Elections in the Americas: A Data Handbook Volume 2: South America

ELECTIONS IN THE AMERICAS A DATA HANDBOOK

Elections in the Americas continues the series of election data handbooks published by Oxford University Press. Together with Elections in Asia and the Pacific and Elections in Africa, this is a highly reliable resource for historical and cross-national comparisons of elections and electoral systems world-wide.

Elections in the Americas A Data Handbook

VOLUME II

South America Edited by

DIETER NOHLEN

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Dieter Nohlen 2005 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2005 All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 0-19-928357-5 Vol-I ISBN 0-19-928358-3 Vol-2 ISBN 0-19-925358-7 (2-Volume set) 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset by the Editor Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn

Preface This two-volume work is the third installment in the series of election data handbooks published by Oxford University Press. Five years after the publication of the first title, Elections in Africa and three years after the publication of Elections in Asia and the Pacific, I now present the first compendium of electoral data that includes all American countries, from the introduction of universal male suffrage to the present day. The final part of the series Elections Worldwide, covering elections in Europe, is currently underway. The basic idea of these handbooks—systematic and historically complete documentation of elections in all countries worldwide—is almost 40 years old. The idea was born in the early 1960s, when Dolf Sternberger and Bernhard Vogel embarked on an extensive research project on the election of parliaments at the University of Heidelberg (Wahl der Parlamente und anderer Staatsorgane). Since then, several research projects on elections and electoral systems have been carried out in Heidelberg, including empirical and theoretical publications covering the entire world. In 1978 a voluminous work on Africa was published under the subtitle Politische Organisation und Repräsentation in Afrika (Political Organization and Representation in Africa). In the same year I finished Wahlsysteme der Welt (Electoral Systems of the World), internationally better known in its Spanish version (Sistemas electorales del mundo, 1981). In the late 1980s an international research team under my direction began working on parliamentary and presidential elections in Latin America and the Caribbean. The main result concerning electoral data was published in 1993 in German (Handbuch der Wahldaten Lateinamerikas und der Karibik) and in Spanish (Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericana y del Caribe). A new project on elections and democratization in Africa and Latin America started in 1996. This project provided an ideal framework to revive the old idea of a worldwide compendium of electoral data. The first book in this new series was Elections in Africa (1999), edited by Dieter Nohlen, Michael Krennerich, and Bernhard Thibaut, followed by Elections in Asia and the Pacific (2001), edited by Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann. Elections in the Americas is based on our previous work Handbuch der Wahldaten. But even so, most of the articles required a lot of time and energy in their elaboration: Collecting the relevant information, fit-

vi ting the quantitative and qualitative data into a strict series of guidelines and often recalculating national data according to our standards. The editorial team demanded a great deal of patience from the authors, who had to answer never-ending questions. Such a work produces an apparently paradoxical outcome: the more time spent on enhancing an article, the clearer and simpler it finally appears to the reader. I am deeply grateful to the 31 contributors from more then ten different countries for their cooperation, patience, and encouragement. We have learnt a lot from them in these three years and their empathy with this project has become a decisive stimulus for us. I am also especially grateful to those individuals and organizations that made this book possible. First of all, I owe much to my editorial team in Heidelberg: Matthias Catón, Philip Stöver, and Matthias Trefs have tirelessly edited the articles and collected and standardized the relevant information. Katrin Falk, Julia Leininger, Arthur Mickoleit, Florian Rehli, and Johannes Schwehm helped in different phases of the project and Dominique Le Cocq provided most valuable help in revising the English version. I would also like to thank the Institut für Politische Wissenschaft (Institute of Political Science) at the University of Heidelberg for accommodating the project, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in Washington, the Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (IIDH; Inter-American Institute for Human Rights) in Costa Rica, especially its Center for Electoral Assistance and Promotion (CAPEL), and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm. I am also indebted to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; German Research Foundation), which supported the production of the typescript financially. Finally, I thank Dominic Byatt and Claire Croft at Oxford University Press for their encouragement and professional support. Working with them has been a pleasure. Heidelberg, February 2005

Dieter Nohlen

Contents

Notes on the Editor and Contributors. ....................................................ix Technical Notes .................................................................................... xiii Elections and Electoral Systems in the Americas (D. Nohlen) ................1 Argentina (M. P. Jones/ M. Lauga/ M. León-Roesch) ...........................59 Bolivia (J. Lazarte R.) ..........................................................................123 Brazil (B. Lamounier/ O. Amorim Neto) .............................................163 Chile (D. Nohlen) .................................................................................253 Colombia (J. Jaramillo/ B. Franco-Cuervo) .........................................295 Ecuador (D. Nohlen/ S. Pachano).........................................................365 Paraguay (M. León-Roesch/ R. Ortiz Ortiz).........................................411 Peru (F. Tuesta Soldevilla) ...................................................................445 Uruguay (D. Nohlen)............................................................................487 Venezuela (J. Molina/ B. Thibaut) .......................................................535 Glossary ...............................................................................................593

This page intentionally left blank

Notes on the Editor and Contributors

Editor DIETER NOHLEN is professor of political science at the University of Heidelberg and a well-known expert on electoral systems, political development, and democratization with a focus on Latin America. He received the Max Planck prize for internationally outstanding research in 1991, and the University of Augsburg prize for research on Spain and Latin America in 2000. His numerous books include Wahlsysteme der Welt (1978; Spanish edn. 1981), Elections and Electoral Systems (1996), Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem (4th edn. 2004), Sistemas electorales y partidos politicos (3rd edn. 2004). He is editor of a seven-volume encyclopedia Lexikon der Politik (1992–1998), and co-editor of Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina (1998; 2nd edn. 2005) as well as of an eight-volume Handbook of the Third World (3rd edn. 1991–1994), and a two volume encyclopedia of political science, Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft (2nd edn. 2004, Spanish edn. 2005). [E-mail: [email protected]] Contributors OCTAVIO AMORIM NETO received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of California at San Diego and is currently assistant professor of political science at the Graduate School of Economics at the Getulio Vargas Foundation at Rio de Janeiro. His publications have appeared in the American Journal of Political Science, Latin American Politics and Society, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Party Politics and World Politics. [E-Mail: [email protected]] BEATRIZ FRANCO CUERVO is a political scientist and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg. She is currently working as a lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Politics and Government of the Universidad del Rosario in Bogota, Colombia. [E-mail: [email protected]]

x JUAN F. JARAMILLO PÉREZ is a lawyer, M.A. in public administration and holds a Ph. D. in political science. He is a professor at the Faculty of Law and Political and Social Science at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Jaramillo has written a book about electoral authorities in Latin America and a number of articles on elections, human rights and constitutional law. [E-mail: [email protected]] MARK P. JONES is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Rice University. His research focuses on the manner in which electoral laws and other political institutions influence party systems, elite and mass political behavior, and representation. He is author of Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies (1995). His recent publications have appeared in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Electoral Studies, The Journal of Politics, and Party Politics. BOLÍVAR LAMOUNIER holds a Ph.D. from the University of California in Los Angeles. He is a founding member and research director of the Institute of Economic, Political and Social Studies (IDESP) in São Paulo. [E-mail: [email protected]] MARTÍN LAUGA has a Ph.D. in political science of the University of Heidelberg, where he also worked as a researcher. Since 1999 he works as management and personnel consultant. Since 2003 he is a partner and director at VDG International Executive Solutions in Ratingen (Germany). [E-mail: [email protected]] JORGE LAZARTE has a Ph.D. in political science of the Sorbonne. He is currently working as professor at the Bolivian Catholic University. He was also a consultant in the National Congress and a judge at the National Electoral Court of Bolivia. He has published works on a variety of topics, such as elections, political culture and processes of institutionalization. His main publications are: Working-class Movement and Political Process in Bolivia 1952–1987 (1988), Bolivia. Certitudes and Incertitudes of the Democracy (1993), Political groups, Problems of Representativity and New Challenges of the Democracy (1998) and Between Two Worlds. The Political Culture and Democracy in Bolivia (2000). [E-mail: [email protected]] MARTA LEÓN-RÖSCH has a law degree from the University of Córdoba (Argentina), she graduated in international relations at the Catholic Uni-

xi versity of Córdoba, and holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Heidelberg. León-Rösch is the author of several comparative studies on the voter registration in Latin America, among them ‘Los Registros Electorales’ (1998) in Dieter Nohlen et al. (ed.), Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de America Latina. She works as an independent researcher on comparative Latin American law. [E-mail: [email protected]] JOSÉ MOLINA is professor of political science in the University of Zulia, Venezuela and has been a visiting professor (2000–2003) in the Department of Political Science of the University of Michigan. His research focuses on Venezuelan and Latin American electoral systems and electoral behavior. He has written extensively on these subjects. His works include: La Participación Electoral en Venezuela (1989), El Sistema Electoral Venezolano y sus Consecuencias Políticas (1991), Los Sistemas Electorales de América Latina (2000) and numerous articles. RICHARD ORTIZ ORTIZ is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Heidelberg where he studied political science, sociology and public law. He holds a Ph.D. in law from the Catholic University of Ecuador. Currently he is conducting research on the political stability in the Andean countries. SIMÓN PACHANO is a professor of political science at the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) in Quito/Ecuador. He studied sociology in Ecuador and Chile and has taught at numerous universities in Latin America, Europe and the United States. [E-mail: [email protected]] BERNHARD THIBAUT has been working as a research associate at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Heidelberg, where he studied political science and sociology (M.A. 1991, Ph. D 1996). His publications include a book on presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (1996), which received the ADLAF prize from the German Association of Latin American Studies in 1998. He has also written numerous articles on institutional aspects of democratic transition and consolidation in Latin America and other regions and on social and economic development in third world countries. He is co-editor of Elections in Africa (1999). In 1999 he joined SAP, a leading software company for business applications, as a consultant and project manager for the public

xii sector. Currently he is responsible manager for the healthcare and social security market at SAP Germany in Walldorf. [E-Mail: [email protected]] FERNANDO TUESTA SOLDEVILLA is national director of the ONPE, the Peruvian authority in charge of the electoral process. He holds a Master degree in sociology from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and a Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg. He has been a lecturer at various Peruvian universities and a consultant to IFES, Capel and other renowned institutions. His more than 200 books and articles include: El juego Político (Fujimori, la oposición y las reglas); Los Enigmas del Poder (Fujimori 1990–1996); No sabe/no opina (Medios y encuestas políticas); El Sistema de Partidos Políticos en el Perú (1978–1995) and La Jornada Electoral. [E-mail: [email protected]]

Technical Notes

The data in this handbook are presented in the same systematic manner for all countries in order to provide electoral statistics in line with internationally established standards of documentation. The tables are organized in ten parts: 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat: Table 2.1 provides an overview of the dates of elections to national political institutions, referendums as well as interruptions of the constitutional order by coups d’état since national independence. Where necessary, the dates of indirect elections are indicated by footnotes. The signs xx/xx indicate that no information could be found regarding the exact polling date. 2.2 Electoral Body: Table 2.2 provides a comparative overview of the evolution of the electoral body, and records the data on population size, registered voters and votes cast. The figures of registered voters and votes cast are drawn from the relevant tables 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9. Population data have been generally rounded and their sources are named in a relevant footnote. Where electors have multiple votes, the column for ‘votes cast’ documents the numbers of ‘ballots cast’. A long hyphen (—) indicates that no information was available. All percentages are based on the figures given in the respective columns of this table. 2.3 Abbreviations: The abbreviations and full names of the political parties and alliances that appear in Tables 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 follow an alphabetical order. Party mergers, splinters or successions are generally indicated in a footnote. Party names are given in their original language and the English translation is provided in parentheses. The abbreviations used in the tables are the ones commonly used in the country or in the international reference texts. In the few cases where no abbreviation is mentioned in electoral documents or reference texts, the authors may have used own abbreviations.

xiv 2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances: The data regarding the participation of parties and alliances in all direct national elections are presented in a chronological order; they include the year of the elections and the number of elections contested. Only parties recorded in Tables 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 appear in this table. If a party contested an election as part of an alliance, its participation is counted both with regard to the party and to the alliance. 2.5; 2.6; 2.7; 2.9 Distribution of Votes in National Referendums, Elections to Constitutional Assembly, Parliamentary and Presidential Elections: In these tables we try to provide exhaustive documentation of electoral participation, both in total numbers and in percentages, for every general election held since the introduction of male universale suffrage. The percentages refer to votes cast as a percentage of registered voters, invalid and valid votes as a percentage of votes cast and party votes as a percentage of valid votes. For the purpose of this handbook invalid votes are those that enter the ballot box but are disqualified out of different possible reasons, and therefore do not affect the electoral outcome. Regarding national referendums, their purpose is indicated in a footnote. According to international standards the book uses the term ‘referendum’ for both plebiscites and (constitutional) referendums. Parties that received less than 0.5% of the vote were subsumed in a residual category (‘others’). The category of ‘independents’ includes all the candidates that did not run on a party label. A long dash (—) indicates the lack of exact data. A short dash (–) indicates that the information did not apply in this case, because the party did not participate in that election. 2.8 Composition of Parliament: This table illustrates the distribution of directly elected seats per party/ alliance as the result of the election. Subsequent changes in party affiliation are not documented. All parties and alliances that won at least one seat in the respective body are listed. In addition, the numbers of appointed or indirectly elected members are documented in footnotes. A short dash (–) indicates that the information was not applicable, because the party did not hold in that term. Optional subsections provide differentiated accounts of bicameral chambers and segments of electoral systems (in case of combined systems). 2.9 Presidential Elections: see 2.5.

xv 2.10 List of Power Holders: Table 2.10 provides information on the succession in the executive. For presidential systems only the head of state (corresponding also to the head of government) is given. For semipresidential and parliamentary systems both the head of state and the head of government are provided. The remarks describe the circumstances surrounding the accession to and resignation from office.

