Advertisement

Political Congruence in Uruguay, 2014

  • Daniel Buquet
  • Lucía Selios
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines political congruence in Uruguay in 2014, analyzing its political and party systems and exploring three broad dimensions that are important in the study of congruence between political elites and public opinion: democratic values and preferences, issues, and policy evaluation. When comparing citizens’ and representatives’ opinion distributions, we find important differences in both collective congruence in each dimension and the patterns of congruence that each political block generates with its electorate. In general, there is a reasonable level of systemic congruence in ideological terms as measured using the left-right scale, which is central in structuring the spaces of political competition between the elites and citizens. However, congruence is significantly higher in the Frente Amplio party than between voters and the traditional elite.

Keywords

Political Elite Party System Political Representation Principal Problem Government Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alcántara Sáez, Manuel, and Juan Pablo Luna. 2004. Ideología y competencia partidaria en dos post-transiciones: Chile y Uruguay en perspectiva comparada. Revista de Ciencia Política 24(1): 128–168.Google Scholar
  2. Andeweg, Rudy B. 2011. Approaching perfect policy congruence. Measurement, development, and relevance for political representation. In How democracy works: Political representation and policy congruence in modern societies, ed. Martin Rosema, Bas Denter, and Kees Aarts, 39–52. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Buquet, Daniel, and Rafael Piñeiro. 2014. La consolidación de un nuevo sistema de partidos en Uruguay. Revista Debates 5(2): 127–148.Google Scholar
  4. Canzani, Agustín. 2000. Mensajes en una botella. Analizando las elecciones de 1999/2000. In Elecciones 1999/2000, ed. Instituto de Ciencia Política, 237–264. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2010. ¿Tipos raros? La lógica de la opinión pública detrás de los resultados electorales 2009. In Del cambio a la continuidad. Ciclo Electoral 2009–2010, ed. Daniel Buquet, and Niki Johnson, 135–164. Montevideo: Editorial Fin de Siglo.Google Scholar
  6. Dalton, Russell J. 1985. Political parties and political representation. Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies 18(3): 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalton, Russell J., David M. Farrell, and Ian McAllister. 2011. Political parties and democratic linkage. How parties organize democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Garcé, Adolfo, and Jaime Yaffé. 2006. La izquierda uruguaya (1971–2004): ideología, estrategia y programa. América Latina Hoy 44: 87–114.Google Scholar
  10. Golder, Matt, and Jacek Stramski. 2010. Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, Mark P. 1995. Electoral laws and the survival of presidential democracies. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kitschelt, Herbert, Zdenka Mansfeldova, Radoslaw Markowski, and Gábor Tóka. 1999. Post-communist party system: Competition, representation and inter-party cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luna, Juan Pablo. 2002. ¿Pesimismo estructural o voto económico? Macropolitics en Uruguay. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política 13(1): 123–152.Google Scholar
  14. Luna, Juan Pablo, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2005. Political representation in Latin America. A study of elite mass congruence in nine countries. Comparative Political Studies 38(4): 388–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2010. Political representation in Latin America. In Latin American party system, ed. Herbert Kitschelt, Kirk A. Hawkins, Juan Pablo Luna, Guillermo Rosas, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 119-144.Google Scholar
  16. Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. 1995. Party systems in Latin America. In Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America, ed. Scott Mainwaring, and Timothy R. Scully, 1–34. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Manin, Bernard. 1998. Principios del Gobierno Representativo. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
  18. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2007. Disonancias, críticas democráticas a la democracia. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros.Google Scholar
  19. Otero, Patricia, and Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Zepeda. 2010. Measuring representation in Latin America: A study of ideological congruence between parties and voters. In 106th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2013. Democracy in crisis? Politics, governance and policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Payne, J. Mark, Daniel Zovatto, and Mercedes Mateo Díaz. 2006. La Política Importa: Democracia y Desarrollo en América Latina. Washington, DC: IDB-IDEA.Google Scholar
  22. Perrin, Andrew J., and Katherine McFarland. 2008. The sociology of political representation and deliberation. Social Compass 2(4): 1228–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pitkin, Hanna. 1985. El Concepto de Representación. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
  24. Powell, Bingham, Jr. 2004. The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy 15(4): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2009. The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1475–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Przeworski, Adam, Bernard Manin, and Susan Stokes. 1999. Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Selios, Lucía, and Daniela Vairo. 2012. Elecciones 2009 en Uruguay: permanencia de lealtades políticas y accountability electoral. Opiniao Publica 18(1): 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siavelis, Peter. 2009. Elite-mass congruence, Partidocracia and the quality of Chilean democracy. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1(3): 3–31.Google Scholar
  29. Torcal, Mariano, and José Ramón Montero. 2006. Political disaffection in comparative perspective. In Political disaffection in contemporary democracies. Social capital, institutions, and politics, ed. Mariano Torcal, and José Ramón Montero, 3–19. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Yaffé, Jaime. 2005. Al Centro y Adentro. La renovación de la izquierda y el triunfo del Frente Amplio en Uruguay. Montevideo: Linardi y Risso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Buquet
    • 1
  • Lucía Selios
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad de la RepúblicaMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations