Exclusion and Politics

THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM AS A POINT OF EXCLUSION

Beginning in the late 1970s, a wave of democratization swept through Latin America and the Caribbean; by the early 1990s all of the countries with presidential systems were electing their leaders through competitive elections. Given that democracy entailed formal political equality for all citizens and an end to repression, democratization was expected to markedly increase the political influence of previously disadvantaged groups and enable rapid advances against social and economic exclusion. Democracy has provided such groups with new opportunities to organize and make demands while at the same time increasing the incentives of political parties and leaders to respond to their claims. But despite the formal equality of political rights granted in the countries’ constitutions, for various reasons the democratic system still limits the formal channels of influence of some citizens, who in practical terms have little voice.

For the first time in some countries, the new democratic systems extended the vote to all adult citizens.[1] But the lack of proper documentation for citizenship, such as national ID cards and birth certificates, prevents some citizens from exercising fundamental rights, including voting, as well as from accessing some basic services (see Chapter 12). Even for those with documentation, the difficulty of accessing polling places, particularly in remote areas, may limit some citizens’ inclusion in electoral processes. In part because of problems of access, on average about 36 percent of the region’s eligible population abstained from voting in the most recent presidential elections. Though this level of abstention was greater than that for Central and Eastern Europe and Western Europe (28 percent and 29 percent, respectively), it was considerably lower than that of the United States, Canada, and Africa (Payne, Zovatto G., and Mateo Díaz, 2007). Abstention was a more serious problem in a few countries, reaching nearly 60 percent in Colombia and surpassing 50 percent in Guatemala and Paraguay.

The democratic system also remains a point of exclusion for some groups of citizens because they are less likely to be nominated and elected to positions of power in the legislature, the executive, or subnational governments. For example, despite advances during the 1990s, in 2002 women held just 15 percent of lower house seats, 12 percent of senate seats, and 13 percent of ministerial positions in the region (Htun, 2005). Indigenous peoples are also underrepresented in elected positions: Peru, 8.0 percent of legislature versus 47 percent (of population); Ecuador, 3.3 percent versus 43 percent; Guatemala, 12.4 percent versus 66 percent; and Bolivia, 25.2 percent versus 71 percent (Bull, 2006; IDB, 2006c).[2]

Political exclusion can also occur because citizens have varying amounts of resources with which to exercise political influence. Given the high costs of electoral campaigns, money is a cherished resource of political parties and individual candidates. Wealthy persons’ financial contributions and close connections with other socioeconomically important groups tend to afford them influence in politics, whereas the poor, if unorganized, have little to bargain with but their votes. More educated and wealthy citizens also tend to be more informed about politics and to participate in it more intensively, thus providing them with greater influence in policy decisions.

The political system also acts as a point of exclusion in more subtle ways. In some countries, rights to organize and free speech, as well as basic civil rights, such as due process and property rights are not adequately protected, particularly in remote areas which justice and other public institutions do not reach. Other rights of citizenship, including equality under the law and protection against discrimination, are often insufficiently provided to the poor, the uneducated, women, indigenous peoples, and other groups.

In addition, some citizens’ voice in the new democratic systems is limited in practice by deficiencies of representative institutions, especially political parties. Party systems in many countries are weakly institutionalized, and elected officials are widely viewed as failing to address pressing societal needs and to represent their communities between elections. Since parties typically do not distinguish themselves clearly in terms of alternative policy approaches or ideologies, politics is driven less by issues than by the distribution of targeted benefits and favors, such as public works, jobs, and contracts. When votes are exchanged for specific benefits instead of to support political organizations representing different programmatic alternatives, elections lose much of their potential value for citizens as mechanisms to influence policy decisions in their favor. Given their lack of resources, excluded groups tend to be more susceptible to being co-opted in this manner.

Organized groups take clear and unified stances on public issues and are more likely to receive attention from elected officials. However, the collective action of individuals with common interests is difficult to sustain because individuals have a strong incentive to free-ride on the efforts of others. It turns out that small groups, such as the wealthy or textile manufacturers, tend to be more successful at organizing than large groups such as consumers, peasants, and the poor (Olson, 1965; Bates, 1981). With small groups, a larger share of the benefits of collective action accrues to each individual, making the expenditure of time and money more worthwhile. For this reason, the interests of well-organized minorities often win out over those of the majority, since the majority cannot organize at the same level.