This page intentionally left blank

ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS IN THE AMERICAS South America by Dieter Nohlen*

This data handbook on Elections in the Americas is part of a wider project covering electoral data worldwide. Until recently, scholars of political science have been accustomed to finding information on elections ordered by country on the basis of their economic, social and political levels of development. In contrast, the data in this handbook is organized along continental lines. Following the books on Africa in 1999, on Asia and the Pacific (two volumes) in 2001, this is the third work in the series. As with the previous publications, this volume first presents the constitutional and other legal conditions of elections from the introduction of universal male suffrage or political independence to date and considers the rules that govern the electoral processes. Second, it lists the historical results of national presidential and parliamentarian elections, including time-series on electoral participation and data on referendums. Furthermore, the book provides basic information on political institutions and the distribution of power, based on political preferences expressed in votes for political parties or candidates standing for political alternatives. One of the main objectives of this handbook is to apply systematic criteria and homogeneous concepts to the information gathered. Official and non-official electoral reports often lack this prerequisite for comparative analysis. For example, percentages in the official statistics on electoral results sometimes refer to the votes cast, sometimes to the valid votes. In this handbook, the percentages always refer to the same absolute unit, the valid votes. The concept of the electoral system is often used indistinctly for all electoral factors governing an electoral process or parts thereof. In this handbook, it refers specifically to the way voters express their political preference by means of votes and the way these votes are transferred into executive posts such as the presidential office *

For research assistance I cordially thank Matthias Catón, Philip Stöver and Matthias Trefs.

2

Elections and Electoral Systems

or legislative mandates in the form of parliamentary seats. The information given on different electoral systems is organized according to analytical criteria and is intended to permit and enhance historical and international comparisons. The presentation of data and analyses is guided by the country-by-country-approach. One purpose of this introductory chapter is to give a comparative and systematic overview of the aspects that are treated in greater detail in the individual country studies. This second volume of Elections in the Americas covers ten South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, in other words: The South American part of the Latin American world. The remaining Latin American countries of North America (Mexico), Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama) and the Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti) are treated in the first volume of this handbook. Nevertheless, since all Latin American countries share a number of characteristics, and comparisons within this region generally include the Central American and Hispanic Caribbean countries, this introduction also provides data on these countries. 1. History of and Prospects for Democracy in Latin America It is common knowledge that the main cross-national characteristics of the Latin American area are found first in their historic and cultural heritage as former colonies; second in their way of nation-building during the nineteenth century; third in their model of integration into the world economy; fourth in their structure of society that is widely determined by these external relations; fifth in the ways in which their economic, social and political developments were interrelated and sixth, as a result of the chronic political instability. There are certainly great differences between individual countries. However, although all of them may insist that they are unique, the diverging characteristics actually highlight the fact that these differences occur within a framework of similarities. However, this does not question the idea of using an area-by-area approach, i.e. to treat the region as a cultural unit as in social sciences. The importance of the above mentioned common features goes far beyond mere description. The first five factors play a significant role in explaining the sixth. Furthermore, they not only stand as additional factors explaining political instability, they also offer different and controversial approaches to understanding the problems democracy is confronted with in Latin America. Culturalist explanations highlight the

Elections and Electoral Systems

3

long-lasting influence of Spanish Catholic, centralist and oligarchic traditions on Latin America’s political development. Scholars of political science, especially in the field of modernization theory, who first studied the nation-building process in the nineteenth century in Western Europe and North America and then compared them to situations elsewhere, place great emphasis on the lack of main features in this process in Latin America, that is to say on the absence of industrialization and economic growth. In Europe and Anglophone America the latter led to substantial social changes, social mobilization and modernization and created the societal structure on which democracy could be based (Eisenstadt/ Rokkan 1973). Structuralist theorists and those advocating dependency hypotheses emphasize the effects of unequal trade relations between two groups of countries: Metropolitan and peripheral. This imbalance is thought to undermine the prospects for economic development of the periphery and to bring about and maintain their lack of development. At the same time, the type of industrialization by substitution of imports, introduced after the world economy crisis in 1929, determined the internal social structure and power relations, without fostering and sustaining democracy (Prebisch 1981; Cardosos/ Faletto 1979). In contrast to the assumptions of the modernization theory, the new prerequisites for increased industrialization were thought to favour authoritarian regimes (O’Donnell 1973). Although this causal relationship was discussed critically (Collier 1978) and empirically questioned by the emerging democratic transitions, a widespread conviction was maintained that political order in Latin America had something to do with the specific capitalist development of the region (Rueschemeyer, Huber-Stephens, and Stephens 1992). In more general terms, since the seminal study of Seymour M. Lipset (1960), the literature on the history of and prospects for democracy has maintained that there is a high correlation between the level of development measured by average annual per capita income and the emergence and consolidation of democracy. This assumption opened up a discussion about the prerequisites required to establish democracy. They centred in particular on the sequences of the various features of the modernization process that had to be passed before a stable democracy could be established. On the other hand, the real transitions to democracy from the late 1970s showed scholars that democracy was feasible without the prerequisites postulated by structuralist theory. In other words, democracy can be crafted by political actors. The third wave of democratization (Huntington 1991), a primarily Latin American phenomenon, backed up this conviction, although transition does not mean

4

Elections and Electoral Systems

consolidation, which is a subsequent challenge for Latin American societies (Linz/ Stepan 1996). 1.1 Historical Record of Elections and Democracy Elections have a long tradition in Latin American countries. They are rooted in the era when the countries gained independence from Spain (see Annino 1995). However, this tradition is not connected to democracy because of the restrictions in suffrage, a worldwide phenomenon in the long-lasting process that led to the recognition of equal political rights and democracy. However, this missing feature of democracy in Latin America has also been due to the substance and functions of elections. Elections in Latin America were mostly characterized by fraud und were used more to provide political legitimacy to the incumbents rather than to control their right to govern a country. As we examine the history of democracy in Latin America, we must consider its absence not only in terms of open and declared dictatorships, i.e. in the interruption of elected governments by coups d’état that led to authoritarian regimes, but in the more covert authoritarian rule, which included the use of elections for authoritarian aims. One might think that governing by electoral fraud was primarily a nineteenth century phenomena in Latin America, linked to the suffrage restrictions and other impediments for democratic elections. But this is not really the case: the most prominent examples actually date from the twentieth century. First, the dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, under whom the misuse of occasional elections corresponded to the formal pattern of democracy, was only overcome in 1990. Second, the Mexican one-party government was the most stable authoritarian system in the world. Its disguise was nearly perfect: The presidential term of office was limited to a single term of six years, that of the members of parliament to one period of three years. As a result there were a lot of institutional elements that led observers to believe that the Mexican political system was a special kind of democracy. Political scientists started to study the ‘Mexican democracy’. The authoritarian system was only slowly opened up from the 1970s by means of ambivalent reforms. They were always thought to lend new legitimacy to the authoritarian regime, until 1996, when this regime was finally overcome by a watershed electoral reform. Third, the so called façade democracies, where elections are used to cloud the true power relations, a feature shared by many of the Central American countries in the second half of the last century. In the eight elections in El Salvador

Elections and Electoral Systems

5

between 1962/1966 and 1984, in the four Guatemalan elections between 1964 and 1982, and in the seven elections held under the Somoza regime in Nicaragua between 1937 and 1979, voters actually had no choice. In Panama, elections were not manipulated due to US monitoring. In 1989, the regime annulled the elections when the victory of the opposition became evident. All these cases of fraud demonstrate that historically the holding of elections is not a sufficient indicator for a liberal democracy. The country-by-country analyses of the Latin American region confirm this assessment. Therefore, when looking at elections we have to distinguish between competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive elections (Hermet/ Rose/ Rouquié 1978; Nohlen 1978). We find all three types of elections in the history of the Latin American region and there has only been a tendency towards competitive elections in the last few decades. Thus, periods of elections are by no means tantamount to periods of democracy. The reason for this is, as in other parts of the world, restrained suffrage that was in force for almost all of the nineteenth century. Moreover, it was due to a lack of independent electoral authorities which could have guaranteed free elections. The winner was automatically the one who counted the votes. Only few countries stood out as early exceptions: Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay. Elections that are subject to fraud cannot stabilize a political system permanently. However, the possibility to hold elections according to the rule of law was no guarantee for enduring democracy either, as the cases of Argentina and later on Chile and Uruguay proved. Bearing in mind the long authoritarian tradition and the fraudulent electoral past, free and fair elections are the most astonishing result of the political development in the last 15 years. In this new context, elections are still subject to debate concerning their importance for democracy. As some scholars emphasize, it is true that holding free and fair elections is not a sufficient criterion for a political system to be classified as a democracy (Linz/ Stepan 1996). This consideration highlights further components of democracy such as the rule of law and social equality. Nevertheless, democracy—and democratization—is unthinkable without elections. If this is taken into account it is evident that the different starting points for the democratic development of the region and the different forces which brought it about, have not created any alternative to democratizing the political systems through elections and to build up a representative democracy Dahl style—no matter how fragile the democratic quality may still be. Regardless of the regime—be it traditional authoritarian as in Honduras and Paraguay or military as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and

6

Elections and Electoral Systems

Uruguay or revolutionary socialist as in Nicaragua—elections have always played an important role in the process of democratization. Particular importance can be attributed to the referendums in Chile and Uruguay. In both countries, the perspectives of continuing authoritarian regimes were rejected by popular vote, due to the independence and legal tradition of the administrative electoral bodies. Furthermore, as the countries extended the functions of their competitive elections they were especially crucial in the process of pacifying Central American countries (Krennerich 1996). The 1990 elections in revolutionary Nicaragua, observed and monitored by the United Nations, were won by the opposition. Thus, political development both in Nicaragua and in neighboring countries was at a crossroads. In the following years, elections in El Salvador and Guatemala were held to overcome the violent conflicts between the government and revolutionary forces. The aim was to integrate the revolutionaries into the peaceful competition for power. Finally, the turn to pluralist democracy in Mexico was initiated by an electoral reform that established fair conditions and guaranteed free elections (see Nohlen on Mexico in the first volume). Having played an outstanding role in the transition process, elections became routine in the political process of the region in the following years (Cerdas-Cruz et al. 1992; Rial/ Zovatto 1998; Payne et al. 2002). Some scholars argue that considering elections as crucial for democratic development means promoting electoralism, i.e. the reduction of democracy to elections. They also claim that in the cases of El Salvador and Guatemala elections came too early in the process of pacification to permit a further development of non-violent and consensual approaches to politics (see for example Karl 1986 and 2000). Other scholars assert that in order to overcome authoritarianism, it would be better to develop liberal ideas and attitudes first to avoid illiberal democracies (Zakaria 1997). These are hypothetical considerations and mere counterfactual assumptions. To the present day, people have always demanded immediate free elections before and during the fall of authoritarian regimes because they want a legitimate government based on the will of the majority. In general, the history of democracy in Latin America features political instability and cyclical alternation of democratic experiments with different kinds of authoritarian regimes. No country shows an uninterrupted democratic development as seen in the United States and Canada. The political history of the area is marked by periods of geographical expansion of democracy and subsequent retreats. Furthermore, there are sub-regional differences in both the formal existence of democracy and

Elections and Electoral Systems

7

in the degree of real inclusion of the people. Developments relevant to specific countries within the sub-regional setting also have to be taken into account. Latin America experienced periods of democracy in earlier times and transitions to democracy are not entirely new to the area. If we consider the three waves of democratization as put forward by Samuel P. Huntington, four Latin American countries were involved in the first long wave of democratization between 1828 and 1926: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay. All the democracies collapsed with the first authoritarian reverse between 1922 and 1942, but Chile and Uruguay overcame the crises in the early 1930s. Eight Latin American countries participated in the second wave of democratization between 1943 and 1962: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela, so that in the aftermath of World War II, ten out of 18 countries (according to the contemporary criteria for democracy) could be counted as democracies. At the end of the second authoritarian reverse between 1958 and 1975, only three democracies survived: Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela. In the third wave of democratization between 1978 and 1996, all authoritarian regimes broke down except for the one in Cuba. Since then, Latin America has enjoyed its most inclusive and long-lasting period of democracy.1 If we have a look at the aforementioned countries, some regions are underrepresented. This is especially true for Central America, but also for the Andean area. With regard to the former sub-region, a lot of attention was paid to democratic concepts. Nevertheless, the regimes could hardly be called democratic despite continuously held elections (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama). In the case of the second sub-region, democracy was extremely unstable and often interrupted by authoritarian regimes (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru). Furthermore, in both sub-areas, the degree of socio-political inclusion of indigenous people was extremely low. As for the Southern Cone area, political instability and the endemic alternation between democratic and authoritarian regimes mark the political history of Argentina since 1930, whereas Chile and Uruguay showed a more stable orientation towards democratic rule, only interrupted by military regimes in the early 1970s. 1

With regard to the definition of democracy, the concept of Robert A. Dahl, developed in his seminal study of 1971, is applied. This parsimonious concept underscores two dimensions of the political process: participation and contestation/opposition, as the main features for defining democracy. In other words, its focus is on elections based on universal suffrage and pluralistic competition between political parties. These are the dimensions of democracy on which the information and analysis given in this handbook are based. Furthermore: seven out of the eight criteria applied by Freedom House refer to Dahl’s dimensions.

