Article: Democracy Undermined: Constitutional Subterfuge in Latin America

Forrest D. Colburn and Alberto Trejos are the authors of the article "Democracy Undermined: Constitutional Subterfuge in Latin America", published in the latest issue of the quarterly US magazine "Dissent" (57 [3], summer 2010: pp. 11-5):

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dissent/summary/v057/57.3.colburn.html

Abstract: "Although democracy is being questioned and even battered throughout Latin America, what is happening in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia is qualitatively different. It is more than a 'ratcheting up' of the assault on democracy; it is a deliberate, well-designed project to deconstruct democracy and substitute something else in its place, poorly defined as that may be. What is new here – and completely unanticipated by the legions of academics who wrote in the 1980s and 1990s about the 'transition' to democracy – is the use of democracy to dismantle democracy. These projects pose a political and moral dilemma: how do you oppose political change that has been approved by a majority, sanctified by elections? Especially in poor countries with marked income and wealth disparities, which frequently overlap with race, how do you in good faith oppose the political projects of those who not only speak in the name of the oppressed, but who have the electoral support of the oppressed?"

Excerpt: "Early in the morning of June 28, 2009, the president of Honduras, Manuel 'Mel' Zelaya, was rousted out of his bed by soldiers and sent out of the country in his pajamas. It was an old-fashioned coup d'état, evoking, seemingly, a bygone era. The coup d'état seemed out of place because democracy has taken hold everywhere in Latin America except Cuba. In principle, now, elections are the only sanctioned route to the presidency; and, in principle again, presidents leave office after completing their term – only then, but definitely then. What was novel, in fact, about the ouster of Zelaya was the fear that prompted it – what can be called 'constitutional subterfuge.' The military in Honduras acted in a clumsy way to avert a very real threat to democracy – Zelaya's move to call an unprecedented special election to remove a term limit on the presidency – in that country and elsewhere in the region."

Unfortunately, I can't access the full text of this article.

Forrest D. Colburn is a Professor in the Department of Latin American and Puerto Rican Studies at Lehman College, City University of New York.

Alberto Trejos is Professor of Economics at INCAE Business School, Costa Rica, where he previously served as Minister of Foreign Trade.

Press release: Governments flood internet with antidemocratic views

Pro-democracy organization Freedom House on 29 April 2010 released its annual "Freedom of the Press" survey. The 2010 report was accompanied by a press release titled "Restrictions on Press Freedom Intensifying":

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1177

Excerpt: "Governments in China, Russia, Venezuela, and other countries have been systematically encroaching on the comparatively free environment of the internet and new media. Sophisticated techniques are being used to censor and block access to particular types of information, to flood the internet with antidemocratic, nationalistic views, and to provide broad surveillance of citizen activity."

Despite an intensive search I could not find any further elaboration or substantiation of the "flood the internet with antidemocratic [...] views" claim either in the overview essay or any of the charts, tables, and maps provided by Freedom House online.

Report: Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians

"Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians" is a report that was published in June 2009 by Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia – all of them US-funded advocacy bodies set up to promote democracy around the world.

The full report can be read free of charge here:

www.underminingdemocracy.org/files/UnderminingDemocracy_Full.pdf

Like all bad reporting, it is very tendentious, in particular demonstrating precisely the one-sidedness of which it accuses the media in authoritarian nations.

Some excerpts: "Russia is advancing a new form of authoritarianism, with methods of control that are significantly more sophisticated than the classic totalitarian techniques of the Soviet Union. [...] China, like Russia, has modernized and adapted its authoritarianism, forging a system that combines impressive economic development with an equally impressive apparatus of political control. [...] [T]he[se] systems [as well as those of Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan] are poorly understood in comparison with the communist regimes and military juntas of the Cold War era. As a result, policymakers do not appear to appreciate the dangers these 21st-century authoritarian models pose to democracy and rule of law around the world. [...]

"The authoritarians examined in this study are pursuing a comprehensive set of illiberal policies that are contesting democracy in practical terms, as well as in the broader battle of ideas. Increasingly sophisticated and backed by considerable resources, these efforts are challenging assumptions about the inevitability of democratic development. [...] Modern authoritarian governments are integrated into the global economy and participate in many of the world's established financial and political institutions. And while they tolerate little pluralism at home, they often call for a 'multipolar' world in which their respective ideologies can coexist peacefully with others. [...]

"[A]s Beijing grows more aggressive in its promotion of the antidemocratic China model, it risks becoming the mirror image of the Western powers it criticizes; it will be 'intervening' in other countries' internal affairs, but to squelch rather than to promote democracy. [...] The elected government that succeeded Musharraf sought to bolster Parliament as the supreme source of power and legitimacy, but it is far from certain that Pakistan will be able to break free of the antidemocratic inertia that permeates large parts of the polity and even the media. [...] Russian efforts have come amid an ascendant antidemocratic zeitgeist in much of the developing world; Russia's role in this trend is as much follower as leader. [...]

"Using social spending as a foreign policy tool has allowed Chávez to win two types of international allies: other states, which are loath to cross him if they benefit from his [oil] largesse, and intellectuals on the left, especially in Europe, who feel that the aid empowers the poor more than the elites. Behind this shield of open or tacit international supporters, the regime is able to pursue its more belligerent and antidemocratic policies with minimal criticism."