Papers by Enrique Peruzzotti
Chinese Political Science Review, 2019
The triumph of democracy over its authoritarian adversaries inaugurated a novel political scenari... more The triumph of democracy over its authoritarian adversaries inaugurated a novel political scenario in the democratized world increasingly characterized by the confrontation between “liberal” and “populist” forms of democracy. Each model is predicated on a specific reading of what democracy is and each, respectively, proposes strategies to realize their democratic ideal. In a way, liberal and populist conceptions of democracy reflect each other’s shortcomings: liberals accuse populists of authoritarianism and lack of respect for established institutions, while populists regard liberal arrangements as intrinsically elitist and conservative. The outcome is an apparent theoretical and political standoff between two antagonistic visions of what democracy should be. A central argument of this article is that despite their differences, populism and liberalism share some common assumptions regarding the workings and nature of democracy. They both rely upon variants of an electoral approach to democratic representation. To overcome the apparent standoff between those two allegedly contrasting visions of democracy requires breaking with some of their shared assumptions to develop a stronger understanding of what democratic accountability means. That notion should move beyond: (a) a purely electoral understanding to democratic representation; and (b) a notion of accountability as limited government. In brief, a democratic notion of accountability should be predicated on both post-liberal and post-populist presuppositions.
El artículo se organiza alrededor de tres secciones. La primera analiza
las razones que han promo... more El artículo se organiza alrededor de tres secciones. La primera analiza
las razones que han promovido la actual centralidad del populismo como
fenómeno político, argumentando que la presente difusión de formas contemporáneas del populismo debe de ser vista como el corolario de la tercera ola democratizante que expandió la presencia geográfica de la democracia liberal (Huntington, 1991). La literatura ha repetidamente señalado la relación íntima que existe entre populismo y democracia liberal por lo que no es extraño que la expansión de esta última promueva una mayor relevancia del primero. Las principales expresiones contemporáneas de populismo aparecen precisamente en aquellas dos regiones donde el proceso de democratización ha logrado sus mayores éxitos (América y Europa). En dichos contextos, y dado el acotamiento de las fórmulas de legitimidad política que trajo aparejado la expansión del principio democrático, el populismo se posiciona como el principal crítico a las limitaciones que exhiben las democracias existentes. Dicha crítica política está fundamentada en una teoría democrática en la que el populismo aparece como la expresión paradigmática de una política democrática radical.
La segunda parte del artículo analiza las limitaciones del populismo
como teoría democrática a partir de una breve discusión del trabajo de Ernesto Laclau. En La razón populista, el populismo es presentado como la
expresión creativa de lo político que viene a contrarrestar la influencia
neutralizante de la institucionalidad representativa. El análisis laclauniano
del populismo, sin embargo, queda acotado al análisis del papel que dicho
fenómeno cumple como estrategia de cuestionamiento a la política liberalrepresentativa (y eventualmente de acceso al poder), pero no tiene nada que decir acerca del populismo como un ejercicio gubernamental. Lo anterior es sorprendente para una teoría política que aspira a ser también una teoría de la democracia.
La tercera y última parte del artículo argumenta sobre la necesidad de
expandir la perspectiva de análisis sobre populismo más allá del rol que el
mismo cumple como fuerza cuestionadora del status quo, y evaluar la naturaleza del populismo como forma distintiva de ejercicio del poder gubernamental. Lo anterior supone un corrimiento del eje de atención sobre su dimensión discursiva, ideológica, o dramatúrgica para tomar en cuenta las consecuencias que determinada forma de ejercicio del poder tiene sobre la institucionalidad democrática. Este último punto es crucial dado que muchas de las intervenciones populistas en curso (al contrario de las experiencias de modernización política que caracterizaron al populismo clásico y que suponían la superación de regímenes políticos autoritarios o semidemocráticos) se caracterizan por poner en marcha cuestionables procesos de hibridación institucional de la institucionalidad democrática vigente.
