On democracies in Latin America, and other states
Editor’s Note: In the current issue of National Review, we have a piece by Jay Nordlinger called “Latin America: A Brisk Political Tour.” This week, Mr. Nordlinger elaborates in a series. For Part I of the series, go here.
Yesterday, we discussed the three police states, the three horror states, in Latin America: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. On the opposite end, what are the proper and stable democracies in the region? We have already mentioned Costa Rica — a standout, year after year, decade after decade. We must now mention another country, another small one, this one in South America. “There’s something about Uruguay,” people say. Is there ever. It is not quite a unicorn. It has a cousin in Costa Rica. But it is, shall we say, exceptional.
In 2020, State Magazine — a publication of the U.S. State Department — published a piece by Jacqueline D. Mourot. Uruguay, she wrote, “is a beacon of democratic and economic stability in Latin America.” Further on, she related the following:
In late 2019, the first-ever presidential election vote recount in Uruguay’s history proved once again that Uruguay is a true example of democracy in action. For one week, with a too-close-to-call election, all votes were recounted. Citizens peacefully awaited the results and accepted the winner without contest. No protests, no street marches, no angry rallies. The respect for the electoral process shown by all parties and the Uruguayan people was a shining example of trust in institutions and principles in the face of declining faith in democracy around the world.
A South American intellectual tells me, “People in Uruguay just seem to live well, and with enviable contentment. The country is very beautiful. Idyllic. There’s something, if I may say so, almost Rousseauian about it. It is, in a sense, the realization of Rousseau’s dream.”
Uruguay is a place that shuns extremes — where abrasive politics is frowned upon. In 2023, the Christian Science Monitor published a piece by Erika Page. “Nestled between Argentina and Brazil,” she wrote,
Uruguay has long been considered something of an exception in a region of headline-grabbing political turmoil and economic crises. It boasts the highest GDP per capita and lowest poverty rates in Latin America, with a social safety net rivaling some European countries.
A later paragraph reads,
“There’s a rejection of any politician looking to profit from extreme polarization. That means finding balance,” says Javier Rodríguez Weber, an economic historian at the University of the Republic in Montevideo. Uruguay functions under what’s “like the Goldilocks rule: not too hot, not too cold.”
What sets Uruguay and Costa Rica apart? What makes them stable and democratic while other countries . . . aren’t? I put this question to a number of knowledgeable people, and I will sum up their answers.
In neither country was there ever great disparity in wealth — big landlords versus little guys. These were countries of modest landowners, living in a relatively egalitarian atmosphere. Neither country was ever ripe for populism: the politics of envy, us-against-them.
There is something else to know about Costa Rica: In the 1940s, they abolished their military. (They have a national police force.) Therefore, there are no military coups. Or threats of military coups. Or machinations between military factions and civilian factions.
But how can a country not have a military? Aren’t they defenseless against external enemies? One analyst in Mexico puts it this way: “Neither neighbor, Nicaragua or Panama, is likely to invade Costa Rica.” (Panama, too, abolished its military, by the way — in 1994.) “And if a big country invaded? A Russia, a China — even a United States? What could a Costa Rican military do against such a power anyway?”
These subjects, like virtually all the subjects raised in this series, deserve extensive treatment. But I am generally breezing along.
• Chile is another country that has functioned well in recent years. The judgment of Freedom House is this: “Chile is a stable democracy that has experienced a significant expansion of political rights and civil liberties since the return of civilian rule in 1990.” General Augusto Pinochet led a military regime for 17 years, starting in 1973. (For the full evaluation of today’s Chile by Freedom House, go here.)
In 2021, Chileans elected Gabriel Boric to the presidency. He was 35. On his father’s side, he is of Croatian heritage, as his name suggests (think “Borić”). At the outset of his career, he was a plain leftist. He evolved into a social democrat, respecting the rule of law and the accompanying procedure. This does not sit well with Chileans, and others, to the left of him.
Twice, in 2022 and 2023, Boric and his allies sought to reform the country’s constitution. Twice, in referenda, the public said no. And that was that.
In a 2023 interview, Boric said, “One of the things that I have learned in office — and not only in office; it is something obvious, but is now crystal-clear — is that you cannot re-found a country. All changes that last over time must be progressive and must be supported by strong majorities. And you have to build those strong majorities, and those majorities are not easy to build.”
Boric has chided the Left for its double standards. Why decry human-rights abuses by right-wing figures while ignoring Ortega’s Nicaragua or Maduro’s Venezuela?
Last December, Boric wrote, “Let us not forget Nicaragua and its tragedy. The Ortega-Murillo regime is ‘legally’ consolidating itself as a dictatorship by silencing, expatriating, and repressing any opposition.”
He then delivered what, from the Ortega-Murillo point of view, must be the unkindest cut of all: He likened their dictatorship to that of the Somozas (the right-wing family that ruled Nicaragua from 1936 to 1979).
In response, Ortega derided him as “Pinochetito,” i.e., “Little Pinochet.”
About Venezuela, and its 2024 election, Boric minced no words. “I have no doubt that Maduro’s regime has tried to commit fraud,” he said. “If not, then they would have shown the voting records. Why haven’t they done so? If they had clearly won, then they would have shown the records.”
A stung Maduro responded, “Gabriel Boric turned his back on Chilean popular power.” He further said that Boric had “betrayed the ideals of Salvador Allende.” Boric, said the Venezuelan dictator, had betrayed “the leftist and popular forces in Chile” and aligned himself with “the fascists of Venezuela against the Bolivarian Revolution.”
• As I mentioned yesterday, only two heads of state attended Nicolás Maduro’s inauguration in Caracas on January 10: Ortega and the Cuban jefe, Miguel Díaz-Canel. Even the leftist president of neighboring Colombia stayed away. He is Gustavo Petro, elected in 2022. So far, he is working within a democratic framework. He has earned the contempt of Ortega, who called him a “traitor” who has placed himself “at the service of the yanquis.”
Colombians are getting used to an alternation between right-wing and left-wing presidents. This is a relief to democrats, whether they are right-leaning or left-leaning. Another election is scheduled for 2026. And each free and fair election is a minor miracle.
• In Peru, things are chaotic. Freedom House ranks the country “partly free.” There have been seven presidents since 2015. Bolivia is even shakier (also “partly free,” according to Freedom House). The current president, Luis Arce, was the finance minister under Evo Morales, the chavista who was president from 2006 to 2019. Arce’s immediate predecessor, Jeanine Áñez, is in prison, regarded as a political prisoner, essentially, by the European Union and the United States. Morales is planning a presidential comeback this year. (Elections are scheduled for August.)
Meanwhile, Morales has been indicted for statutory rape. While president, and 56 years old, he fathered a child with a 15-year-old girl. Morales is hiding out in Chapare, a rural province in central Bolivia. He is protected by his supporters. In fact, he lives at the headquarters of the coca growers’ union. To his admirers, he is a folk hero, like Che Guevara.
Tomorrow, we will continue with more dictators, democrats — and those in between.
If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.