8

Elections and Electoral Systems

It is true that all sub-regional considerations suffer from deficiencies. Exceptions are so numerous that it is impossible to account for all of them. In the case of Central America, Costa Rica represents a unique political development (see volume 1). In the Andean region, Colombia stands out because of the relative continuity of its democratic government, although it has been fundamentally challenged for decades by chronic violence and guerrilla movements. These disruptions limit the monopoly of the legitimate power of the state and its internal sovereignty. Venezuela has been able to maintain a democratic system since 1958, without any earlier experience of democracy. Recently it has been discuessed whether this system is a regime based on elections but lacking constitutional restraints of power. In the Southern Cone region, Paraguay has shown long periods of political stability since the beginning of its independence, but has also suffered from severe authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, we have to consider some special cases, namely Brazil, Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. Brazil is considered a sub-region with its own political history comprising a short democratic experiment in the early 1960s and a long transition to democracy in the context of a military regime open to political liberalism and reform in the 1980s. Mexico, after the first successful revolution in the twentieth century and years of internal turmoil, sought to stabilize its political system by establishing an authoritarian regime based on the absolute dominance of the revolutionary party. This Mexican ‘democracy’ has only recently come to an end, brought about by the electoral reforms of 1996. They followed some half-hearted earlier reforms and turned the country into a representative democracy. The transition peaked in the first alternation of parties for the Presidency in 2000. In the Caribbean area, the Dominican Republic was able to establish a democratic regime after a long tradition of dictatorships. It was one of the first countries in the third wave of democratization and succeeded in maintaining democracy against all adverse internal conditions. In contrast, Haiti and Cuba, the first and last countries to gain political independence in Latin America, are unique in the non-viability of democracy and the long-term dictatorship, respectively. In summary, Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay are the only countries with long democratic traditions in Latin America and apparently the most stable ones. Venezuela and Colombia may be classified in the next category because of the length of their democratic regimes, ignoring the challenges. Argentina and Brazil show the opposite characteristics: Democracies without long traditions, but perhaps with better prospects for

Elections and Electoral Systems

9

stability in the near future. The extreme case of weak democratic traditions but notable prospects for democracy may be Mexico. The main reasons for the good prospects for democracy may be the lack of an attractive alternative, the waning of belief in revolutionary solutions and the growing international support of democracy. The very challenged democracies of Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru are also more likely to prevail today. However, these favorable circumstances do not provide any barriers against the internal erosion of the representative form of democracy, as seen in the case of Venezuela. Table 1 gives a systematic overview of the democratic periods in Latin America. Table 1: Times of Democracy in Latin Americaa Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Uruguay Venezuela

a

1912–1930; 1946–1955; 1973–1976; 1983– 1982– 1982– 1949–1973; 1990– 1853–1858; 1936–1953; 1958– 1953– 1940–52 1978– 1945–72; 1978– 1989– 1945–1954; 1985– – 1971–1972; 1982– 1997– 1990– 1989– 1992– 1980–1992; 2001– 1952– 1918–1973; 1985– 1945–1948; 1958–

This table lists periods with general and competitive elections.

1.2 Context of Democratic Developments As mentioned above, elections and democracy have to be considered in relation to a series of surrounding factors that have influenced their development in Latin America. We will only highlight some of the most important ones here. They concern the economic and social development as well as some properties of the regional political culture.

10

Elections and Electoral Systems

From a historical point of view, economic development, more precisely the failure to overcome the structure of underdevelopment, together with its interior expression, structural heterogeneity, is seen as the main obstacle for democracy and may continue to limit its prospects in the near future. Although the theory of dependencia is not as common any more, the concept of external dependency still prevails. It is thought to be of crucial importance in regard to social development. This notion has been confirmed by globalization and neo-liberalism when the countries opened up economically and subjected themselves to external influences, which had to leave their marks on society. The Latin American countries are forced to act on the global market. Historically, this is shown by the policy of industrialization by import substitutions. On the one hand, this promoted the problematic role of the state as a political entity, designing policies to ensure economic development. On the other hand, the state’s role as entrepreneur made it the object of struggle not only as the arena to decide on political issues for the common good, but also as a job-creating machine or an opportunity to serve personal interests or that of a family or a group. This latter function corresponded well with the traditional lack of distance between the public and the private sphere in Latin American culture in so far as the direct pursuit of private interest in the public domain brought about nepotism, clientelism, patrimonialism, paternalism, and other kinds of problematic relations between the political and the societal sphere. These phenomena were significant obstacles for economic progress and social equality and had an enormous influence on politics, how they were handled by politicians and how they were perceived by the electorate. One major consequence can be observed in the extreme gap between rich and poor in Latin America and its persistence over time. Latin America has the greatest differences in income distribution in the world, and no government has been able to produce a long-term shift in this general tendency, regardless of whether right or left-wing. Actually, neo-liberalism is accused of increasing the gap and undermining the social basis for representative democracy. As data from Latinobarómetro 1996–2004 shows, people’s trust in political institutions and parties is dwindling. As a consequence, they try to achieve their goals outside the representative system by violent means. The rule of law, which is not really settled in Latin America, is being increasingly undermined. Due to the violent outbreaks under the military regimes, the state is no longer capable of sustaining public order. In various countries, this resulted in a caricature of liberal democracy, which in turn paved the way for critics

Elections and Electoral Systems

11

of democracy and scholars who think that the political system must be reformed. 2. The Process of Democratization of Franchise The expansion of franchise was a long and complex process. Scholars who try to trace this process face two problems: the formal enfranchisement and its statistical outcome on the one hand and its significance and impact in the broader context of social and political domination on the other. If we look at the expansion of franchise in Latin America, the major steps were first to introduce universal male suffrage, then to extend the system to women, then to include illiterates, and finally to reduce the voting age. The statistical consequences of these formal steps (see Table 2) are displayed in the first table (2.1) in the case study chapter. When attempting to trace and evaluate the statistical aspects of these formal fundamental rights, we face problems mainly because there is usually no automatic voter registration in Latin America (see the next chapter). Thus, research has to go beyond formal electoral provisions. Our attention should turn towards the specific conditions or barriers that limited the use of the formally granted franchise. However, this may be difficult because we do not always have the necessary information. The picture is distorted when countries seemingly fare worse only because they provide the relevant information. For example, Chile’s democratic development is often only thought to be completed with the 1970 elections (see Rueschemeyer/ Huber Stephens/ Stephens 1992: 206). Other countries receive a better assessment because of a lack of relevant information. Furthermore, it is also difficult to calculate the enfranchised electorate because the points of reference differ: either the total population or the adult population. Due to the very different demographic developments in the countries, the point of reference is important. In this book, we generally use the total population as point of reference. With regard to the democratic significance of formal suffrage as well as its extension over time, we must point out that in some countries universal suffrage (for example Argentina and Uruguay) was introduced virtually at the same time as in industrialized countries. This fundamental right, however, was of little relevance prior to the so-called transition period. It was only at this time that due to the diversification of the export economies the social strata emerged that is normally referred to as

Elections and Electoral Systems

12 Table 2: Expansion of Franchisea

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Uruguay Venezuela

a

Illiterates From 18 Universal years on suffrage Male Female 1912 1951 — 1912 1952 1952 1952 1952b/ 1995 1932 1932 1988 1932 1925 1949 1970 — 1936 1957 — 1975 1913 1949 — 1974 1865 1942 — 1873 1861 1883 1879 1918 1894 1857 1893 1904 1870 1931 1898 1918 1857

1929 1939 1945 1950 1954 1954 1957 1941 1963 1955 1929 1934 1946

1978 — — — — — — — — 1979 1936 — 1946

— 1950 1887 — 1981 1973 1979d 1972 1870 — — — 1946

1912 —

Compulsory voting 1912 1924

Introduction of PR 1912 1956

1932 1925 1853 1925 1865

1932 – – 1936 1966

1932 1925 1932 1893 1962

1861 1950 1956 — 1894 1857 1893 — 1911 1931 — 1918 1946

1929 1950 1965 – 1894 1917 1984 1928 1940 1931 – 1924 1958

1946 1950 1956 – 1957 1977c 1962 1980 1947 1931 – 1918 1946

Secret vote

The years indicated represent the first occurrence. Married couples only, otherwise from 21 years on. c Segmented system. d Since 1979: 16 years; difficult to determine because of the practice of open electoral colleges. b

the middle class: Industrial, civil, and military bourgeoisie, white-collar employees, and professionals. The emergence of this new group questioned the existing social hierarchy. However, it remained too weak to assume power by itself at this time. The middle classes were only able to succeed in elections in coalition with the working classes. Alliances of this kind led to a change in power and democratic conditions in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. In other countries, where the middle classes were not able to control the masses by integrating them into society and politics, they joined forces with the traditional holders of state power. This usually meant that the democratic implications were removed from formal suffrage. The fabric of these alliances was responsible for the expansion or limitation of suffrage and the establishment or abolition of barriers to the right to exercise suffrage. The effective extension of suf-

Elections and Electoral Systems

13

frage was thus controlled by the respective elites according to the relations of power. Occasionally, pressure from below also played a decisive role. However, this factor must not be overestimated. The social counterpressure, originating from relationships of dependence that could mainly be found in the rural regions, was more influential. The problem was that formally enfranchised citizens had to register themselves in order to be entitled to vote. These two patterns are prototypical for the development of democracy in Latin America until the middle of the twentieth century. For some countries it was not until the third wave of democratization (e.g. Central America except for Costa Rica) that the regimes could be classified clearly as democracy or dictatorship. For the whole region it can be said that the cyclical pattern of alternation between democratic and authoritarian regimes only came to an end with the third wave of democracy. 3. The Development of Conditions for Free and Fair Elections In general, accounts concerning elections focus on the expansion of universal suffrage as the process leading to democratic elections. This is due to the fact that illegal practices in the constitutional states of the Western hemisphere had been fought successfully by the end of nineteenth century. In Latin America, however, because of the constant problems with the implementation of the rule of law in nearly all state activities, the administration of elections was as important for the realization of democratic elections as formal enfranchisement. The notion of free and fair elections addresses precisely this electoral aspect. Where traditions and political culture tend to allow or further illegal practices, the administrative aspect of the electoral process is of utmost importance to elections and the legitimacy of their results. Since the third wave of democratization, political society has been very aware of this, and civil society has been committed to securing free and fair elections. The experience in Latin America has varied. In some countries, the authorities that run elections have traditionally been held in high public esteem (for example Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Venezuela), while other countries lacked a confidential electoral organization. Under the military regime in Chile and Uruguay, the independent electoral authorities organized referendums that led to the defeat of the military elites in power. In Central America, however, the lack trust in the independence of electoral institutions (except for Costa Rica) was widespread, based on a long history of rigged elections. Institutional prereq-

Elections and Electoral Systems

14

uisites had to be created to ensure free and fair elections in legitimate elections. Two actors have been particularly active in this process: International organizations such as the UN, the OAS, the Carter Center, and above all, the Center for Electoral Assistance and Training (CAPEL), the electoral division of the Inter-American Institute for Human Rights (IIDH), ‘which played an important role in the diffusion and consolidation of standards for electoral practice and therefore in the enhancement of electoral bodies’ (López Pintor 2000: 99). Civil society organizations also played an extremely important role in the improvement of the electoral process by monitoring elections, organizing seminars on electoral matters, offering electoral and civic education (for example Transparency International in Peru). In fact, extraordinarily efficient administrative bodies were created in a context generally lacking administrative competence and efficiency. This has led to remarkable progress in regard to the fairness and credibility of elections. This substantial improvement can be seen as the most effective reform process since re-democratization. In the debate on democracy and democratic governability, it paralleled the general recognition that electoral administrative authorities are ‘institutions of governance’ (López Pintor 2000). Table 3: Compulsory Voting in Latin American Countries

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Rep. Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Compulsory registration yes yes automatic no no no yes automatic yes yes — yes yes yes yes yes automatic yes yes

Source: Payne et al. 2002 and own data.

Compulsory voting yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes

Sanctions yes yes yes yes no no no yes no no — yes no no no yes yes yes yes

Elections and Electoral Systems

15

The most common type of electoral organization in Latin America is an independent electoral body with complete responsibility for the electoral process. The only exception is Argentina, where the government runs the elections under the control of a supervisory judicial authority. The independent electoral bodies, for example, the Tribunal, Court, etc. perform all the functions of a supreme electoral authority, the manager of elections, and the supreme electoral court of justice. In some constitutions (Costa Rica, Venezuela), the electoral authority is defined as the fourth branch of the government in addition to the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. In some countries, however, these functions are split into two autonomous organizations, one that is responsible for electoral administration, while the other serves as the supreme body for electoral justice (justicia electoral) settling disputes on electoral matters. This is the case in Chile, where the Electoral Service is in charge of organizing the elections, in Colombia with the National Civil Registry, in Mexico with the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) and in Peru with the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE). As all the organizational, supervisory, and judicial bodies improved and the skills and ethic standards developed, Latin America took a huge step forward. It has become possible to guarantee the free expression of the political will of the electorate. However, efforts to sustain this electoral culture have to continue. This is of particular importance in an environment that is characterized by processes that are legally unrestricted (see Waldmann 2002). Some scholars argue that the rule of law is still missing and they therefore question the existence of democracy in Latin America. Nevertheless, in comparison with other areas there is no doubt that the highest legal standards have been achieved in the field of electoral politics. Recently, the notion of free and fair elections was expanded to include the idea of fair competition between the contenders, especially with regard to the financing of electoral campaigns and access to the media (see Zovatto 2003). This is a very controversial field, not least because campaign financing is generally mixed, i.e. money is supplied by both public and private sources. It is worthwhile noticing that both have been regulated by law. It is equally remarkable that electoral bodies have become increasingly involved in controlling legal provisions, which may lead to conflicts between the electoral authorities and the political parties. as the latter may try to gain control over the former. In a nonconsolidated democratic culture, extending the functions of the electoral bodies may threaten their own existence.

