re-election means not only new expectations, but also old ones carried over from his first term of office.

FUTURE PERSONAL ECONOMIC SITUATION LATIN AMERICA, 2001-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In the next 12 months, do you think your economic situation and that of your family will be much better, a little better, about the same, a little worse or much worse than now? * Answer shown ‘Much better’ plus ‘a little better’.

50 Brazil 70 49 Colombia 65 45 43 Venezuela 63 Argentina 59 40 Panama 52 41 Bolivia 51 37 Mexico 51 35 36 35 Guatemala 50 Do minican Rep. 49 30 Chile 49 Honduras 48 25 Uruguay 47 Costa Rica 47 20 Peru 45 Nicaragua 43 15 Paraguay 35 Ecuador 32 El Salvador 10 23 Latin America 49 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 1020304050607080

Source: Latinobarómetro 2001-2006: n = 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.207/ 20.234

This data on the economic situation of individuals shows that, economically, 2006 was the region’s best year since Latinobarómetro was launched in 1996 and the outlook for 2007 reinforces this trend.

The countries that will lead the region during 2007 in economic terms are Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela.

3.2. Most important problem

On average, unemployment is identified as the region’s most important problem (24%), followed by crime (16%). However, this varies widely from country to country.

Unemployment is identified as the most important problem in only eight of the 18 countries (Panama, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador, Brazil and Mexico) while crime takes first place in five countries:

El Salvador (40%) Venezuela (39%) Guatemala (36%)

40 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Honduras (26%) Argentina (23%)

Moreover, in five countries, the most important problem also has other components. In Bolivia, unemployment and poverty, both with 25%, are seen as equally important and the same occurs in Chile with unemployment and crime, both with 22%. In the Dominican Republic, the most important problem is identified as inflation (32%) while, in Colombia, terrorism, violence and guerrillas lead with 33% and, in Costa Rica, crime and inflation take first place (16%).

When unemployment or crime do not take first place, they usually appear in second place. However, in a number of countries, other problems appear in second place - inflation (Nicaragua and Guatemala), the economy in general (Uruguay), education (Chile), health care (Brazil) and poverty (Peru).

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In your opinion, what is the most important problem in the country? * Only the two most important problems regionally are shown.

Panama 16 45 Uruguay 7 39 Nicaragua 1 37 Peru 10 33 Paraguay 14 32 Colombia 5 30 Bolivia 2 25 Ecuador 7 24 Honduras 22 26 Chile 22 Brazil 7 20 Mexic o 1718 Venezuela 18 39 El Salvador 16 40 Argentina 16 23 Dominican Rep. 11 14 Costa Rica 14 16 Guatemala 10 36 Latin America 16 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Unemployment Crime

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

41 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

First and second most important problems by country

Country Most important problem Second most important problem

Panama Joblessness/unemployment (45%) Crime/public safety (16%)

Uruguay Joblessness/unemployment (39%) The economy /economic/financial problems (10%)

Nicaragua Joblessness/unemployment (37%) Inflation/rising prices (15%) Peru Joblessness/unemployment (33%) Poverty (23%) Paraguay Joblessness/unemployment (32%) Crime/public safety (14%) Ecuador Joblessness/unemployment (24%) Political situation/problems (20%) Joblessness/unemployment (25%) and Poverty Bolivia Political situation/problems (18%) (25%) Joblessness/unemployment (22%) and Chile Problems in education (10%) Crime/public safety (22%) Brazil Joblessness/unemployment (20%) Health problems (14%) Mexico Joblessness/unemployment (18%) Crime/public safety (17%) Inflation/rising prices (16%) and El Salvador Crime/public safety (40%) Joblessness/unemployment (16%) Venezuela Crime/public safety (39%) Joblessness/unemployment (18%) Guatemala Crime/public safety (36%) Inflation/rising prices (15%) Honduras Crime/public safety (26%) Joblessness/unemployment (22%) Argentina Crime/ public safety (23%) Joblessness/unemployment (16%) Crime/ public safety (16%) and Inflation/rising Costa Rica Joblessness/unemployment (14%) prices (16%) Dominican Rep. Inflation/rising prices (32%) Joblessness/unemployment t (14%) Colombia Terrorism / political violence / guerrilla (33%) Joblessness/unemployment (30%) Latin America Joblessness/unemployment (24%) Crime/public safety (16%)

The percentage of the region’s inhabitants who consider that crime is their country’s most important problem increased steadily from 8% in 2003 to 16% in 2006 while the percentage who consider that it is unemployment held steady at around 30% between 2003 and 2005 and only dropped in 2006 when it reached 24%. However, these are again regional averages and do not show year-to-year variations in the different countries.

42 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM LATIN AMERICA, 2003-2006 Q. In your opinion, what is the most important problem in the country? * Only the two more important regionally in 2006 shown compared to their percentages in 2003-2004-2005.

40 35

30 29 29 30 25 24 20 15 16 14 10 9 5 8 0 2003 2004 2005 2006

Crime Unemployment Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

3.3. Formation of expectations

The region’s inhabitants are very familiar with the economic ups and downs experienced by their countries in the past and this explains why unemployment has to drop a couple of percentage points before having an effect on public perceptions of the labor market. In fact, unemployment in urban centers dropped by two percentage points between 2003 and 2005, but the perception of unemployment as the country’s most important change showed no change.

Lack of trust and the need to experience something before believing in it are characteristic of Latin America and an important factor in the way in which expectations are formed, in which democracy is understood, and in which the region’s societies are developing economically and politically. We regularly find signs that Latin Americans not only require evidence as a basis for trust but then also repetition of an event in order to change their attitude. They are, after all, very fond of the saying that “one swallow does not make a summer”.

If this hypothesis could be proved, we would be faced with an interesting phenomenon under which attitudes and behavior are determined by evidence that becomes available only once events themselves have occurred. In the case of democracy, this would imply that citizens have first to experience democracy on repeated occasions before changing their attitude towards it.

Causes of unemployment

This way of reacting to events has implications in many areas, including unemployment.

In 2006, Latinobarómetro investigated the causes of unemployment for the first time by asking the question “What is the most important cause of unemployment today?” The possible answers were:

43 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

“Private enterprises don’t invest enough”, “The state has inadequate economic policies” and “(Nationals 10 of country) don’t have the initiative to create more enterprises and jobs”.

According to 44% of the population, the cause of unemployment is that the state does not have adequate economic policies while 28% consider that it is because their compatriots lack the initiative to create new enterprises and 27% that is because companies don’t invest enough. This means that just over half the region’s inhabitants (55%) think that unemployment is a private-sector problem while 44% think it is the state’s responsibility.

CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. From what you have heard or read, what is the main reason for the unemployment problem today? * Multiple answers; percentages total more than 100%.

The st at e has inadequat e economic policies 44

(Nat ionals) don't have t he init iat ive t o creat e more enterprises & jobs 28

Private enterprises don't invest enough 27

Others 4

DNK/DNA 8

0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.304.

There are, however, important differences between countries. In the case of “The state has inadequate economic policies”, 60% of Paraguayans think this is the main cause of unemployment while only 25% of Venezuelans take this view. In all, there are five countries (Paraguay, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Bolivia) in which more than half of the population think that the state’s economic policy is the main cause of unemployment.

In the region’s three largest economies - Brazil, Mexico and Argentina - this view is held by 41%, 42% and 43%, respectively. These high figures are partly the result of these countries’ recent history. All three have experienced sharp changes of exchange-rate policy that had a real effect on the economy - Mexico in 1995 with the Tequilazo, Brazil in 1999 with the real, and Argentina with the lock-in of 2002. In these countries, the population knows that the government has been one of the important causes of unemployment whereas this is not the case, for example, in Chile which had a similar experience but over 20 years ago during the 1982 crisis.

10 The answers add up to more than 100% because interviewees could choose more than one alternative. 44 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT: INADEQUATE STATE POLICIES LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. From what you have heard or read, what is the main reason for the unemployment problem today? Answer shown ‘The state has inadequate economic policies’.

Paraguay 60 Nicaragua 57 Dominican Rep. 53 Guat emala 51 Bolivia 51 Panama 48 Ecuador 47 El Salvador 46 Peru 45 Colombia 45 A rgent ina 43 M exico 42 Brazil 41 Uruguay 38 Costa Rica 35 Chile 32 Honduras 31 V enezuela 25 Lat in A merica 44 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.304.

In the case of “Private enterprises don’t invest enough”, 46% of Chileans think this is the case while only 13% of the inhabitants of Costa Rica take this view. In countries like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, it is held by 18%, 26% and 33%, respectively.

CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT: PRIVATE ENTERPRISES DON’T INVEST ENOUGH LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. From what you have heard or read, what is the main reason for the unemployment problem today? Answer shown ‘Private enterprises don’t invest enough’.

Chile 46 Dom. Rep. 39 El Salvador 36 A rg ent ina 33 Hond uras 31 Uruguay 31 V enezuela 29 Panama 26 Nicaragua 26 M exico 26 Ecuado r 26 Paraguay 25 Colombia 24 Peru 22 Bolivia 22 Brazil 18 Guat emala 14 Costa Rica 13 Lat in A merica 27 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.304.

Finally, the view that “(Nationals of country) don’t have the initiative to create more enterprises and jobs” is held by 39% of the inhabitants of Costa Rica while, in Paraguay, the figure drops to 19%. In Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, this view is held by 28%, 33% and 30%, respectively.

45 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT: LACK OF INITIATIVE LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. From what you have heard or read, what is the main reason for the unemployment problem today? Answer shown ‘Nationals don’t have the initiative to create more enterprises and jobs’.

Costa Rica 39 M exico 33 Honduras 32 Peru 32 Colombia 31 A rgent ina 30 V enezuela 29 Uruguay 29 Brazil 28 Dom. Rep. 27 Nicaragua 27 Bolivia 27 Guat emala 25 Ecuador 25 Chile 23 Panama 20 El Salvador 19 Paraguay 19 Lat in A merica 28 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.304.

It is interesting that there is such a variety of opinions about the role of private companies in unemployment. In Argentina and Venezuela, for example, a similar percentage say that the problem lies in a lack of job creation by existing companies and of the creation of new enterprises while, in Brazil and Mexico, for example, more people think that the problem is a lack of creation of new enterprises than a lack of job creation by existing companies. In Chile, however, the situation is quite the opposite, with the number of people who consider that the problem is a lack of job creation by existing companies doubling the percentage who say that it is due to a lack of creation of new enterprises.

These findings support the thesis that, despite the obvious cultural similarities between the region’s different countries, there is not, in fact, ‘one’ Latin America, but several. As Chancellor Helmut Kohl said in 1990 at the time of Germany’s reunification: “The problem is that the language we speak in the east and the west does not allow us to see the differences, but we are two countries that speak the same language.” It is because of such differences that most theories about Latin America make a mistake when they seek single-cause explanations.

Time required to become a developed country

Faster economic growth and increased economic expectations are also reflected in answers to the question of how many years a country will require in order to become developed. The percentage of the region’s inhabitants who say their country will never become developed dropped from 17% in 2005 to 14% in 2006 while the percentage who think it will take between ten and 20 years increased from 19% to 21%. In other words, expectations of achieving development in the medium term increased.

It is worrying, however, that 18% of the region’s inhabitants think their country will achieve development in five to ten years or, in other words, within approximately the next two governments. This represents an increase from 13% in 2002 and means that two in ten Latin Americans now think their government - this one or the next - will give them a developed country. If the economic growth described above gives many Latin Americans the illusion of instantaneous development, this will be like a sword of

46 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Damocles hanging over the region’s governments as they combat unemployment and crime because they will never be able to fulfill this expectation.

TIME REQUIRED TO BECOME A DEVELOPED COUNTRY LATIN AMERICA, 2002-2006 Q. How long do you think it will take (country) to become a developed country?

Is already a developed 3 3 country 3 Will never be a developed 14 17 country 20 14 More than 30 years 14 18 13 Between 20 and 30 years 11 12 21 Between 10 and 20 years 19 17 18 Between 5 and 10 years 17 13 6 Less than 5 years 6 4 12 DNK/DNA 13 12

0 10203040506070

2002 2005 2006

Source: Latinobarómetro 2002-2006.

Expectations of social mobility and opportunities to escape poverty

Social mobility can be measured in many ways and the indicator presented below is the most subjective because it reflects individual perception and, therefore, the expectation of social mobility in general among the inhabitants of the region’s different countries today. It is no secret that one of the main reasons for admiration of the United States is the “American dream” of being born poor in Harlem and ending up on New York’s Fifth Avenue as reflected in music, films and the life story of famous people. This indicator shows expectations of social mobility within the life time of each individual.

