Skip to main content

Stabilizing party systems and excluding segments of society?: The effects of formation costs on new party foundation in Latin America

Studies in Comparative International Development volume 39, pages 3–27 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

The costs of party formation potentially alter representation and change electoral dynamics before allocation rules come into play. Furthermore, the interaction of formation rules and demographic conditions occasionally produces in new democracies unintended effects on representation that are quite distinct from the effects of other electoral barriers. Currently, however, the literature does not systematically consider the role that institutions play in party formation and party survival in new democracies. This article considers the theoretical importance of formation rules on representation in the context of party-system development. The principal hypothesis proposed is that, while not a sufficient condition for the emergence of separate ethnic political parties, elimination of spatial registration rules, which mandate registration that exceeds the group’s geographic distribution, is a necessary condition. Comparative evidence from Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and a detailed case study of Ecuador suggests that pre-election spatial registration rules do, indeed, contribute to the general explanation of a lack of indigenous parties in countries with large mobilized indigenous groups. Two supplementary hypotheses and anecdotal evidence from the above countries address the effects of non-spatial pre-election requirements and post-election requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Alban, E, Ayala, E. et al. 1994.Elecciones, Ideologías y Programas Políticos. Quito, Ecuador, Corporación Editora Nacional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albó, Xavier. 1994. “And from Kataristas to MNRistas? The Surprising and Bold Alliance between Aymaras and Neoliberals in Bolivia”. In Donna Lee Van Cott’s (Ed.),Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin America. New York: St. Martins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amorim-Neto, Octavio and Cox, Gary W. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties”.American Journal of Political Science 41: 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, Monica. 1997. “The 1996 Ecuadorian Elections”.Electoral Studies 16, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, S. and Mair, P. 1990.Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: the Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge England; New York, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Scott H. and Mijeski, Kenneth J. 2001. “Barricades and Ballots: Ecuador’s Indians and the Pachakutik Political Movement”.Ecuadorian Studies/Estudios Ecuatorianos. No. 1. http:// yachana.org/ecuatorianistas/index.html.

  • Birnir, Jóhanna K. 1999. “Latent Stability of Electoral Preferences through Institutional Changes: Ecuador and Representation of Indigenous Communities” American Political Science Association Annual Conference.

  • Birnir, Jóhanna K. “The Ethnic Effect: Ethnicity and electoral politics”. (unpublished book manuscript).

  • Bott, A. J. 1990.Handbook of United States Election Laws and Practices. New York; Westport, CT; London: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockett, Charles D. 1991. “The Structure of Political Opportunities and Peasant Mobilization in Central America”.Comparative Politics 23, 3: 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, John M. and Shugart, Matthew S. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas”.Electoral Studies 14, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirinos Soto, Enrique. 1984.La Nueva Constitución y los Partidos. Lima, Perú. Centro Documentación Andina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, Matthew R. 2000. “Democracy and Indigenous Rebellion in Latin America”.Comparative Political Studies 33, 9: 1123–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Frank. 1997. Proportional vs. Majoritarian Ethnic Conflict Management in Democracies.Comparative Political Studies 30, 5: 607–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collet, Christian and Wattenberg, Martin P. 1999. “Strategically Unambitious: Minor Party and Independent Candidates in the 1996 Congressional Elections” In John Green and Daniel Shea (Eds.).The State of the Parties. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conaghan, Catherine M. 1995. “Politicians against Parties: Discord and Disconnection in Ecuador’s Party System”. In Mainwaring, Scott and Timothy Scully (Eds.)Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAIE. 2002. Confederación Nacional de Nacionalidades Indígenas de Ecuador. http:// conaie.nativeweb.org/brochure.html.

  • Corte Nacional Electoral. 1998a. “Ley Electoral 1979”. In Hormando Vaca Díez.Derecho Electoral Boliviano 1825–1997. La Paz, Bolivia, Artes Gráficas Latina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte Nacional Electoral. 1998b. “Ley Electoral 1993”. In Hormando Vaca Díez.Derecho Electoral Boliviano 1825–1997. La Paz, Bolivia, Artes Gráficas Latina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte Nacional Electoral. 1998c. “Ley Electoral 1997”. In Hormando Vaca Díez.Derecho Electoral Boliviano 1825–1997. La Paz, Bolivia, Artes Gráficas Latina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte Nacional Electoral. 1999.Codigo Electoral 1999. La Paz, Bolivia: Atenea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte Nacional Electoral. 1991.Ley Electoral 1991. La Paz, Bolivia: Atenea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Gary W. 1997.Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge, U.K., New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, Maurice. 1954.Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London, New York: Methuen, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPIC (Election Process Information Collection). (2003). IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). at: http://www.epicproject.org/.