Given the high level of income inequality typical in Latin America, many excluded groups, such as the poor, informal sector workers, and peasants, are quite large and lacking in resources; therefore, they find it difficult to become and stay organized. To some extent, there is a disconnect between the potential electoral clout of such groups and their ongoing political clout in regard to influencing the content of policies. This, along with the weak institutionalization of party systems, helps account for the prevalence of populist strategies for winning and exercising power in which politicians are elected on the basis of their personal connection with voters and vague promises to improve the conditions of the masses. But given the lack of organization of such groups, these politicians, when elected, frequently either break their promises and pursue a different policy course or adopt populist economic policies in which short-term gains in economic output and salaries are eventually reversed in the context of inflationary crises.

Organization around common interests is a key vehicle for advancing excluded groups towards greater degrees of social and political integration. However, such advancement is not automatic or easy, which partly explains why socially and economically disadvantaged groups with limited voice in the political system often remain in that condition for a long time, even in a democratic system. Even when they become organized, there is no guarantee that their influence will persist over time, that their demands will be fulfilled, or that they will gain ongoing representation in the political system (see Chapter 4).

THE RISE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

The deficiencies of democratic systems in Latin America in providing adequate representation and participation to marginalized groups have contributed to the emergence of social protest movements. The frustration of some sectors of the population with the democratic system was compounded by the region’s debt crisis, economic stabilization measures and market-oriented reforms, which entailed profound changes in the patterns of inclusion and exclusion (see Chapter 4). Democratic systems were perceived to have made little progress in satisfying unmet social needs or in creating transparent, efficient, and corruption-free governments. Thus, while democracy expanded opportunities to organize and protest, it failed to fulfill its promise to enhance social, economic, and political inclusion.

It was in this broad context that the battleground of politics shifted in several countries, at least temporarily, from the ballot box, political parties, and the congress to the streets (or the fields). Groups resolved to directly challenge the government and make claims, instead of asserting their interests mainly through institutional channels. In a number of countries, such movements have succeeded in placing issues on the policy agenda, promoting legal and constitutional reforms, overturning unpopular government policies, preventing policies seen as adverse to their interests from being adopted, and even forcing the removal of popularly elected presidents.

What factors explain why once-quiescent social groups were able to overcome considerable obstacles to their collective action and emerge as substantial protest movements, effectively challenging the status quo and making existing power holders pay attention to their demands? The emergence of social movements has been examined by a vast literature in sociology and political science (see, for example, Tilly, 2004; McAdam, 1982, 1994; Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992; Giugni, 1998; Elster, 1985; Yashar, 2005; Scott, 1990; Tarrow, 1998). Three broad theoretical approaches can be delineated. One approach focuses on the impact of socioeconomic deprivations and changes in social and political opportunity structures in motivating and permitting collective social action. A second emphasizes the role of group-level processes, values, and belief systems in shaping collective interpretations and identities. From this perspective, groups’ identities (e.g., as workers, women, indigenous peoples) are not determined purely by their inherent characteristics or their social condition, but by themselves in interaction with their surroundings (Yashar, 2005). A third approach focuses on the costs and benefits for individuals of joining protest actions and how these are shaped by individuals’ preferences and the incentives provided by social movement organizations and their leaders. The experience of a few of the region’s more prominent social movements highlights their political significance and the role of different causal factors in their mobilization.

Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, or MST) emerged as a nationwide force in the early 1980s on the basis of land occupations concentrated at first in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul. By occupying land deemed not productive, the MST has pressured federal and state governments to expropriate and redistribute privately held land. This has resulted in the settlement of about 350,000 families onto their own land. More than just a protest movement, the MST has built an entire organizational network through which it offers education, housing, medical centers, and financial credit.

The emergence of the movement can ultimately be traced to a salient structural characteristic in Brazil: a high level of inequality in the distribution of land. Other structural changes in the decades prior to the early 1980s, such as the development of mechanized agriculture, which brought casual day laborers to the countryside, the decline in industrial output, which deterred young people from migrating to urban areas, and the liberalization of the political regime contributed to the rise of the movement. The movement also owed its success to its ability to acquire resources (including money for schools and other services for members on occupied land) and the ability, partly because of the nature of the cause, to apply selective rewards to participants—namely, a share of the cooperatively owned land (Bull, 2006). But the MST’s collective action was also inspired and made possible by the example of other social movements organizing against the country’s military dictatorship; ideological influences, such as liberation theology; and the support of other organized groups, including the church. The steady expansion and increasing influence of the movement owes much to the interaction among and between the landless and their leading religious supporters, which led the participants to reinterpret the costs and benefits of taking action, focusing more on the collective values of solidarity and the broader goals of the movement over purely individual material objectives (Carter, 2003).