16

Elections and Electoral Systems

4. Electoral Participation Political participation is certainly a broader concept than simply voting, but electoral participation is the most democratic form of political participation, with the smallest social bias discriminating against poor and low income groups. Therefore, voter turnout deserves much attention, and normative appeals to improve the level of electoral participation are quite understandable. On the other hand, evaluations linking the degree of legitimacy of a political order directly to the degree of voter turnout are not entirely convincing, since most stable democracies show low levels of electoral participation, a fact that should lead to more balanced assessments. There are many factors affecting the level of electoral participation, including the legal properties of suffrage, functional aspects of the electoral administration, the type of political system, and the position of elections within the system. Others are linked to long-term phenomena such as political culture, social inclusion, political socialization and the functions of elections embedded in socio-economic structures characteristic to the Latin American region. Others are concerned with shortterm political constellations focusing on contenders, issues, degrees of polarization and expectations in regard to a single election or a series of elections. In this multi-causal relationship, it is difficult to measure the influence of a single variable. We will focus on the first group of variables in particular. At first glance, one seems to be of particular importance: whether voting is compulsory or not. In Latin America, suffrage is generally compulsory and is voluntary in only two countries, Colombia and Nicaragua. But compulsory voting is only likely to be relatively important, since there are usually no sanctions for failing to vote. Another variable is certainly more important: The registration procedure. In most countries, voter registration is individual, which means that it is up to the enfranchised person to ensure that he or she is entered in the register, even though voting is compulsory. In contrast, in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru registration is voluntary, whereas in Brazil and Ecuador it is automatic (see Table 3). These characteristics are likely to lead to differences between these countries in the meaning of voter turnout. In some countries varying numbers of persons legally entitled to vote may not be registered. As Latin American political systems are presidential, a third variable refers to the kind of elections held. Parliamentary elections in presidential systems are by no means as important as in parliamentary systems.

Elections and Electoral Systems

17

Turnout is generally higher in the more important elections, a fact that can be proven in countries in which mid-term elections are held. In comparison with simultaneous presidential and parliamentarian elections, mid-term election data shows lower turnout rates. Furthermore, the degree of simultaneity between presidential and parliamentary elections has to be taken into account. Voter turnout is affected if elections take place on the same day, on the same ballot, or with a single vote (see below). These considerations call for very cautious treatment of cross-national data and generalizations within Latin America as well as comparisons of this region with other regions in the world. Cross-national data includes different registration procedures and the different degrees of accuracy of registering the eligible population. A higher participation rate can be an epiphenomenon of a poor method of voter registration. Remarkably, as the administration of the elections improved, participation rates declined in many countries. The Mexican case is particularly conspicuous. In 2003, turnout reached an all-time low of just over 40% in the best organized election in history. These findings contradict assumptions that voter turnout could maybe be increased by greater public confidence in elections. The average voter turnout in Latin America for presidential elections between 1978 and 2000 was 73.2% of registered voters and 65.5% of the voting age population. For legislative elections, the turnout rate for registered voters was 71.7%. Differences between countries are great. Chile comes top at 92.0% of registered voters, Colombia only registers 44.1%. Both countries are among those with the longest democratic experience in Latin America. But there are similar voter turnout rates for countries like Costa Rica and Nicaragua, where the context of elections is very different. In Chile, turnout in relation to voting age population reaches only 80.3%. This data shows the importance of registration laws. Colombia and Nicaragua, the only countries with voluntary registration have very different positions with 75.9% and 39.3% of the voting age population. To sum up, it can be said that the institutional variables play a certain role, but that there is no strict linear causal relationship to explain the differences in voter turnout. This assumption regarding the cross-national perspective is supported by the historical perspective for the individual countries as there is great variation in electoral participation over time. Structural, long-term variables cannot explain them. In most countries, a decline in electoral participation has been observed; only three countries (Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Paraguay) show an inverse tendency to higher turnout ra-

18

Elections and Electoral Systems

tes. On the basis of survey studies focusing on political culture, the general tendency has been interpreted as a result of voter dissatisfaction with Latin American democracies, particularly the results of economic and social policy. A more comprehensive approach to the study of electoral participation focuses less on the level of electoral participation and more on the different meaning of elections and voting, related to the respective socioeconomic and cultural conditions. These variations make a difference irrespective of the voter turnout: (1) Levels of social equality. A high level of social inequality usually results in a greater bias against the political participation of socially deprived groups, regardless of voter turnout. Furthermore, if the level of social injustice is high, elections are not seen as an act of political empowerment by the majority of voters but rather as an opportunity to trade votes for material profit or favors. Thus, depending on the degree of social inequality, high electoral participation can be coupled with entirely different expectation of politics. (2) The governmental or societal focus of the political culture. This variable primarily applies to the rate of voter turnout. The societal focus on political culture in the United States, so aptly described by Alexis de Tocqueville, is likely to explain the low voter turnout in nationwide elections. As societal or community-oriented participation can compensate for low state-oriented political participation, it may relieve a democracy of the necessity of high voter turnout. Governmental or societal focus of the political culture is certainly an essential factor in the interpretation of voter turnout figures. (3) Centrality of a representative system of government in relation to other decision-making areas. A significant factor in interpreting voter turnout is whether a society has other means of enforcing its interests against veto powers, for example through traditional (violent) political conflict or via representational systems lacking democratically represented political power. (4) Confidence in the political institutions. It makes a big difference whether constitutionally guaranteed political participation is based on trust and a high level of political accountability, or whether distrust and low levels of vertical and horizontal accountability exist. Not only is the meaning of voter turnout strongly influenced by this factor, but also the quality and legitimacy of democracy as a whole. In general, Latin America is characterized by a comparatively high degree of social inequality, a state-oriented political culture, a questioned centrality of the representative system as well as a comparatively

Elections and Electoral Systems

19

strong distrust of political institutions and low accountability. But there are great differences between countries, even between neighboring countries such as Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Even if voter turnout is similar in the different countries, dissimilarities with regard to these variables may result in voter turnout having completely different meanings. Table 4: Electoral Participation in Latin American Countriesa 1945– 1959 Argentina 90.9 Bolivia 85.0 Brazil 92.0 Chile 79.5 Costa Rica 67.5 Ecuador 82.6 Paraguay — Peru — Uruguay – Venezuela 92.1 a

1960– 1969 87.1 91.9 79.6 80.6 81.4 – 85.1 — 74.3 94.5

1970– 1979 85.5 90.5 81.7 81.8 83.3 80.4 86.0 — 91.9 96.5

1980– 1989 85.3 82.0 94.9 94.7 81.8 77.3 92.6 79.8 88.7 87.3

1990– 1999 82.2 72.2 85.8 91.3 81.8 86.2 80.5 68.1 91.8 60.2

2000– 2004 75.6 72.1 82.3 87.1 68.8 65.0b 64.1 82.0 89.6 56.0

The table indicates the maximum participation for parliamentary elections per given time span; in bicameral systems: elections to the lower house. b For presidential elections.

5. Elected Institutions: President and Parliament All Latin American countries have presidential political systems in which two bodies are elected: President and parliament, both with their own legitimacy based on popular vote. The unanimous decision to implement presidentialism in Latin America has been seriously questioned theoretically. President and parliament have to cooperate, although they are elected separately and their functions differ. In parliamentary systems, the government is elected by the parliamentary majority and backed by it. In presidential systems, however, the president and parliamentary majority frequently support different political standpoints, which means that the president often lacks support in the legislation. Some scholars purport that the decision for presidentialism in Latin America, which remained unaltered during the recent transition processes to democracy, has something to do with a lack of democracy and stability. These scholars call for the system to be changed to parliamentarism (see Linz/ Valenzuela 1994). Others discovered good reasons for presidentialism in Latin America, for example,

20

Elections and Electoral Systems

historical tradition since the nineteenth century nation-building process, a political culture of personal leadership and hierarchical decisionmaking and parties and party systems not responsible enough to base government stability on. Furthermore, the few attempts to establish parliamentary government (for example in Chile and Brazil) were not particularly successful. Where constitutions made parliamentarism possible—such as in Uruguay—politicians did not use this option. The latter group of researchers propose reforms within presidentialism in order to make relations between the president and the parliament more flexible and to improve cooperation (Nohlen/ Fernández 1991 and 1998). Latin American presidentialism works in a context that is typical for the entire region but we also have to look at factors that differ from country to country. These differences make it hard to believe that presidentialism can really explain political development in Latin America. For the analysis of presidential elections and the effects of presidential electoral systems it is useful to look not only at the electoral system, but also at the characteristics and effects of presidentialism. Presidentialism in Latin America varies greatly according to the type of relationship that exists between government and parliament, the type of parties and the structure of party systems, the structure and degree of electoral volatility, and so on. It would go beyond the scope of this introduction to mention all of the differences here. I will concentrate on the institutional aspects of the political system. 5.1 President and Vice President Today, Latin American presidents are all elected directly. The last two countries to introduce direct elections were Brazil in 1988 and Argentina in 1994. Most countries also have a vice president, with the exception of Chile, Mexico and Venezuela. The term of office for presidents varies between four and six years. In nine countries the term is four years (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala and Honduras), in eight countries it is five years (Bolivia, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay), and in three countries it is six years (Chile, Mexico and Venezuela). Argentina reduced the presidential term from six to four years and Brazil and Guatemala reduced it from five to four years. At the same time, Argentina and Brazil introduced the possibility of reelection. The term was extended in Bolivia from four to five years and in Venezuela from five to six years. According to the

Elections and Electoral Systems

21

Constitution of 1980, the length of presidential mandate in Chile was eight years. The first president after redemocratization held office for four years. Eventually the term was formally reduced to six years. Table 5: Presidential Electoral Systems Country

Electoral term of president 4

Reelection

Required majority

Further procedure

Argentina

Simultaneity of pres. and parl. elections yesa

yes

Bolivia

yes

5

no

Brazil

no

4

yes

Chile

no

6

no

Colombia

no

4

no

Costa Rica

yes

4

no

Dominican Republic Ecuador

no

4

yes

yes

4

no

El Salvador no

5

no

Guatemala

yes

4

no

Haiti

no

5

no

Honduras Mexico Nicaragua

yes yesa yes

4 6 5

no no no

Panama Paraguay Peru

yes yes yes

5 5 5

no no yes

Uruguay

yes

5

no

plurality of 45%b absolute majority absolute majority absolute majority absolute majority plurality of 40% absolute majority plurality of 40%c absolute majority absolute majority absolute majority plurality plurality plurality of 40% plurality plurality absolute majority absolute majority plurality

runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates – – runoff between two strongest candidates – – runoff between two strongest candidates runoff between two strongest candidates –

Venezuela no 6 yes Except mid-term elections. b 40% if there is a difference of at least ten percentage points between the two strongest candidates. c Plus a difference of at least ten percentage points between the two strongest candidates. a

22

Elections and Electoral Systems

One of the most peculiar constitutional characteristics of Latin America is the prohibition of reelection. It is still prohibited for presidents in most Latin American countries. There are two basic forms of no-reelección (non-reelection): Prohibition of consecutive reelection and permanent prohibition (see Table 5). The no-reelección has a long tradition and is mainly justified by historical experience: Latin American presidents had a tendency to stay in power as long as possible by using electoral fraud. For decades, no-reelección had a symbolic significance for democratic constitutionalism in Latin America. Today, with generally free and fair elections, this dogma may be reviewed in the light of problems with governance. In fact, during the last decade, eight countries changed reelection rules, one country even twice. Currently, five countries allow immediate re-election: Argentina (since 1994), Brazil (since 1995), Peru (since 1993), Venezuela (since 1998), and the Dominican Republic (again since 2004 after ten years of prohibition). Nicaragua (in 1995) and Paraguay (in 1992) in contrast banned reelection. 5.2 Parliament Parliaments can have one or two chambers. Ten Latin American countries have a bicameral parliament: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay. Peru and Venezuela changed from bicameralism to unicameralism in 1993 and 1999, respectively. Interestingly enough, these changes were promoted by two populist presidents: Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. All Central American parliaments are unicameral. In total, nine Latin American countries have a unicameral parliament. Generally, the number of seats is determined by law. In some cases, the number of representatives in the lower house is bound to the number of inhabitants and thus depends on the demographic development, as the Constitution or the electoral law provides that a certain number of inhabitants are entitled to be represented by one deputy. In nine countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras) the parliamentary term is four years. In seven countries (Bolivia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela) it is five years. In El Salvador and Mexico the term is three years. The only country with mid-term renewal is Argentina (until 1994 one-third renewal, since the reduction of a presidential term, half renewal). For the senate, the term differs from that of the house of deputies in Argentina (six years), in Brazil and Chile

Elections and Electoral Systems

23

(eight years) and in Mexico (six years). Whereas half the deputies are renewed in Argentina (every two years) and Chile (every four years), in Brazil one-third or two-thirds of the senators are renewed every four years. In Mexico the entire senate is renewed. In some countries, not all senators are elected using a popular vote. In Chile, only 38 of 49 senators are elected; the others are appointed or are ex officio members for life due to their status as former presidents. 5.3 Simultaneity of Elections As mentioned above, although the president and parliament are separated in presidential systems, their elections may be closely related. In most countries both elections are held on the same day: In Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras (one half), Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. In Argentina, Honduras and Mexico half of the members of parliament are elected together with the president whilst the other half is renewed in the middle of the legislative term. In Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, and Venezuela, however, the elections are held on different days. The degree of interrelation varies. There are three different degrees of simultaneity: It is low when the elections are simply held on the same day; it is moderate when there is a single ballot paper for presidential and parliamentary elections; it is high when both president and parliament are elected with the same vote. Table 6 gives an overview of the interrelation. Table 6: Degrees of Simultaneity Country Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Rep. Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico

Elections on the same day yesa yes no no no yes no yes no yes yesa yesa

One ballot only yes yes no no no no no no no no yes no

One vote only yes yesb no no no no no no no noc yes no

Elections and Electoral Systems

24 Country (continued) Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Elections on the same day yes yes yes yes yes yes

One ballot only no no no yes yes no

One vote only no no no no yes no

Source: Nohlen 1993, updated. a Except mid-term elections. b Except uninominal constituencies. c Yes with regard to 25% of the seats.

