Good Governance in Chile and Argentina - Essay Example

Good Governance in Chile and Argentina Introduction Good governance has become a key phrase when discussing the developing nations of the world. Forgovernmental and non-governmental actors alike an analysis of good government is critical in aid and development programs as well as with foreign investment. Developing countries considered to have established and maintained good governance are seen to offer more favourable prospects by various institutions, whether they are the World Bank, small Non-Governmental organisations or multinational conglomerates. Whether these organisations are investing in or aiding a developing country signs of good governance is seen to make these processes easier, more reliable and more transparent. Within Latin America, Chile is held up as an example where democratic institutions are making headway. In other countries such as Argentina, the fight against corruption, remnants of populism and a weak judicial system are in evidence almost daily. Is the establishment and maintenance of good governance possible in Latin America? Using Chile and Argentina as examples it becomes clear that in our analysis of good governance we should not be limited by one model but should take into account the diversity of problems and the level of difficulty in resolving these problems when we choose to analise whether or not a state’s governance is ‘good’. The importance of good governance Good governance is a universal term used to describe the level of democracy, human rights and the forms of participatory government present within a country’s political system. At its core is the democratic system which is seen as the optimal system for allowing citizens maximum freedom of expression and participation in political processes. Wijkman (1998) claims that, “Good governance entails a vast set of democratic processes and institutions at every level of society, from the local council to regional, national and international institutions, that allow the voices of the people to be heard, conflicting interests to be peacefully resolved, and a forging of consensus towards greater social progress (p. 89).” Good governance became an important concept in the late 80s when it became tied to foreign aid programs, in addition to playing a crucial role in analysing a country’s competitiveness for foreign investment (‘Weapons of Mass Upliftment’). While in the era of the Cold War “the flow of aid, in particular by major bilateral donors, was strongly influenced by strategic foreign policy interests” (Van de Sand, 2000 p. 90), the triumph of capitalism would see aid and investment most closely tied to countries with democratic principles. Countries with greater democratic stability were perceived and are still perceived as better able to respond to and dependably integrate both governmental and non-governmental aid, as well as providing a stable economic climate for investors. Most importantly good governance has become a term that is often applied by northern aid agencies and investors to developing countries when accessing their potential. Doornbos (2003) states that, “it soon transpired that these references somehow pertained to states and entities in the South, rather than in Europe or North America where the concept was launched” (p. 4). Yet, there clearly exist problems of good governance in developed countries as well. In recent years the Bush administration initiated a program with the goal of analising whether government programs were achieving their objectives. One of the conclusions it reached was that 40 percent of these program were deemed ‘ineffective’ (‘Good Governance’, A15). Clearly good governance is a concern worldwide. In a study by the Commonwealth Foundation of 45 Commonwealth countries, most of those interviewed felt disappointed with the democratic institutions of their country (Naidoo & Tandon, 1999, p. 16). Like many popular concepts, good governance is complicated by varying interpretations of its definition and the proposed means with which it may be attained. In an era of globalisation many nations are moving away from the embracement of the strict principles of democratic rule established in the aftermath of the Cold War. Wijkman (1998) claims that, “These dissenters maintain that the fundamental principles set forth by the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not reflect universal values, but rather western values ill-suited to meet the needs of the poor in countries in the developing world (p. 86).” In addition, in institutions like the IMF, where good governance is heartily endorsed it promotes the giving of advice where it is not an expert (Welch, 2000 p. 1). There is also the additional concern with respect to foreign aid that “development aid is now directed towards those countries and regions within countries most likely to give the greatest economic return to the donor country rather than towards those countries or regions within countries that are in the greatest need of development assistance” (Good Governance to Be Rewarded). An analysis of good governance in Argentina and Chile shows us that despite geographic proximity and historical and linguistic similarities the two countries face diverse problems as they attempt to leave behind their legacy of military regimes, human rights abuses and democratic deficiency. Without the rigid ideological and geographical structure of the Cold War, Latin American nations receive less attention than before from the world powers and are often lumped together when discussing, most specifically, foreign and aid policy (Espach and Tulchen, 2001, p.1). This is clearly a tendency of globalisation which gravitates towards homogenous organisational structures. Guillé (2001) argues against this when he claims, Countries and organizations do not gravitate toward a supposedly universal model of economic success and organizational form as they attempt to cope with globalization. Rather, the mutual awareness that globalization entails invites them to be different, namely, to use their unique economic, political, and social advantages as leverage in the global marketplace (p. 3). The level of representation and effectiveness of government bodies are and will continue to be on different levels throughout Latin America. There is no doubt that greater sensitivity to these differences is needed not just in analysing and treating the political woes of these two countries but those of all of Latin America. Chile and Argentina: Case Studies In the aftermath of the military regimes of the 70s and the 80s Chile and Argentina made peaceful transfers to democracy. In the beginning, the main concern by these countries political leaders was to maintain stability and move towards a certain level of democracy, which Roniger and Sznajder claim, “differed from case to case according to what they perceived as possible given the framework of