Covid 19 Opens Doors for Authoritarian Leaders in Latin America

 

              The outbreak of Covid-19 has revealed an unsettling reality in Latin American Politics. Particularly, that democracy in the region is incredibly fragile. Thanks to the pandemic, the weakness in institutions is being revealed, and authoritarian leaders are taking advantage. Covid-19 has particularly exacerbated the economic crisis, which has led to an increase in political tensions.

              The effects are already underway. In Chile, the polling company Latinobarometro reported that support for democracy has fallen to 48%. About 30% of people reported they were indifferent to the type of government. Alarmingly, only 24% reported feeling satisfied with democracy (Wilson Center). Part of the reason why support for democracy has fallen so dramatically is because of the low economic growth between 2014 and 2020. Furthermore, there has been a blatant amount of corruption and scandal plaguing Latin America. Notably, the Odebrecht scandal embroiled over ten countries in cases of bribery and corruption. These kinds of things understandably cause people to lose faith in their institutions. As a result, in 2019 protests occurred in several countries only to be paused due to the lockdowns necessary to control the pandemic. So, unrest was brewing far before the virus hit. Furthermore, the Wilson Center reports the GDP of the region will fall by 9.1%, and roughly about 45 million people will fall into poverty. This brings the total of people living in poverty to 230.9 million.

As a result, the combination of the pandemic and the unhappiness with economic conditions has empowered authoritarian leaders to overstay their terms and undermine their constitutions (Kurmanaev, 2020). Plenty of them have used the guise of lockdown measures to oppress political opponents and gain control of the military. According to Kurmanaev, "There are now five Latin American and Caribbean nations with recent democratic histories — Venezuela, Nicaragua, Guyana, Bolivia and Haiti — where governments weren’t chosen in free and fair elections or have overstayed their time in office. It’s the highest number since the late 1980s, when the Cold War receded and several countries in the grips of civil war or military dictatorships transitioned to peace and democracy.

Image

In Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega released inmates due to the threat of the virus, but kept political dissidents locked up. In Guyana, a lockdown was used to suppress protests against the government. They recently lost the elections but are using the virus as an excuse to overstay their term.

In El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele ignored a Supreme Court ruling limiting executive power. He has placed hundreds of people in containment centers, claiming it was to control Covid-19. He also launched intense attacks against the media criticizing his Covid-19 measures, claiming they were trying to destabilize his government to benefit other partisan interests. Even worse, he took complete control of the military and made them storm a parliamentary session to strongarm legislators into approving his budget proposal (Kitroeff, 2020). Covid has allowed authoritarians to amass power in a relatively covert way, as they all claim their actions are a way to solve the health emergency.  

              The widening inequality caused by Covid-19 has led to escalating tensions among social classes. As a result, populist leaders place a spotlight on the “oligarchy”, or upper class blaming them for stealing resources from the people. They have launched an “Us vs. Them” rhetoric that emboldens authoritarian leaders, placing them as the saviors of the struggling classes. As a result, people are far less likely to criticize any unconstitutional actions governments take. For example, despite the many violations Nayib Bukele has committed against human rights, he is the president with the highest poll ratings in all of Latin America, with a hefty 71% approval. (Statista, 2020). This is highly alarming because at the same time Latinobarometro reports only 27% of Salvadoran people are satisfied with democracy.

              High crime rates also make democracy fragile. The rising unemployment due to the pandemic will make many young people easy pickings for gangs. Currently it has been reported that in Mexico, Brazil, and El Salvador, gangs have taken it upon themselves to become a COVID patrol of sorts, enforcing lockdowns (Wilson Center). This has expanded their territorial power. As a result, people have begun preferring higher military and police presence to control the gangs. This gives authoritarian leaders an alarming amount of power, as people grow less concerned with any possible human rights violations the military commits in the name of the government. The following figure shows data on the percentage of people who would support a military coup in the face of high crime. 

It shows how in a time of crisis the preservation of democracy is not the first thing on people’s minds. Furthermore, most countries in Latin America are about to begin election cycles. It is entirely possible the region will turn toward authoritarianism given their discontent with current democratic governments. More than likely the results of these elections will lead to even more stagnation, violations of human rights, and corruption. If Latin American wants to prevent disaster, democratic institutions need to actually start working according to the will of the people and not their own self interest.

Sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/world/americas/latin-america-democracy-pandemic.html

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/ab2018/2018-19_AmericasBarometer_Regional_Report_10.13.19.pdf

https://www.latinobarometro.org/latOnline.jsp

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/what-covid-19-revealing-about-latin-americas-politics

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1015645/latin-american-president-approval-rate/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/world/americas/el-salvador-nayib-bukele.html

The Presidential Debate: A Spectacle or Sign of Something More?