Social mobility in this generation: The 2006 survey was the first time Latinobarómetro asked this question about the American dream and it found that 58% of the region’s inhabitants believe it is possible to be born poor and to become rich. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether this hope appears with the arrival of democracy, or whether it is a centuries-old aspiration of all peoples, or whether it is a product of the economic boom.

Expectations of social mobility differ enormously from one country to another. While 74% of Peruvians believe in social mobility, the figure drops to 34% in Uruguay. The other countries, as well as Uruguay, in which less than half the population believes in social mobility are Paraguay (38%), Argentina (38%) and Chile (45%) while, in all the other countries of the region, the figure is over 50%.

47 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EXPECTATIONS OF SOCIAL MOBILITY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. Do you think that in (country) a person who is born poor can become rich or do you think it’s impossible to be born poor and become rich? * Answer shown ‘ A person who is born poor can become rich’.

Peru 74 Nicaragua 67 Costa Rica 66 Guatemala 66 Colombia 66 Bolivia 65 Honduras 65 Venezuela 64 Dominican Rep. 63 Mexico 62 Panama 62 Brazil 60 Ecuador 60 El Salvador 57 Chile 45 Argentina 38 Paraguay 38 Uruguay 34 Latin America 58

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

Intergenerational mobility: A second method of measuring social mobility is through the educational level of the interviewee and his/her parents or, in other words, intergenerational social mobility as set out below.

Out of those inhabitants of the region whose parents completed primary education, 61% have reached this same level while, in the case of secondary and higher education, the figures are 52% and 54%, respectively. In other words, those who have a lower level of education and most need social mobility, in fact, have the least mobility.

Those born in a family in which the father received only primary education have a 60% probability of only reaching this level. The expectations of those who believe that it is possible to be born in poverty and become rich are, therefore, not realistic. However, as seen below, it is more realistic to expect to escape poverty.

This is also interesting as an insight into the way in which public opinion works. In a question that refers to a person’s hopes, such as the perception of social mobility, a large majority express their hope while, in the hard question about poverty, they answer realistically. It is remarkable that, in the face of real low levels of social mobility, there should exist so much hope. This evokes the “redemption” of which Octavio Paz writes in his Laberinto de la Soledad. According to Paz, this is a continent that believes in redemption, and this also permeates economic expectations.

48 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

SOCIAL MOBILITY: EDUCACIONAL LEVEL OF INTERVIEWEE BY PARENTS’ LEVEL OF EDUCATION Q. What level of education do you have? What was the last year you completed? Q. What level of education did your parents receive? LATIN AMERICA, 2006 80 70 61 60 52 54 50 38 40 30 32 30 20 16 9 8 10 0 Parents with primary Parents with secondary Parents with higher education or less education or less education or less

Interviewee with primary education or less Interviewee with secondary education or less Interviewee with higher education or less

N = 18.109 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

Opportunities to escape poverty

According to 31% of the region’s inhabitants, everyone has the same opportunities to escape poverty. This represents an increase of six points on 2000 but in no country does the percentage who hold this view reach 50%. While in Venezuela, 47% think there are equal opportunities to escape poverty, the figure in Argentina is only 19%.

This data indicates that, although the great majority of the region’s inhabitants believe in social mobility, they also know that not everyone has the same opportunity for progress and that this will be easier for some than for others.

This is one of Latin America’s contradictory characteristics. Clearly, if 58% say it is possible to be born poor and become rich and only 31% say that everyone has the same opportunities to escape poverty, something is wrong. Either there are some who believe they have super-powers and will escape poverty and become rich, despite not having an equal opportunity to do so or, as the region’s literature portrays so graphically, its inhabitants have high hopes with little basis in reality.

49 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE POVERTY

Q. Some people say the economic system in (country) provides all (nationals) with an equal opportunity to escape poverty; other people say that not all (nationals) have an equal opportunity to escape poverty. Which of these opinions is closer to your way of thinking?* Answer shown ‘Everyone has an equal opportunity to escape poverty’.

50 Venezuela 47 Cos ta Rica 43 Panama 38 Mexico 36 40 Nic aragua 36 Ecuador 36 31 Bolivia 35 30 Honduras 34 Dominic an Rep. 34 Guatemala 33 25 Colombia 31 20 Per u 26 Brazil 25 Paraguay 23 10 El Salvador 22 Chile 21 Uruguay 20 0 Argentina 19 2000 2006 Latin America 31 0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 2000-2006.

Only 31% of Latin Americans believe that everyone in their country has the same opportunities to escape poverty and that a person who is born poor but works hard can become rich. If this segment is compared with the rest of the population, we find that it comprises mainly young people aged between 16 and 25 (30% compared to 24% of the rest of the population) and that there is no difference by sex or education. In addition, this group, is more satisfied with democracy (41% vs. 27%) and more inclined to support democracy (62% vs. 57%) as well as being more satisfied with the way democracy works in their country (49% vs. 34%). Those who believe in social mobility within their own generation are also those who show most belief in democracy.

3.4. Employment

Fear of job loss: We discussed above that unemployment was identified as the region’s most important problem in 2006 as has, indeed, been the case since at least 2003. However, fear of being out of work (very concerned/concerned) dropped from 75% in 2005 to 67% in 2006. Moreover, this was very similar throughout the region, with a significantly smaller dispersion among countries than seen in answers to other questions. This is reflected in the fact that fear of job loss (very concerned/concerned) was below 50% only in two countries (Argentina and Uruguay).

50 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

FEAR OF BEING OUT OF WORK LATIN AMERICA, 2002-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. How concerned would you say you are that you could be left without work or be unemployed during the next 12 months? * Answer shown ‘Very concerned’ plus ‘concerned’.

80 Ecuador 81 Nicaragua 81 78 Guatemala 73 76 76 Panama 73 76 75 Dominican Rep. 73 74 Peru 71 72 El Salvador 70 72 Colombia 70 Bolivia 70 70 Brazil 68 68 67 Honduras 66 Paraguay 66 66 Chile 62 Mexico 64 60 Costa Rica 60 62 Venezuela 57 Uruguay 49 60 Argentina 46 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Latin America 67 0 102030405060708090100 Very concerned plus concerned

Source: Latinobarómetro 2002-2006.

It is paradox that, at a time when the region is growing faster than at any other time in its recent history and unemployment is dropping, more than half the working population fears job loss. Latin Americans know that these periods of high growth are short and are followed by periods of recession and economic instability and that is why they are always afraid of losing their jobs. However, most of them have not experienced economic stability in their family, posing the question of how long a period of economic stability would be required to change these attitudes and transform them into an indicator of what is, in fact, happening in the labor market.

Is it possible to find work? One of the questions is whether people are unemployed because there aren’t jobs or whether they aren’t willing to take the jobs they are offered. For the first time, Latinobarómetro asked if people can find a job if they really want to work. According to 55% of the region’s inhabitants, they can. The figure was highest in Guatemala (69%) and lowest in Paraguay (25%) while, in five countries (Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, El Salvador and Paraguay), less than half the population thinks this is the case.

51 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EXPECTATIONS OF FINDING A JOB TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. If people really want a job, they can find one. * Answer shown ‘Strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’.

Guatemala 69 Venezuela 68 Dominican Rep. 68 Costa Rica 65 Mexico 64 Bolivia 64 Honduras 59 Brazil 58 Peru 57 Chile 56 Colombia 55 Argentina 51 Panama 50 Ecuador 49 Nicaragua 47 Uruguay 46 El Salvador 45 Paraguay 25 Latin America 55

0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

3.5. Economic mentality

Another major question refers to the economic mentality of Latin Americans. The region’s leaders need to know if the economic reforms they propose will be understood by their citizens and, more importantly, if they will be credible. In other words, an understanding of the economic mentality of Latin Americans is important in order to assess the viability of some reforms. This is even more the case when 44% of the population identify the government’s economic policy as the main cause of unemployment.

Since its launch, Latinobarómetro has measured some aspects of economic mentality and, in 2006, again asked whether it is the state or the individual that is responsible for personal welfare. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that each individual is responsible for his/her personal welfare and 10 means that the state should assume this responsibility, the average for the region in 2006 was 4.8, down from 4.4 in 2004 when this question was last included.

The economic boom has meant that today more people believe that the responsibility falls to the individual and not the state. This represents a slow growth of personal responsibility and it is worth pointing out that changes of mentality in an economic system normally occur with a change of generation. As a result, if change is to occur within the space of a single generation, this requires not only incentives and evidence but also leadership and a news agenda that reinforces this leadership.

52 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

PERSONAL WELFARE: RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT OR INDIVIDUALS LATIN AMERICA, 2004-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that “each person should take responsibility for his or her own welfare”, and 10 means that “it is the government that should take responsibility for the welfare of people”, where would you put your opinion? * Averages shown.

Paraguay 6.0 10 Argentina 5.3 9 Ecuador 5.3 Brazil 5.1 8 Colombia 5.1 Uruguay 5.0 7 Mexico 4.9 6 Nicaragua 4.9 5,2 Chile 4.9 5 4,8 Venezuela 4.8 Per u 4.7 4 Panama 4.6 3 Bolivia 4.6 El Salvador 4.6 2 Guatemala 4.4

1 Honduras 4.1 Dominican Rep. 4.0 0 Latin America 4.8 2004 2006 012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 2004-2006.

The other aspect of economic mentality included in the survey is the issue of whether the state or the private sector is responsible for creating wealth. On the same scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that the state should create wealth and 10 that the private sector should do so, the average for the region in 2006 was 4.6. The figure was lowest in Bolivia (4.1) and highest in Guatemala and Chile (5.1). This data shows that there is not such a large difference between countries and that, as regards economic mentality, the region is quite homogeneous.

CREATION OF WEALTH: STATE OR PRIVATE SECTOR TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Who do you think has to create wealth in our society, the state or private enterprises? On the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means that “the state has to produce wealth” and 10 that “private enterprises have to produce wealth”, where would you put your opinion? * Averages shown.

Guatemala 5.1 Chile 5.1 Brazil 5.0 Honduras 4.8 Panama 4.8 Mex ic o 4.7 Uruguay 4.7 Per u 4.5 Colombia 4.5 Venezuela 4.5 El Salvador 4.4 Dominican Rep. 4.4 Ecuador 4.3 Paraguay 4.2 Nicaragua 4.2 Argentina 4.1 Bolivia 4.1 Latin America 4.6

012345678910 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234.

53 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

3.6. Conclusion

The present economic situation in Latin America is one of the best in 15 years. However, it has not lasted long enough for the region’s citizens to realize that it is the private sector that creates wealth and that it is best for the state to focus on social spending. The main question in the minds of First World analysts is, therefore, the extent to which Latin America, the region of left-wing revolution in the 1960s, has internalized the capitalist neoliberal economic mentality. The concern expressed in the media, especially in the United States, about the region’s supposed “left-wing” governments has to do mainly with the issue of the economic mentality of its governments and peoples. This data again demonstrates that it is through experience of a market economy and of growth and prosperity that citizens get to know an economic system and its benefits. It is not the ideology that characterized behavior in the 1960s, but socialization through experience that gives solidity to an economic model.

Latin Americans need evidence that a market economy works and how it does so, and so far they have had little evidence because since democracy was established, they have - as discussed above - experienced crises and instability. A couple of boom years are not enough to convince them that the situation will last and to change basic attitudes, and the impact of stability and progress remains to be seen. This is clear in Chile where, despite a strong economic performance over the last 15 years, Chileans remain skeptical and basic attitudes towards the economy are changing only slowly.

It is also true that belief in state intervention remains quite prevalent in the region and its citizens are still not willing to take responsibility for their own welfare, particularly when they have neither the protection networks nor the tools to do so.

In this particular survey, we have, for example, shown that the region’s inhabitants identify the state as one of the main causes for unemployment. However, throughout the 11 surveys, there is a vast body of evidence that a belief in state intervention is one of the characteristic features of economic attitudes in the region.

Changes of government also play a role as the region’s citizens learn that it is possible to vote a bad government out of office and replace it with a better one that can implement a better economic policy.

The above is just further evidence of the important process of change that Latin America is undergoing in its quest for stability and growth.

54 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

4. DEMOCRACY

4.1. The meaning of democracy

When asked about the meaning of democracy, four in ten Latin Americans associate it with “civil and individual liberties”. In a low second place, “equality and justice” is mentioned by only just over one in ten.