The degree of simultaneity is important because presidential elections can dominate parliamentary elections. Presidential elections are the most important elections in presidential systems. Their winner-takes-all character is likely to lead to a concentration of votes on a few viable options. This certainly has an effect on the parliamentary elections and this effect can increase in accordance with the degree of simultaneity and may contribute to a more homogeneous political orientation of the president and the majority of the parliament. I will return to these assumptions later on when discussing the effects of electoral systems. 6. Presidential Electoral Systems In presidential elections—which are necessarily winner-takes-all elections—preferences tend to concentrate on those candidates with a realistic chance of winning and this may cause a similar effect on the parliamentary elections. This effect depends on the degree of simultaneity and on the electoral system. In general terms, there are two types of systems used for presidential elections: The plurality system (in which candidate with the most votes wins) and the absolute majority system (the winner needs more to win than half the votes). Furthermore, a third type can be distinguished: systems in which candidates are required to gain at least 40% of the votes or a certain advantage in terms of percentage points over the second placed candidate in order to win. All non-plurality systems need provisions for the case that no candidate gains the threshold required to win. Currently, it is only in Bolivia where the parliament decides between the two candidates with the most votes. In all other countries a runoff (ballotage) is held.

Elections and Electoral Systems

25

Plurality is used in the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Venezuela. Plurality with a minimum winning share of at least 40% is used in Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Absolute majority systems are used in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, and Uruguay (see Table 7). Some system changes have taken place in the last few decades: Argentina and Nicaragua changed from plurality to plurality with a minimum threshold; Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay changed from plurality to a majority system with runoff; Ecuador changed from a majority system with runoff to plurality with a minimum threshold. Uruguay abolished the traditional doble voto simultaneo (double simultaneous vote), which was a fundamental institutional change. In Bolivia, the parliament’s choice was reduced from the three candidates with the most votes to the top two candidates. (On two occasions, the candidate with the most votes was defeated: once by the second placed candidate and once by the third placed candidate.) There is a general trend to introduce thresholds of 35%, 40% or 50%. Nevertheless, the reasons for doing so and the expected results can be quite different. Although the study of the effects of electoral systems focused mainly on electoral systems for parliaments (as pluri-personal organs), the possible outcome of presidential elections (as a uni-personal organ) have been used most often to highlight the different effects of electoral systems. For example, Taagepera and Shugart point out the case of Chile in 1970, where a candidate who had only received one-third of the votes could win due to the structure of the electoral system. At the time, Chile had an absolute majority system, in which the parliament decided between the top two candidates if no one candidate had won more than half the votes. Traditionally, however, parliament elected the candidate who had received the most votes. A counter-example, as mentioned above, is Bolivia, where the main criterion from 1985 onwards was which of the candidates could rely on stable support in parliament. These examples highlight the fact that similar types of systems can have very different outcomes, depending on political tradition and practices. There are various criteria for evaluating presidential electoral systems. The most important ones are legitimacy and efficiency. With regard to the absolute majority system, it offers on the one hand the advantage of granting a higher degree of legitimacy to the winner as he or she will be backed by the majority of voters, at least in the runoff. On the other hand, in the first round of an election under an absolute major-

26

Elections and Electoral Systems

ity system, voters are free to vote according to their real preference, which may enhance the dispersion of votes and encourage party fragmentation. This factor is likely to effect governability, especially when presidential elections are held at the same time as parliamentary elections and presidential candidates run as the most visible candidate of the party in the competition for parliamentary seats. This means that the process which results in an absolute majority for the candidate with the most votes in a runoff election, is not accompanied by a similar effect on the party system. The plurality system is said to sponsor a concentration of votes in the first and only round with a collateral effect on concentration of party votes in the parliamentary election, even when they are held at the same time (Lijphart 1994: 15). Even if these effects are difficult to prove in practice due to the interaction of other factors, there are many indications that the different majority formulas have influences similar to those that Duverger (1951) observed in his seminal sociological laws with regard to parliamentary elections, and second, that there is a certain trade off between legitimacy and governability and that the decision between plurality and majority is in some way identical to the one between this or the other function. The plurality system with minimum threshold is likely, however, to offer a middle road and to give an incentive for concentration in the first round, for both types of elections, which may be the only and decisive round, if the degree of the concentration of votes in one candidate is high enough and thereby sufficiently high to give the elected president the required degree of legitimacy. Comparing the effects of the different types of electoral systems on presidential elections since re-democratization in Latin America, Payne et al. (2002: 74) point out that the average winner in a plurality system received 49.5%, in an absolute majority system 41.0% and in a plurality system with minimum threshold 49.1%. In five countries with a plurality system the average winning share was over 50%, in three countries the average winning share was slightly below 50% and only in the Dominican Republic (43.3%) and Uruguay (37.5%) were the average winning shares as low as some of the theoretical argumentation would suppose. In absolute majority systems the winner of the first round only received more than 50% on average in Chile (53.7%) and in Peru (50.5%). In Bolivia (31.1%), Brazil (45.9%), Colombia (40.4%), the Dominican Republic (45.4%), Ecuador 28.0%), Guatemala (37.1%), and Uruguay (40.1%) the winner’s share was particularly low. The average winning share in the first round in plurality systems with minimum threshold was over 50% in two countries. It was only relatively low in Ecuador at 34.9%. When we look at countries in which the

Elections and Electoral Systems

27

electoral system was changed (Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Uruguay) we notice that the differences in the winner’s share are so strongly influenced by contingent factors that it is difficult to establish a general assessment. Table 7: Types of Presidential Electoral Systems and their effects Country

Effective number of presidential candidates (1st round)

Plurality Argentina (1983, 1989) 2.64 Colombia (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990) 2.48 Dominican Republic (1978, 1982, 3.45 1986, 1990, 1994) Honduras (1981, 1985, 1989, 1993, 2.15 1997) Mexico (1982, 1988, 1994, 2000) 2.50 Nicaragua (1990) 2.14 Panama (1989, 1994, 1999) 2.78 Paraguay (1989, 1993, 1998) 2.18 Uruguay (1984, 1989, 1994) 3.23 Venezuela (1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 2.73 1998, 2000) Average for all elections 2.67 Plurality with threshold Argentina (1995, 1999) 2.88 Costa Rica (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 2.17 1994, 1998) Ecuador (1998) 4.10 Nicaragua (1996) 2.47 Peru (1980) 3.23 Average for all elections 2.60 Majority with runoff Bolivia (1980, 1985, 1989, 1993, 5.01 1997) Brazil (1982, 1986, 1989, 1994, 1998) 3.62 Chile (1989, 1993, 1999) 2.36 Colombia (1994, 1998) 2.79 Dominican Republic (1996, 2000) 2.87 Ecuador (1978, 1984, 1988, 1992, 5.15 1996) El Salvador (1984, 1989, 1994, 1999) 2.81 Guatemala (1985, 1990, 1995, 1999) 4.33 Peru (1985, 1990, 1995, 2000) 2.80 Uruguay (1999, 2004) 3.30 Average for all elections 3.72 Source: Payne et al. 2002: 74, last column adapted.

Effective number of parties (lower house seats)

Votes for the first place candidate (%, av.)

Votes for the first place cand. at last elections (%)

2.70 2.33 2.43

49.6 51.0 43.4

– – –

2.10

51.9

52.2

2.29 2.05 3.77 2.20 3.18 3.62

54.6 54.7 49.8 57.6 37.5 48.8

43.4 – 44.8 38.3 – 59.8

2.72

49.5

–

2.64 2.32

49.2 51.6

24.5 38.6

5.73 2.79 2.46 2.74

34.9 51.0 46.5 49.1

20.6 56.3 – –

4.40

31.0

22.5

6.70 5.04 2.95 2.32 5.69

45.9 53.7 40.4 45.4 28.0

46.4 48.0 54.0 49.9 –

3.11 3.19 3.76 3.07 4.37

49.6 37.1 50.3 40.1 41.0

52.0 34.3 36.5 51.7 –

28

Elections and Electoral Systems

Empirically it seems that absolute majorities are more likely under plurality than under absolute majority systems. In fact, plurality and plurality with a minimum threshold ‘are associated with fewer significant candidates running for office and fewer parties being elected to seats in the legislature. […] The winner of unique or first rounds averaged very close to 50 percent of the vote, while in majority runoff systems, the winner typically received just above 41 percent of the vote. In some countries, the winner averaged only about 30 percent of the vote’ (Payne et al. 2002: 71). It has to be kept in mind, however, that an electoral system is chosen on the basis of an existing party system. Accordingly, Payne et al. (2002: 71) rightly emphasize that ‘countries where many parties typically compete and present presidential candidates are precisely the ones that are most likely to adopt a majority runoff system’. This refers to the circular causality between electoral systems and party systems, one of the main results of my analysis of electoral systems and party systems (see Nohlen 2004). 7. Electoral Systems for the House of Deputies The electoral system is the main factor that determines the composition of parliament. This section first considers the electoral systems for the lower chambers and then for the senates. 7.1 Types of Electoral Systems Most of the Latin American countries have systems of proportional representation (PR). The evolution of electoral systems in Latin America can be described as a process of expansion of proportional representation. This process lasted nearly one century; that is, PR was introduced in the individual countries at very different times. Costa Rica introduced PR in 1893 in MMCs with more than two deputies. Uruguay followed suit in 1918. During the 1930s a number of countries changed their electoral system: Peru in 1931, Brazil and Colombia in 1932 and Chile in 1937. Ecuador followed later in 1945, Guatemala in 1946, Bolivia in 1956, Honduras in 1957, Venezuela in 1958, El Salvador in 1963, Panama in 1983, and Nicaragua in 1984. Paraguay waited until 1990 to introduce PR. The only remaining exceptions are Haiti and Mexico: Haiti has never changed its absolute majority system, Mexico changed from a pure plurality system to plurality with minority representation, then in-

Elections and Electoral Systems

29

troduced some proportional seats and currently has a segmented system. Electoral reforms were generally introduced more gradually than in Europe, as the constituency allocation was generally maintained and the only change was the principle of decision. This incremental reform process (and not deliberate design) more or less determined the historical outcome in terms of the type of electoral system. PR systems other than pure PR and PR in MMCs of different magnitude began to be introduced from the 1980s: Bolivia and Venezuela started to use personalized proportional systems; Chile opted for a new kind of electoral system, the binominal system; Mexico, as just mentioned, changed to a segmented system and Ecuador returned to a majority system. There are seven types of electoral systems for election to the lower house or the unicameral parliaments in Latin America: (1) Plurality system in MMCs. Each voter has as many votes as there are seats to be filled in his or her constituency. The election is decided by plurality. This system has a highly fragmentary effect and is used in Ecuador. (2) Absolute majority system in SMCs. Candidates need to win more than half the votes. If no candidate achieves this majority, a runoff takes place. This system is only used for both chambers in Haiti. (3) Binominal system. The members of parliament are elected in twomember constituencies. It combines personal voting with a list element in order to structure the vote along party or party-alliance lines. The party with the most votes is given one seat and the party with the second-most votes gets the other. A list only wins both seats if it wins more than twice the number of votes than the second list. The most important effect of this system is that it favors the second-strongest party or partyalliance. The binominal system is used in Chile. (4) PR in MMCs. Seats are distributed in MMCs using a proportional formulae such as the d’Hondt method or the Droop quota. This type of system can be further divided according to the constituency magnitude: small MMCs (two to five seats), medium MMCs (six to ten seats) and large MMCs (more than ten seats). The bigger the magnitude the more proportional the outcome will be. PR in MCCs is by far the most popular electoral system in Latin America. It is used in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru. (5) Mixed-member PR (personalized PR). Uninominal candidatures are combined with MMCs. The seat distribution is determined using PR in MMCs. Voters have one vote for the candidate and one for a party list