  

(Photo: CNN)

 

In the United States, there’s no doubt that political debates, particularly presidential ones, are a spectacle. On Tuesday, the country watched what was described by CNN’s Jake Tapper as “a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck” (CNN). Moderator Chris Wallace desperately tried to rein in the President’s frequent interruptions, but to no avail. 90 minutes blew by in a chaotic whirl and many Americans turned off their TVs wondering what exactly it was they just watched. 

Political debates hold a special place in politics across the world. Most countries in the European Union hold televised debates, as do Malawi, Indonesia, India, Uruguay, Iran, and Liberia. The U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates gives assistance to nations who want to establish their own debates and sends teams of experts to advise them on how to form these events, holding workshops where organizers from across the world share ideas and experiences (Trainer). Overall, 78 countries have debates that reflect the US model.

Debates have historically held a great deal of weight in elections. April 14, 1994 marked the day of South Africa’s first presidential debate between Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Clerk before its momentous election (nelsonmandela.org). Many believe Justin Trudeau’s performance in Canada’s 2015 debate contributed to his party’s victory in the general election.

Of course, the purpose of a presidential debate is supposed to be a noble one. A moment when voters can watch candidates go toe to toe, speaking on issues that matter and clearly putting forth their arguments so that the people can make an informed decision on who they want to represent them. To many, a political debate is a reflection of democracy at its finest.

On televisions across the world, America did not shine very brightly two days ago. German public broadcasting service Deutsche Welle called the debate “a complex and utterly disordered and mismanaged situation: a muddled mess.” (Deutche Welle). Bruce Wolpe, chief of staff to former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard wrote the event was “a horrible, disastrous, useless session that left viewers utterly disappointed” (Politico). The reviews only get worse. 

Tuesday’s affair is perhaps an excellent manifestation of the rapidly changing political norms we have seen in the past few years. The United States holds a prominent place in the world, but for many other countries, their respect for the US is declining. German political researcher Stephen Bierling shares that “The U.S. has always been a democratic role model, but our motherland of democracy has gone down a dangerous path” (Washington Post). In a majority of countries, those in the general public with a favorable view of the United States is at its lowest point since the topic was monitored beginning two decades ago. 

 

The above image depicts those with a favorable view of the U.S (Pew Research Center)

 

 

 

 

                                                                  (Pew Research Center)

 

A large part of these low numbers is on account of the world’s view of the U. S coronavirus response, which many dubbed disastrous. It is clear that the globe no longer sees the US with the eyes it once did, due to reasons ranging from climate change, its handling of coronavirus, and perhaps its lack of decorum on the world stage. In most other countries, serious political debates are thoroughly immersed in policy and controlled strictly by the moderator. Accordingly, Tuesday’s tumult was watched with wide eyes and a certain level of shock. However, it begs the question if what the world saw in the presidential debate is a sign of something bigger. Is the United States losing its place in the world?

Sources:

 

https://www.nelsonmandela.org/on-this-day/entry/nelson-mandela-and-president-fw-de-klerk-hold-final-debate-before-south-afr

 

https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-and-joe-biden-clash-in-chaotic-first-debate/a-55098690

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/30/jake-tapper-dana-bash-debate-reaction-vpx.cnn

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/30/the-worst-presidential-debate-in-history-423765

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/09/30/trump-biden-debate-global-reaction-us-decline/

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

 

 

 

Multi-party or two-party system? Echoes of Weimar Republic

As the 2020 presidential election approaches, many US voters find themselves in a difficult situation. With little common ground among the Democratic and Republican candidates, the polarization of both parties has left many voters feeling unrepresented. People start to question the legitimacy of the two-party system--does it undermine democracy? Is it really a favorable system for electing the optimal candidate? Would the introduction of more political parties mitigate polarization and increase representation?

Despite the concern of deviating from electing the best leader, the two-party system unarguably promotes governmental stability, because a single party can win a majority in the legislature. In a multiparty country, on the other hand, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a legislature majority. The weakness of ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power. A constantly changing government is also unstable in terms of law making.

The two-party system tends to maintain the balance of powers and moderate radical ideologies. To appeal for the support of a majority of voters, a party must present a program sympathetic to the desires of most of the politically active elements of the population. An effort must be made to reconcile the conflicting interests of different sectors of the population. This enables the party to resist the demands of policies urged by any particular extremist element. 

