The Relationship Between Elite Settlements and Democratic Consolidation in Colombia and Guatemala
Date
2000
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Haverford users only
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
The relationship between elite settlements and the deepening of democracy is a subject of central importance in social science studies of the transition to and consolidation of democracy. It is also a topic that demands greater exploration and analysis, given that the application of many theories of elite settlements to specific cases is often a frustrating exercise that yields unsatisfying results. The Colombian Frente Nacional is a case in point. For years the 1958 settlement has been used by political scientists as an example of the correlation between elite settlements and ultimate democratic consolidation. As I will argue, however, the settlement and its legacy have in the long run contributed little to further the consolidation of Colombian democracy, and can indeed be seen as contributing instead to the political destabilization and breakdown that the country is presently facing. This case in particular demonstrates the need for a re-examination of the relationship between elite settlements and democracy, and, particularly, of the specific elements of such settlements that are conducive to the deepening of democracy and those that impede its consolidation. The purpose of this analysis is to use the cases of Colombia and Guatemala to examine the role of elite settlements in political transitions and democratic consolidation. In contrast with frameworks that give non-inclusive settlements among unaccountable elates a positive role in the consolidation of democracy, it contends that in Colombia the Frente Nacional settlement itself is one of the important factors contributing to national destabilization due to the political exclusiveness and governmental paralysis it engendered. With respect to the Guatemalan case, it proposes that the 1993 settlement between the military and economic elites illustrates that unaccountable elites' alleged commitment to the rules of the game can be superficial and not necessarily conducive to the deepening of democracy. By contrast, the examination of the Guatemalan peace process as a whole presents an alternative understanding of the relationship between elite settlements and democracy; put simply, it suggests that more accountable and inclusive settlement processes can be more effectual in establishing the conditions for democratic consolidation by not attaching expectations for democratizing impetus on democratically disinclined parties. The discussion begins by presenting contending positions among political scientists regarding the relationship between elite settlements and democratic consolidation, focusing on the contrasting positions of Michael Burton, Richard Gunther, and John Higley - who draw a correlation between elite settlements and democratic consolidation - and Terry Karl- who sees a contradiction between elites' interests and their capacity to adapt to enhanced levels of political democracy. It then proceeds to an analysis of the Frente Nacional and its legacy in Colombia, and of the 1993 Guatemalan settlement between economic and military elites, which both show that specific factors that Burton et al. cite as being central characteristics of elite settlements have actually served as obstacles to democratic consolidation in both countries. It finally considers the Guatemalan peace accords as a whole, which represent a distinctive settlement, characterized by broader participation and greater accountability than either of the previous examples. Though the peace accords represent at best an unrealized, incomplete settlement, the democratic potential of the accords, when seen in contrast with analyses of the other cases, can be seen as grounds on which to question elite settlement theories that propose the achievement of democratic ends by undemocratic means.