Constellations. A critical journal of critical and democratic theory, 2017
In the past three decades, debates in Latin American political theory have shifted from struggles... more In the past three decades, debates in Latin American political theory have shifted from struggles over competing regime-types to a discussion about the meaning and potential of democracy. After the region-wide consolidation of democracy, a new political consensus was reached: democracy became the only acceptable form of legitimate rule. The latter was no small accomplishment for a region like Latin America where political struggles often entailed not only a clash over different political programmes but frequently about alternative forms of regime as well. Regime change consequently was an ingrained aspect of political dynamics. In an scenario of political and institutional instability, authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, and democratic regimes frequently succeeded one another without being able to establish the ground for the consolidation of a stable political order.
The emergence of a democratic consensus throughout the continent marked the end of the era of institutional instability, inaugurating the most prolonged period of democratic rule in the region. The calls for regime change were consequently abandoned in favor of an agenda that sought to consolidate and improve the workings of the novel democratic regimes. Such novel concerns were reflected in the academic field with the creation of a vibrant field of democratization studies and in the axis that organized the two central subfields of analysis: 'consolidology' and the 'quality of democracy' approaches. The first one dominated the agenda in the initial post-transition years; its main concern being how to how to stabilize existing regimes to prevent an authoritarian reversal. Once it become clear that democratic rule had developed strong roots in most of the region, the 'quality of democracy' subfield gained prominence.
The quality of democracy approach focused on what it considered was a selective pattern of democratic institutionalization that gave birth to a peculiar form of polyarchy. The outcome of democratization in Latin America resulted in a delegative form of polyarchy that while adopting the basic features of democratic rule, exhibited notorious rule of law deficits that set these regimes apart from the Western model of representative polyarchy. Delegative democracy was the term that gained prominence to denominate this subtype of polyarchy. Delegative democracy's distinguishing feature was the absence of effective checks on Executive power due to the poor functioning of the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. To overcome such deficits, O'Donnell and others argue, it was imperative to strengthen and further develop the network of state agencies responsible for enforcing governmental accountability. As it is clear from the previous description, political debates were channeled into a common concern: how to preserve and strengthen existing institutional structures.
The previously described democratic consensus found a major political and conceptual contender in the works of proponents of populism as radical democracy. Pro-populism arguments introduce a normative and epistemological break, questioning not only the prevailing understanding of democracy upon which the field of democratization was predicated but also their diagnosis about what are the current political ills of Latin America. In the first place, for the populist paradigm openly questions the notion of polyarchy that served as the normative framework of the quality of democracy approach for it considers that the institutions of representative government are designed to render the principle of popular sovereignty impotent. The ideal of limited government is privileges the interest of powerful minorities over those of popular majorities. In the second place, for they propose a completely opposite political strategy towards democratization than the one of QDA. A political agenda which fundamentally seeks to channel political energies into the perfection of the institutional machinery of representative government is a misleading one and only serves the interests of conservative forces. The goal of a truly democratizing intervention should not be the emulation of the representative model prevalent in the West but to transcend such form of democracy altogether. Far from seeking the reinforcement of the institutional arrangements of polyarchy, a radical politics should break loose of them: the value of populist interventions lies precisely in their disruptive potential, that is, in the capacity they exhibit at challenging the prevalent institutional order. In this way, the current populist revival. The paradigm of populism as radical democracy breaks with what has been a central presupposition of democratizing studies: that processes of democratization and institutionalization largely overlap, reopening the question of regime change.
In brief, the Latin American field of democratization finds itself in a conceptual deadlock: on the one hand, the QDA approach privileges an institutional understanding of democracy while those that side with the cause of populism as radical democracy seek to transcend existing institutional arrangements altogether. In brief, we are left with a drastic choice between constituted and constituent power. The article seeks to review the main tenets of current debates to propose in the concluding remarks an alternative conceptual democratizing strategy than the ones on which the reviewed approaches respectively predicate.
Laboratorium Russian Review of Social Research, Sep 20, 2012
The late 1980s and early 90s saw an upsurge in comparative research on civil society in Latin Ame... more The late 1980s and early 90s saw an upsurge in comparative research on civil society in Latin America and Eastern Europe. At the time, scholars supported the idea of a "third wave of democratization," and Latin America was presented as a model for post-communist countries. Civil societies in both regions were analyzed comparatively. Emblematically, the Russian Soldiers' Mothers were often compared with the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina. However, the further evolution of postcommunist societies soon discouraged further comparison. This was especially the case for Russia, where social and political change took unforeseen paths. Scholars came to underline the specifi city of Russian social structures and traditions to explain this. Given this divergence, why revisit the comparison between Russia and Argentina today? Our answer is that two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, comparative research appears interesting again because the illusions of transitology have disappeared and new research perspectives emerge out of a recognition of the specifi city of historical circumstances.