The 11 elections that took place in 2005/2006 meant an increase in the identification of democracy with civil liberties, which rose from 38% in 2005 to 42% in 2006. This is the highest figure since 2001 when it was measured for the first time. The largest increases were seen in Bolivia (+22), the Dominican Republic (+20), Peru (+12), Nicaragua (+11) and Panama (+10), while the figure dropped in Guatemala (-6), Venezuela (-6) and Ecuador (-4).

It is also important to note that this open question, asked in four different years and, most significantly, in different parts of the questionnaire, receives very consistent answers. In other words, the meaning of democracy has a content with a weight that is not easily affected by day-to-day events or by the previous question. It is, therefore, a “value”, rather than an opinion or attitude. This is also reflected in the stability of the order assigned to the different alternatives in the four surveys in which the question was included.

MEANING OF DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 2001-2006 Q. To you, what does “democracy” mean? * Multiple answers; total is more than 100%.

38 42 Civil and individual liberties 35 41 13 Justice and equality 1011 13 6 8 Other positive meanings 6 6 6 8 Right to vote 6 9 5 Government of, by and for the people 45 5 5 Peace and unity 4 5 2 Rule of law 23 2 23 Other negative meanings 3 2 3 Social and economic development 2 4 3 Other neutral meanings 23 1 32 DNA/DNK 30 27

0 10203040506070 2001 2002 2005 2006

The following answers reached 1% or less in the years measured: majority rule, good government, corruption and abuse of power, rights of groups (except in 2005 when it reached 2%), personal safety, multi-party system, national independence, social & economic hardship.

Source: Latinobarómetro 2001-2006: n = 18.135/ 18.522/20.207/ 20.234

However, when answers are analyzed by country, there are very significant variations and these results illustrate the diversity of what the region’s inhabitants understand by democracy. These differences make it impossible to define “types of meaning”. Instead, the four measurements of this open-ended question confirm the existence of 18 different ways of understanding democracy. In each country, the weight of each element is different and their order is different. Uruguay stands out as the country in which more components of the meaning of democracy have significant and similar weights. In most other countries, it means less things and at most three or four factors predominate heavily. As a result, liberty can be identified as the only common and predominant factor in all the countries of the region.

55 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY OPEN-ENDED ANSWER Democracy as liberty and equality Second most important meaning of Country Most important meaning of democracy democracy Countries in which liberty is at least four times more important than justice Dominican Republic Civil and individual liberties (67%) Equality and justice (5%) Venezuela Civil and individual liberties (63%) Equality and justice (10%) Bolivia Civil and individual liberties (52%) Equality and justice (13%) Countries in which liberty is two or three times more important than justice Panama Civil and individual liberties (63%) Equality and justice (21%) Chile Civil and individual liberties (46%) Equality and justice (21%) El Salvador Civil and individual liberties (36%) Equality and justice (13%) Guatemala Civil and individual liberties (33%) Equality and justice (11%) Paraguay Civil and individual liberties (30%) Equality and justice (11%) Honduras Civil and individual liberties (28%) Equality and justice (12%) Brazil Civil and individual liberties (24%) Equality and justice (9%) Countries in which liberty and justice are equally important Mexico Civil and individual liberties (22%) Equality and justice (19%) Peru Civil and individual liberties (36%) Equality and justice (20%)

Countries in which the second most important meaning of democracy is different

Argentina Civil and individual liberties (49%) Government of, by and for the people (15%) Costa Rica Civil and individual liberties (47%) Peace and unity (15%) Nicaragua Civil and individual liberties (45%) Peace and unity (14%) Ecuador Civil and individual liberties (28%) Right to vote (10%) Colombia Civil and individual liberties (35%) Right to vote (23%)

Equality and justice as the meaning of democracy

Equality and justice (11%), Government of, Civil and individual liberties (5%) Uruguay by and for the people (11%) “Don’t know” and “Doesn’t answer” not included in the ranking. Source: Latinobarómetro 2006

Civil liberties

Liberty is regarded as most important in the Dominican Republic (67%), Panama (63%) and Venezuela (63%) while it is least important in Brazil (24%) and Mexico (22%).

56 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CIVIL LIBERTIES AS THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. To you, what does “democracy” mean? * Answer shown ‘Civil and individual liberties’. ** Multiple answers; total is more than 100%.

Dominican Rep. 67 Panama 63 Venezuela 63 Bolivia 52 Uruguay 50 Argentina 49 Costa Rica 47 Chile 46 Nicaragua 45 El Salvador 36 Peru 36 Colombia 35 Guatemala 33 Paraguay 30 Ecuador 28 Honduras 28 Brazil 24 Mexico 22 Latin America 42 0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

The table below shows the variation between 2005 and 2006. In Bolivia, for example, civil liberties as the most important meaning of democracy show an increase of 22 percentage points. The election which brought Evo Morales to power with an unusually large majority for Bolivian politics and the change to a new elite have produced deep changes in Bolivians, of which this is one example. The previous table shows that liberty as the meaning of democracy predominates in Bolivia, with equality and justice in a low second place. Similarly, in the Dominican Republic, liberty as the meaning of democracy shows an increase of 20 percentage points while, in Nicaragua, Panama and Peru, it increases by 10 points or more. All these countries have experienced important political and economic changes and it is reasonable to assume that this has meant a greater exercise of liberty for the majority of the population.

57 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CIVIL LIBERTIES AS THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. To you, what does “democracy” mean? * Answer shown ‘Civil and individual liberties’. ** Multiple answers; total is more than 100%.

What does “democracy” mean? * Answer shown ‘Civil and individual liberties’. 2005 2006 2005-2006 Argentina 49 49 0 Bolivia 30 52 22 Brazil 26 24 -2 Chile 38 46 8 Colombia 31 35 4 Costa Rica 50 47 -3 Ecuador 32 28 -4 El Salvador 32 36 4 Guatemala 39 33 -6 Honduras 26 28 2 Mexico 22 22 0 Nicaragua 34 45 11 Panama 53 63 10 Paraguay 32 30 -2 Peru 24 36 12 Dominican Rep. 47 67 20 Uruguay 49 50 1 Venezuela 69 63 -6 Latin America 38 42 4 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

Equality and justice

In 12 countries, “equality and justice” as the meaning of democracy showed an increase, rising on average from 11% in 2005 to 13% in 2006. However, as seen in the comparative table above and the graph below, the importance of equality and justice varies a great deal from country to country. In Panama (21%), Chile (21%), Peru (20%) and Mexico (19%), it practically doubles the figure for the other countries of the region. However, these figures must be weighted by the importance of the other components of the meaning of democracy in each country.

58 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EQUALITY AND JUSTICE AS THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. To you, what does “democracy” mean? * Answer shown ‘Equality and justice’. ** Multiple answers; total is more than 100%.

Panama 21 Chile 21 Peru 20 Mexico 19 Colombia 16 Bolivia 13 El Salvador 13 Honduras 12 Uruguay 11 Guatemala 11 Paraguay 11 Nicaragua 11 Venezuela 10 Costa Rica 10 Brazil 9 Argentina 9 Ecuador 9 Dominican Rep. 5 Latin America 13 0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

No answer on the meaning of democracy

However, perhaps the most important result is the fact that there are ever more people who don’t know how to reply to this question on the meaning of democracy. This increased from 27% in 2001 to 32% in 2005, representing a paradox because, at the same time, the most important meaning increases. It is as if, in one segment of society, the experience of democracy produces more confusion than clarity as to its characteristics while, for another segment, it produces clarity as to one of its characteristics.

In some countries, a very high percentage (a majority in four countries) does not answer this question, indicating a basic gap in the development of democracy: Nicaragua (59%), Honduras (59%), Brazil (53%), Guatemala (50%) and El Salvador (49%). By contrast, in other countries, only a minority does not answer the question: Argentina (9%), Venezuela (12%), Uruguay (15%), Bolivia (19%), Panama (22%), Chile (23%) and Mexico (25%).

This absence of replies, in addition to all the differences, is just further evidence of the impossibility of defining “types of meaning” of democracy.

59 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

INTERVIEWEES NOT ANSWERING ON MEANING OF DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. To you, what does “democracy” mean? * Answer shown ‘DNK/DNA’. ** Multiple answers; total is more than 100%.

Nicaragua 59 Honduras 59 Brazil 53 Guatemala 50 El Salvador 49 Paraguay 42 Ecuador 36 Dominican Rep. 29 Colombia 29 Costa Rica 28 Peru 28 Mexico 25 Chile 23 Panama 22 Bolivia 19 Uruguay 15 Venezuela 12 Argentina 9 Latin America 32 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

However, in 2006, the regional average for those who don’t answer this question does not vary as compared to 2005 and changes are seen only at the level of individual countries. Again, the way in which these changes occur is very heterogeneous and elections did not have the same effect in every country. This depends on the individual country and each specific situation.

Interviewees not answering on the meaning of democracy, 2005-2006 Country Don’t know Countries with presidential election 2005 2006 “Doesn’t answer” increases Honduras 52% 59% Nicaragua 40% 59% Brazil 52% 53% Costa Rica 24% 28% Mexico 21% 25% “Doesn’t answer” decreases Ecuador 44% 36% Colombia 32% 29% Peru 43% 28% Bolivia 34% 19% Venezuela 14% 12% Without change Chile 23% 23% Countries without presidential 2005 2006 election El Salvador 40% 49% Guatemala 38% 50% Paraguay 34% 42% Panama 24% 22% Dominican Republic 32% 29%

60 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Uruguay 20% 15% Argentina 16% 9% Latin America 32% 32% Source: Latinobarómetro 2006

Civil liberties are by far the most important meaning of democracy in Latin America but this does not represent a majority in all countries nor does it indicate that most Latin Americans have a concept of democracy. It is simply its principal characteristic.

4.2. The level of democracy in each country

The level of democracy perceived to exist in a country is one of the indicators measured regularly by Latinobarómetro, allowing it to examine the assessment that citizens have of democracy, independently of how they understand its meaning.

How democratic a country is

Since 1997, Latinobarómetro has measured the perceived level of democracy on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 represents “not democratic at all” and 10 represents “totally democratic”.

In 1997, the regional average reached 5.8, but dropped to 5.5 in 2005 and increased again to 5.8 in 2006. The increase in 2006 is undoubtedly the result of the wave of elections that took place in this period.

The countries that on average see themselves as most democratic are Uruguay (7.2), Venezuela (7.0) and the Dominican Republic (6.4) while those that see themselves as least democratic are Paraguay (3.9), El Salvador (4.8) and Guatemala (5.0).

HOW DEMOCRATIC IS [COUNTRY]? LATIN AMERICA, 1997-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. This is a scale to rate how democratic [country] is. The top, 10, means that “[country] is totally democratic”, the bottom, 1, means that “[country] is not democratic”. Where would you place [country]? * Averages shown.

Uruguay 7.2 10 Venezuela 7.0 Dominican Rep. 6.4 9 Honduras 6.1 8 Panama 6.0 Argentina 6.0 7 Mexico 5.9 6 Chile 5.9 Colombia 5.9 5.8 5.5 5.8 5 Brazil 5.9 4 Bolivia 5.7 Ecuador 5.6 3 Nicaragua 5.3 2 Peru 5.2 Guatemala 5.0 1 El Salvador 4.8 P araguay 3.9 0 Latin America 5.8 1997 2005 2006 012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 1997-2006 If the scale is divided into three segments, classifying countries with a score of 7 to 10 as “very democratic” and, at the other extreme, those with a score of 1 to 3 as “not democratic at all”, it is easier to appreciate the majority view in each country. 61 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

In Uruguay (62%), Venezuela (55%) and Costa Rica (55%), more than half of the population consider that their country is very democratic and the percentage that consider they are not democratic at all is low (5%, 14% and 7%, respectively). Paraguay, where barely 10% of the population think the country is very democratic and 43% think it is not democratic at all, is at the other extreme. A similar situation, but with less marked differences, is found in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru, El Salvador and Guatemala.

How democratic a country is

Country Very democratic Not democratic at all Uruguay 62% 5% Venezuela 55% 14% Costa Rica 55% 7% Dominican Republic 48% 15% Argentina 40% 12% Colombia 40% 18% Panama 39% 14% Honduras 38% 19% Ecuador 36% 18% Chile 35% 10% Mexico 33% 17% Brazil 33% 12% Nicaragua 31% 27% Bolivia 31% 15% Peru 27% 22% El Salvador 22% 28% Guatemala 21% 23% Paraguay 10% 43% Latin America 36% 18% Source: Latinobarómetro 2006

The percentages required to reach 100% correspond to those who identify their country in the middle or as what could be termed ‘intermediate’ democracy.

