Abstract
The intent throughout this chapter is to derive a number of generalizations in the form of hypotheses by comparing the state-creation and democratization processes of Argentina, Chile, and Peru. A total of ten hypotheses are presented throughout the analysis to explain the conditions that facilitated or obstructed the processes of state creation and democratization in the three countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Democracy Index 2018—in The Economist—The Economist Intelligence Unit. http://www.yabiladi.com/img/content/EIU-Democracy-Index-2018.pdf
- 2.
For instance, in the case of Chile the initial term in office was limited to five years, with the possibility of re-election. In the 1990s it was lengthen to six years, but then in 2006 it was reduced to four years, with perpetual non-consecutive re-election permitted.
- 3.
Each re-election of a president is counted as a new president.
- 4.
Each re-election is counted as a new term.
- 5.
They did not achieve independence at the same time. I use 1824 as an artificial starting point to facilitate the comparison.
- 6.
As noted in the previous note, each re-election is counted as a new term. Chile attained independence in February 1818, Argentina in July 1816, and Peru in July 1821. To simplify the counting process, I chose 1824.
- 7.
Mariella Reano, “The Origin of Peruvian Professional Militarism,” Master Thesis, Louisiana State University, May 2002. http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0418102-094729/unrestricted/Reano_thesis.pdf
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Bruce Gilley, “The Meaning and Measure of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries,” European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 45 (2006): 499–525.
- 10.
Scott Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñan, “Latin American Democratization Since 1978: Democratic Transitions, Breakdowns, and Erosions,” in Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring, eds., The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 44–5.
- 11.
Ibid.
- 12.
“Latinobarómetro: Opinión Pública Latinoamericana, Informe 1995–2015” http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/portafolio/2015/INFORME_LB_2015.pdf
- 13.
Mainwaring and Pérez-Liñan, “Latin American Democratization Since 1978,” 45.
- 14.
Wendy Hunter, “Continuity or Change? Civil-Military Relations in Democratic Argentina, Chile, and Peru,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 112, No. 3 (Autumn 1997), 453–475. http://www.jstor.org.peach.conncoll.edu:2048/stable/2657566?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
- 15.
Ibid.
- 16.
Might the discrepancy in ranks signify that Chileans expect more from their democracy than Argentinians?
- 17.
Latinobarómetro: Opinión Pública Latinoamericana, Informe 1995–2015.
- 18.
Mainwaring and Pérez-Liñan, “Latin American Democratization Since 1978,” 45.
- 19.
As explained earlier, in 1992, Alberto Fujimori mounted what is now commonly referred to as a “self-coup.”
- 20.
“Peru declares state of emergency after bombing by Leftists guerrillas,” The New York Times, May 31, 1983. http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/31/world/peru-declares-state-of-emergency-after-bombings by-leftist rebels.html
- 21.
Carlos Iván Degregori and Carlos Rivera Paz, “Peru 1980–1993: Fuerzas Armadas, Subversion y Democracia” (Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Documento de Trabajo No. 53), 13.
- 22.
See Mitchell A. Seligson and Julio Carrión, “Political Support, Political Skepticism, and Stability in New Democracies: An Empirical Examination of Mass Support for Coups de’Etat in Peru,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (February 2002), 64.
- 23.
Latinobarómetro: Opinión Pública Latinoamericana: Informe 1995–2015.
- 24.
See Claudio A. Agostini, Philip H. Brown, and Andrei Roman, “Poverty and Inequality among Ethnic Groups in Chile,” June 2008, http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6542944.pdf
- 25.
“Peru Society and Conflict—Discrimination and Inequality,” http://www.perusupportgroup.org.uk/peru-society-and-conflict.html
- 26.
Though historically the argument in Latin American was dominated by those who favored a unitarian-type state versus those who advocated a federalist-type system, in most instances even those who favored a federalist-type system ultimately strove to centralize the power of the state as much as possible. It is preferable, thus, to focus on the degree to which power was finally distributed between the center and the regions.
Bibliography
Degregori, Carlos Iván, and Carlos Rivera Paz. 1994. Perú 1980–1993: Fuerzas Armadas, Subversión y Democracia: Redefinición Del Papel Militar En Un Contexto De Violencia Subversiva y Colapso Del Régimen Democrático. Instituto De Estudios Peruanos. Print.
Democracy Index 2018: Democracy in an Age of Anxiety. The Economist—The Intelligence Unit, 2018. Web. 24 Jan. 2019.
Gilley, Bruce. 2006. The Meaning and Measure of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries. European Journal of Political Research 45: 499–525. Print.
Hunter, Wendy. 1997. Continuity or Change? Civil-Military Relations in Democratic Argentina, Chile, and Peru. Political Science Quarterly 112 (3): 453–475. Web. 24 Jan. 2019.
Latinobarómetro: Opinión Pública Latinoamericana, Informe 1995–2015. Latinobarometro.org , n.d. Web. 03 May 2017.
Mainwaring, Scott, and Aníbal Pérez-Liñan. 2005. Latin American Democratization Since 1978: Democratic Transitions, Breakdowns, and Erosion. In The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks, ed. Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print.
Peru Declares State of Emergency After Bombing by Leftist Guerrillas. The New York Times, May 31, 1983. Web. 24 Jan. 2019.
Peru Society and Conflict: Discrimination and Inequality. Discrimination and Inequality. Peru Support Group, 2013. Web. 24 Jan 2019.
Reano, Mariella. 2002. The Origin of Peruvian Professional Militarism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Print.
Seligson, Mitchell, and Julio F. Carrión. 2002. Political Support, Political Skepticism, and Political Stability in New Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 35 (1): 58–82. Web. 24 Jan. 2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hybel, A.R. (2020). Exploratory Hypotheses: Chile, Peru, and Argentina. In: The Making of Flawed Democracies in the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21178-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21178-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21177-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21178-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)