Democracy And Authoritarianism In Peru

Under what conditions is democracy stable? What forces undermine or reinforce democratic institutions in Latin America? This book suggests answers to these questions in the context of Peru. It identifies the micro and macro causes that explain the gradual breakdown of democracy in the period between the 1980 transition from authoritarian rule and the 1992 suspension of the Constitution and closure of Congress by President Alberto Fujimori. Similar self-coups were subsequently threatened in Bolivia, unsuccessfully attempted in Guatemala and actively considered in Brazil.

Offers a comprehensive assessment of President Alberto Fujimori's regime in the context of Latin America's struggle to consolidate democracy after years of authoritarian rule. This book also helps illuminate the persistent obstacles that Latin American countries face in establishing democracy.

In this paper Professor Conaghan reconstructs the last five years of Alberto Fujimori, drawing on Vladi-videos coming out on a weekly basis. It examines how the plan to re-elect President Alberto Fujimori deepened authoritarianism in Peru and how the opposition's struggle against re-election reshaped the political landscape and laid the groundwork for a surprising opening to to regime transition.

The Shining Path was one of the most brutal insurgencies ever seen in the Western Hemisphere. Political Violence and the Authoritarian State in Peru explores the devastating effects of insurgent violence and the state's brutal counterinsurgency methods on Peruvian civil society.

Based on a detailed study of 35 cases in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and post-communist Eurasia, this book explores the fate of competitive authoritarian regimes between 1990 and 2008. It finds that where social, economic, and technocratic ties to the West were extensive, as in Eastern Europe and the Americas, the external cost of abuse led incumbents to cede power rather than crack down, which led to democratization. Where ties to the West were limited, external democratizing pressure was weaker and countries rarely democratized. In these cases, regime outcomes hinged on the character of state and ruling party organizations. Where incumbents possessed developed and cohesive coercive party structures, they could thwart opposition challenges, and competitive authoritarian regimes survived; where incumbents lacked such organizational tools, regimes were unstable but rarely democratized.