  • Geddes, Barbara. 1994.Politician’s Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. L. 1985.Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hug, Simon. 2001.Altering Party Systems: Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Michigan: Michigan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. 1995.Compendio de Estadísticas Sociales 1994–1995. Lima, Peru. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.

    Google Scholar 

  • Instituto Nacional de Estadística. 1997.Características Demográficas de la Población en Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia. Instituto Nacional de Estadística.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Mark P. 1995. “A Guide to the Electoral Systems of the Americas”.Electoral Studies 14, 1: 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Mark P. 1997. “A Guide to the Electoral Systems of the Americas: An Update”.Electoral Studies 16, 1: 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert. 1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies”.British Journal of Political Science 16, 1: 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert et al. 1999.Post-Communist Party Systems. Competition, Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitin, David. 1998.Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ley de Partidos Politicos. 2001. http://ecuador.derecho.org.

  • Lijphart, Arend. 1977.Democracy in Plural Societies. A Comparative Exploration. New Haven and London. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. 1999.Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty–Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, Scott and Scully, Timothy (Eds.). 1995.Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mejía Acosta, Andrés. 1997. Updated by Anna Katz in 2001.Ecuador: The Search for Democratic Governance. IFES (International Foundation for Election Systems). At: http://www.aceproject .org/main/english/es/esy_ec.htm.

  • Mejía Acosta, Andrés. 1998.Partidos Politicos. El Eslabón Perdido de la Representación. Proyecto CORDES—Gobernabilidad. Quito, Ecuador. Corporación de Estudios para el Desarollo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mijeski, Kenneth and Beck, Scott. “A Social Movement Enters Electoral Politics: The Performance of the Pachakutik Political Movement in the Ecuadorian Elections of 1996 and 1998”. (Unpublished manuscript).

  • Minority Rights Group International (Eds.) 1997.World Directory of Minorities. London. Minority Rights Group International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montejo, Victor. 2002. “The Multiplicity of Mayan Voices: Mayan Leadership and the Politics of Self-Representation”. In Kay B. Warren and Jean E. Jackson, (Ed.)Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, Erika. “Whither the Colombian Two-Party System?: An Assessment of Political Reforms and their Limits”.Electoral Studies (forthcoming).

  • Nash, June. 1995. “The Reassertion of Indigenous Identity: Mayan Responses to State Intervention in Chiapas”.Latin American Research Review 30, 3: 7–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olzak, S. 1992.The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford CA, Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacari Vega, Nina. 2002. “The Democratically Underprivileged in Ecuador”.Unit for the Promotion of Democracy. http://www.upd.oas.org/newsletter/democracy99.pdf. (Organization of American States).

  • PDA. 2002. “Constitución Política de la República de Ecuador 1984”.Political Database of the Americas. http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/. Georgetown University.

  • PDA. 2003. “Guatemala: Ley Electoral y de Partidos Políticos de 1985”.Political Database of the Americas. http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/. Georgetown University.

  • Posner, D. N. forthcoming.The Institutional Origins of Ethnic Politics in Zambia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

  • Rabushka, A. S., K. A. 1972.Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles Merriam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, Benjamin. 2001.Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, Benjamin. 2003.Political Engineering of Parties and Party Systems. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.

