Countries of the region to be compared are traditionally considered together as the most economically developed and therefore the most influential countries of Latin America. In spite of this, if we are talking about the political culture of Argentina, Brazil and Chile, especially political processes, history, characteristics of the political system, etc., these neighboring countries are very different. The reasons for many of these differences should be sought in history, sometimes going deep even in the XIX century. Public opinion, given in the form of a diagram, also should be considered in the context of long-term social and political processes, as it will be discussed further.
Speaking about the rate of support of democracy among inhabitants of a particular country, it is necessary to take into account a number of factors. Firstly, it is the presence of certain political traditions, historical experience, that determine public opinion and the political system. Secondly, it is the level of economic development and welfare of the population. The logic of political and economic processes reveals that the deterioration of the material well-being of the population leads to an increase in the popularity of authoritarian regimes. At the same time, economic development and stability generate a desire to maintain the existing benefits, which leads to the establishment of liberal democratic regimes. Thirdly, it is necessary to take into account the external environment, which largely determines the internal political processes. If we take the example of Latin America, the collapse of authoritarian regimes and democratization in the 80-90-ies were systemic in nature and occurred simultaneously in the majority of the countries or as a chain reaction.
Then what explains the reduction in support for democracy in most countries? Firstly, the deterioration of the financial position of considerable flows of people in the course of economic liberalization. Secondly, convert the high expectations that arise during election campaigns, usually after two or three years, into a different mood: frustrated and discontent with government policy replaces the previous expectations, and gradually change the motivation of people who previously focused on the success of democratic governments. Third, the level of support for democracy, of course, associated with the credibility of the state and its institutions, which proved to be significantly undermined by political crises and corruption scandals.
In connection with this a bit ironic look Argentine figures, where more than half of the population as of 2013 were satisfied with democracy in the country. However, it can be explained. In my opinion, we should not confuse the level of satisfaction with democracy as a socio-political phenomenon, and satisfaction with the functioning of a democratic regime in the country. Relatively high support for democratic institutions, which is associated with the history of the country independence in the XIX century, is, in fact, one of the characteristics of the political culture of Argentina. Argentina and Uruguay were among the first in proclaiming independence from Spain during the War of Independence. Moreover, the Argentine Army took part in the liberation of the neighboring countries, which to this day is a matter of national pride. Although the establishment of an independent state and has not led to the establishment of a democratic system, in the minds of Argentines, freedom, independence, everything that is usually associated with democracy, are of great value, as were won during the war.
Of course, we don’t refer to the regimes in Latin America in XIX and even XX century as democratic with respect to the European model. For the countries of the region is especially characteristic phenomenon of kaudilizm, in the XIX and XX centuries. Almost every caudillo was genuinely convinced that people are not ready for the European model of democracy, and considered a dictatorial form of government as a necessary and natural stage of political evolution, the natural course of things. The arguments did not differ novelty and originality: public order and economic progress are to be ensured first. Only afterwards, we can talk about the creation of democratic institutions, protection of freedoms and rights of the individual, etc. Such sentiments are deeply rooted in the Latin American political discourse and in a number of states in the region successfully survived to this day, reflecting the remarkable vitality of the theory and practice of kaudilizm.
In addition, when it comes to Argentina, it is necessary to take into account the events that the country has experienced in connection with the economic crisis of the early 2000s, the consequences of which the country is suffering today. Mass protests in December 2001, created a new structure for the Argentine social mobilization - popular assemblies. In the beginning, it was a purely metropolitan phenomenon, but very quickly it spread to other cities and provinces. They took into their own hands to solve the most diverse problems affecting the vital interests of citizens: material and moral support for the unemployed, organization of special kitchens for the poor, public control over the formation of municipal budgets and expenditure, etc. The Assemblies has attracted wide attention as a form of "direct democracy", which reflected the desire of ordinary Argentines way or another to compensate for the inability of the authorities, if not paralyze, or at least mitigate the negative processes developing in Argentina in crisis (Trigona, "Argentine Social Movements: Taking Matters into Their Own Hands"). This experience is a breeding ground for the extremely high degree of involvement of citizens in the political processes, which indirectly provides a relatively high level of satisfaction with democracy.
Speaking of Chile, it is necessary to take into account the dictatorship of Pinochet, during which the constitution, the civil liberties were abolished, the Congress was disolved, while many Chileans were persecuted or were in exile. Note that all this happened in a country with long and seemingly durable democratic and constitutional traditions. Therefore, Chileans still remember that period that generates fear related to political participation. It should also be noted that the figure for 2013 might also be due to the fact that in 2013 was many political parties have used 40-years anniversary since the arrival of Pinochet to power that for their own purposes. It is also worth taking into account national youth anti-government protests that began in 2011 in connection with the abolition of free education in higher educational institutions. It was a very painful blow to the strength of democratic institutions in the country and led to the growth of leftist movements of fans and the establishment of an authoritarian regime.
Low rates in Brazil, in my opinion, due to the greater social inequality and, just, economic factors. Growth adherents of democracy in the 2000s can be explained by the success of Luis da Silva policy aimed at socio-economic development and overcoming social inequality. A noticeable drop in performance in 2013 can be explained by dissatisfaction with the policy of his successor Dilma Rousseff, specifically huge expenditures to host the World Cup in a country with millions of poor and even the poor, as well as numerical corruption scandals.
It is quite difficult to anticipate changes in this indicator, because it depends on the policies and actions of a government. Recent events in Brazil (the corruption scandal around Petrobras, attempted impeachment Dilma Rousseff) make the inevitable radical changes that, in turn, will cause changes in the indices of satisfaction and democracy upward. I predict a similar increase in Argentina and Chile, because thanks to the efficient functioning of electoral democracy in Chile in 2014, returned to power, President Michelle Bachelet, thus committing a democratic and legitimate transit right wing to left. In Argentina, after the elections of 2015 ended the era of the Kirchner family’s reign, that, undoubtedly, will strengthen confidence in Argentines need to preserve democratic institutions.
Works cited
Trigona, Marie. "Argentine Social Movements: Taking Matters into Their Own Hands." Argentine Social Movements: Taking Matters into Their Own Hands. 7 Nov. 2002. Web. 11 Mar. 2016. <http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/1592>.