The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, 2016
The concept of the modern state refers to a specific institutional configuration that resulted in... more The concept of the modern state refers to a specific institutional configuration that resulted in the establishment of a sovereign structure of political authority within a territory. It consists of a cluster of constitutionally regulated agencies that have supreme jurisdiction over a delimited territory and population. The notion of statehood refers to the presence or absence of certain features that are crucial for the institutionalization and adequate workings of the state.
From Inertia to Public Action, 2011
Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, 1998
... y movtnientistas populistas, permitiendo la constitu-cionalización de las relaciones entre es... more ... y movtnientistas populistas, permitiendo la constitu-cionalización de las relaciones entre estado y sociedad. ... actuales, y se refiere a la efectivización de un proceso de diferenciación institucional del ... de la institución estatal en el sentido de un proceso funcional de separación ...
Democratic Accountability in Latin America, 2003
Page 326. 10 Societal and Horizontal Controls: Two Cases of a Fruitful Relationship Catalina Smul... more Page 326. 10 Societal and Horizontal Controls: Two Cases of a Fruitful Relationship Catalina Smulovitz Enrique Peruzzotti Introduction Citizens' actions aimed at overseeing political authorities are be-coming an established ...
Assessing National Human Rights Institutions, 2011
... These activities are especially important in countries emerging from conflict. (Kofi Annan ... more ... These activities are especially important in countries emerging from conflict. (Kofi Annan Strengthening of the ... to refer appropriate matters to other state agencies, for example theOmbudsman or Director ... 10 See below, the section on the Asia-Pacific Forum of NHRIs and its ...
Global Governance, 2007
Global Governance 13 (2007), 199-216 Claiming Rights Under Global Governance: Children's Rig... more Global Governance 13 (2007), 199-216 Claiming Rights Under Global Governance: Children's Rights in Argentina Jean Grugel and Enrique Peruzzotti There is very little research on whether global human rights regimes serve as tools for the promotion of a domestic agenda of ...
Having exorcised the threat of authoritarianism and institutional instability thanks to a success... more Having exorcised the threat of authoritarianism and institutional instability thanks to a successful process of democratic consolidation, Latin America has turned its attention to the nature, workings, and delivery of existing democratic regimes. A new body of literature has emerged that focuses on existing democratic deficits and eventual roads to overcome them. The essay reviews those debates, focusing on three distinctive approaches to democracy: (a) a liberal one that seeks to strengthen the institutional structure of representative democracy, (b) a populist one that calls to overcome the limitations of representative government through presidential leadership, and (c) a leftist reformist road that seeks to promote democratic deepening through the introduction of mechanisms of participatory governance. The aim of this essay is to review the main tenants of each perspective and the different ways in which they conceptualize the notion of democratic accountability.
POLITYPolity (2012) 44, 625–642. doi:10.1057/pol.2012.20; published online 10 September 2012
This article focuses on a set of democratic innovations that were introduced in recent years in L... more This article focuses on a set of democratic innovations that were introduced in recent years in Latin America that involve the participation of civil society as an active agent of accountability. Participatory innovations are redefining the traditional scenario in which the practice of democratic representation takes place, adding novel arenas and mechanisms to engage actors that traditionally were not actively involved in accountability politics. The proliferation of alternative means for holding governments accountable undermines the traditional view of democratic representation, which continues to view elections as the quintessential mechanism of citizen control. The conventional way of thinking about the role of citizens in the practice of democratic accountability—which was largely modeled around the act of electoral delegation—must be reconceptualized to make room for other mechanisms of citizen control beyond the sporadic act of voting.