Similar to the MST, the unemployed workers (piqueteros) movement in Argentina formed in relation to an obvious structural condition: the surge in urban unemployment to above 15 percent over the period 1985–2002. By the late 1990s, the piqueteros had organized numerous protests in Argentina’s main cities, including massive roadblocks. As a result of the protests, the government granted social assistance in the form of temporary jobs, special subsidies, and food assistance.

The formation of the movement was clearly related to economic factors, including the sharp increase in unemployment, the inflexibility of the labor market, and rising levels of poverty. Argentina’s deep economic crisis in 2001–2002 provided the impetus for consolidating the piqueteros as a social movement. In addition, reductions in state social assistance, the weakening of informal neighborhood support networks, and the decline of unions removed some of the buffers against the emergence of social protests (Bull, 2006). Two key events in the mid-1990s—mass layoffs of industrial workers and the privatization of the state petroleum company (Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales)—were also precipitating factors in the formation of the movement.

Several other countries in the region also experienced rising unemployment rates and economic crises yet did not experience the emergence of a well-organized social movement of unemployed people. Key to the piqueteros’ initial success in effectively challenging the Argentine government were the adoption of roadblocks as the method of struggle and the widespread appeal of their criticism of the exclusionary nature of both the country’s political regime and its economic model. The state’s response of providing social subsidies (planes socials), which the piqueteros could administer themselves, strengthened their organizational structures and provided incentives and strategic tools for motivating participation in the piquetero movement (Svampa and Pereyra, 2003; Wolff, 2007).

Finally, in several Latin American countries, indigenous peoples have assembled important national social movements that have influenced debates on constitutional reform and demanded changes in economic and other policies. They have also taken part in broader social mobilizations that have forced presidents from office. Given the historical efforts of Latin American politicians and governments to replace ethnic identities with class-based identities and to assimilate ethnic cultures, mobilization of indigenous peoples has caught many by surprise (Yashar, 2006). Powerful organizations have emerged in Ecuador and Bolivia, initially with the objective of defending local autonomy. These movements have called for a number of reforms, including legal recognition, representation, autonomy, and multicultural education, and have entered politics by forming national political parties in some cases, fielding candidates and winning political office at all levels of government (Van Cott, 2005).

The emergence of these movements is certainly related to the long history of exploitation and exclusion of indigenous peoples in these countries. But while indigenous peoples had taken part in social mobilizations in the past, the mobilizations beginning in the 1980s have been the first in which ethnicity-based claims, including the demand for recognition of special rights as native peoples, have been at the forefront along with social and economic claims. Thus, the current wave of organization among indigenous peoples relates not just to ongoing characteristics of the social and economic structure, but to a politicization of ethnic identities over the past two to three decades (Yashar, 2005, 2006). According to one account, this politicization of identities has occurred at least in part because of changes in the state’s institutional relationship with the countryside and indigenous peoples in particular. In the mid-twentieth century, the state sought political support and control over the masses through corporatist, class-based forms of interest representation in which people who joined state-sponsored peasant organizations gained access to redistributed land, social programs (including health care), subsidies, and credit. In this context, indigenous peoples’ identity as peasants was privileged, and they were granted previously denied freedoms and access to the state. Because of the freedoms granted from previous forms of labor control and because of the weak reach of the state, in practice indigenous peoples, especially in the Amazon, but also in the highlands, obtained a fair degree of autonomy to put in place indigenous community practices (Yashar, 2005, 2006).

Given economic constraints and resistance to the rising power of class federations, by the 1980s states began to reassert control over peasant federations, liberalize agricultural markets, reduce rural social programs, and open up communal lands for sale on the market, all of which tended to threaten the autonomy and viability of indigenous communities. These changes in the institutional context contributed to the politicization of ethnic differences and the development of indigenous movements. At the same time, democratization and decentralization provided indigenous groups with the political space to organize, protest, and increase their participation in politics.

WHAT DIFFERENCE CAN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS MAKE?

What changes have social movements achieved that the political system could not?

The political system is where power transactions or exchanges take place—politics being understood as the exercise of power. Social movements, as agents of social change (della Porta and Diani, 1999), have one major recourse for influencing these transactions: protest. The politics of social movements is “contentious” in the sense that the movements’ claims usually conflict with someone else’s interests (Tilly, 2004: 3, citing McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly, 2001). “Contentious politics” is a form of collective action used by groups that have no regular access to institutions, whose claims are unaccepted or not yet part of the political agenda, and who express their interests in forms that challenge the established order (Tarrow, 1998: 3).