  • Riker, W. H. 1986. “Duverger’s Law Revisited”. In A. Lijphart and B. Grofman Eds.Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robeck, Bruce W. and Dyer, James A. 1982. “Ballot Access Requirements in Congressional Elections.American Politics Quarterly 10, 1: 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero Balliván, Salvador. (Ed.) 1998.Opiniones y Análisis Tomo I: Datos Estadísticos Elecciones Generales 1979–1997. La Paz, Bolivia. FUNDEMOS (Fundacion Boliviana para la Capacitación Democrática y la Investigación).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltos, Napoleon G. and Vázquez, Lola. 1998.Ecuador: Su Realidad. Quito, Ecuador: Fundación de Investigación y Promoción Social Jose Peralta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1976).Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge England; New York, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saideman, S. et al. 2002. “Democratization Political Institutions and Ethnic Conflict”.Comparative Political Studies 35, 1: 103–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selverston, Melina. 1997. “The Politics of Identity Reconstruction: Indians and Democracy in Ecuador”. In Douglas Chalmer et al. (Ed.),The New Politics of Inequality in Latin/America. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shugart, Matthew S. and Carey, John M. 1992.Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIISE. 1999.Sistema Integrado de Indicadores Sociales de Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Secretaria Técnica del Frente Social e Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahler-Sholk, Richard. 1998. “Massacre in Chiapas (in Revolutionary Responses)”.Latin American Perspectives 25, 4: 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Susan. 1995.Cultures in Conflict. Social Movements and The State in Peru. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles; London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taagepera, Rein and Shugart, Matthew S. 1989.Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamayo, Eduardo. 2002. “Ecuador: Indigenous Peoples Create Political Movement”. ALAI,Latin American Information Agency, 21 August 1995: At: http://abyayala.nativeweb.org/ecuador/96elect/pachacut.html.

  • Tapia, Luciano. 1995.Ukhamawa jakawisaxa (Asi es nuestra vida). Autobiografía de un aymara. La Paz: Hisbol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow Sidney. 1994.Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunal Supremo Electoral. 1998.Estadistica de representates y diputados. Ecuador. Tribunal Supremo Electoral.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunal Supremo Electoral. 2002. Ecuador. At: http://www.eleccionesecuador.com.ec/resultados.asp.

  • Tuesta Soldevilla. 1995.Perú Político en Cifras. Lima Peru: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. Lima Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Cott, Donna Lee. 2000. “Party System Development and Indigenous Populations in Latin America. The Bolivian Case”.Party Politics 6, 2: 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Cott, Donna Lee. 2003. “Institutional Change and Ethnic Parties in South America”.Latin American Politics and Society 45, 2: 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Cott, Donna Lee.Ethnic Parties in Latin America. (Unpublished manuscript).

  • Warren, Kay B. 2002. “Voting against Indigenous Rights in Guatemala: Lessons from the 1999 Referendum”. In Kay B. Warren and Jean E. Jackson, (Ed.)Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Stephen. 2000. “Russia, Elections, Democracy”.Government and Opposition 35, 3: 302–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yashar, Deborah J. 1998. “Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements and Democracy in Latin America”.Comparative Politics 31, 1: 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yashar, Deborah J. 1999. “Democracy, Indigenous Movements, and the Post-Liberal Challenge in Latin America”.World Politics. 52, 1: 76–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamosc, Leon. 1994. “Agrarian Protests and the Indian Movement in the Ecuadorian Highlands”.Latin American Research Review 29, 3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jóhanna Kristín Birnir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Jóhanna Kristín Birnir is assistant professor at the University at Buffalo-SUNY. Her research focuses on Latin American and East European party systems, with an emphasis on the effect of institutions and the electoral behavior of social groups. Professor Birnir is currently revising the manuscript for “The Ethnic Effect,” a book about the effect of ethnicity on democratic electoral politics, and her articles are forthcoming inComparative Political Studies andThe Journal of Engineering and Technology Management.

The research for this paper was partially funded by a Tinker grant, and grants from the Latin American Center and center of International Studies and Overseas Programs at UCLA. I wish to thank the vice president of TNE, Eduardo Villaquiran; Felipe Burbano de Lara at FLACSO; and Diego Jarrin Hurtado at SIISE for help with the research in Ecuador. For help with my research in Peru, I thank the president of ONPE, Fernando Tuesta Soldevilla; the president of JNE Fernando Ballón-Landa Cordóva, Maximo Torero; and the other researchers, as well as the staff at GRADE. I would also like to thank Barbara Geddes, Michael Thies, Andrés Mejía Acosta, Donna Lee Van Cott, and Raúl Madrid for valuable comments on earlier versions. I am indebted to three anonymous reviewers for excellent comments on recent drafts. Finally, I would like to thank David Waguespack for substantive as well as editorial contributions. A part of this research was presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association 1999. All omissions and errors are the author’s.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birnir, J.K. Stabilizing party systems and excluding segments of society?: The effects of formation costs on new party foundation in Latin America. St Comp Int Dev 39, 3–27 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686280

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686280

Keywords

  • Comparative International Development
  • Party System
  • Indigenous Group
  • Formation Cost
  • Small Party