Elections and Electoral Systems

30

as in Bolivia and in Venezuela since 1989, or one vote for the party list and as many votes as there are candidates to be elected in the SMCs or MMCs as in Venezuela after the reform of 1999 (for further details see the section on Venezuela in this volume). (6) Segmented system. One part of the seats is allocated by a majority formula and the other by a proportional formula in which each method is applied separately. This system is used in Mexico. (7) Pure PR. A system aimed at achieving the highest possible degree of proportionality between votes and seats. Such a system is used in Uruguay. If we look at the electoral systems for the senates, we can further distinguish between plurality systems, (as applied in the Dominican Republic) and majority systems with minority representation and proportional elements (as applied in Mexico). Table 8: Types of Electoral Systems for the Chamber of Representatives or the National Assembly Binominal system

Segmented sy- PR in MMC stem Argentina Brazil

Personalized PR

Pure PR

Bolivia Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Table 9: Electoral Systems for the House of Representatives Country

Electoral system

Argentina

PR in MMCs mixedmember PR (personalized PR) PR in MMCs Binominal System

Bolivia

Brazil Chile

Colombia

PR in MMCs Costa Rica PR in MMCs Dom. PR in Republic MMCs Ecuador PR in MMCs El PR in Salvador MMCs Guatemala PR in MMCs

Elected Constituencies seats Number Size(s) Mean size 257 24 2–25 10.7

Form of candidacy

Ballot form

Level(s) of seat allocation

Electoral formula

130: 68 62

68 9

1 —

6.9

513

27

8–70

19.0

120

60

2

166

33

—

4.8

57

7

4–20

8.1

150

47

2–8

3.2

constituency only d’Hondt; legal threshold: 3% constituency level two votes: two levels: party d’Hondt; legal threshold: individual personal and share of seats is 3% nationwide closed party lists list vote determined on MMC-level closed, nonsingle vote for constituency only Hare quota, greatest average blocked lists candidate closed, nonsingle vote for constituency only plurality list gets the 1st blocked lists candidate seat, and the 2nd, only if it doubles the vote share of the second best list closed party single vote constituency only d’Hondt; legal threshold: listsa 50% of the Hare quota closed party lists single vote constituency only Hare quota, largest remainder closed party lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt

100

22

2–18

4.5

open lists

4.6

closed party lists single vote

84: 64 20 158: 127 31

14 1

3–16 20

23 1

1–19 31

closed party lists single vote

single vote

constituency only d’Hondt constituency national level

5.5

closed party lists two votes: regional and national

Hare quota, largest remainder d’Hondt

constituency national level

Country (cont.)

Electoral system

Haiti

Absolute majority system PR in 128 MMCs segmented 500: system 300 200

Honduras Mexico

Nicaragua PR in MMCs Panama

Paraguay Peru Uruguay

Elected Constituencies seats Number Size(s) Mean size 83 83 1

90: 70 20 Plurality in 71: 26 SMCs, 26 PR in 14 45 small MMCs PR in 80 MMCs PR in 120 MMCs Pure PR 99

18 300 1

1–23

7.1

Form of candidacy

Ballot form

Level(s) of seat allocation

Electoral formula

individual

single vote

constituency

absolute majority (ballotage)

closed party lists single vote

constituency only Hare quota, largest remainder

one vote, both candidate and SMC list vote MMC

party candidates; closed party lists closed party lists single vote

1 200 5.8

plurality threshold: 2% nationwide at both levels: Hare quota, largest remainder

12 1

1–19 20

26 14

1 2–6

3.2

18

1–17

4.4

constituency national level closed, nonas many votes constituency only plurality; blocked lists as seats to be PR in three stages: Hare distributed quota, half Hare quota and highest number of personal votes closed party lists single vote constituency only d’Hondt

—

—

—

closed party lists single vote

constituency only d’Hondt

19

2–45

5.2

preferential list

constituency and national level

single vote

d’Hondt

Country (cont.)

Electoral system

Venezuela mixedmember PR (personalized PR)

a

Elected Constituencies seats Number Size(s) Mean size 203: 105 105 1 98 21 2–25

Form of candidacy individual closed list

Ballot form

Level(s) of seat allocation

Electoral formula

two votes: personal vote list vote

3 levels: party share of 203 seats is determined at the level of the regional multimember const.; additional seats are allocated at the national level

single member: plurality multi-member: d’Hondt add. national seats: Hare quota

Parties decide whether their lists shall be blocked or if the voter may cast a preferential vote.

34

Elections and Electoral Systems

7.2 Technical Components of the Electoral Systems This section focuses on the technical elements of electoral systems and their configuration in Latin America, where we are confronted with a wide variety of individual elements. The main purpose here is to form the empirical basis for an informed evaluation of electoral systems and for their further improvement, since parliamentary electoral systems are pivotal in the debate on institutional reforms in Latin America. With regard to (1) constituencies the general tendency is that district magnitude is comparatively low. Most seats are distributed in small and medium-sized constituencies. An important parameter for districting is the political-administrative structure of the countries: In almost all countries the electoral districts follow the adminstrative division into departments, provinces or states. The small size of most of the constituencies is remarkable, considering that most of the countries use PR systems. Table 10 shows that the constituencies in two countries are all small. In Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay the share of small constituencies and the share of deputies elected in these constituencies is remarkably high. This favors the personal vote rather than the party vote, although there might be closed and blocked lists (see infra). Brazil and Peru, two countries lacking small constituencies, are the only cases (together with Panama) which have some kind of personal or preferential vote. Semi-free lists are a functional equivalent to small constituencies with regard to the relation between voters and parliamentarians. With regard to (2) nomination rules in PR systems, candidates generally run on lists. Many constituencies, however, are small as districting follows the countries’ administrative divisions. Some constituencies may have only one or two seats, so that within a list system we suddenly have uninominal and binominal constituencies. Lists are almost always closed and blocked. The only exceptions are in Brazil, Panama and Peru. Uruguay is a special case where it is debatable whether the lists are blocked or not. The law speaks of blocked lists. The difference lies in whether one looks at the lema, i.e. the groups of lists under one party label or at the individual lists (sublemas), from which the voters actually choose. The sublemas are blocked but not the lemas, as voters can choose between them. Another special case was Colombia, where votes could be cast for candidate lists within the parties until the elections of 2002. In Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela voters vote for individual candidates, not parties.

Elections and Electoral Systems

35

Table 10: Small Sized Constituenciesa Number of members per constituency

Number of constituencies 1

Argentinaf – g Bolivia (68) Chile – Colombia – Costa Rica – Dominican – Rep. Ecuadorh 1 El Salvador – h Guatemala 8 Honduras 2 j Mexico – h Nicaragua 1 Panama 26 Paraguay 4 Peru 3 Uruguay – g Venezuela (102) a

2

3

4

5 – 60 12 – 16

11 2 2 – – 1 – – – (12 overall) – 1 2 8 1 3

– – 6 1 300 5 7 4 2 11 –

4 8 1 2 – 6 1 2 4 5 5

9 2 3 2 – 1 3 2 2 1 2

5

1 2 2 1 – – 2 1 – – 3

Subtotalb 20 1 60 24 3 28

% of totalc 83.3 11.1 100 72.7 42.8 93.3

15 14 21 8 300 13 40 13 11 17 10

71.4 87.5 91.3 44.4 60.0 76.5 97.5 61.9 45.8 89.5 43.5

Number of seats Sub- % of totale totald 61 48.0 (68) 5 (52.3) 3.8 120 100 14 24.5 75 62.5 53 42 45 23 300 33 65 29 27 41 43

variablei 50.0 variablei 18.0 60.0 38.0 91.5 39.7 15.0 41.4 22.7

Table includes only countries with small sized constituencies. Number of small sized constituencies. c Number of small sized constituencies as a percentage of the total number of constituencies. d Number of deputies elected in small sized constituencies e Number of deputies elected in small sized constituencies as a percentage of the total number of deputies. f Partial renovation only. This reduces the magnitude of constituencies. g Personalized PR. Introduced in Venezuela in 1993 and in Bolivia in 1997. h Some deputies are elected in a separate nationwide constituency. i The number of seats is not fixed, as it is linked to population size. j Segmented system. b

With regard to (3) the voting system, the voter in Latin America generally has one vote, more accuarately one party vote. In Mexico, Venezuela and Bolivia (since the reforms of 1989 and 1993, respectively) voters have two votes: with the first vote, he or she chooses a candidate at the uninominal constituency level, the second vote is used to select a party list at the MMC level. Since the reform of 1998 in Venezuela, voters still have one party vote but they now also have as many votes as there are deputies to be elected in the SMC or MMC. Other exceptions are Ecuador and Panama: the voters have as many votes as seats are to be filled in the MMC. A third group of exceptions concerns forms and alternatives of voting: in Brazil—within a system of non-blocked lists—

36

Elections and Electoral Systems

the elector votes for a list or for a candidate; in Peru the elector has an optional additional preferential vote. Finally, Guatemala, Nicaragua and temporarily Mexico constitute a fourth group of systems with two votes: In Guatemala, 25% of the seats are determined by the votes cast for the president; in Nicaragua one vote is counted at the district or regional level and another one at the national level. Currently, in Mexico one vote elects both the representatives in the SMCs and the representatives in the MMCs with PR. In the Dominican Republic, deputies and senators are elected using the same vote. An important aspect to consider is whether voters can vote individually for the different entities or whether the different elections are connected; that is, voters cast their vote simultaneously for president and parliament with the same vote. In these combined votes the outcome tends to be determined by the most important election at stake (voto de arrastre), usually the presidential election. Until recently, voters in Argentina, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Uruguay only had one vote for president and parliament. In Uruguay the double simultaneous vote (the double referred to more than one organ to be elected by one vote) was a system that gave the voter more freedom in his or her choice. Reforms in Bolivia, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay (see supra) abolished the system of the combined vote. With regard to (4) the formulas for seat distribution, seats in most countries are only distributed at the constituency level. The only exceptions are Uruguay, where the distribution is at both the constituency level and the national level and Bolivia and Venezuela with their compensatory effects. Half the countries apply the Hare quota to distribute seats and the other half use the d’Hondt divisor system, sometimes called cifra repartidora, although the procedure is identical, but on a larger scale. The last quotient resulting from the divisions by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. is taken as the dividing number to calculate the number of seats parties are entitled to receive. Sometimes, the application of the Hare quota is restricted—as in Ecuador and Nicaragua—to constituencies with more than two seats. Furthermore, differences may occur in the calculation depending on the reference data used. In Brazil, for example, blank votes are included in the calculation. When using quota systems, some seats usually remain unallocated. Generally, these are then allocated using the method of the largest remainder. In Brazil, however, the method of the largest average is used (refer to the glossary for a more detailed description of the different systems used).

Elections and Electoral Systems

37

Thresholds usually required to participate in the process of seat allocation (5) are uncommon in Latin America. Argentina has a threshold of three percent (until 1973 eight percent) of the registered voters at constituency level. The threshold is so low that it only has an effect in MMCs with more than 30 deputies. Bolivia introduced a three percent national threshold in 1996 and Mexico has a two percent national threshold (since 1996 1.5%) for the PR section. Mexico also has an upper threshold: No party can receive more than 60% of all seats, no matter how many votes it wins. This measure was first introduced in 1986; the threshold was lowered from an initial 70% to 65% in 1993 and finally to 60% in 1996. In 1996, Mexico also established that the difference between the vote share and seat share of a party may not exceed eight percentage points. This provision is waived, however, when the disproportion results from seats won in the plurality segment. Knowledge of the technical details is important as they are crucial for improving the effects of the electoral systems on gobernability and the consolidation of democracy. One important debate, for example, focused on how to increase what has been called ‘representativeness’, but what, according to our differentiation of functions, corresponds to participation. If one looks at the technical elements it is easy to recognize that most Latin American electoral systems include components intended to enhance the freedom of choice between candidates, either through unipersonal or small constituencies, through personal or preferential vote, or through as many votes as there are seats are to be filled. Furthermore, the official definition of the technical elements in Latin America may differ from the common scientific definitions and this may cause confusion. For example, Colombian and Uruguayan law states that the lists are closed. In fact, however, voters choose factions or sublists within their party preference, so that the lists are actually semi-open and only the sublists are closed and blocked. Therefore, only precise scrutiny of the technical details enables us to analyse electoral systems and to propose adequate reforms. 7.3 The Effects of Electoral Systems on Party Systems As long as electoral systems have been in existence, there has been a debate first on their effects, the real impact they have on the structure of party systems and on governability, and second on the evaluation of their effects. The general information relating to both aspects refers mainly to theoretical considerations; that is, on the intrinsic effects re-

38

Elections and Electoral Systems

sulting from pure logical and/or normative assessments. The special interest in the study of parliamentary electoral systems in Latin America and elsewhere stems from the assumed relationship between PR, multipartism, incapability to build one-color, stable parliamentary majorities, which, as a consequence, leads to problems of governability. This linear relationship is also highlighted with regard to presidential systems, although governments do not depend—as in parliamentary systems—on parliamentary majorities, neither for their formation nor for their political activities. Some scholars maintain that PR is in some way responsible for the political problems that Latin America has been suffering during the last decades. They argue that the fact that PR occurs together with the instability of democracy in Latin America is not coincidental (Blais/ Dion 1990); and that the combination of presidentialism with PR is the worst of all the possible combinations of the basic forms of democratic government and the basic electoral systems (Lijphart 1991). However, first the electoral system is not the only factor that influences the structure of party systems and the phenomenon thought to depend on it. And second, the real effects of electoral systems depend on the context and the special factors constituting this context. The factors emerge in their confrontation with real social and political structures as well as with political culture and traditions over time. Factors that determine the structure of the party system and influence the effects of electoral systems include the social and political cleavages, e.g. the high social inequalities and widespread exclusion in Latin America; values, beliefs and attitudes produced by these fundamental social structures and historical experience concerning politics, e.g. personalism, informalism, clientelism, etc. On the one hand, these factors determine the weakness of institutions, the representative system, and democracy, and, on the other, they enforce certain kinds of institutional arrangements such as presidentialism, the prohibition of reelection, the low degree of institutionalization of parties and party systems, which may enhance electoral volatility. Although these contextual conditions seem to characterize Latin America in comparison to other parts of the world, there are, however, great differences between countries in the region itself. A given electoral system may work sufficiently well in one context, but fail to do so in another. As electoral systems do not emerge from pure theoretical considerations, they partially reflect the conditions on which they are expected to have an effect. This is especially true with regard to the structure of the party system, which is the most important factor to determine for example, the degree of proportionality an electoral system can reach.

