Democracy in Latin America: Between Populism and Deliberative Democracy

Abstract

In Politics VI 2, 1317b 1-17, Aristotle defines «democracy» as follows: «the aim of democracy is, ideally, freedom from any interference of government, and, failing that, such freedom as comes from alternation of ruling and being ruled. It contributes, in this way, to a general system of liberty based on equality». Historically, this normative model shaped two possible political regimes, v. gr., popular or extreme democracy, based on direct participation of all citizens, as in Athens, and a «mixed constitution» containing oligarchic as well as democratic features, called «republican» in the roman tradition since Cicero. Modern democracy was the heir of both these Ancient regimes, tempered by the new conception of individual rights belonging to Modern thought from Hugo Grotius to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The representative constitution was, thus, the modern solution to the conflict between government of the majority and government of the laws. Since their Independence in the 19th century, Latin American democracies suffer from the unresolved tension between populism and the liberal constitutional regime. The neo-populism that grew in the last years of 20th century appears as a response and defiance to democracy’s unfulfilled promises. Against defenders of authoritarian populism, such as Ch. Mouffe and E. Laclau, I argue that deliberative democracy is a better response to them.