To respond to protest, the state produces social policy or it polices protest: the state either represses the movement, negotiates with it, or uses both strategies at the same time (della Porta and Diani, 1999: 240). Social policy is both the cause of protest and the response to it. In that sense, protest and policy mutually affect one another (Meyer, 2003). Social movements, in turn, can use different entry keys to access the political system and change processes and their outcomes.

Recognition

Ethnically divided countries or those with minority cultures need to deal with the issue of whether or not to recognize diversity. The recognition of difference implies a change in the meaning of citizenship and identity. The definition of “liberal culturalism” sets a broadly accepted frame for these states, where the effective protection of individual rights should be accompanied by group-specific rights and policies that recognize different identities and respond to the needs of ethnic cultural groups (Kymlicka, 1995).
Organized pressure from indigenous movements has resulted, through constitutional reforms in numerous countries, in considerable advances in the legal recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples collectively and of individuals within indigenous groups. Processes for obtaining recognition, although symbolic, mobilize the population behind the reforms, demonstrating the electoral potential of the ethnic minority and easing access to the ballot. This process, which primarily serves to remove institutional constraints, is in itself a factor behind building a viable party (Van Cott, 2005), which in turn paves the way for obtaining formal inclusion in representative institutions.

Changes in the Policymaking Process

One way of changing policymaking processes is by gaining formal and sustained access to political power through representation in the institutions where transactions take place. Presence in formal institutions brings a significant change in the positions occupied by different actors: they start to participate on more equal terms. Together with the formation of political parties, one road to effective integration in decision making has been the design and implementation of mechanisms and reforms such as quotas and reserved seats for representative institutions.

Not only have social movements sometimes gained access to formal institutions, but they have also influenced the decision-making process at its different stages (agenda setting, lawmaking, implementation, monitoring, and accountability) by informally influencing the exercise of power. They have exerted this influence through contacts with elected representatives at all decision-making levels, members of the government, public administration officials, and the media, or even through inclusion in policymaking through participation in committees, ad hoc commissions, consultative bodies, advisory boards, and the like. A number of agencies have also been created throughout the region to deal with discrimination against certain groups.

Changes in Public Policy

Agenda Setting

Social movements have influenced the different stages of policymaking first by attracting public attention to new issues, increasing the saliency of existing issues and including these issues in the political agenda, and second by participating in the design, implementation, and monitoring of public policies. Being an agenda setter means raising awareness of certain problems, changing public opinion, and convincing decision makers of the need to introduce new regulations. Not only have social movements contributed to changes in existing policies, but they have opened up and created new areas for policymaking (women, indigenous peoples, environment, etc.). The formation and success of movement-based parties, such as indigenous parties, have changed the agendas of other parties (i.e., nonindigenous parties) and have also led such parties to change the profile of their candidates by including more indigenous candidates.

Policy Design, Implementation, and Outcomes

Alterations in legal provisions do not immediately translate into real changes in people’s lives. Moving from approved legislation to effective implementation and concrete gains in terms of equality takes political will and financial and technical resources. Given that contemporary social movements in the region did not start to mobilize in a meaningful way until the end of the twentieth century, it is possible to find evidence of partial gains but probably too early to talk about sustained policy changes. That said, and leaving aside recognition provisions enshrined in countries’ constitutions, there has also been noticeable progress in approving laws that address racial and ethnic discrimination, collective land entitlements, customary law, the creation of special antidiscrimination agencies and institutions, the inclusion of new census categories to quantify the size of different groups, the formation of new political parties, affirmative action policies to provide formal representation in governmental institutions, and the establishment of consultation mechanisms at different decision-making levels.

Social movements have also influenced the later emergence of other types of movements (Meyer and Whittier, 1997) and have sometimes paved the way for subsequent policy changes (Meyer, 2003). However, implementation of new policies has often advanced at a slower pace than their introduction into the political agenda and their conversion into enacted legislation because of financial and technical limitations, combined with a shortage of mechanisms for accountability between the state and the groups.

Value Change in Public Opinion

Social movements have altered agendas, and in doing so, they have also shaped public opinion on particular issues. But causality also goes the other way: social movements very often need a critical mass of public support to achieve their goals. Gaining public resonance on a particular issue means convincing the population of the importance of the issue for the group and for society as a whole. Changing public opinion starts with gaining progressive recognition that discrimination exists and therefore that inequalities result not just from traditional socioeconomic differences, but also from race, gender, or ethnic and cultural origins.