Elections and Electoral Systems

39

The evaluation of the effects of electoral systems is often guided by unique criteria. To create an electoral system that may meet the expectations of good governance, electoral systems generally have to perform three main functions: representation, concentration (or effectiveness), and participation. The extent to which they do so according to contextual demands, can form the basis for an adequate and useful evaluation. The following section defines these concepts, which are to be applied in our evaluation of Latin American electoral systems, and considers their development and possibilities for reform. (1) Representation can be defined in two ways: in the sense of representing all relevant social groups, including minorities and women, in the elected representative bodies; and in the sense of fair representation; that is, as close as possible a reflection of the social interest and political opinions in parliament. The parameter for reasonable representation is the degree of proportionality between votes and seats. Wide-ranging deviations in proportionality are often perceived as being problematic. (2) Concentration measures the aggregation of social interests and political opinions for the purpose of making political decisions and enabling the polity to function effectively. Elections are considered an act of forming political will, not as a portrayal of the voters’ opinions. The first parameter to ensure a reasonable degree of concentration of an electoral system is the number of parties that receive parliamentary seats, and the second parameter is the ability to form a stable party or coalition majorities in parliament. Unstable government conditions caused by multiparty systems are frequently perceived as being problematic. (3) Participation concerns the possibility for the voter to express his or her political preference, with regard both to parties and candidates in the framework of the alternative between the personalized vote and party or list vote. Here the idea is not participation in the common meaning of the term, as elections are in themselves an act of political participation. The specific kind of participation is associated with the level of the relationship, knowledge, responsibility, and identification between voters and the elected. The parameter for measuring the adequacy of participation (in this strict sense) permitted by an electoral system is the personalized vote. If the personalized vote is totally eliminated, as it is for example under a blocked list, it may be interpreted as problematic. There are two further functions that may play a role in the assessment of electoral systems: (4) Simplicity, which becomes pertinent when electoral systems are expected to comply with the criteria of representation, effectiveness, and participation simultaneously. This inevitably leads to electoral systems

40

Elections and Electoral Systems

that are more complicated than those satisfying only one of the above criteria. Yet, it is worth trying to get the electorate to understand the electoral system and even to be aware of the effects of their votes. (5) Legitimacy is a criterion that encompasses all the others, in the sense that it refers to the acceptance of the electoral results, which are considered—whether right or wrong—as determined by the electoral system. As a result, if there is a reduction in the legitimacy of the political system as a whole this means that the electoral system and the rules of the democracy must be reformed. It is not easy to establish the extent to which the electoral systems meet the criterion of legitimacy. There are different approaches besides the numerous contingent considerations, and these approaches are closely related to the three basic functions and the priorities expressed with regard to them. We will return to the function of legitimacy later. The degree of proportionality in a system can be measured by looking at the difference in percentage points between the share of the votes and the share of seats a party receives. Disproportionality is low when the difference does not exceed three percentage points. The first elections of the 21st century in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela had proportional outcomes as the difference was lower than three percentage points. In Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua the difference did not exceed six percentage points, so these results can be qualified as slightly disproportional. According to this criteria, the electoral systems in these two groups of countries fulfill the function of representation. Electoral outcomes were only disproportional in Argentina (11.3 percentage points), the Dominican Republic (6.5), Mexico (6.4), Panama (15.9), and Peru (11.2). While these results can be explained by the effects of the electoral systems in the cases of the Dominican Republic (small constituencies) and Mexico (segmented system), in Argentina, Panama, and Peru other factors, such as the party system, voter behavior, and some contingent factors, obviously played a determinant role. In general terms, the effects of Latin American parliamentary electoral systems on the structure of party systems correspond to the theoretical expectations. However, nearly all cases show some peculiarities that are mainly caused by the respective party system. As most of the electoral results are sufficiently proportional, one would expect party fragmentation and political instability, but the reality is different. There are as many party systems with a reduced effective number of parties (Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Paraguay) as there are multi-party systems (Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, Peru, Uruguay). The

Elections and Electoral Systems

41

first group of countries can be said to have basically two-party systems, or at least concentrated party systems. With regard to the second group, Brazil is the only country with a highly fragmented party system, with extremely high volatility. It has to be recognized that among the PR systems, the Brazilian electoral system is the system that least encourages concentration and, thus, effective procedures. Uruguay, with the Lema system, fairs only slightly better. This country, however, has a fairly stable three-party system, which on the one hand is very factionalized, due to the properties of the electoral system, which was introduced in attendance of party fragmentation; but on the other shows growing tendencies to a more bipolar development (whereas Costa Rica from the first group of countries showed an inverse evolution in the last election). The real results of PR systems are so varied that each case would require a specific explanation. Consequently, due to the importance of contextual factors, the theoretical expectations are reduced to fulfill a more heuristic than an explanatory function. The findings are similar for the nonproportional systems in Latin America in so far as there is also no common pattern of results. Chile has an electoral system that encourages effectiveness, and indeed, the political competition on the basis of electoral alliances is nearly bipolar; in other words, the effective number of contenders is closest to two in Latin America. But Chile continually has more than two parties, and the political process cannot be understood without recognizing the basic structure of this multi-party system. Nevertheless, the electoral system is determinant with regard to the electoral competition and to the high stability of the government. The alliance system itself ensures that proportionality is relatively high and the individual vote leads to high levels of participation. Ecuador, the only country with a real majority system, has chaotic representation: it is not very proportional and extremely ineffective, but it involves good opportunities for electors to vote for specific candidates. The segmented electoral system used in Mexico fulfils these three functions averagely; that is, neither particulary well nor particularly badly. An analysis of 111 parliamentary elections held between the mid1970s and 2003 shows that a party was able win a majority of seats in 32 cases. 18 majorities were earned—the party won more than 50% of the votes—while 14 were manufactured, due to the mechanical effect of the electoral system. Absolute majorities were achieved in Argentina (three times), Brazil (one), Colombia (five), Costa Rica (three), the Dominican Republic (three), Guatemala (three), Honduras (four), Nicaragua (two), Paraguay (two), and Venezuela (two). If we look at all the elections for

Elections and Electoral Systems

42 Table 11: Degrees of Proportionality Country

Electoral system

Election (year)

Argentina Bolivia

PR in MMCs mixed-member PR (personalized PR) PR in medium and large MMCs binominal system PR in MMCs PR in medium and large MMCs PR in MMCs

2001 2002

Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador

RoseEffective Effective a number of number of Index parties (votes) parties (seats) 5.91 3.41 —b 5.77 4.98 82.6

2002

9.29

8.50

84.4

2001 2002 2002

6.57c 8.94 4.52

7.52 7.57 3.68

79.05 60.0 81.5

2002

3.12

2.86

87.6

PR in MMCs 2002 15.65 8.91 —b PR in MMCs with 2003 4.08 3.53 80.8 additional national list 2003 6.21 4.65 67.9 Guatemala PR in small and medium MMCs with additional national list Haiti absolute majority system 2000 — 1.29 — in SMCs Honduras PR in MMCs 2001 2.58 2.41 93.1 d Mexico segmented system 2003 3.52 3.02 85.1 Nicaragua PR in MMCs with addi2001 2.20e 2.04 92.2 tional national list; one seat for the Ex-president, one for second voted pres. candidate Panama plurality in SMCs and PR 1999 5.68 3.26 57.3 in small and medium MMCs Paraguay PR in MMCs 2002 4.21 3.17 77.5 Peru PR in MMCs 2002 6.62 4.37 67.6 Uruguay PR in MMCs 1999 3.13 3.08 98.5 Venezuela mixed-member PR 2000 4.22 3.65 78.1 (personalized PR) a The Rose-Index of proportionality is calculated by first adding up the differences between the vote and seat share of each party, and then subtracting half of this total sum from 100. Parties below 0.5% of the national vote share are not included. The Rose-Index ranges theoretically from 0 to 100; the closer the value is to 100, the more proportional the effects of the electoral system are. b Due to new party-alliances after the elections the Rose-Index is not applicable. c Results for the different parties within alliances. d Based on the results of the plurality segment. e Based on departmental results.

Elections and Electoral Systems

43

Table 12: Some Features of Party Systems No. of elections

Earned ManuChanges in Difference between shares of majorities factured majority votes and seats majorities in per-centage pointsa

Argentinab 10 0 3 Bolivia 5 0 0 Brazil 6 0 1 Chilec 4 0 0 Colombiad 8 5 0 Costa Rica 7 1 2 Dominican 7 2 1 Republic Ecuador 10 0 0 El Salvador 7 1 1 Guatemala 5 0 3 Honduras 5 3 1 Mexicob 3 0 0 Nicaragua 3 2 0 Panama 3 0 0 Paraguay 4 2 0 Peru 5 2 0 Uruguay 4 0 0 Venezuela 7 0 2 a Last election (between 1999 and 2003). b Partial elections. c Electoral alliances. d From 1978 onwards.

1 3 3 0 0 4 3

1.3 5.1 -0.7 — 1.6 3.5 6.5

4 2 4 3 0 0 1 0 4 1 3

— 2.9 2.9 1.2 6.4 4.0 15.9 -0.9 11.2 0.3 2.3

Strongest party Highest share of votes 48.8 35.6 47.8 27.1 56.4 55.2 51.4 31.7 52.4 42.1 53.0 38.7 53.9 36.1 74.5 51.1 41.0 49.9

Lowest share of votes 35.8 22.3 17.5 18.9 29.1 29.8 34.6 11.5 34.0 23.0 44.3 36.7 45.2 22.9 35.3 26.3 32.3 23.3

the individual countries, we find the highest proportion of absolute majorities in Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic, in this order. Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay have never produced a one-party majority in parliament. The lowest vote share, with which an absolute majority of seats could be won, was 34.6% (Guatemala 1985). In all other cases, the vote share was above 40.0 %, four times above 48%. When we examine the party systems in which an absolute parliamentary majority was achieved by one party, they tend to be concentrated in two-party systems (Argentina, Colombia, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela). The only three-party system in our sample is the Dominican Republic. Brazil and Guatemala have multi-party systems, and the latter case shows that a high dispersion of votes can produce manufactured parliamentary majorities under PR with relatively little support for the party that won the most votes. Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay on the contrary, were the first countries to experiment with party-based formalized coalitions as none

44

Elections and Electoral Systems

of the parties were able to win absolute majorities. In Chile the electoral competition is bipolar as parties form electoral alliances. It is worth noticing that within these alliances, parties that are most distant from the center have continuously gained to the disadvantage of their counterparts located more to the center of the left-right continuum. The data shows that it is becoming more and more difficult for a single party to win a majority. In the last elections (between 1999 and 2003), the winning parties only twice won more than 40% of the vote, seven times between 30% and 40%, five times between 20% and 30%, and three times less than 20%. Compared to data from earlier decades after re-democratization, the party systems of Latin America have continuously lost their ability to form majorities. These findings demand further studies to examine the causes and consequences of this development. Parliamentary majorities changed in more than one-third of the elections. In some countries (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Bolivia), such changes occur rather regularly. In the first two countries this usually happens in connection with the result of the presidential elections. From a theoretical point of view, the pattern of electoral change in Costa Rica corresponds nearly perfectly to the model of alternative government within the presidential framework. Some scholars argue, however, that changes, which are actually regarded as signs of sound democratic practices, are so frequent that they rather reflect the voters’ dissatisfaction with politics and especially with economic and social policies. In contrast, for other countries we notice a considerable continuity, which surely implies different causes and consequences. Conditions in both Colombia, the traditional bipartism with one dominant party, and in Paraguay with only one dominant party, which may be perceived as problematic for the democratic process, differ greatly from those of Chile. Here, a stable coalition managed to win three consecutive elections, thus overcoming the pre-authoritarian electoral fluidity that had resulted in problematic executive-legislative relations (divided government) and in the breakdown of democracy. 7.4 The Reforms of Electoral Systems Since the Transition to Democracy Since re-democratization, i.e. since the late 1970s, there has been a debate about whether electoral systems are an important factor for the improvement of political representation, participation, and governance (see Nohlen 2004). The debate, however, is not an indicator for actual re-

