Parties and Society in Mexico and Venezuela: Why Competition Matters

Abstract

Mexico and Venezuela are not usually considered similar political systems. Since most observers classify Venezuela as a democracy and Mexico as an authoritarian regime, it is commonly assumed that political life in these two countries is fundamentally and thoroughly dissimilar. The distinction between democracy and authoritarianism, however, masks striking similarities in the political institutions and practices of the two countries, in particular, the ways in which political parties have penetrated and gained control over other actors in civil society. This article highlights these similarities, not to tar Venezuela's good reputation nor to whitewash Mexico's political shortcomings, but to concentrate attention more narrowly on the essential remaining difference-the competitiveness of the party system. This comparison of Mexico and Venezuela, while odd, reveals some of the differences that democracy can make in developing countries. This article argues that these differences can be discerned at the grass-roots level. In labor unions, when the party system is competitive, there is less violent repression of workers. Also, whether workers vote, and how they vote, depends less on the unions' or parties' mobilization efforts than on the workers' own abilities and interests. In rural and urban communities, party competition makes local bosses (caciques) less abusive, intimidating, and violent toward their clients, and therefore more respectful of citizens' property, persons, and opinions. In national politics as well, a competitive party system encourages governmental responsiveness, moderate opposition, and peaceful evolution of the political system. While this article is by no means the first examination of the consequences of party competition, it is one of only a handful of empirical studies that compare competitive and noncompetitive systems to draw conclusions about the impact of party competition below the macro level of regime change, stability, and national public policy.' Most of what we know about the impact of party competition is based on comparisons of democratic countries. Since all of these countries possess, by definition, competitive party systems, the conclusions drawn from such comparisons reveal the impact of a relatively small difference in levels of competition, that is, two-party versus multiparty systems.2 This article looks at the more fundamental difference between a competitive party system (Venezuela) and an uncompetitive system (Mexico). Studies that compare democratic and nondemocratic systems have tended to focus on either the conditions for stable democracy or the consequences of democracy for elite decision making on national public policy.3 This article, in contrast, focuses on the immediate, personal, day-to-day consequences for ordinary citizens. Democratic theorists have long asserted that democracy matters even at the grass roots, and almost all of the recent writing on democratization assumes that the