The greatest threat to democracy in Latin America is Latin Americans themselves.
BY SEBASTIAN CHASKEL | JULY 13, 2009

The military coup d'état in Honduras in late June that ousted President Manuel Zelaya sent shivers down Latin America's collective spine. Remembering a dark past, when armed forces routinely ousted unpopular presidents, all the region's leaders, from Cuba's left-wing Raúl Castro to Colombia's right-wing Álvaro Uribe, swiftly condemned the move. Everyone sided with the deposed Zelaya. Everyone, that is, except a large swath of Honduras's population that, despite the military's undemocratic move, were generally happy to see him go.

For America-watchers the world over, Hondurans' approval of this coup should be more frightening than the military's involvement, the media shutdown, or even the president's ousting itself. In Honduras and across Latin America, support for undemocratic activity is pervasive -- and rising. Although coups are uncommon, other, more subtle breaks with democracy are often greeted with applause. So, just decades after Latin America welcomed the democracy wave, public opinion -- not autocratic government -- is now the greatest threat to freedom in the region.

Latin Americans remain disturbingly ambivalent about democracy. Half of them say they would not mind a nondemocratic government if it solved economic problems, according to the latest Latinobarómetro poll. Vanderbilt University's Latin American Public Opinion Project finds a lack of support for the essential values on which democracy depends, such as the right to protest and the right to compete against the ruling government in elections. Perhaps Latin Americans cannot be blamed for their skepticism; democracy has brought rising crime and entrenched corruption, combined with stubbornly high poverty. The region's people have little confidence in their public institutions or political parties; only 20 percent of them think democracy has helped decrease inequality.

Yet even if support for democracy at home is disappointing, help from overseas has been equally deficient. A broad consensus is emerging that, though the international community was right to condemn the Honduran coup, it was amiss in not speaking up when Zelaya overstepped Congress and the courts. In fact, the international community - and particularly the Organization of American States -- has turned a blind eye as power-grabbing presidents across the region have moved to destroy democratic institutions. Only when the executive branch is threatened has the international community stepped in -- and far too often, it has only been to condemn the move.

Without public backing at home and abroad, democracy has hence fallen victim to the deep-rooted tradition of caudillos, or strongmen, in the region. Just take Venezuela, where former coup-plotter Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998 with the largest margin of victory in four decades. After drafting a new constitution to his favor, packing the courts with his supporters, and limiting journalistic freedom, he was reelected in 2006. In the past four years, the Bolivian, Colombian, Ecuadoran, and Venezuelan governments have amended -- and at times entirely redrafted -- constitutions to allow their current presidents to extend their time in office, and they have done so with popular support.

It's worth investigating why Latin America's authoritarian temperament is so hard to shake. In the meantime, we have enough evidence by now to conclude that democracy in the region will not be salvaged by the international community standing against governments and populations bent on disrupting it. In fact, there is a very real danger that foreign support for Zelaya in Honduras will make democracy seem like an idea imposed from abroad instead of borne of the people's will.

For democracy to survive, Latin Americans must regain confidence in their public institutions and political parties, feel confident in the rule of law, and trust that positive change can come through democratic means. The solution may lay closer to classrooms and dining tables in the region than to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. Until then, Latin Americans might be stuck with the undemocratic leaders they seem to want.

It's worth investigating why Latin America's authoritarian temperament is so hard to shake.

(Maybe the RC church and it's influence -authoritarian. Wonder which way the DR is headed?)

finally. Big Willie makes a sage observation. yes, i have to agree that the whole Roman Catholic ethos has turned latin america into an indefatigible political shithole which cannot be cured. besides, the majority of the people are not ready for democracy, anyway. the whole region should be run by benevolent dictators, authoritarian figures who rule with an iron fist when necessary.

Living under a ruthless dictator is not a lot of fun either. Anyone who is jealous or wants something that you have, may drop a dime on you, and get you in serious trouble. If your wife or daughters are pretty, that in itself is a liability and dangerous for the collective health.
If you become too visible and prosperous, again you might be "an enemy of the state" if they thirst for your riches. If you have a dislike for brown nosing and singing accolades to funny looking and ignorant despots, you might not last long either.
When you are afraid to make any critical comments, even to your closest friends, about the government, and speak in low voices in your own home, and are afraid that even the hired help may denounce you as a "counter-revolutionary", that is not a lot of fun either.
When you can not travel even as far as Villa Altagracia without being stopped at a checkpoint and stating your destination, and purpose of your trip, is similar to living in a huge prison. And you might as well get used to living rather meekly and apologetically and not being very outspoken at all.
Which in a way, sums up what it is to live under a "benevolent dictator", which is a dictator that you do not oppose publicly or frontally and get in his way.
If you do oppose him passionately, and try to recruit others to oppose him, then he is no longer "benevolent", and you might not be around much, and if you are lucky, you will be disposed of quickly.
Latin American democracies are far away from being perfect, and are mostly ruled by demagogues where cronyism rules, as well as corruption and paybacks. But wishing the return of the ways of the past dictatorships where citizens had limited freedom of expression, transit and free will, they are a dream come through.

Regarding the RC medieval ideologies that still affect our present ways of thinking, and expressing ourselves, I have to agree, but not only the RC church but all other religions based on ancient literature and dogma.
The quest of forward thinkers that see the obvious flaws in the system, is just that their vision sees a better future, but has sadly not materialized yet, and will probably never materialize during their lifespan, so another alternative is adoring deities of all powerful, conveniently invisible, omniescent and omnipotent entities, that you can only visit after you have passed on.

Perhaps this "ambivalence" toward democracy might have to do withthe fact that the "democratic wave" in Latin America was accompanied lock step with neo-liberal economic policies in the region, which have indeed brought poverty to those countries that strictly adhered to said plocicies? Food for thought.

Exactly. Many people in Latin America are enemies of democracy because the yanks themselves have made them understand in no uncertain terms that democracy = neo-liberalism, as in bowing down to their every whim on every single free trade treaty. To attempt implementing another economic system is the same as becoming a communist or a terrorist in their eyes.

Neo-liberalism policies are not alone to blame for the rampant graft, corruption, and impunity that is consuming us, and giving democracy a bad name. The non-activist aloof citizenry is to blame as "we" have taken the short cut to riches, by using the power in the government to steal and loot the government coffers, instead of trying to benefit our country.
US style democracy as we have known it has failed, as well as US style capitalism. The new way is yet to be unraveled, as we are in between two equally mega corrupt parties, that agree not to get in each others case, or prosecute, while they loot and redirect public moneys to benefit themselves and their families.
It is a no-way-out type of quagmire, and I hate to say that we are really stuck and sequestered by the system.

what a way to start a day; heavy insights from some of my favorite minds, the Prof, Cibaeno, and Mr Lautaro. Prof, i have no real answer as to what would work best, but a ruthless dictator was not something i suggested.

Hi Dr Dread, nice to hear from you, a dictator is a dictator, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator, they are dictators because they do not want to remove themselves from absolute power, at any and all costs.