Populismos y democracias defectuosas en El Ecuador (1996-2012): continuidades y diferencia

From 1995 to 2015, Ecuador experienced one of its longest periods of deep political, social and economic crisis. During this interval, three democratically elected governments (Bucaram, 1997; Mahuad, 2000 and Gutiérrez, 2005) were overthrown and a critical juncture arose in 2006 as a result. Since 2007, and as a consequence of these chaotic circumstances, new populist strongmen ascended and, amid the biggest bonanza of oil revenues in Ecuadorian history, established a defective democracy. The gradual escalation of authoritarian tendencies during the three consecutive terms in which Rafael Correa has acted as President, have resulted in the severe weakening of the country’s democratic institutions, since Correa’s has strived to perpetuate himself in power through continual re-election into office, instead of building an institutional quality-democracy. This study aims to clarify the historical foundations of the recurrence of caudillistas, populist and authoritarian governments in Ecuador, revealing the basis of the specific path dependence of Ecuadorian politics. We also explore the Jungian theory, specifically the “pseudo-hero myth”, as the political narrative which Correa’s regime successfully employed to establish its hegemony. Additionally, we perform a psychological-political case analysis by examining the social psychology components underlying the Ecuadorian path dependence towards authoritarian and populist caudillos: Specifically, our case study is framed within historical institutionalism, which focuses on methodological individualism to attend various political science and psychological-political theories...

Ethnic Violence on Kenya's Periphery: Informal Institutions and Local Resilience in Conflict-Affected Communities

Deadly, inter-ethnic group conflict remains a threat to international security in a world where the majority of armed violence occurs not only within states but in the most ungoverned areas within states. Conflicts that occur between groups living in largely ungoverned areas often become deeply protracted and are difficult to resolve when the state is weak and harsh environmental conditions place human security increasingly under threat. However, even under these conditions, why do some local conflicts between ethnic groups escalate, whereas others do not? To analyze this puzzle, the dissertation employs comparative methods to investigate the conditions under which violence erupts or stops and armed actors choose to preserve peace. The project draws upon qualitative data derived from semi-structured interviews, focus group dialogues, and participant observation of local peace processes during field research conducted in six conflict-affected counties in Northern Kenya. Comparative analysis of fifteen conflict episodes with variable outcomes reveals the conditions under which coalitions of civic associations, including local peace committees, faith-based organizations, and councils of elders, inter alia, enhance informal institutional arrangements that contain escalation. Violence is less likely to escalate in communities where cohesive coalitions provide platforms for threat-monitoring, informal pact making, and enforcement of traditional codes of restitution. However, key scope conditions affect whether or not informal organizational structures are capable of containing escalation. In particular, symbolic acts of violence and the use of indiscriminant force by police and military actors commonly undermine local efforts to contain conflict. The dissertation contributes to the literatures on civil society and peacebuilding, demonstrating the importance of comparing processes of escalation and non-escalation and accounting for interactive effects between modes of state and non-state response to local, inter-ethnic group conflict.

Influence of Religious Institutions in the Creation and Implementation of Public Policy: The Case of Roman Catholic Argentina and Secular Uruguay

The strong presence of religious institutions in Latin America, especially the Roman Catholic Church, and their participation in the creation and implementation of public policy within a sovereign state can be counter-productive for the social development and progress of that specific country. Argentina and Uruguay and the social controversy of social issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are used as examples to establish the accuracy of the above statement. Historical, statistical, and legislative information about both topics in both countries show that the political power that the Roman Catholic Church has in the region is more an outdated influence than a reality, and the principle of secularization appears to be the most stabilizing philosophy for modern nations.