A multiparty system could cultivate factions. In the Federalist.10, James Madison warns about the potential dangers of factions and how it disrupts democracy. Against "the minor party," there could emerge "an interested and overbearing majority.” In a multiparty system, under special times, extreme parties could quickly draw dominance and undermine the work of democracy. The collapse of minority governments in the 20s to 30s German Reichstag remains a traumatic failure in the world’s history.

Between 1920 and 1933, the Reichstag was filled with a surplus of middle and small-sized parties, occupying all parts of the political spectrum. With the removal of the authoritarian regime, Germans were curious about the political direction their nation would take. In addition, the Weimar constitution and electoral system encouraged the formation and participation of political parties, no matter their size. A party needed only to assemble 50,000 to 60,000 votes to win a seat and have a voice in the national assembly.

In the 1930s, parliamentarians started to lose the ability to find compromises only once the Great Depression devastated the German economy. The economic turmoil following the Black Tuesday of 1929 attracted people to extreme ideologies in an extreme time of crisis. The Nazi party began to flourish under such circumstances. The rise of the Nazi party in 1932 has dramatically changed the composition of the Reichstag, as the Nazis absorbed votes and seats from other right-wing nationalist parties.

Multi-party systems also tend to be more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that use proportional representation compared to countries that use first-past-the-post elections.  In first-past-the-posts, each district selects one person to fill a seat by a plurality of the vote. This electoral system naturally gravitates toward a two-party system, in which only two parties have a real chance of electing their candidates to office.

Same as in 1929, we are now in a time of unpredictable changes and unprecedented crisis. The pandemic, as well as racial injustices in American society, has torn people apart. These are easy times for the growth of radicalized ideologies. Although some people think this year’s election is disastrously polarized, the adoption of a multi-party system might have escalated the division in the country.

Would a multiparty system work better for the United States at the cost of risking the stability of a two-party system? That’s something worth thinking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/09/the-power-of-third-party-campaigns/the-two-party-system-is-imperfect-but-more-effective

http://cincinnatirepublic.com/federalist-no-10-inevitable-danger-factions/

https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-political-parties/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-party-system#:~:text=The%20two-party%20system%20is%20said%20to%20promote%20governmental,enough%20total%20strength%20to%20form%20a%20parliamentary%20majority

Why does there continue to be a widening gender gap in US voting?

Since the inception of the 19th Amendment, women have voted at a higher rate than men, with over 63% of women stating that they had voted in the presidential election of 2016 compared to 59% of men. This is not a new trend, but rather one dating back to the 1980s. Starting in the presidential election of 1984, a gender gap began to develop in each election, slowly increasing over time (Igielnik, 2020).

(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/)

While not substantial, a 4 point difference raises some questions into why each gender votes the way they do. Why does this gender gap exist within voting in the United States, and why does it continue to widen? A plausible explanation can be found within the topic and history of women’s rights. Women have been able to vote for a much shorter portion of US history than men, as women’s right to vote was only established a mere century ago. Looking at this, one can assume that women have possibly been motivated by this somewhat recent accomplishment to make their voices heard within the US. In contrast, men, having already had the right to vote for a few centuries, view it with slightly less importance.

Another factor could be the breaking of older, societal norms. As stated by scholar Susan Carroll, “‘Women had been socialized pre-suffrage,... Maybe it wasn’t proper for women to be involved in politics’” (Rampell, 2014). Both men and women had been conditioned to view women’s suffrage as socially unacceptable and inappropriate. When women finally began to realize the falsity of this belief, the societal norm began to break down, slowly causing more and more women to vote. This breakdown has continued to increase, resulting in a slowly-widening gender gap.

A similar gender gap emerged in the 1990s within party affiliation and candidate choice, with women being more likely to identify as Democrats and men more likely to identify as Republicans. This gap has continued to widen over time, hitting an all-time high in the 2016 election with a whopping eleven-point difference between men and women. 52% of men voted for the Republican candidate Donald Trump compared to a mere 43% of women (Center for the American Woman and Politics, 2017).

(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/)

Female voters’ tendency to affiliate with the Democrat Party is primarily due to the party's stances on certain political issues, particularly abortion, a topic which many women feel passionately about. When Ronald Reagan’s administration announced their opposition to abortion in 1980, many female voters were pushed away from the Republican Party and into the Democratic Party, creating the start of the gender gap in party affiliation (Arnold, 2020). As the Democratic Party continues to espouse socially progressive views, they continue to attract groups, such as women, that are disillusioned by the Republican Party.

The gender gap in US voting will likely continue to slowly increase unless the Republican Party begins to become more involved in social politics in a way that aligns with the political beliefs that align with those of most women. Until then, the gender gap will continue to widen as politics become increasingly polarized.