the civil-military relationships inherited from the previous period” (p. 224). Despite, the appearance of order, it is clear that there were many needs not being met in these two countries. In both countries high rates of unemployment, poverty and social inequalities put great stain on democratic institutions. At the heart of the problem was the abrupt switch from old models of development such as import substitution and protectionist programs to agendas of privatisation and the deregulation of the domestic market and foreign trade. Many of these policies resulted in a growing social inequality and the rise of unemployment (Pérez Liñán, 2003, p. 99). While Chile and Argentina face many of the same issues Chile’s experience with democracy holds great distinctions with that of Argentina’s. In contrast to Argentina, Barton and Tedesco (2004) claim, the principal debates at the end of authoritarianism and into the democratic period were not as closely related to the economy. Since labour had been harshly repressed under authoritarianism and the economic blueprint of liberalisation had guided the structuring of social relations, the need to build an alliance with labour was not a factor in the Chilean experience (P. 145). Argentina, on the other hand, had and continues to have problems with it labour unions. Argentina’s connection to its labour unions is connected to its history of Populist politics. Populism, based on a charismatic and overpowering executive, reached its height with Peron and the rise to power of the Argentine trade unions. Horowitz (1999) claims that Populism historically has dominated Argentine politics and continues to be of great importance (p. 22). He sates that Menem, president for ten years after the first democratic government led by Alfonsin, amassed power, stretching the constitution. He frequently bypassed Congress and issued decrees, issuing more of the latter than all his predecessors combined. Also, Menem packed the supreme court and limited the autonomy of the court system. Again like his populist forebear, he made himself the center of all attention, appearing frequently on television” (p. 42). Chile, on the other hand, has not been a country of populist governments largely due to the fact that it historically had a strong multiparty system which “blocked, blunted, or absorbed populist initiatives” (Drake, 1999, p. 74). Due to the constant corruption of the Argentine judicial system by populist leaders there are continued problems with the independence, effectiveness and accessability of the judiciary. Chile, while it has not been a model in this regard, has not had the depth of problems with its judiciary. Despite her criticism of the Chilean judicial system Hilbank (2003) does recognize that, “consensus building on the issue of judicial reform has been easier and more successful than it has been in other Latin American countries [and] Chilean political actors take seriously and respect formal institutional rules more than do their counterparts in neighboring countries (p. 88). For these same reasons corruption has been at different levels in the two countries. Although prevalent in Chile, as in all societies, corruption in Argentina has been a debilitating factor which has served to discouraging foreign aid as well as foreign trade and investment as a result of the severe misuse of public finances. Conclusion In the past twenty years Argentina and more specifically Chile have made headway towards more open and more democratic systems. Yet, both countries continue to face problems of inequality, poverty and unemployment. In Argentina corruption and the lingering influences of populism and trade unions result in a system with democratic institutions but little democracy. Yet, the reality of Chile may not be a possibility for Argentina, a country with different historical and political influences. When considering a country’s governance, both between countries of a similar region as well as countries between the developed and developing world these differences must be taken into account and prospects for ‘good governance’ modeled around them. Any other way of looking at very different political systems would end with us reaching for unreal goals. References Barton, J. & Tedesco, L. (2004). The State of Democracy in Latin America: Post- Transitional Conflicts in Argentina and Chile New York: Routledge. Doornbos, M. (2003). ‘"Good Governance": The Metamorphosis of a Policy Metaphor "Governance" Quickly Became a Household Word, but as Is Often True of Buzzwords, There Has Hardly Been a Consensus as to What It Means, and Even Less of an Idea as How It Could Be Applied More Concretely’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 57, 2003 pp. 3-23. Drake, P.W. (1999). ‘Chiles Populism Reconsidered, 1920s-1990s’, Conniff, M.L. (ed) Populism in Latin America (pp.63-74). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Espach, R.H. & Tulchin, J. (2001). ‘Latin America in the New International System: A Call for Strategic Thinking’, Espach, R.H. & Tulchin, J.S. (eds) Latin America in the New International System (pp. 1-34). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. ‘Good Governance’, (2005). The Washington Times, November 23, A15 Good Governance to Be Rewarded’, (2005). Western Mail, March 10, p. 30. Guillé, M.F. (2001). The Limits of Convergence: Globalization and Organizational Change in Argentina, South Korea, and Spain, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hilbink, L. (2003). ‘An Exception to Chilean Exceptionalism? The Historical Role of Chiles Judiciary’, Eckstein, S.E., & Wickham-Crowley, T.P., (eds) What Justice? Whose Justice? Fighting for Fairness in Latin America (pp. 64-97) Berkeley: University of California Press. Horowitz, J. (1999). ‘Populism and Its Legacies in Argentina’, Conniff, M.L. (ed) Populism in Latin America (pp. 22-42). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, Naidoo, K, & Tandon, R, (1999). ‘What Is Good Governance?’ Foreign Policy, p. 16. Pérez-Liñán, A. (2003). ‘Presidential Crises and Democratic Accountability in Latin America, 1990–1999’, Eckstein, S.E., & Wickham-Crowley, T.P., (eds) What Justice? Whose Justice? Fighting for Fairness in Latin America, (pp. 98-132). Berkeley: University of California Press. Roniger, L. & Sznajder, M. (1999). The Legacy of Human-Rights Violations in the Southern Cone: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vand De Sand, K. (2000). ‘Promoting Good Governance: IFADs Decentralized Approach’, UN Chronicle, Vol. 37, Spring, pp. 90-96. ‘Weapons of Mass Upliftment: Good Governance, Quality Education, and Sustainable Development’, (2005). Manila Bulletin, February 4. Welch, C. (2000). ‘The IMF & Good Governance’, Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 5, April 19, p. 1. Wijkman, A. (1998). ‘Does Sustainable Development Require Good Governance?’ UN Chronicle, Vol. 35, Spring, pp. 86-90. Read More