4.3. Attitudes towards democracy

The indicators below illustrate different aspects of attitudes towards democracy, starting with those towards political parties and Congress as institutions that are indispensable for democracy and then moving on to general attitudes.

4.3.1. The role of parties and of Congress

The low level of confidence in political parties and Congress discussed above is also reflected in opinions as to their legitimacy and how necessary they are for democracy to function.

As seen since these indicators were measured for the first time, there is considerable disenchantment with these two basic institutions of democracy. Ten years ago, 63% of the region’s inhabitants said that democracy could not exist without Congress but, in 2006, the figure was 58%, indicating that, over the decade, this institution has neither achieved consolidation nor increased its legitimacy as an

62 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile indispensable part of democracy. During the economic downturn of 2001/2002, the figure dropped to 50% but rose again as the economic situation improved. Moreover, although simultaneous congressional and presidential elections took place in a number of countries, the average showed no variation between 2005 and 2006.

DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT CONGRESS LATIN AMERICA, 1997-2006 Q. Some people say that without a National Congress there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without a National Congress. Which is closer to your view?

70 63 60 58 56 59 50 50 52

40 33 35 30 28 29 30 28 20 15 15 15 14 11 10 9

0 1997 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006

Without Congress, there can be no democracy. Democracy can work without Congess. DNK/DNA

Source: Latinobarómetro 1997-2006

By country, consolidation of Congress as indispensable for democracy is seen in Uruguay, Costa Rica, Argentina and the Dominican Republic (over 70%). In Venezuela, Chile, Nicaragua and Honduras, the figure reaches close to 60% but drops to below 50% in Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Panama. It is in Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay that Congress has least legitimacy and it is precisely in two of these three countries, Bolivia and Ecuador, that the change of elite has been most difficult and has caused most instability.

In the case of the legitimacy of political parties as indispensable for democracy, we find that this is similar to that of Congress as regards both its low level and its evolution over time. It starts at 62% in 1997 before dropping to 49% in 2001 during the economic crisis and increasing again to 55% in 2006.

However, there is a difference in 2006 when the legitimacy of parties increases, confirming a slow but sustained upward trend that started in 2001. This is good news in the face of predictions that there was no hope of a recovery in their legitimacy. Clearly, the elections had a positive, if small, impact for this institution. The countries where parties have the lowest legitimacy are Paraguay, Panama, Brazil, Bolivia and Ecuador (less than 50%).

63 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTIES LATIN AMERICA, 1997-2006

Q. Some people say that without political parties there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without political parties. Which is closer to your view?

70

60 62 55 55 54 50 49 52

40 35 34 34 36 30 30 31

20 14 14 13 12 10 10 7

0 1997 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006

Without parties, there can be no democracy. Democracy can work without parties. DNK/DNA

Source: Latinobarómetro 1997-2006

DEMOCRACY WITH PARTIES AND CONGRESS TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q1. Some people say that without political parties there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without political parties. Which is closer to your view? Q2. Some people say that without a National Congress there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without a National Congress. Which is closer to your view?

Table: Interviewees who say that, without Congress and without parties, there can be no democracy.

Without parties Without Congress Uruguay 71 73 Costa Rica 73 75 Venezuela 58 65 Dominican Rep. 77 80 Argentina 64 71 El Salvador 56 54 Chile 53 59 Guatemala 50 52 Nicaragua 64 66 Peru 52 54 Mexico 52 54 Honduras 57 64 Colombia 51 54 Paraguay 39 47 Panama 42 49 Brazil 45 50 Bolivia 38 47 Ecuador 45 42 Latin America 58 55

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006.n= 20.234

When analyzing by country the percentage of citizens who consider that NEITHER institution is necessary for democracy, the result is very similar to those for each individually: Ecuador (39%), Bolivia (32%), Panama (31%), Paraguay (27%), Colombia (27%) and Brazil (26%).

64 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Costa Rica is the country in which the legitimacy of both institutions is highest. On average, two in ten Latin Americans consider that neither parties nor Congress are necessary for democracy. It should be remembered that, as seen above, an average of 32% did not answer the question on the meaning of democracy and are, therefore, people who reject these institutions because they are also unsure of the meaning of democracy.

DEMOCRACY WITHOUT PARTIES OR CONGRESS TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q1. Some people say that without political parties there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without political parties. Which is closer to your view? Q2. Some people say that without a National Congress there can be no democracy, while others say that democracy can work without a National Congress. Which is closer to your view?

Ecuador 39 Bolivia 32 Panama 31 Paraguay 27 Colombia 27 Brazil 26 Peru 23 Mexico 22 Chile 22 Guatemala 22 Nicaragua 20 Argentina 17 Honduras 17 El Salvador 15 Uruguay 12 Venezuela 12 Dominican Rep. 10 Costa Rica 9 Latin America 22

0 10203040506070 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

4.3.2. Democracy as a system of government

Churchillian democracy

Despite the fact that, in most Latin American countries, open-ended answers on the meaning of democracy are quite diffuse and there is not consensus on the legitimacy of its basic institutions, democracy as a system of government does, as seen below, enjoy confidence and, as it spreads, seems to become simpler.

Setting aside the issue of its specific meaning, democracy is perceived as necessary in a globalized world.

Churchill’s famous saying about democracy - “Democracy may have problems but it is the best system of government” - has been included in Latinobarómetro surveys since 2002 when 68% agreed with this statement. In 2006, the figure increased to 74%, up from 70% in 2005, reaching its highest level.

65 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CHURCHILLIAN DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 2002-2006 Q. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement? Democracy may have problems but it is the best system of government. * Answers shown ‘Strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ plus ‘strongly disagree’.

80 74 71 70 68 70 64 60

50

40

30 26 19 20 22 19 20 11 10 10 9 11 7 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

DNK/DNA Disagree Agree

Source: Latinobarómetro 2002–2006: n = 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.206/ 20.234

There is just one country, Paraguay, in which this indicator reaches only a simple majority (54%). Elsewhere, it is the predominant view and, in ten countries, reaches over 70%.

CHURCHILLIAN DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 2002-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement? Democracy may have problems but it is the best system of government. * Answer shown ‘Strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’.

Uruguay 89 100 Venezuela 89 90 Dominican Rep. 87 Argentina 85 80 Costa Rica 80 74 Panama 78 70 71 70 68 Colombia 76 64 Bolivia 60 76 Chile 74 50 Brazil 74 Peru 69 40 Guatemala 68 Mexico 30 68 Nicaragua 68 20 Ecuador 66 Honduras 66 10 El Salvador 60 Paraguay 54 0 Latin America 74 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2002-2006.

By country, the largest increases are found in the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador and Peru while the indicator shows a drop in El Salvador, Mexico and Nicaragua.

66 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Again, Bolivia stands out with a rise of 13 percentage points and, together with the increase in the meaning of democracy and other indicators contained in this survey, confirms that, with the election that brought an indigenous president to power, there has been a consolidation of Bolivia’s democracy as regards both the concept and attitudes.

CHURCHILLIAN DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement? Democracy may have problems but it is the best system of government.

2005 2006 2006-2005

Argentina 76 85 9 Bolivia 63 76 13

Brazil 67 74 7 Colombia 75 76 1

Costa Rica 80 80 0

Chile 74 74 0 Ecuador 58 66 8

El Salvador 69 60 -9

Guatemala 62 68 6

Honduras 63 66 3

Mexico 75 68 -7

Nicaragua 71 68 -3 Panama 72 78 6

Paraguay 53 54 1

Peru 61 69 8 Uruguay 85 89 4

Venezuela 87 89 2 Dominican Republic 70 87 17

Latin America 70 74 4 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006 n= 20.234.

Government for whom?

When variables about the use of government power are included, the paradox deepens. There is a widespread perception that countries are ruled by a few powerful groups in their own interest and not, as the idea of a democratic-popular mandate supposes, the common good. More than two-thirds of Latin Americans, in fact, consider they are governed by a few powerful groups who act in their own interest. However, the recent wave of elections had some impact on this perception, which dropped from 72% in 2005 to 69% in 2006.

In six countries, less than a fifth of the population considers that the government acts for the common good: Ecuador (11%), El Salvador (14%), Nicaragua (15%), Paraguay (16%), Panama (17%) and Guatemala (19%). This political aspect of democracy is also an indicator of governability in that it reflects the degree of legitimacy with which power is used.

67 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

GOVERNMENT FOR WHOM? LATIN AMERICA, 2005-2006 Q. In general, would you say (country) is governed for the benefit of a few powerful groups or is governed for the good of all?

26 Good of all 24

69 Benefit of powerful groups 72

5 DNK/DNA 4

0 102030405060708090100

2005 2006 Source: Latinobarómetro 2005-2006.

GOVERNMENT FOR WHOM? LATIN AMERICA, 2005-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In general, would you say (country) is governed for the benefit of a few powerful groups or is governed for the good of all? Answer shown ‘For the good of all’.

Venezuela 50 50 Uruguay 43 Bolivia 38 Brazil 36 40 Mexico 31 Colombia 28 Chile 27 30 Dominican Rep. 25 Argentina 22 26 Costa Rica 22 24 20 Honduras 20 Peru 20 Guatemala 19 10 Panama 17 Paraguay 16 Nicaragua 15 El Salvador 0 14 Ecuador 11 2005 2006 Latin America 26

0 10203040506070 Source: Latinobarómetro 2005-2006.

Democracy brings with it the promise of democratization of which this can be considered an indicator. It suffers from a structural weakness if its citizens do not perceive that it works in their interest and this is related to the extent to which a country is seen as being democratic.

68 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

The government seeks people’s welfare

The mirror question on this issue, posed from a positive angle, is whether a government seeks the welfare of its people. On average, 58% of Latin Americans think that, through their decisions, the incumbent governments do so, although the figure reaches less than 50% in three countries: Paraguay (31%), Ecuador (42%) and El Salvador (46%).

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS PEOPLE’S WELFARE TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. Through its decisions, the government seeks the welfare of the people. * Answer shown ‘Strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’.

Dominican Rep. 78 Uruguay 74 Venezuela 72 Bolivia 64 Chile 64 Colombia 62 Honduras 62 Guatemala 59 Peru 58 Brazil 57 Costa Rica 57 Mexico 56 Argentina 56 Nicaragua 54 Panama 53 El Salvador 46 Ecuador 42 Paraguay 31 Latin America 58

0 102030405060708090100

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234.

In other words, while 69% of Latin Americans say their county is governed by a few groups in their own interest, 58% say the government seeks the welfare of the people. This is just one of the contradictions we find in answers in which prejudices about the powerful and judgments of them abound.

4.3.3. Democracy as a solution to problems

Confidence in democracy as the road to development

Many indicators measured over the years have demonstrated the relationship between the economy and democracy.

In 2006, answers to the question “how much confidence do you have in democracy as a system of government through which (country) can become a developed country?” showed surprising results. At a time of elections, which revitalized many aspects of democracy, particularly in some countries, this indicator fell to 56%, down from 62% in 2003. In ten countries, over half the population has confidence in democracy as the way to achieve development, with the highest figures found in Uruguay (79%), Venezuela (78%), the Dominican Republic (72%) and Argentina (70%), while the most skeptical were El Salvador (39%), Ecuador (38%) and Paraguay (38%).

69 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

CONFIDENCE IN DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 2003-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. How much confidence do you have in democracy as a system of government through which (country) can become a developed country? * Answer shown ‘A lot of confidence’ plus ‘some confidence’.

100 Uruguay 79 Venezuela 78 90 Dominican Rep. 72 Argentina 70 80 Costa Rica 66 Panama 61 70 Chile 61 Bolivia 60 59 Mexico 58 56 Colombia 50 56 56 Brazil 50 40 Guatemala 47 Honduras 46 30 Peru 45 Nicaragua 44 20 El Salvador 39 Ecuador 38 10 Paraguay 38 Latin America 56 0 0 102030405060708090100 2003 2006

Source: Latinobarómetro 2003 – 2006.

The countries in which confidence in democracy as the way to development increased were Bolivia, Venezuela, Guatemala and Paraguay while the largest decreases were found in Panama, Peru, El Salvador and Honduras.

In the case of Bolivia, the increase in this indicator confirms the trend discussed above and, at the same time, reflects the pressure of expectations vested in the new elite as regards its performance in power.