Sustained Inclusion

It is not easy to assess when and how a particular group has gained sustained inclusion within society. If a social movement is able to change the political system in all of the areas discussed above (i.e., recognition, representation, inclusion through consultation procedures, ability to set the agenda and being part of the design and implementation of public policies, making substantial progress in terms of the fairness of policy outcomes, and changing public opinion), one can argue that its inclusion in the system will be sustainable.

For “in-between” scenarios, William Gamson (1975, cited in della Porta and Diani, 1999: 228) establishes a typology that includes “co-optation,” in which a movement obtains recognition without public policy changes, and “pre-emption,” in which there are policy changes but no acceptance. According to some of the findings in the empirical literature, exclusively ethnic-based or culturally based movements should be more likely to be co-opted, whereas exclusively issue-based or socially based movements should be more prone to pre-emption.

DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS AMONG SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

What characteristics of social movements and the political system have been instrumental for the achievements discussed in the previous sections? Why are certain movements able to achieve certain objectives whereas others are not? Under what conditions is mobilization likely to achieve some advances in terms of inclusion? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions that lead to a successful integration?

Type of Movement

Depending on the context, certain features of a movement can be more relevant than others in determining the outcomes it achieves. The likelihood of a movement’s success has to do first with the quality of leadership and its capacity to mobilize and hold members together. Leaders may have different qualities ranging from the political entrepreneur or political broker to the charismatic and visionary leader. To a much larger extent than would be desirable, an organization’s survival very often depends on the leadership’s capacity to control the movement, to cope with internal divisions, to reformulate claims, and to make the necessary transitions between different phases of the movement.

A group’s organizational capacity depends on its size, composition, and resources. The smaller and more homogeneous a movement, the greater its chances of organizing quickly. The more resources available, the greater its negotiation and trading capacity and, therefore, its influence. If the group does not have resources or the capacity to influence policy by conventional means (i.e., parties, representation in political institutions), it will tend to use protest as a way to gain access to influence. Even if in theory smaller groups should be better able to organize, in this case, “the larger, more volatile, more public, and more diverse” the movement, the more difficult for government to seek “minimally, domestic peace” (Meyer, 2003: 1).

Clearly related to the origins and composition of the movement is the type of identity that ties the members of the group together. Identity, in turn, is key to understanding group members’ goals and possibilities for achieving them. Some (e.g., Hooker, 2005) have argued that group identity defined in cultural or ethnic terms is a stronger determinant of social movement success than a group’s population size or organizational capacity. However, the downside of basing claims on cultural difference is that it may influence the nature of responses given by the political system, privileging policies of recognition over policies against discrimination.

Social movements can also be distinguished in terms of the strategies and repertoires that they use. Repertoires are the types of political action deployed, such as coalitions, associations, public meetings and gatherings, demonstrations, petitions, pamphlets, and statements to the media (see Tilly, 2004: 3). The legitimacy of protest is strongly dependent on these forms of mobilization. Sometimes, certain repertoires, like violence, or the persistent use of a single strategy can delegitimize protest, if the strategy implies high costs for the rest of the population.

Type of Goals

A distinction can be made between “macro claims” (i.e., macropolitical objectives that position the group in terms of broad political objectives) and “micro claims” (i.e., micropolitical objectives, which are the specific material gains the group hopes to make). To attract support, the movement should have clear targets that are easy to communicate, appealing, and compelling to the public. The general and personal implications for people of a particular issue raised by a movement will determine its capacity to amplify public support, in terms either of perceived urgency or of the prospects of payoffs.

Sometimes protest movements do not grow out of socially organized groups; rather, they emerge around short-term targets. Such movements can be extremely efficient because they can introduce an issue into the public agenda at a low cost for individuals, but at a high societal cost, given that sometimes the types of protest used can affect an economic sector, citizens’ security, or public infrastructure (Mauro Machuca, 2006).

Certain objectives have a greater capacity to gain other groups’ support. The extent to which an issue can draw support from other groups depends on its scope and exportability, as well as its territorial contingency (i.e., whether it is a local or national/transnational issue). In some cases, issues can be so powerful that they can gather support from influential players outside of the movement.

The framing of a goal may also influence its likelihood of success. Very often, macro claims are negatively framed as the rejection of something, whereas micro claims are presented in positive terms, as something essentially good and to be achieved. It is precisely when the claim can be turned into positive propositions for action that its likelihood of survival increases, as well as its ability to be translated into public policy.

