Reference no: EM132872288

At the time of their founding, Latin American countries drew inspiration from the United States and its system of government based on democratically elected presidents subject to checks and balances from independent and co-equal branches of government. Yet democracy proved to be little more than an aspiration during most of the region's independent history with countries fluctuating repeatedly, often in quick succession, from popularly elected leaders to dictatorships. Democracy failed to take root in even the wealthiest and most industrialized countries in the region as exemplified by repressive military dictatorships that ruled the Southern Cone during the 1970s.

However, starting in the late 1970s and gathering momentum during the 1980s, Latin American dictatorships were replaced by popularly elected governments. This time really did prove different. Despite setbacks and persistent (and often well-justified) concerns about tangible results of democracy (its deliverables), today all but two Latin American countries qualify as functioning (if somewhat flawed) democracies.

Democracy is, for now, to quote Linz and Stepan (1996, 15), "the only game in town" in Latin America. With that problem resolved, social scientists have turned their attention to a new problem: the quality of said democracies:

Question 1: How far are today's democratically elected governments from what was promised to the electorate prior to transition?

Question 2: Specifically, what are the main strengths and weaknesses of each of the region's democracies?