John A. Booth, Mitchell A. Seligson.
Selections from Paths
to democracy and the political culture of Costa Rica, Mexico and
Nicaragua
Some authors asserts that Latin Americans do not understand the very term democracy in the conventional Western sense of political pluralism, representation, and competing interest but as "political monism or monistic democracy: that is, the centralization and control of potentially competing interests...and attempt to eliminate competition among groups".
Inglheart, on the other hand, asserts that the beliefs of mass publics heavily influence regime type. "Cultural patterns once established, posses considerable autonomy and can influence subsequent political and economic events". He views political culture as an essential link between democracy and economic development. He believes that the rise of Protestantism increased popular receptivity to capitalism, which as it developed eventually brought about higher levels of economic development. The resulting widespread prosperity permitted increases in interpersonal trust among citizens, and ultimately, the development of a "durable set of orientations that roughly corresponds to the concept of 'civic culture'". This civic culture led to the development and stabilization of democratic governments.
There are two main elements of democratic political culture. One, from the 'civic culture' tradition, emphasizes a mixture of participation in politics with more passive roles. The key tests have come to involve the degree to which citizens express support for the right to organize civic groups, work for political parties, protest and vote. [This measure has been fulfilled in the Mexican political arena at the national level, where nobody contests the right of a group to organize. In reduced contexts, such as local elections, trade unions and universities, the right to organize political groups is often denied].
The second approach involves citizens' the willingness to extend civil rights to proponents of unpopular causes. It is argued that tolerance is a critical element of democratic political culture. [In this context, Mexican culture seems to be lacking. Not even the most politicized citizens, i.e., those participating actively in the political arena show tolerance for their opponents. viz. stoning of the candidates, unnecessary political killings, etc.]
Both approaches can be summarized under the buzzwords: extensive political participation (or EP) and inclusive political values (or IP).
Mexico is ruled by the dominant and authoritarian Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and most experts have concluded -rightly or wrongly- that Mexicans shared an authoritarian political culture.
Attempting to evaluate this received wisdom, we interpreted political authoritarianism as opposition to democratic liberties and extensive civil the inverse of the democratic values discussed above. Given the theories relating culture and regime type [regime and (non)democratic culture are closely correlated], we expected Mexicans to be authoritarian in political orientation, whether regime type was either the cause or the effect of political culture.
Either if culture should shape structure, Mexico's inherited authoritarianism (from both its Iberian and indigenous cultural matrices) should have never permitted the development of a civic culture; or to the extent that regime type shapes political culture, one would expect that seven decades of PRI rule following upon two decades of revolutionary authoritarianism and the thirty-five-year dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz would have certainly nurtured anti-democratic values.
Our study reported on interviews of 430 urban Mexicans, working class and middle class citizens of voting age among six northern industrial cities. These urban Mexicans manifested high levels of support for a system of extensive political participation and for inclusive political rights (EP and IP). Indeed, our sample of urban Mexicans generally compared quite favourably to a 1978 sample of New Yorkers.
This discovery of support of democratic values in spite of their long-standing liberties led us to delve deeper into the notion that regime type is determined by mass political culture. In summary, we have found the culturist propositions that mass culture determines regime type (or perhaps vice versa) to be substantially lacking in the case of Mexico. [The authors forgot to check two other possibilities, either (a) Mexicans pay lip service to democratic values, or (b) the PRI, as an inclusive organism that has promoted extensive political participation is not as authoritarian as current research leds us to believe].
The complete text was published in:
Political Culture and Democracy in developing Countries, edited
by Larry Diamond.
L. Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 1993.