CONFIDENCE IN DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2003-2006 Q. How much confidence do you have in democracy as a system of government through which (country) can become a developed country?

2003 2006 2006-2003

Argentina 81 70 -11 Bolivia 47 59 12

Brazil 60 50 -10 Chile 72 61 -11 Colombia 68 56 -12

Costa Rica 69 66 -3 Ecuador 48 38 -10 El Salvador 52 39 -13

Guatemala 39 47 8 Honduras 59 46 -13

Mexico 60 56 -4 Nicaragua 58 58 0

Panama 62 44 -18

Paraguay 56 61 5 Peru 54 38 -16

Dominican Rep. - 45 -

Uruguay 80 72 -8 Venezuela 69 79 10

Latin America 62 56 -6 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006 n= 20.234.

70 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Democracy creates the conditions in which people can prosper

This second indicator of the relationship between democracy and the economy reveals a region that believes more in the fruit of individual effort than of national effort.

The expectation that democracy creates the conditions in which individuals can prosper through their own efforts is shared by 66% of Latin Americans and is on average ten percentage points higher than in the case of democracy as the way to development. Only in El Salvador and Ecuador do less than half the population pin their hopes on democracy as creating the conditions in which people can prosper. As seen above, economic expectations are very high in Latin America and a significant percentage of people believe that it is possible to be born poor and become rich. In this context, this indicator of the opportunities that democracy creates for individuals should be interpreted as a demand that calls for delivery.

DEMOCRACY AND CONDITIONS FOR PROSPERITY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement? Democracy creates the conditions in which people like me can prosper through their own efforts. * Answer shown ‘Strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’.

Dominican Rep. 84 Venezuela 76 Uruguay 75 Argentina 72 Costa Rica 71 Brazil 70 Nicaragua 70 Mexico 69 Colombia 68 Guatemala 67 Bolivia 67 Panama 65 Honduras 65 Peru 63 Chile 62 Paraguay 50 El Salvador 49 Ecuador 48 Latina America 66

0 102030405060708090100 Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234.

However, expectations vary widely across the region. In Uruguay and Argentina, great hopes are pinned on democracy as the way to development and as creating the conditions in which individuals can prosper through their own efforts but, in these countries, the perception that a person can be born poor and become rich is the lowest in the region. The countries that view the prospects for development with the greatest optimism are Venezuela and the Dominican Republic where there is confidence in democracy as a system of government that leads to national and individual development and expectations of social mobility are widespread. Paraguay is the country that shows the least optimism about its future in these areas.

Democracy as a system of government enjoys great legitimacy in Latin America and, beyond differences as to its components, there is consensus on the political and economic expectations it evokes. In the end, the political and economic dimensions of democracy are related to each individual’s expectation of social

71 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile mobility and, with the exception of Paraguay, this has little correlation with expectations as regards national development. Peru illustrates this dissociation between the future of the country and that of the individual, with 45% indicating that they have confidence in democracy as the way to development while 63% say that it creates the conditions in which individuals can prosper through their own efforts and 74% believe that it is possible to be born poor and become rich. In other words, this is a world in which each person expects to do well in democracy even if their country doesn’t do well.

Political and economic dimensions of democracy Democracy Confidence in creates the Democracy may democracy as conditions in It is possible to be have problems, but the way to which Country born poor and it is the best system become a individuals can become rich. of government. * developed prosper country. ** through their own efforts. * Uruguay 89% 79% 75% 34% Venezuela 89% 78% 76% 64% Dominican Rep. 87% 72% 84% 63% Argentina 85% 70% 72% 38% Costa Rica 80% 66% 71% 66% Panama 78% 61% 65% 62% Bolivia 76% 59% 67% 65% Colombia 76% 56% 68% 66% Brazil 74% 50% 70% 60% Chile 74% 61% 62% 45% Peru 69% 45% 63% 74% Guatemala 69% 47% 67% 65% Mexico 68% 58% 69% 62% Nicaragua 68% 44% 70% 67% Ecuador 66% 38% 48% 60% Honduras 66% 46% 65% 65% El Salvador 60% 39% 49% 57% Paraguay 54% 38% 50% 38% Latin America 74% 56% 66% 58% * Answer shown ‘strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’. ** Answer shown ‘a lot of confidence’ plus ‘some confidence’. Source: Latinobarómetro 2006

4.4. Support for democracy

The most emblematic indicator about democracy is the question asked by Juan Linz, one of the founders of comparative opinion poll studies, during the transitions of South European countries in the 1970s, and results now exist for this indicator in around 100 countries. The question, with three alternatives, examines citizens’ preferences as regards the system of government - preference for democracy, for authoritarianism or indifference as to the type of regime - and, in the literature about democracy, is seen as an indicator of support for different types of regime with results that should be fairly independent of a particular regime’s performance.

Latinobarómetro has measured this indicator since 1995 and, in 2006, found an increase in support for democracy to 58%, up from 53% in 2005. This increase of five percentage points is associated with a five-point drop in DNK/DNA and of two points in those who are indifferent to whether government is democratic or authoritarian.

72 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

The countries in which the increase is well over the average for the region are Honduras (18 points), Peru (15), Bolivia (13), the Dominican Republic (11), Paraguay (9), Guatemala (9), Brazil (9) and Argentina (9), and elections took place in only some of these countries. Statistical analysis shows that the elections accounted for three percentage points of the regional increase, indicating that two points could be attributed to the economy or other factors. Indeed, the increase in countries without elections indicates the existence of multiple explanatory factors.

By contrast, there was a significant drop in support for democracy in Venezuela (-6 points), Ecuador (-5) and Mexico (-5). On a number of indicators on opinions and attitudes to democracy, the results for Ecuador give cause for concern while, in contrast, attitudes show a positive evolution in Bolivia. Both these countries have experienced high degrees of instability as regards governability and administrations that have not completed their term as well as changes of government representing a complete renewal of the elite. However, the impact on their population has been exactly the opposite.

SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 Q. With which of the following statements do you agree most? Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government / Under some circumstances, an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one / For people like me, it doesn’t matter whether we have a democratic or a non-democratic regime.

70

60 63 57 61 62 58 58 56 53 53 50 53 48 40

30

21 22 20 19 18 21 18 16 19 19 17 17 18 17 17 16 17 15 15 16 15 13 10 14 99 9 8 7 6 6 4 33 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Democracy is preferable Authoritarian government It doesn't matter DNK/DNA

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006: n = 9.070/18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.6057/20.207/ 20.234

73 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. With which of the following statements do you agree most? Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government / Under some circumstances, an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one / For people like me, it doesn’t matter whether we have a democratic or a non-democratic regime. Answer shown ‘Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government‘.

70 Uruguay 77 Costa Rica 75 60 63 57 Argentina 74 61 62 58 Dominican Rep. 58 71 56 53 53 Venezuela 70 50 53 Bolivia 62 48 Chile 56 Nicaragua 40 56 Panama 55 Peru 55 30 Ecuador 54 Mexico 54 Colombia 53 20 El Salvador 51 Honduras 51 10 Brazil 46 Paraguay 41 Guatemala 41 0 Latin America 58 1995 1996 1977 1998 1999- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 102030405060708090100 2000

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006: n = 18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.207/ 20.234

SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY BY COUNTRY, 1995-2006 Q. With which of the following statements do you agree most? Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government / Under some circumstances, an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one / For people like me, it doesn’t matter whether we have a democratic or a non-democratic regime. Answer shown ‘Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government‘.

2005- 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 06 Nicaragua 59 68 72 64 43 63 51 39 57 56 -1 Paraguay 52 59 44 51 48 35 45 40 39 32 41 9 Bolivia 64 66 55 62 54 56 50 45 49 62 13 Peru 52 63 60 63 64 62 57 52 45 40 55 15 Guatemala 51 48 54 45 33 45 33 35 32 41 9 Colombia 60 69 55 50 36 39 46 46 46 53 7 Costa Rica 80 83 69 83 71 77 77 67 73 75 2 Panama 75 71 71 62 34 55 51 64 52 55 3 Brazil 41 50 50 48 39 30 37 35 41 37 46 9 Argentina 76 71 75 73 71 58 65 68 64 65 74 9 Ecuador 52 41 57 54 40 49 46 46 59 54 -5 El Salvador 56 66 79 63 25 40 45 50 43 51 8 Uruguay 80 80 86 80 84 79 78 78 78 77 77 0 Mexico 49 53 52 51 45 46 63 53 53 59 54 -5 Chile 52 54 61 53 57 45 50 51 57 59 56 -3 Honduras 42 63 57 64 57 57 55 46 33 51 18 Venezuela 60 62 64 60 61 57 75 67 74 76 70 -6 Dominican Rep. - - - - - 75 65 60 71 11 Latin America 58 61 62 62 60 48 56 53 53 53 58 5

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006: n = 18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.204/20.234

The graph below shows that the relationship between growth of per capita GDP and support for democracy is not, in general, linear. In 2006, there was a four-point increase in per capita GDP as compared to 2005 while support for democracy rose by five points.

By coincidence, this increase in support for democracy is related to two unique events - the wave of elections and the region’s economic boom. This is the first time that the region has experienced a third consecutive year of strong growth and total democracy in all countries. However, this unique situation

74 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile produces only a modest five-point increase in support for democracy (and, moreover, it has not been statistically demonstrated that economic growth is a significant factor in this increase). This raises the question of the changes that are required to consolidate democracy. Indeed, elections, confidence and one year’s economic growth are not sufficient to convince people that their country is more democratic or that democracy is working. As the rest of the data shows, the changes that are required have to do with structural factors that are both social and cultural. This explains why a substantial change in these indicators cannot be achieved through higher economic growth but will require the political and social transformations that, in earlier reports, we have referred to as “political goods”.

SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY AND GDP GROWTH LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 Q. With which of the following statements do you agree most? Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government / Under some circumstances, an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one / For people like me, it does not matter whether we have a democratic or a non-democratic regime. Answer shown ‘Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government‘.

65 10 63 60 61 62 8 57 58 58 55 56 6 53 53 53 4.4 4.0 50 3.8 4 48 3.5 45 2.3 2

0.9 40 0.4 0 Support for democracy -1.3 GDP of per capita Growth 35 -2 -2.3 30 -4 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Democracy is preferable Per capita GDP Proyectado 2006 Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006: n = 9.070/18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.6057/20.207/ 20.234

4.5. Satisfaction with democracy

Satisfaction with democracy is the indicator of public opinion that is most widely used worldwide and, today, it is possible to compare results for almost all the countries in which opinion polls are taken.

This an indicator of the performance of democracy that obliges the interviewee to choose between two positive and two negative answers, without any intermediate option. It differs from the indicator of support for democracy in that its results are more volatile, depend on who is in power and reflect specific events in each country. Similarly, it is also heavily affected by the prevailing economic situation.

The graph below shows results that are, in fact, volatile, but also a sustained and growing increase over the last 7 years.

Between 2005 and 2006, there was an increase of 7 percentage points from 31% to 38%. The largest increases were seen in Panama (+20), Mexico (+17), Argentina (+16), Bolivia (+15) and Brazil (+14) while satisfaction declined in El Salvador (-12) and Paraguay (-5).

75 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 / TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In general, would you say you are very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not satisfied at all with the way democracy works in (country)? * Answer shown ‘Very satisfied’ plus ‘fairly satisfied’.