Human Rights Quarterly, 2012
Insufficient attention has been paid to the political processes that take place between ratificat... more Insufficient attention has been paid to the political processes that take place between ratification of international human rights treaties and domestic implementation. Yet how international human rights treaties become embedded in domestic politics and local interpretations of compliance is crucial to understanding how international human rights treaties work in practice. Using evidence from three Latin American countries after the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this article demonstrates how different implementation paths have unfolded, shaped by domestic actors and domestic politics.
Uploads
Papers by Enrique Peruzzotti
las razones que han promovido la actual centralidad del populismo como
fenómeno político, argumentando que la presente difusión de formas contemporáneas del populismo debe de ser vista como el corolario de la tercera ola democratizante que expandió la presencia geográfica de la democracia liberal (Huntington, 1991). La literatura ha repetidamente señalado la relación íntima que existe entre populismo y democracia liberal por lo que no es extraño que la expansión de esta última promueva una mayor relevancia del primero. Las principales expresiones contemporáneas de populismo aparecen precisamente en aquellas dos regiones donde el proceso de democratización ha logrado sus mayores éxitos (América y Europa). En dichos contextos, y dado el acotamiento de las fórmulas de legitimidad política que trajo aparejado la expansión del principio democrático, el populismo se posiciona como el principal crítico a las limitaciones que exhiben las democracias existentes. Dicha crítica política está fundamentada en una teoría democrática en la que el populismo aparece como la expresión paradigmática de una política democrática radical.
La segunda parte del artículo analiza las limitaciones del populismo
como teoría democrática a partir de una breve discusión del trabajo de Ernesto Laclau. En La razón populista, el populismo es presentado como la
expresión creativa de lo político que viene a contrarrestar la influencia
neutralizante de la institucionalidad representativa. El análisis laclauniano
del populismo, sin embargo, queda acotado al análisis del papel que dicho
fenómeno cumple como estrategia de cuestionamiento a la política liberalrepresentativa (y eventualmente de acceso al poder), pero no tiene nada que decir acerca del populismo como un ejercicio gubernamental. Lo anterior es sorprendente para una teoría política que aspira a ser también una teoría de la democracia.
La tercera y última parte del artículo argumenta sobre la necesidad de
expandir la perspectiva de análisis sobre populismo más allá del rol que el
mismo cumple como fuerza cuestionadora del status quo, y evaluar la naturaleza del populismo como forma distintiva de ejercicio del poder gubernamental. Lo anterior supone un corrimiento del eje de atención sobre su dimensión discursiva, ideológica, o dramatúrgica para tomar en cuenta las consecuencias que determinada forma de ejercicio del poder tiene sobre la institucionalidad democrática. Este último punto es crucial dado que muchas de las intervenciones populistas en curso (al contrario de las experiencias de modernización política que caracterizaron al populismo clásico y que suponían la superación de regímenes políticos autoritarios o semidemocráticos) se caracterizan por poner en marcha cuestionables procesos de hibridación institucional de la institucionalidad democrática vigente.
The emergence of a democratic consensus throughout the continent marked the end of the era of institutional instability, inaugurating the most prolonged period of democratic rule in the region. The calls for regime change were consequently abandoned in favor of an agenda that sought to consolidate and improve the workings of the novel democratic regimes. Such novel concerns were reflected in the academic field with the creation of a vibrant field of democratization studies and in the axis that organized the two central subfields of analysis: 'consolidology' and the 'quality of democracy' approaches. The first one dominated the agenda in the initial post-transition years; its main concern being how to how to stabilize existing regimes to prevent an authoritarian reversal. Once it become clear that democratic rule had developed strong roots in most of the region, the 'quality of democracy' subfield gained prominence.
The quality of democracy approach focused on what it considered was a selective pattern of democratic institutionalization that gave birth to a peculiar form of polyarchy. The outcome of democratization in Latin America resulted in a delegative form of polyarchy that while adopting the basic features of democratic rule, exhibited notorious rule of law deficits that set these regimes apart from the Western model of representative polyarchy. Delegative democracy was the term that gained prominence to denominate this subtype of polyarchy. Delegative democracy's distinguishing feature was the absence of effective checks on Executive power due to the poor functioning of the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. To overcome such deficits, O'Donnell and others argue, it was imperative to strengthen and further develop the network of state agencies responsible for enforcing governmental accountability. As it is clear from the previous description, political debates were channeled into a common concern: how to preserve and strengthen existing institutional structures.