Political Space

Political space is defined as the possibility for a social movement to form or influence a political party. Social movements and the state operate in a “political opportunity structure” (Tarrow, 1998; Tilly, 1978). Groups will not engage in protest if they can reach a target using conventional politics. If the existing party system offers space for the entry of new actors—as members of existing parties or through new political forces—and a fair aggregation of interests, the group will not engage in the cost of mobilizing.

Policy Space

The capacity of movements to pursue certain claims is also dependent on whether context allows for an opening up of the policy space to a new issue. The readiness of the system to open itself up to a new issue is related to the degree of permeability of the elite class, which in turn will be influenced by the perceived level of pressure from different actors such as the social movement itself, public opinion, other stakeholders, and the international community.

Once an issue finds a place on the political agenda, there is a decisive moment for it to translate into a policy reform. The players involved in decision making are aware that new policies very often result from a change in the balance of power, but that they can, in turn, affect the balance of power. There is, therefore, a risk that attention paid to an issue will be diverted to another issue as time goes by and power alignments change. Neither the policy space nor coalitions last forever.

Transaction Points

The political system is the place where power transactions take place. The amount and type of these transactions will be shaped by the institutions that make up the political system, which set the structure of opportunities and constraints. In that sense, some political settings are more conducive than others to spawning social movements. Under certain conditions, democracy promotes social movements, just as social movements promote democratization (Tilly, 2004). It appears that protest is more likely in systems with a mix of open and closed factors (e.g., political regimes that are transitioning from authoritarianism to democratic rule), with shifting alignments (i.e., low electoral stability), or with divided elites (i.e., that might become influential allies and bring resources to emerging movements) (Tarrow, 1998: 76–80). Accordingly, the intensity of social mobilizations that have swept Latin America and the Caribbean during recent decades can be interpreted as a natural consequence of these factors.

Democracy, together with other trends in institutional reform, has progressively relaxed the constraints and created a more permissive institutional environment in the region. For instance, decentralization has opened up space for participation at lower cost, because social movements can start organizing in a meaningful way in areas where they have a large number of potential members. Proportionality of electoral systems, openness of party systems, and the decline of traditional parties have also facilitated the entry of new competitors. Other institutional settings have also favored social mobilization: new electoral districts in areas with large indigenous populations, reserved seats for indigenous candidates, the possibility for movements and not just parties to participate in elections, and greater ease in registering parties and entering the ballot.

Opportunities for successful mobilization also depend on the capacity of the political system to adjust to external challenges. In some cases, the system delegitimizes protest by giving partial responses; adjusting political representation, including the movement in formal and informal democratic procedures and in the discussion of certain issues directly concerning its interests, and producing relatively low-cost policies are all partial answers. In that sense, the system can momentarily open certain transaction points to maintain the overall status quo in terms of power shares.

CONCLUSION

Social movements are not the cause of the erosion of democracy but rather the consequence of structural dysfunctions that lead to expressions of discontent. Claims from ethnic and culturally based movements have challenged the nature of the state and the understandings of citizenship. Beyond that, ethnic and cultural boundaries tend to overlap with socioeconomic classes. In that sense, protest has revolved not only around the fact that individuals belonging to these groups lack the same opportunities as the average citizen (i.e., individual rights), but also around the fact that the group’s distinctive culture and needs are not recognized (i.e., collective rights).

As long as structural problems in terms of substantial inequalities in access to socioeconomic and political resources remain unresolved, there will be more or less serious episodes of contention and political crisis that will put political systems in the region under pressure.

For that same reason, social movements are usually more part of the solution than part of the problem. The emergence and intensity of social movements can be interpreted as a positive sign of the evolution of democracy in the region, where a progressive opening and removal of barriers has led to mobilization.

Social mobilization has the potential to increase the voice of the excluded. Engagement in politics can enhance the understanding of realities and possibilities for change and can bring about some change. In some cases, mobilization can bring about lasting changes in the political system (in the allocation of power over decisions) and lead to changes in policies reflecting greater inclusion. In other cases, smaller changes may result that change agendas, alter mentalities, and in the long term may open up opportunities for more lasting and meaningful changes in the political system and public policies. In the short and medium term, it is true, social mobilization can aggravate social conflict and complicate democratic governance. But this may be a necessary price to pay, although it must be managed with care, without repression, with accommodation, and with consensus-building efforts.