45 Uruguay 66 Venezuela 57 40 41 Argentina 50 36 38 38 Dominican Rep. 49 35 37 Costa Rica 48 Chile 42 33 31 30 29 Mexico 41 29 Panama 40 25 27 Bolivia 39 25 Brazil 36 20 Honduras 34 Colombia 33 15 Guatemala 31 Nicaragua 26 10 El Salvador 25 Peru 23 5 Ecuador 22 Paraguay 12 0 Latin America 38 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 102030405060708090100 2000

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006. n = 18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.207/ 20.234

SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 1995-2006 Q. In general, would you say you are very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not satisfied at all with the way democracy works in (country)? * Answer shown ‘Very satisfied’ plus ‘fairly satisfied’. 1999/ 2006- 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 05 Peru 44 28 21 18 22 16 18 11 7 13 23 10 Ecuador 33 31 34 22 15 16 24 14 14 22 8 Bolivia 25 33 34 23 16 24 25 17 24 39 15 Paraguay 28 21 15 24 13 11 7 9 13 17 12 -5 Uruguay 57 51 65 68 69 56 53 44 45 63 66 3 Costa Rica 51 68 54 60 51 75 46 47 39 48 9 Nicaragua 24 51 26 23 24 59 31 21 18 26 8 Argentina 51 34 42 50 45 20 8 34 34 34 50 16 Guatemala 17 40 57 39 17 35 21 20 28 31 3 Mexico 22 12 45 21 37 26 18 18 18 24 41 17 Brazil 30 20 23 27 19 21 21 28 28 22 36 14 Panama 28 39 34 48 21 44 24 35 20 40 20 Honduras 19 49 37 43 35 62 37 30 26 34 8 El Salvador 26 48 47 21 21 38 33 37 37 25 -12 Venezuela 36 30 36 35 55 41 40 37 42 56 57 1 Chile 33 28 37 32 33 23 28 33 41 43 42 -1 Colombia 16 40 24 29 8 11 22 30 29 33 4 Dominican Rep. 36 43 49 6 Latin America 38 27 41 37 36 25 32 29 29 31 38 7

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006: n = 18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.204/20.234

As in the case of support for democracy, there is a positive correlation between the growth of per capita GDP and satisfaction with the way democracy works.

76 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY AND GDP GROWTH LATIN AMERICA, 1995-2006 Q. In general, would you say you are very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not satisfied at all with the way democracy works in (country)? * Answer shown ‘Very satisfied’ plus ‘fairly satisfied’.

45 10

40 41 8 38 37 38 35 36 33 6 30 31 29 29 27 4.0 25 4 25 3.8 4.4

20 2.3 3.0 2 0.9 15 0.4 0

10 Growth of GDP per capita Satisfaction with democracy -1.3 -2 5 -2.3

0 -4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2000 Satisfied Per capita GDP

Source: Latinobarómetro 1995-2006: n = 18.717/ 17.767/ 17.907/ 18.135/ 18.135/ 18.522/ 18.658/ 19.605/20.207/ 20.234

5. EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT AND OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FIGURES

Approval of government

Approval of the government has shown a sustained increase in Latin America, rising from 36% in 2002 to 54% in 2006 and confirming the optimism that exists as to the political outlook. In 13 countries, more than half the population approves of their government’s performance.

The largest increases have been seen in the last two years. This can be explained to some extent by the wave of elections which means that many governments are still in a ‘honeymoon’ period. The countries in which the government has the highest approval ratings are Argentina (73%), Colombia (70%), Chile (67%) and Venezuela (65%), while the lowest ratings are found in Ecuador (23%), Nicaragua (23%) and Paraguay (33%).

77 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT TOTAL LATIN AMERICA, 2002-2006 / BY COUNTRY, 2006

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the performance of the government headed by (NAME OF PRESIDENT OF COUNTRY)? Answer shown ‘Approve’.

60 54 55 Argentina 73 Colombia 70 50 Chile 67 45 49 Venezuela 65 Uruguay 62 40 42 Brazil 62 Dominican Rep. 35 38 61 36 Mexico 60 30 Panama 57 Peru 57 25 Honduras 56 20 Costa Rica 56 Bolivia 54 15 El Salvador 48 Guatemala 45 10 Paraguay 33 5 Nicaragua 23 Ecuador 23 0 Latin America 54 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 1020304050607080

Source: Latinobarómetro 2002-2006

Three related indicators - approval of the government, confidence in the government and confidence in the president - are compared below.

On average, citizens’ evaluations show a clear logic. In the first place, they approve of the performance of the incumbent government (54%) and this is followed by confidence in the president (47%) and, lastly, by confidence in the “government” (45%). The differentiation of these three concepts is important.

APROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESIDENT TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q1. Do you approve or disapprove of the performance of the government headed by (NAME OF PRESIDENT OF COUNTRY)? Q2. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘Generally speaking, you can trust the people who govern the country to do things correctly’. Answer shown ‘Agree’ plus ‘strongly agree’. Q3. People have different opinions. Please look at this card and tell me how much confidence you have in each of the groups, institutions or persons mentioned on the list: a lot, some, little or no confidence. Answers shown ‘A lot‘ plus ‘some’ confidence in ’the government’ and ‘the president’.

Table: Confidence in the country’s elite: The government and the president

Approval of Confidence in Confidence in the government the government the president

Argentina 73 61 66 Colombia 70 48 62 Chile 67 61 65 Venezuela 65 66 66 Uruguay 62 66 65 Brazil 62 47 51 Dominican Rep. 61 63 64 Mexico 60 46 50 Panama 57 44 53 Peru 57 37 42 Honduras 56 41 41 Costa Rica 56 42 49 Bolivia 54 50 52 El Salvador 48 29 36 Guatemala 45 26 33 Paraguay 33 26 24 Nicaragua 23 15 17 Ecuador 23 08 10 Latin America 54 43 47

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006 n= 20.234.

78 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

5.1 Who has most power?

Answers to the question “Who has most power in (country)?” have shown great consistency over the last 4 years. The government, large companies, the political parties and Congress continue to be identified as the most powerful. However, political parties show a drop from 39% in 2003 to 31% in 2006. A similar trend was also seen in the case of the government but, in 2006, it showed a large increase, rising to above its previous maximum in 2003. In other words, the wave of elections reversed the perceived loss of governments’ power.

According to 59%, the government is the institution with most power while, in second place, companies increase to 46% and, paradoxically, the political parties, in third place, drop to 31%.

WHO HAS MOST POWER? LATIN AMERICA, 2003-2006 Q. Who do you think has the most power in [country]? Name up to three. *Multiple answers, total of more than 100%.

59 Government 49 52 57 46 Large companies 4445 40 31 Political parties 34 36 39 27 Parliament/Congress 24 22 23 Banks 15 19 17 21 Military 18 16 24 Media 17 1517 15 Trade unions 11 12 4 DNK/DNA 4 7 5

0 10203040506070

2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Latinobarómetro 2003 - 2006

In 14 countries, it is the government that is perceived to have most power. The exceptions are Chile, Argentina and Honduras, where large companies are seen as the most powerful, and Ecuador, where it is Parliament/Congress. In nine countries, large companies appear in second place while the countries in which institutions other than the government or large companies are identified as the most powerful are Venezuela (the military), Nicaragua (Parliament/Congress), Brazil (the banks) and Ecuador (the political parties).

79 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Who has most power? Country Most powerful Second most powerful El Salvador Government (72%) Large companies (67%) Dominican Republic Government (71%) Large companies (59%) Venezuela Government (70%) Military (44%) Panama Government (69%) Large companies (57%) Peru Government (67%) Large companies (51%) Colombia Government (67%) Large companies (45%) Mexico Government (65%) Political parties (36%) Nicaragua Government (62%) Parliament/Congress (49%) Paraguay Government (62%) Political parties (48%) Guatemala Government (53%) Large companies (50%) Uruguay Government (52%) Large companies (47%) Bolivia Government (50%) Large companies (47%) Brazil Government (49%) Banks (47%) Costa Rica Government (44%) Large companies (39%) Chile Large companies (62%) Government (58%) Argentina Large companies (60%) Government (51%) Honduras Large companies (55%) Government (52%) Ecuador Parliament/Congress (51%) Government (50%) and Political parties (50%) Latin America Government (59%) Large companies (46%) * Multiple alternatives, answers total more than 100%. Source: Latinobarómetro 2006

The different ways in which power is distributed among different figures and institutions serves to confirm the diverse and heterogeneous nature of the democracy in the 18 countries of Latin America.

Evaluation of democratic institutions and businesspeople

For the first time in 2006, Latinobarómetro measured people’s evaluation of the institutions of democracy.

In the case of the performance of Parliament/Congress, this is negative and only four in ten Latin Americans consider that it is good (41%) and, in only four countries, does more than half the population approve of its performance: Dominican Republic (63%), Venezuela (59%), Uruguay (58%) and Colombia (56%). The country where it receives the lowest positive evaluation is Ecuador (9%).

However, while only 41% of Latin Americans have a positive evaluation of the performance of Congress, only 27% have confidence in this institution. In other words, there are people who have little confidence in it, but have a good opinion of its performance.

80 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF PARLIAMENT/CONGRESS TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In your opinion, is the work the Parliament/National Congress is doing very good, good, bad, very bad, or do you have insufficient information to reply? *Answer shown ‘Very good’ plus ‘good’.

Dominican Rep. 63 Venezuela 59 Uruguay 58 Colombia 56 Honduras 50 Brazil 46 Costa Rica 44 Bolivia 44 Peru 39 Mexico 37 Nicaragua 36 Chile 36 Argentina 35 Panama 35 Guatemala 32 El Salvador 31 Paraguay 29 Ecuador 9 Latin America 41 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

The drop in the perceived power of political parties, discussed above, can be explained by people’s evaluation of their performance. Only a third of the population considers it is good and in no country does the figure reach 50%. Even in Mexico and Ecuador, where they are identified as the second most powerful institution, they fail to achieve a better evaluation. The countries where their performance is best evaluated are Venezuela (44%), Uruguay (44%), the Dominican Republic (40%) and Colombia (40%) while the worst evaluations are found in Ecuador (9%) and Argentina (15%).

These results are consistent with the low level of interpersonal trust found in Latin America, which reaches only 22%. However, since 29% of the population considers that the performance of political parties is good, we again find that there is a percentage that has little confidence in them but has a positive evaluation of their performance.

81 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In your opinion, is the work the political parties are doing very good, good, bad, very bad, or do you have insufficient information to reply? *Answer shown ‘Very good’ plus ‘good’.

Venezuela 44 Uruguay 44 Dominican Rep. 40 Colombia 40 Honduras 38 Costa Rica 35 Mexico 32 Brazil 30 Nicaragua 30 Peru 30 Guatemala 28 Panama 25 El Salvador 25 Bolivia 21 Chile 21 Paraguay 20 Argentina 15 Ecuador 9 Latin America 29 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

The performance of the judiciary, the third institution evaluated, is also considered deficient. Only 38% of the region’s inhabitants consider it good and there are only 5 countries (Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela) in which more than half the population hold this view. Ecuador, where only 10% of the population consider it good, is again the country with the worst evaluation. In the case of the judiciary, evaluation is more consistent with confidence in the institution which reaches a regional average of 36%.

EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIARY TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In your opinion, is the work the judiciary is doing very good, good, bad, very bad, or do you have insufficient information to reply? *Answer shown ‘Very good’ plus ‘good’.

Uruguay 59 Dominican Rep. 58 Brazil 53 Colombia 53 Venezuela 52 Costa Rica 48 Honduras 41 Panama 40 Bolivia 39 Mexico 38 Nicaragua 36 Guatemala 34 Argentina 29 El Salvador 28 Chile 27 Paraguay 25 Peru 21 Ecuador 10 Latin America 38 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

82 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Out of the four institutions measured, it is businesspeople, with a regional average of 47%, who receive the best evaluation. In six countries - the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Panama, Brazil, Costa Rica and Venezuela - over 50% has a positive evaluation of their performance. Again, this is lowest in Ecuador with 22%.

EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BUSINESSPEOPLE TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In your opinion, is the work businesspeople are doing very good, good, bad, very bad, or do you have insufficient information to reply? *Answer shown ‘Very good’ plus ‘good’.

Dominican Rep. 65 Colombia 63 Panama 57 Brazil 54 Costa Rica 53 Venezuela 52 Uruguay 49 Mexico 47 Guatemala 47 Peru 46 Bolivia 45 Honduras 43 Chile 43 Nicaragua 42 Paraguay 41 El Salvador 37 Argentina 37 Ecuador 22 Latin America 47 0 10203040506070

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n=20.234.

These measurements indicate not only how the performance of these institutions is evaluated, but also those in which the region’s citizens vest most expectations.

Ranking of Satisfaction

Democracy 38% Government 54% Businesspeople 47% Congress 41% Judiciary 38% Political parties 29%

It is of the political parties that people expect least.

6. LEFT-RIGHT SCALE

The left-right scale is a standard indicator used in political science. The interviewee is asked to identify his/her own position on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 represents the extreme left and 10 represents the extreme right.

83 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

In this way, it is possible to identify the political position of the population as well as the ideological position of the presidents elected in this wave of elections and their popular support.

The first important result of this indicator is that it shows the region as a whole to be in the political center with a score of 5.4 on the scale of 0 to 10.

The tables below illustrate two different aspects of the results: the average position of voters in each country, and the number of people on the left and right and in the center.