The previously described democratic consensus found a major political and conceptual contender in the works of proponents of populism as radical democracy. Pro-populism arguments introduce a normative and epistemological break, questioning not only the prevailing understanding of democracy upon which the field of democratization was predicated but also their diagnosis about what are the current political ills of Latin America. In the first place, for the populist paradigm openly questions the notion of polyarchy that served as the normative framework of the quality of democracy approach for it considers that the institutions of representative government are designed to render the principle of popular sovereignty impotent. The ideal of limited government is privileges the interest of powerful minorities over those of popular majorities. In the second place, for they propose a completely opposite political strategy towards democratization than the one of QDA. A political agenda which fundamentally seeks to channel political energies into the perfection of the institutional machinery of representative government is a misleading one and only serves the interests of conservative forces. The goal of a truly democratizing intervention should not be the emulation of the representative model prevalent in the West but to transcend such form of democracy altogether. Far from seeking the reinforcement of the institutional arrangements of polyarchy, a radical politics should break loose of them: the value of populist interventions lies precisely in their disruptive potential, that is, in the capacity they exhibit at challenging the prevalent institutional order. In this way, the current populist revival. The paradigm of populism as radical democracy breaks with what has been a central presupposition of democratizing studies: that processes of democratization and institutionalization largely overlap, reopening the question of regime change.
In brief, the Latin American field of democratization finds itself in a conceptual deadlock: on the one hand, the QDA approach privileges an institutional understanding of democracy while those that side with the cause of populism as radical democracy seek to transcend existing institutional arrangements altogether. In brief, we are left with a drastic choice between constituted and constituent power. The article seeks to review the main tenets of current debates to propose in the concluding remarks an alternative conceptual democratizing strategy than the ones on which the reviewed approaches respectively predicate.
las razones que han promovido la actual centralidad del populismo como
fenómeno político, argumentando que la presente difusión de formas contemporáneas del populismo debe de ser vista como el corolario de la tercera ola democratizante que expandió la presencia geográfica de la democracia liberal (Huntington, 1991). La literatura ha repetidamente señalado la relación íntima que existe entre populismo y democracia liberal por lo que no es extraño que la expansión de esta última promueva una mayor relevancia del primero. Las principales expresiones contemporáneas de populismo aparecen precisamente en aquellas dos regiones donde el proceso de democratización ha logrado sus mayores éxitos (América y Europa). En dichos contextos, y dado el acotamiento de las fórmulas de legitimidad política que trajo aparejado la expansión del principio democrático, el populismo se posiciona como el principal crítico a las limitaciones que exhiben las democracias existentes. Dicha crítica política está fundamentada en una teoría democrática en la que el populismo aparece como la expresión paradigmática de una política democrática radical.
La segunda parte del artículo analiza las limitaciones del populismo
como teoría democrática a partir de una breve discusión del trabajo de Ernesto Laclau. En La razón populista, el populismo es presentado como la
expresión creativa de lo político que viene a contrarrestar la influencia
neutralizante de la institucionalidad representativa. El análisis laclauniano
del populismo, sin embargo, queda acotado al análisis del papel que dicho
fenómeno cumple como estrategia de cuestionamiento a la política liberalrepresentativa (y eventualmente de acceso al poder), pero no tiene nada que decir acerca del populismo como un ejercicio gubernamental. Lo anterior es sorprendente para una teoría política que aspira a ser también una teoría de la democracia.
La tercera y última parte del artículo argumenta sobre la necesidad de
expandir la perspectiva de análisis sobre populismo más allá del rol que el
mismo cumple como fuerza cuestionadora del status quo, y evaluar la naturaleza del populismo como forma distintiva de ejercicio del poder gubernamental. Lo anterior supone un corrimiento del eje de atención sobre su dimensión discursiva, ideológica, o dramatúrgica para tomar en cuenta las consecuencias que determinada forma de ejercicio del poder tiene sobre la institucionalidad democrática. Este último punto es crucial dado que muchas de las intervenciones populistas en curso (al contrario de las experiencias de modernización política que caracterizaron al populismo clásico y que suponían la superación de regímenes políticos autoritarios o semidemocráticos) se caracterizan por poner en marcha cuestionables procesos de hibridación institucional de la institucionalidad democrática vigente.