Works Cited:

Arnold, L. (2020, August 27). The Gender Gap in Voting. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/gender-gap

Center for the American Woman and Politics. (2017, January). The Gender Gap:

Voting Choices In Presidential Elections. Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/ggpresvote.pdf

Igielnik, R. (2020, August 18). Men and women in the U.S. continue to differ in voter turnout rate, party identification. Pew Research Center. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/

Rampell, C. (2014, July 17). Why women are far more likely to vote than men. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-why-women-are-far-more-likely-to-vote-then-men/2014/07/17/b4658192-0de8-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

Do Autocracies Fair Better During A Pandemic?

Within the course of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been debate over whether the structure of government within a country impacts its response to handling and containing COVID cases, particularly in autocracies.

Originally surfacing in China, a country with an authoritarian government, the outbreak spread quickly across the globe. Chinese President, Xi Jinping had major success quelling the spread within the country as “Strong authoritarian regimes excel at mass mobilization” (Yuen Ang) 

It is often accepted within many nations that with extraordinary circumstances - often come necessary extraordinary measures. Within these circumstances comes a perfect opportunity for autocratic leaders to seize further control. According to an article published in The New York Times in April, "Critics say some governments are using the public health crisis as cover to seize new powers that have little to do with the outbreak, with few safeguards to ensure that their new authority will not be abused." Some of the autocratic regimes who have seized upon the movement include Cambodia, Egypt, El Salvador, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, and Vietnam." (Foreign Affairs)

Tools such as contact tracing provide an opportunity for breaches of privacy to occur in the fact that governments can use the spread of disease as a necessary explanation for breaching the privacy of individuals. The Chinese government has been "Collecting a vast swatch of users' data -- including their location -- China's quarantine apps have empowered authorities to use big data to locate threats and take preventive action" (Politico)

Photo Courtesy of CNN

Although Xi Jinping and his government were able to quell the spread of disease, questions arise surrounding the cost at which the spread was controlled. The extreme quarantine measures China adopted appeared reminiscent of wartime. The government enacted measures "banning the private use of cars, forbidding residents from leaving their apartment without permission and requiring purchasers of cold medicine to disclose their temperature address, and identification number at the pharmacy." (NPR)

Other mechanisms like free speech can also be threatened in the midst of disease. In Jordan, another autocratic country that successfully contained the spread, the King has “have instituted a series of measures which have limited the space for public debates on the government’s policies (Jorgen) Speech has been threatened in other autocratic governments by detaining critics, health care workers and journalists during the pandemic. 

Photo Courtesy of Egypt Independent

Although China, Jordan and Singapore have seen success, other autocracies have struggled to contain the spread, including Iran. The Iranian government downplayed the severity of COVID, and then proceeded to sit on thousands of tests, which skyrocketed both coronavirus cases as well as unrest amongst Iranians, as well as distrust in the government. (Radio Free Europe) 

Democracies are no different than autocracies in the fact that they have also had a plethora of failures and successes. The United States, Spain, and Italy have all struggled to contain the virus, experiencing high case counts and poorly enforced safety measures. But others like Germany, Finland and New Zealand have performed amongst the best in the world. 

In order for safety measures to succeed, the people must be willing and voluntary to participate in them. According to an artice from  the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, public trust is what is essential for a successful pandemic response. With high trust in government comes the ability to enforce lockdowns and quarantines. Today, public trust in government doesn’t seem to align with democracies or autocracies. 

According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, some of the most autocratic states have some of the highest numbers of trust from their citizens such as Singapore and China  (Carnegie) While some democratic states like the United States have low levels of public trust. 

Courtesy of the Edelman Trust Barometer

In the following years, we’ll be able to compare the responses of autocratic governments more accurately. But for now, what seems apparent is that trust in government is essential in containing the spread of disease for democracies. Pandemic responses are not necessarily equated to type of governance, but heavily influenced by a country's resources and capacity in tandem with citizen’s perception of their own leaders. 

Sources: 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/government-privacy-coronavirus-china-308105 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/europe/coronavirus-governments-power.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-sudden-spread-of-coronavirus-leads-to-distrust-in-state-handling-of-disease/30447874.html 

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/03/31/do-authoritarian-or-democratic-countries-handle-pandemics-better-pub-81404 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0872-3 

https://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/jordan-and-covid-19-effective-response-high-cost 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/21/806958341/restrictions-and-rewards-how-china-is-locking-down-half-a-billion-citizens 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-06-13/democracy-versus-pandemic