The right: There are several countries in which close to half the population is on the right including, for example, El Salvador (50%), the Dominican Republic (45%), Honduras (44%), Colombia and Nicaragua (43%). Then, there are several countries in which a similar number of people are on the right and on the left - Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and Ecuador - and an important number of countries in which around half the population is in the center.

The center: The three countries with the populations that are furthest to the right are also those with the smallest percentage in the center - El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Honduras - as well as Nicaragua which is more polarized between left and right. In all other countries, at least 40% of the population is in the center, implying that no leader can govern without taking into account this vast mass of voters, whether or not they voted for him/her.

The left: Paradoxically, the left in Latin America is far weaker than the right. There is no country in which the left reaches more than 34% (Uruguay). As a result, according to this survey, Uruguay is the country with the largest number of people on the left. On average, the countries further to the left are Panama (4.6), Uruguay (4.7), Bolivia (4.8) and Chile (4.9).

According to its average, Nicaragua is in the center of the left-right scale with 5.0, principally because as well as having a high percentage on the left (32%), it also has a high percentage on the right (43%) and is, in other words, a quite polarized country as regards its voters. Under the country’s electoral law, Daniel Ortega was elected with less than 50% of the vote and the right-wing candidates failed to capitalize on the potential electoral support detected in this survey. Without an absolute majority, the new government faces the challenge of satisfying the majority who did not vote for it, most of whom are not in the center but on the right.

84 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

LEFT-RIGHT SCALE TOTAL LATIN AMERICA AND BY COUNTRY, 2006 Q. In politics, people normally speak of "left" and "right". On a scale where 0 is left and 10 is right, where would you place yourself? *Averages shown.

Dominican Rep. 7.1 Costa Rica 6.3 Honduras 6.2 Venezuela 5.6 Colombia 5.6 Mexico 5.6 Ecuador 5.4 El Salvador 5.3 Argentina 5.3 Guatemala 5.3 Brazil 5.2 Paraguay 5.2 Peru 5.1 Nicaragua 5.0 Chile 4.9 Bolivia 4.8 Uruguay 4.7 Panama 4.6 Latin America 5.4

012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

The list of countries ordered according to the number of people on the left are those in which the president is identified as left-wing. In all these countries, the president was elected with support from the center because there are insufficient left-wing votes.

This is extremely significant and indicates two important phenomena - firstly, that left-wing leaders interpret the center better than right-wing leaders or, in other words, that the right does not have a message that appeals to the center and, secondly, the mandate of a president elected with support from the center is different from that of one elected only with the support of the left.

One particularly emblematic case is Bolivia where President Morales obtained a clear absolute majority, giving him the strongest mandate of the country’s recent history. The more pragmatic turn that he has taken recently reflects his need to interpret not only voters on the left but also the large majority who elected him.

In Brazil and Chile, Presidents Lula and Bachelet are also examples of left-wing presidents who govern on behalf of a majority that is not only on the left.

The case of Venezuela is particularly paradoxical. Its average on the left-right scale is 5.6 or, in other words, right of center, with 33% of the population on the right and 40% in the center, but it has elected a president who is clearly left-wing. Does this mean that Venezuelans don’t know that he is on the left? Or that they don’t mind what the position of their president is? Or that the concepts of left and right are no longer valid tools of analysis? It could also mean that the opposition is not capable of offering Venezuelans a viable alternative.

This phenomenon of the left has sociological and historic, rather than political, roots. In democracy, the demands of the vast mass of the population are the old demands of the left. This is particularly clear in the election of President Ortega in Nicaragua. In the region’s election campaigns, the parties of both the right and left talked about inequality, discrimination, poverty and minority rights.

85 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

The right, although it is more numerous, has simply not been credible when it has echoed the messages of the left and has not captured support in the center.

The left appears to have conquered the center and, with it, power. However, the word ‘left’ is open to misunderstanding. It does not mean the same as in the 1960s when revolutionaries sought the dictatorship of the proletariat. Today’s left is a reformist elite that campaigns on issues like poverty in competitive elections, defends democracy and plays by the rules of the international economy.

From an empirical point of view, therefore, we have left-wing presidents, elected with support from the center, who implement neoliberal economic policies. That is why we can’t talk about a shift to the left in the region without also saying that today’s left is not the left of the past.

COUNTRIES ORDERED ON LEFT-RIGHT SCALE TOTALS BY COUNTRY, 2006. Q. In politics, people normally speak of "left" and "right". On a scale where 0 is left and 10 is right, where would you place yourself? * Answers omitted ‘Nowhere’, ‘DNK’ and ‘DNA. Reclassified scale (0-3=left; 4-6=center; 7-10=right).

ORDERED BY PERCENTAGE ON THE LEFT ORDERED BY PERCENTAGE ON THE RIGHT Uruguay 34 El Salvador 50 Nicaragua 32 Dominican Rep. 45 Bolivia 29 Honduras 44 Venezuela 28 Nicaragua 43 Dominican Rep. 28 Colombia 43 Peru 28 Costa Rica 34 Brazil 28 Venezuela 33 Panama 27 Paraguay 32 Chile 26 Argentina 32 Mexico 23 Brazil 31 Honduras 23 Peru 28 Ecuador 23 Ecuador 27 Paraguay 21 Guatemala 25 Guatemala 21 Mexico 24 El Salvador 21 Bolivia 21 Costa Rica 19 Panama 21 Colombia 14 Uruguay 20 Argentina 12 Chile 18

01020304050 0 1020304050

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

Finally, the left-right scale shows that there are 8 countries in which the population has moved to the left (Honduras, Venezuela, Paraguay, Argentina, Peru, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Bolivia) and four in which it has moved to the right ( Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and Panama).

86 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

EVOLUTION ON LEFT-RIGHT SCALE

LATIN AMERICA, 1996-2006

Countries that have moved to the right Countries that have moved to the left

AVERAGE AVERAGE 1996 2006 1996 2006 Costa Rica 6.0 6.3 Uruguay 5.2 4.7 Guatemala 4.8 5.2 Bolivia 5.1 4.8 Mexico 4.6 5.5 Nicaragua 5.3 5.0 Panama 4.0 4.6 Peru 5.6 5.1 Paraguay 5.9 5.2 Countries showing no change Argentina 5.7 5.3 Brazil 5.1 5.2 Venezuela 5.9 5.6 Colombia 5.7 5.6 Chile 4.8 4.8 Ecuador 5.3 5.4 El Salvador 5.4 5.3

Q. In politics, people normally speak of "left" and "right". On a scale where 0 is left and 10 is right, where would you place yourself? *Averages shown. Source: LATINOBARÓEMTRO 1996-2006

NEW ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY - THE RICH AND THE POOR

Along with the profound changes in the messages of the left and the right seen in the recent election campaigns, the results themselves reveal a new political alignment that has implications for the public policies adopted in the future.

The elections highlighted the existence of different nations within one country and these show a high correlation between vote, socioeconomic level and place of residence.

Areas that are poles of development, such as the north of Mexico and the Santa Cruz region of Bolivia, as well as the richest parts of southern Brazil and of Ecuador, backed right-wing candidates while the poorer areas of these countries supported candidates who were further left. There is still not enough evidence to conclude that poverty is the new ideology and has surpassed Marxism and socialism, but there are strong grounds for suspecting this may be the case. In these countries, those candidates who identify themselves as representing the interests of the poorest have, in fact, picked up the votes of this segment of the population, cutting across existing alignments and old party positions.

This explains why, in the recent elections, we saw a divided vote in Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia and Peru with the poles of development and rich areas voting one way and the poor, who live in the other extreme of the country, voting another way. In Mexico, for example, the rich north voted for Calderón who was victorious while a similar phenomenon was observed in the south of Brazil, in the rich east of Bolivia as opposed to the poor altiplano, and in the coastal cities of Peru as opposed to the areas inhabited by quechuas and aymarás. These are countries divided by wealth and under-development within their own frontiers.

87 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Is it possible to argue that in these countries, poverty is the left and wealth is the right? The votes of the poorest did not win everywhere and, far from being reassuring, this should be seen as a warning because demands are ever more pressing and won’t wait as they did ten years ago.

7. THE IMAGE OF LEADERS

The image of the region’s leaders has become a political issue since the rise of Hugo Chávez as a figure outside his own country.

In previous surveys, Latinobarómetro measured recognition and evaluation of some of the region’s presidents, comparing them with Castro and Bush, two heads of state who are known throughout most of Latin America. In 2005, the survey, which included a question about the popularity of Chávez, found he was not known to part of the region’s population and, in 2006, his level of recognition did not increase.

In 2006, leaders were measured with the aim of obtaining a weighted assessment of their recognition levels in each country and in the region as a whole and, in this way, of determining who can, in fact, be termed a leader and in which countries.

The results presented below reveal that it is difficult to be a leader in Latin America. In order to measure this, a question was included using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 represents a very bad evaluation and 10 a very good evaluation or that that the interviewee doesn’t answer.

7.1. Level of recognition of leaders

The number of people in each country not answering the question about the different presidents being evaluated shows a pattern of recognition that makes sense and corresponds to people’s experience.

Firstly, the presidents who were evaluated are known to almost 100% of the population of their own country. This was the case even of Peru’s recently-elected Alan García, reflecting a knowledge that dates back to his first administration.

Secondly, the results show limited recognition of the presidents of neighboring countries. As seen in the cases of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru and Chile, around 40% of the population know the name of the presidents of neighboring countries. In the case of non-neighboring countries, this drops to less than 30% and, in some cases, 10%. In other words, the presidents of non-neighboring countries are virtually unknown to the peoples of the region. The exceptions are, firstly, Fidel Castro, who is not known to an average of 21% and is least well-known in Brazil and Paraguay where the figure reaches close to 40%. In other words, even in the countries where he is least well-known, he is still better known than the presidents of neighboring countries.

The second exception is George W. Bush who, like Castro, is not known only to 21% of the population. The figure is highest in Paraguay (43%), Nicaragua (35%) and Honduras (34%).

The other exception is Hugo Chávez who is not known to an average of 29% of the region’s inhabitants. This figure is highest in Honduras (58%) and Guatemala (53%), although there are five countries in which it reaches close to 40% (Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay, El Salvador and Nicaragua).

88 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

INTERVIEWEES WHO DON’T ANSWER ABOUT IMAGE OF LEADERS LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Answers shown ‘Don’t recognize’, ‘DNKN’ and ‘DNA’ . José Luis King Tabaré Álvaro Nestor Alan Michelle Evo Luiz I. Lula Hugo Fidel George COUNTRY Rodríguez Juan Vásquez Uribe Kirchner García Bachelet Morales da Silva Chávez Castro W. Bush Zapatero Carlos I Argentina 40% 82% 2% 64% 41% 35% 46% 25% 18% 17% 10% 6%

Bolivia 79% 70% 47% 55% 49% 52% 62% 3% 35% 14% 18% 29% Brazil 92% 92% 77% 81% 83% 80% 75% 65% 3% 49% 38% 24%

Colombia 87% 1% 79% 53% 69% 50% 47% 55% 55% 12% 15% 15%

Chile 81% 75% 28% 43% 5% 51% 46% 25% 35% 19% 14% 14% Ecuador 69% 41% 70% 48% 54% 60% 59% 46% 47% 28% 23% 27% México 95% 94% 93% 90% 88% 79% 73% 77% 86% 40% 28% 23% Paraguay 81% 84% 60% 81% 75% 73% 76% 63% 40% 49% 39% 43%

Peru 87% 70% 76% 5% 44% 75% 58% 32% 47% 19% 22% 25% Uruguay 3% 77% 15% 56% 49% 39% 40% 49% 14% 19% 14% 12% Venezuela 36% 16% 30% 28% 32% 36% 38% 20% 14% 6% 8% 12% Costa Rica 89% 64% 83% 78% 76% 68% 44% 72% 65% 27% 11% 13%

El Salvador 85% 73% 85% 80% 82% 70% 68% 70% 71% 39% 27% 19%

Guatemala 93% 83% 91% 86% 90% 87% 81% 79% 82% 53% 34% 29% Honduras 92% 84% 94% 92% 91% 86% 84% 82% 87% 58% 33% 34% Nicaragua 90% 83% 89% 82% 85% 82% 78% 79% 74% 40% 27% 35%

Panama 87% 51% 87% 71% 84% 75% 54% 75% 64% 18% 10% 7% Dominican Rep. 83% 72% 88% 76% 78% 72% 67% 78% 68% 16% 12% 15% Latin America 75% 67% 65% 64% 64% 64% 60% 54% 49% 29% 21% 21%

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

INTERVIEWEES WHO DON’T ANSWER ABOUT IMAGE OF LEADERS TOTAL LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Answers shown ‘Don’t recognize’, ‘DNKN’ and ‘DNA’ .