The emergence of a democratic consensus throughout the continent marked the end of the era of institutional instability, inaugurating the most prolonged period of democratic rule in the region. The calls for regime change were consequently abandoned in favor of an agenda that sought to consolidate and improve the workings of the novel democratic regimes. Such novel concerns were reflected in the academic field with the creation of a vibrant field of democratization studies and in the axis that organized the two central subfields of analysis: 'consolidology' and the 'quality of democracy' approaches. The first one dominated the agenda in the initial post-transition years; its main concern being how to how to stabilize existing regimes to prevent an authoritarian reversal. Once it become clear that democratic rule had developed strong roots in most of the region, the 'quality of democracy' subfield gained prominence.
The quality of democracy approach focused on what it considered was a selective pattern of democratic institutionalization that gave birth to a peculiar form of polyarchy. The outcome of democratization in Latin America resulted in a delegative form of polyarchy that while adopting the basic features of democratic rule, exhibited notorious rule of law deficits that set these regimes apart from the Western model of representative polyarchy. Delegative democracy was the term that gained prominence to denominate this subtype of polyarchy. Delegative democracy's distinguishing feature was the absence of effective checks on Executive power due to the poor functioning of the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. To overcome such deficits, O'Donnell and others argue, it was imperative to strengthen and further develop the network of state agencies responsible for enforcing governmental accountability. As it is clear from the previous description, political debates were channeled into a common concern: how to preserve and strengthen existing institutional structures.
The previously described democratic consensus found a major political and conceptual contender in the works of proponents of populism as radical democracy. Pro-populism arguments introduce a normative and epistemological break, questioning not only the prevailing understanding of democracy upon which the field of democratization was predicated but also their diagnosis about what are the current political ills of Latin America. In the first place, for the populist paradigm openly questions the notion of polyarchy that served as the normative framework of the quality of democracy approach for it considers that the institutions of representative government are designed to render the principle of popular sovereignty impotent. The ideal of limited government is privileges the interest of powerful minorities over those of popular majorities. In the second place, for they propose a completely opposite political strategy towards democratization than the one of QDA. A political agenda which fundamentally seeks to channel political energies into the perfection of the institutional machinery of representative government is a misleading one and only serves the interests of conservative forces. The goal of a truly democratizing intervention should not be the emulation of the representative model prevalent in the West but to transcend such form of democracy altogether. Far from seeking the reinforcement of the institutional arrangements of polyarchy, a radical politics should break loose of them: the value of populist interventions lies precisely in their disruptive potential, that is, in the capacity they exhibit at challenging the prevalent institutional order. In this way, the current populist revival. The paradigm of populism as radical democracy breaks with what has been a central presupposition of democratizing studies: that processes of democratization and institutionalization largely overlap, reopening the question of regime change.
In brief, the Latin American field of democratization finds itself in a conceptual deadlock: on the one hand, the QDA approach privileges an institutional understanding of democracy while those that side with the cause of populism as radical democracy seek to transcend existing institutional arrangements altogether. In brief, we are left with a drastic choice between constituted and constituent power. The article seeks to review the main tenets of current debates to propose in the concluding remarks an alternative conceptual democratizing strategy than the ones on which the reviewed approaches respectively predicate.
de Néstor Kirchner y Cristina Fernández. Esos trabajos a menudo han privilegiado la opinión crítica o laudatoria por sobre el análisis riguroso de las políticas implementadas y de sus resultados. ¿Década ganada? se presenta como el primer libro que ofrece una evaluación temáticamente amplia, académicamente rigurosa e
ideológicamente pluralista de los gobiernos kirchneristas.
Los capítulos de este volumen presentan la investigación de académicos de reconocida trayectoria, provenientes de muy variadas tradiciones
teóricas y normativas, que analizan el legado de las políticas públicas implementadas en diversas e importantes áreas de gobierno. Y en todos los casos, con un tono equilibrado que se aleja de las apologías incondicionales y de las reprobaciones absolutas que han caracterizado buena parte del debate público en la última década.