Guillermo O'Donnell

On the State, Democratization and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Postcommunist Countries

Abstract The article argues that for proper understanding of many processes of democratization, current conceptions of the state must be revised, especially with reference to its legal dimension. On this basis several contrasts are drawn between representative, consolidated democracies and the democratic (i.e., polyarchical) forms that are emerging in most newly democratized countries, East and South. From this perspective, various phenomena not presently theorized (except as deviations from a presumed modal pattern of democratization) are discussed. Concepts such as delegative democracy, low-intensity citizenship and a state which combines strong democratic and authoritarian features are introduced for the purpose of that discussion.

Why the Rule of Law Matters

Abstract:High-quality democracy requires a truly democratic rule of law that ensures political rights, civil liberties, and mechanisms of accountability which in turn affirm the political equality of all citizens and constrain potential abuses of state power. How may the democratic rule of law (état de droit, estado democrático de derecho, Rechsstaat) be conceptualized and, insofar as possible, empirically gauged? By exploring a set of variables within the rule of law we can understand what makes it effective and how it relates to other aspects of the performance of democratic countries. This essay focuses on contemporary Latin America (especially Argentina and Brazil) where national-level democratic regimes often effectively coexist with undemocratic sub-national regimes—so-called “brown areas.”

Counterpoints : selected essays on authoritarianism and democratization

Using Argentina as the main example, this work examines all aspects of democracy and democratization in Latin America. The author illustrates many weaknesses of authoritarianism and repressive regimes which, he argues, can be taken advantage of appropriately by the struggle for democracy.

Democratic theory and comparative politics

The present text is, basically, a revision of democratic theory from the perspective of its inadequacies for including into its scope many of the recently democratized countries, as well as some older democracies located outside of the Northwestern quadrant of the world. After warning that it is a first step in a larger and more ambitious endeavor, the paper begins by critically examining various definitions of democracy, especially those that, claiming to follow Schumpeter, are deemed to be minimalist, or procesualist. On this basis, a realistic and restricted, but not minimalist, definition of a democratic regime is proposed. After this step, the connections of this topic with several others are explored, including political, social, and welfare rights; the state, especially in its legal dimension; and some characteristics of the overall social context. The main grounding factor that results from these explorations is the conception of agency, especially as it is expressed in the legal system of existing democracies - although the effectiveness of this system and of its underlying conceptions of agency vary quite widely across cases. The approach of the text emphasizes legal and historical factors, while also tracing, in several comparative excursi, some important differences among various kinds of cases. The main conclusions are stated in several propositions, the major thrust of which entails an invitation toward a theoretically disciplined broadening of the analytical and comparative scope of contemporary democratic theory.

In Partial Defense of an Evanescent "Paradigm"

Thomas Carothers has written a timely and important essay that deserves wide attention. His goal is the healthy one of sparking discussion among both scholars and those who are “practitioners” of democracy—government officials, civil society activists, or professionals who work in the field of democracy promotion. Since I am a scholar, I will focus on what Carothers has to say concerning academic writings about transitions and democratization. To begin with, I am in an odd situation. I am flattered that Carothers mentions me as coauthor of the “seminal work” on transitions. Since he follows this reference with a series of criticisms aimed at what he calls “the transition paradigm,” readers might assume that I will dispute most of what he says. In fact, I agree with many of his arguments. The reason for this apparent paradox is that Carothers lumps together, under the heading of the “transition paradigm,” a large and uneven body of work, and then proceeds to concentrate his criticisms on some of the weakest parts of it. So I will try to set the record straight, both for the sake of fairness and because I believe that our discussions, to be fruitful, should be based on an accurate notion of what the scholarly literature actually says. Carothers discusses three major and distinct issues: 1) The transition from authoritarian rule; 2) the aftermath of this transition; and 3) what some institutions (most of them belonging to or funded by Western governments) have been doing under the heading of “democracy promotion.” Carothers argues that thinking on these three topics has been led astray by a faulty “analytic model of democratic transition” that derives in good measure from the “seminal” four-volume work already cited, especially Guillermo O’Donnell is the Helen Kellogg Professor of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. His most recent book is Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization (University of Notre Dame Press, 1999).

Reflections on Contemporary South American Democracies

The occasion of honouring the memory of John Brooks, a great friend of Latin America, has helped me vanquish my initial reluctance to tackle a topic that is as broad, varied and still open-ended as the present situation of democracy in South America. As a first measure of my limitations, with the exception of some references to Costa Rica and Mexico, I will not discuss Central America and the Caribbean, not because I feel these regions are unimportant but because, simply, I do not know enough about them. However, when I feel that I am on sufficiently solid ground so as to refer to Latin America as a whole, I will do so. I begin by noting that in contemporary South America some countries satisfy the definition of political democracy. Those countries share two main characteristics. One is that they hold elections under universal adult franchise that, at least at the national level, are reasonably fair and competitive. These are standard criteria in the political science literature. However, having in mind the experience of Latin America and elsewhere in the third world, I believe that we should add that such elections must be institutionalised. By this I mean that all relevant actors expect that elections of this kind will continue being held in the indefinite future so, whether they like or not, it is rational for them to play democracy, not coup-making or insurrection. We should also stipulate that these elections are decisive, in the sense that those who are elected do occupy the respective offices and end their terms in the constitutionally prescribed way; they are not, as it has happened too often in Latin America, prevented from occupying office or thrown out of it because some supra-constitutional power feels that they are the ‘wrong people’. The second characteristic is the enjoyment of certain political rights, especially of opinion, expression, association, movement and access to a reasonably free and pluralist media. Of course, these and other rights are important per se ; in addition, they are instrumental – necessary conditions – for the effectuation of the kind of elections I have just specified.

schmitter's retrospective: a few dissenting notes

<p>Abstract:</p><p>Another coauthor of <i>Transitions from Authoritarian Rule</i> questions whether his former collaborator is underrating the current dangers to democracy.</p>