Tabaré Vásquez 75

Álvaro Uribe 67

Néstor Kirchner 65

Michelle Bachelet 64

Alan García 64

Evo Morales 54

Luiz I. Lula da Silva 49

Hugo Chávez 29

George W. Bush 21

Fidel Castro 21

0 1020304050607080

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

7.2. Ranking of the region’s leaders

The results of the evaluation of the region’s leaders are presented below in two different ways - firstly, as averages on a scale from 0 to 10 that provide a general evaluation and permit the construction of an

89 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile overall ranking and, secondly, with the scale broken down into three segments: a positive segment from 7 to 10, a negative segment from 0 to 3, and an intermediate segment from 4 to 6. In this analysis, only those people who evaluated each leader are considered.

The three leaders evaluated best by all those who answered in all countries are Lula (37%), Bachelet (32%) and Uribe, who receives the same percentage of good evaluations as Bush (30%).

However, when averages are taken, Bush drops to 8th position in this ranking of ten heads of state because 39% of interviewees have a bad opinion of him. Paradoxically, this is also the same percentage as have a bad opinion of Chávez.

However, Chávez does not match good evaluations of Bush (30%), reaching only 28%.

While Bush is known to 79% of the region’s inhabitants, Chávez is known to 71% and this evaluation is, therefore, valid at a regional level.

However, it is Castro who receives the most bad evaluations, with 41%. He is also known to 79% of the region’s inhabitants.

IMAGE OF LEADERS LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Only those who answered are considered. Reclassified scale (0-3; 4-6; 7-10).

37 Luiz I. Lula da Silva 47 16 32 Michelle Bachelet 50 18 30 Álvaro Uribe 48 22 30 George W. Bush 31 39 29 Néstor Kirchner 43 27 29 Evo Morales 43 29 28 Hugo Chávez 34 39 27 Fidel Castro 33 41 26 Tabaré Vázquez 49 25 19 Alan García 48 33

0 10203040506070

Negative (0-3) Intermediate (4-6) Positive (7-10)

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234.

90 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

IMAGE OF LEADERS LATIN AMERICA, 2006

Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Only those who answered are considered.. Averages shown.

Luiz I. Lula da Silva 5.8

Michelle Bachelet 5.5

Álvaro Uribe 5.4

Néstor Kirchner 5.0

Evo Morales 5.0

Tabaré Vázquez 5.0

Hugo Chávez 4.6

George W. Bush 4.6

Alan García 4.5

Fidel Castro 4.4

01234567

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234 Using the results by leader, a ranking for each one of them can be constructed.

Image of Bush: The image of Bush is best in the Central American countries and in Colombia, and is worst in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile. There is a difference of 55 percentage points between the country in which he is evaluated best (Panama with 61%) and that in which he receives the worst evaluation (Argentina with 6%). It is, therefore, not possible to talk in terms of his regional image and, in order to understand his evaluation correctly, it is necessary to distinguish between countries or sub- regions.

91 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

IMAGE OF GEORGE BUSH LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Only those who answered are considered; answer shown ‘Good (7-10)’. ** ‘Averages’ shown. Positive Image * Averages ** Panama 61 Panama 7.0 Dominican Rep. 53 Dominican Rep. 6.5 Honduras 51 Honduras 6.3 El Salvador 45 El Salvador 5.9 Nicaragua 43 Nicaragua 5.5 Colombia 39 Colombia 5.4 Costa Rica 38 Costa Rica 5.3 Peru 32 Peru 5.2 Guatemala 30 Guatemala 5.0 Mexico 29 Paraguay 4.5 Paraguay 25 Bolivia 4.3 Ecuador 24 Mexico 4.3 Bolivia 22 Ecuador 4.1 Venezuela 22 Chile 3.8 Brazil 19 Brazil 3.4 Chile 12 Venezuela 3.4 Uruguay 12 Uruguay 2.8 Argentina 6 Argentina 1.9 Latin America 30 Latin America 4.6

0 1020304050607080 012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

Image of Chávez: The image of Chávez is best in Venezuela, the Dominican Republic and Argentina, and worst in Chile where he receives a positive evaluation from only 8%, Costa Rica (11%) and Peru and Mexico (13%).

Despite these important differences as regards good evaluations, both Bush and Chávez have a regional average of 4.6.

In eight countries - Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Chile, Panama and the Dominican Republic - Chávez is known to more than 80% of the population and his evaluation in these countries can be considered that of a leader. In the other countries where he is known to only half or less than half (40%) of the population, it is not possible to compare in the same way as when he is known to 80%.

92 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

IMAGE OF HUGO CHÁVEZ LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Only those who answered are considered; answer shown ‘Good (7-10)’. ** ‘Averages’ shown. Positive Image * Averages ** Venezuela 66 Venezuela 7.1 Dominican Rep. 43 Dominican Rep. 6.0 Argentina 38 Argentina 5.6 Paraguay 35 Paraguay 5.5 Uruguay 32 Ecuador 5.1 Nicaragua 31 Uruguay 4.8 Ecuador 30 Nicaragua 4.7 Bolivia 25 Bolivia 4.6 Guatemala 25 Guatemala 4.5 Honduras 25 Honduras 4.4 El Salvador 23 Panama 4.2 Panama 22 El Salvador 4.1 Colombia 21 Brazil 4.1 Brazil 17 Colombia 3.9 Mexico 13 Chile 3.6 Peru 13 Mexico 3.5 Costa Rica 11 Costa Rica 3.0 Chile 8 Peru 3.0 Lain America 28 Latin America 4.6

0 1020304050607080 012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

Image of Castro: The image of Castro is best in Venezuela, Paraguay and Honduras, and worst in Costa Rica, Chile and Panama.

The dispersion is similar to that for the other leaders evaluated. The countries in which each have strengths and weaknesses are repeated only partially. In general, it can be said that Bush has a better image in Central America than in the Southern Cone and that neither Chávez nor Castro have a region or sub-region in which their image is best.

IMAGE OF FIDEL CASTRO LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Only those who answered are considered; answer shown ‘Good (7-10)’. ** ‘Averages’ shown. Positive Image* Averages ** Venezuela 60 Venezuela 6.6 Paraguay 44 Paraguay 5.9 Honduras 36 Ecuador 5.3 Argentina 33 Honduras 5.3 Ecuador 32 Argentina 5.0 Brazil 28 Bolivia 4.9 Nicaragua 28 Brazil 4.6 Uruguay 28 Guatemala 4.5 Bolivia 27 Uruguay 4.3 Guatemala 27 Dominican Rep. 4.2 Domincan Rep. 25 Mexico 4.1 Mexico 22 Nicaragua 4.1 Colombia 21 Colombia 4.0 El Salvador 21 Peru 4.0 Peru 21 El Salvador 3.9 Panama 13 Chile 3.7 Chile 11 Panama 3.0 Costa Rica 8 Costa Rica 2.4 Latin America 27 Latin America 4.4

0 1020304050607080 012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

93 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

Clearly, Bush, Castro and Chávez differ from the other presidents evaluated in the survey as regards level of recognition and it is possible to compare their image. In the case of the other presidents, who have a significantly lower level of recognition, their evaluation cannot be compared in the same way and must be restricted to those countries in which each is best known because the result of the evaluation depends on level of recognition, not performance.

The level of information on the basis of which the elite typically evaluates a leader is different from that of the population in general. Therefore, if only 15% or 20% recognize a foreign president, the opinion given is really that of the country’s better educated and informed elite.

Some of the presidents evaluated were elected in 2006, only months before the survey took place (Morales, Bachelet and García) and, in their case, the level of recognition can also be considered as only initial and different from that which will be seen over their full term. Other presidents were re-elected (Uribe and Lula). However, even when they are included, none of these presidents has the level of recognition of Chávez, Bush or Castro although, despite his short time in office, Morales reached 46%, almost equaling Lula after a full term (51%). In other words, recognition is not only a function of the length of time a president has been in power, but is also related to events. Michelle Bachelet and Evo Morales - as a woman and indigenous president, respectively - stand out because their election was emblematic and this is reflected in the survey’s results. Bachelet is better known than Uribe who has already completed a full term whereas she has been in office for only a matter of months.

In Latin America, it is difficult to be a leader and to win over the peoples of the region. Hugo Chávez has attracted the attention of the international press, and certainly that of Latin America, as a great communicator who has employed extraordinary means to make himself known, but he has still not managed to position himself as a leader in the region. He is unknown to a third of the region’s inhabitants and 39% have a negative evaluation of him while, in seven out of the 18 countries, 30% or more have a positive opinion (and, in his own country, over 60%). However, he is the president-elect with the highest level of recognition, well ahead of any of his peers.

We hope that this data helps to throw light on the region, its complexities, and the difficulties of being a leader amid its diversity.

By way of illustration, we include the data about Lula, who heads the list of the region’s best evaluated presidents. He is known to 51% of the region’s inhabitants, has very positive evaluations of 50% or more in three countries - Venezuela and Peru as well as his own country, Brazil - and there are 11 countries in which a third or more of the population has a good opinion of him. In other words, he has a positive leadership profile and only needs to become better known in order to be considered a regional leader.

94 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

IMAGE OF LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA LATIN AMERICA, 2006 Q. I’m going to list a number of foreign leaders. I want you to evaluate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means a very bad evaluation and 10 very good. * Only those who answered are considered; answer shown ‘Good (7-10)’. ** ‘Averages’ shown. Positive Image * Averages ** Venezuela 61 Venezuela 7.0 Brazil 56 Brazil 6.6 Peru 50 Peru 6.4 Mexico 40 Paraguay 5.9 Nicaragua 39 Mexico 5.8 Paraguay 38 Panama 5.8 Panama 35 Nicaragua 5.6 Argentina 32 Dominican Rep. 5.6 Costa Rica 32 Bolivia 5.6 Colombia 31 Costa Rica 5.6 Guatemala 31 Argentina 5.6 Uruguay 31 Colombia 5.5 Dominican Rep. 31 Ecuador 5.5 Bolivia 30 Guatemala 5.4 Ecuador 29 Uruguay 5.3 El Salvador 28 Honduras 4.9 Honduras 28 El Salvador 4.9 Chile 12 Chile 4.9 Latin America 37 Latin America 5.8

0 1020304050607080 012345678910

Source: Latinobarómetro 2006. n= 20.234

95 CORPORACIÓN LATINOBARÓMETRO - Santiago de Chile

TECHNICAL DATA SHEET LATINOBARÓMETRO 2006

Fieldwork: October 3-November 5

Sampling Error Sample Representativity Country Company Methodology ( 95% intervals of (Nº cases) (% of total country) confidence) Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Argentina Equipos MORI 1,200 +/- 2.82% 100% and quotas in the final stage Apoyo, Opinión y Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Bolivia 1,200 +/- 2.8% 100% Mercado and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Brazil IBOPE 1,204 +/- 2.8% 100% and quotas in the final stage Chile MORI Chile Three Stages Random Sample 1,200 +/- 2.8% 100% Centro Nacional de Four Stage Random Sample by 3 Stages Colombia 1,200 +/-3.5% 100% Consultoría and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Costa Rica CID-GALLUP 1,000 +/- 3.1% 100% and quotas in the final stage Apoyo, Opinión y Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Ecuador 1,200 +/- 2.8% 100% Mercado and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages El Salvador CID-GALLUP 1,020 +/- 3.1% 100% and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Guatemala CID-GALLUP 1,000 +/- 3.1% 100% and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Honduras CID-GALLUP 1,000 +/- 3.1% 98.4% and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Mexico BGC Mexico 1,200 +/- 3% 100% and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Nicaragua CID-GALLUP 1,000 +/- 3.1% 99.8% and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Panama CID-GALLUP 1,008 +/- 3.1% 99.2% and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Paraguay Equipos MORI 1,200 +/- 2.82% 100% and quotas in the final stage Apoyo, Opinión y Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Peru 1,200 +/- 2.8% 100 % Mercado and quotas in the final stage Dominican Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages CID-GALLUP 1,000 +/- 3.1% 100% Republic and quotas in the final stage Three Stage Random Sample by 2 Stages Uruguay Equipos MORI 1,202 +/- 2.82% 100% and quotas in the final stage Six Stage Random Sample by 5 Stages Venezuela DOXA and quotas in the final stage 1,200 +/- 3% 100%

96