Elections and Electoral Systems

45

forms. Closer examination is required to see whether electoral reforms have been carried out and, if so, which shape these reforms have taken. Presidential electoral systems have certainly been subject to the greatest range of changes. However, in most cases (10) traditional electoral systems have been maintained. As we saw earlier, Argentina changed from plurality to plurality with a minimum threshold; Colombia and the Dominican Republic from plurality to absolute majority; Ecuador from absolute majority to plurality with a minimum threshold; Nicaragua from plurality to plurality with a minimum threshold and Uruguay from plurality to an absolute majority system. In general terms, the number of systems favoring a broader base of legitimacy for the elected candidate were increased by the reforms. No reform introduced a plurality system, which was, in contrast, replaced by an absolute majority system in three cases. Three times, reforms introduced a plurality system with minimum threshold, one of them changing from an absolute majority system, two from a plurality system. These reforms follow the general tendency in electoral reforms in Latin America to promote the side of input into the political system. According to this tendency, the rules to be applied if no candidate wins an absolute majority were changed in El Salvador and Guatemala, where the decision by Congress was replaced by a popular vote in a runoff election. In Argentina and Brazil, indirect elections were replaced with direct ones. Nevertheless, the increasing use of a plurality system with minimum threshold, a system much more appropriate with regard to the effects of the presidential electoral system on the party system, shows that criteria of efficiency were also taken into account. Brazil, Chile, and Costa Rica have not changed their parliamentary electoral systems at all. Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, changed their electoral systems: Ecuador changed from PR in regional MMCs with a national MMC to plurality in MMCs; Mexico switched from plurality to a segmented system; Peru changed in 1993 from PR in MMCs to pure PR and back to PR in 25 MMCs in 2000; and Bolivia and Venezuela changed from PR in MMCs to personalized proportional representation. These reforms were preceded, accompanied or followed by minor innovations in different areas of the electoral institutional structure. In the other Latin American countries, most changes to electoral systems from the end of the 1970s concerned the number of parliamentary seats. The number of deputies rose in Argentina from 254 to 257, in the Dominican Republic in 1997 from 120 to 149, in Ecuador in 1998 from 82 to 121 seats, in El Salvador in 1988 from 60 to 84 and in Guatemala after continuous changes in 1998 from 80 to 113. In Honduras, the size of the assembly was increased from 82 to 134 in 1985 and reduced again

46

Elections and Electoral Systems

to 128 in 1988. In Peru, the number of deputies was reduced from 180 to 120, in Colombia from 199 to 161. These changes meant that constituencies had to be redistributed, which affected the proportionality of the electoral systems. Other reforms were due to the reform of the presidential term of office. In Argentina, the number of mid-term elections was reduced from two to one. Further reforms separated the vote for president and parliament (as in Honduras in 1992 and in Uruguay in 1996) or the ballots on which they are elected (as in the Dominican Republic and Guatemala in 1990, in Honduras in 1993 and in Panama 1993). Another reform introduced a national constituency (El Salvador 1988). Furthermore, some minor changes in the way seats were assigned in Nicaragua actually replaced a purely proportional system with a system of PR in MMCs. Major reforms concerned representation of women, as in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, and Panama, where legal quota were introduced, ranging from 25% in the Dominican Republic to 40% in Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Panama, parties have to alternate men and women on the lists. Another reform which has an indirect impact on the role of the parliamentary electoral system has to do with the simultaneity of elections (as discussed above). Some countries, such as El Salvador in 1982, the Dominican Republic in 1994, and Venezuela in 1998, separated the presidential from the parliamentary term. This reform may encourage different majorities in presidency and parliament (as happened in El Salvador 2003/2004) and produce stalemates. 7.5 General Tendencies in the Evolution of Electoral Systems On the whole, and considering the main features of the Latin American electoral systems for the lower or sole chamber, we can see that there is a general trend to improve representation and participation. From time to time, effectiveness has also been tackled by the reforms, but in most cases these reforms have only had a negative effect, or if a reform has a positive effect it is due more to a contributory effect of a different objective rather than in its own right. Chile is the one main exception to this rule because the military regime introduced a binominal system, which can be said—leaving aside all the criticism it deserves (see the chapter on Chile in this book)—to be effective. Most remarkably, the system has been able to be maintained, and it looks as if Chilean politicians are increasingly aware of the necessity for further reforms to fulfill the func-

Elections and Electoral Systems

47

tion of effectiveness in similar terms. Some minor exceptions, such as the last reform in Colombia, may be a first sign of a solid reaction to the disproportionate regard given to the representative and participatory functions. All these empirical observations on the evolution of electoral systems in Latin America show what is generally supposed to be a legitimate electoral system. Representation and participation are the top objectives and correspond to what the people demand, assuming that these concepts can be used to improve the social conditions. Furthermore, the degree to which people participate in the elections, or the degree of abstention, is an additional parameter for judging the legitimacy of the electoral result and the political system as a whole. Therefore, when turnout declines and discontent with democracy increases, there is a further incentive to open the channels to allow wider representation and participation. Remarkable examples of this tendency are found in the Andean area, especially in Colombia and Ecuador, where a ‘chaotic representation’ is the result of this search for legitimacy using unbalanced electoral means. Actually, abstention is not as good an indicator as one would think, since: First, there is no significant correlation between the degree of participation in elections and the legitimacy of the democratic system, although mass media and some social scientists support this theory, and second, the electoral systems may have a very limited effect on abstention. Another indicator of legitimacy could be the the extent to which the the public criticizes the electoral systems. Here there is a real gap between the technical quality of an electoral system on the one hand, and the intensity of the criticism on the other. In Venezuela, for example, in the 1980s, almost all of experts on the subject supported the electoral system in force, but public opinion was in favor of reform. In the end, the candidates for presidency paid attention to the public opinion in their campaign promises, and the parties finally agreed to reform the electoral system. There are contingent factors that may force an electoral system to be changed even though it meets the appropriate requirements. The context is not only important with regard to the effects of electoral systems, but also with regard to the assessment of the electoral systems.

Elections and Electoral Systems

48 8. Electoral Systems for the Senate 8.1 Types of Electoral Systems

As mentioned above, some countries have a unicameral system, others a bicameral one. There are a number of different electoral systems for the senates and these are: A plurality system in the Dominican Republic; a plurality system with minority representation in Argentina, Brazil, and Bolivia; the same type with an additional list for PR in Mexico; binominal system in Chile; PR in one MMC in Colombia and pure PR in Paraguay and Uruguay. The following table highlights the major details. Table 13: Electoral Systems for the Senate Country

Bolivia

Term of Members office 6a 3 for each province plus Buenos Aires (plus vice president, without right to vote) 5 3 for each province

Brazil

8b

Chile

4

Colombia

4

Argentina

Dominican 4 Republic Mexico 6c

Paraguay

5

Uruguay

5

a

Electoral system 2 for the most-voted party, one for the first minority

2 for the most-voted party, one for the first minority 3 for each State, i.e. SMCs or as much votes as members binominal constituencies to be elected; plurality or the two most-voted candidates 19 binominal constituencies the two most-voted lists, (plus appointed senators) except if the most-voted list doubles the vote of the second strongest list; within the list: plurality 100 seats plus 2 for one national MMC; natural indigenous communities quotient (Hare quota) with largest remainder 30 SMCs plurality 32 trinominal constituencies

45 seats (30 substitutes) in one MMC 30 (plus vice president with right to vote)

2 for the most-voted party, one for the first minority; 32 additional seats for proportional representation blocked and closed lists, d’Hondt method voto simultáneo, one national MMC, closed but not blocked list, d’Hondt

Partial renovation of two thirds every other year. Every four years, alternating partial renovation of one third and two thirds, respectively. c Partial renovation of one half every three years. b

Elections and Electoral Systems

49

8.2 Reforms and Evolutions of Electoral Systems for the Senates In contrast to the lower houses in Latin America, the senates are mainly elected using some kind of majoritarian representation. There have been a few changes since redemocratization, but the electoral systems for the senate have generally maintained their basic majoritarian character. The only exception is Colombia, where PR in a nationwide constituency was introduced. Other reforms aimed at adding some proportional components into the established system or separating the votes for senators from those for other institutions, the president or the lower house. While the first kind of reforms enhanced the function of representation, the second enforced that of participation. None of these reforms were carried out to improve the effectiveness. 9. Institutions of Direct Democracy The possibilities for direct democracy have been enhanced recently. Nearly all the constitutions reformed since the 1990s have included elements of direct democracy: Argentina (1994), Bolivia (2004), Colombia (1991), Costa Rica (2002), Ecuador (1998), Honduras (2004), Paraguay (1992), Peru (1993), and Venezuela (1999), with some differences between the countries (see Table 14). Only a few Latin American countries have a tradition of referendums, such as Uruguay, where the instrument was introduced as early as 1934. However, referendums have played an important role in the re-establishment of democracy in Uruguay and Chile. The main reason for this institutional innovation lies in the crisis of political representation by parties and in that of representative democracy in general in some countries, where decisions made by the representative organs meet public resistance and can only be implemented with difficulty. Another source of empowerment in the idea of direct democracy lies in the expectation of civil society that referendums may strengthen its influence on politics. But experience has shown that this instrument is used more to express general dissatisfaction with the incumbent government and less for specific policy preferences and clear mandates. Until recently, the use of referendums was very limited. Some new experiences have confirmed the ambivalent real functions of the instrument. On one occasion, the people of Colombia were called to decide on 15 political questions. As all but one of the questions were rejected due to an insufficient turnout, the referendum proved how ineffectual an instru-

Elections and Electoral Systems

50

ment it can be and furthermore, showed that participation was not the priority of the electorate. In Bolivia, the vice president, who had become president by force by coercing the incumbent president into resigning, tried to expand his basis of legitimacy and to decide a political question that polarized the political elite and the people. In Venezuela, civil political opposition to the authoritarian leadership tried to use the instrument for recall, but was prevented from exercising their constitutional right for a long time due to the public administration. When it was finally agreed to hold the referendum, the government used all political and economic means, particularly the petroleum revenues and public debt, i.e. a populist expense policy, to bring about a decision to its own favor. To summarize, referendums in Latin America have recently gained importance as they have been held in order to make decisions on which no agreement could be reached and which could not be implemented within the framework of the representative institutions, a) because a large part of the population is not included in the decision-making process; b) because of the high degree of polarization among political groups and parts of the population, who are unable to come to a consensual decision due to the instrumentalization of political issues in their struggle for power; and c) because of strong resistance on the part of social forces outside of the representative system against political decisions. It has often been observed that referendums are not centered on the issue at stake but on the desire to cast a verdict on the government and politics in general. As regards content, the decisions are very ambivalent because they give reductionist answers according to a yes/no schema even to questions that require differentiated solutions. This is why it would be a mistake to assume that referendums really increase the degree of satisfaction with democracy. Table 14: Mechanisms of Direct Democracy

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala

Legislative initiative yesa yes yesa no yes yesa no yes yesb yesb

Referendum/ Plebiscite yes yes yes yesc yes yesb no yes yes yes

Recall no no no no yes no no no no no

Elections and Electoral Systems (continued) Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Legislative initiative no no yesb no yes yes yesa yes

51 Referendum/ Plebiscite yes no yesb yes yes yes yes yes

Recall no no no yesb no no no yes

Source: Zovatto 2005. a Not for changes of the constitution. b Has not been used until now. c Rules for constitutional reform.

10. Elections, Electoral Systems, and the Search for Democracy in Latin America As we have seen in the previous chapters, elections have become a standard in Latin America. In general, the electoral regulations meet democratic standards and their practice is free and fair. Electoral justice (justicia electoral) is certainly the most effective part of all public branches relating to justice. This progress does not prevent irregularities from occurring or stop regional leader from trying to exercise influence on electoral results by using social dependencies, nor does it make people have more faith in elections or stop associations or parties from trying to control the electoral process on their behalf. The most important criterion is that any actions against the freedom and fairness of elections will not alter the electoral result. This pragmatic criterion is used in industrialized western democracies, which paid considerably less attention and spent far less money in order to guarantee free and fair elections. In social science, those who criticize elections actually refer mainly to the importance given to elections in the conceptualization of democracy. Of course, the complete concept of democracy includes more than just elections, but it must not be forgotten that people living in authoritarian regimes first demand free elections in order to see personal and public issues change, and that a political system according to a thin, politically inclusive definition of democracy is what really can be achieved in countries where nearly all other components of a society, according to a broad and socially inclusive definition of democracy, are to be conquered and transformed on the proper basis of the actual feature of democracy.

52

Elections and Electoral Systems

Electoral systems play an important role in the area of institutional factors that influence governability and the outcome of the wide range of public policies. But there are a lot of non-institutional factors, which are not less determinant. One feature of the academic and public debate is to look primarily at the side of the input into the political system. It might be due to a certain historical heritage from the authoritarian past of Latin America that, in both spheres, considerations to overcome occurring crises are centered on only one type of answers to improve or renew legitimacy; that is by increased representation and/or participation of the people. But our considerations refer to democracies with, generally spoken, a sufficiently democratic institutional structure (required to be classified a democracy). First, all empirical evidence shows that in most cases, what really makes a difference in the evaluation of democracy in Latin America is the economic and social outcome of a regime (see Latinobarómetro). The dissatisfaction with democracy is based on poor political results, so that a best answer to the question of legitimacy would be to improve governability by institutional reforms, which are centered on greater efficiency of the political system. However, if institutional reforms aim to improve representation and expand participation, this is done by neglecting the issue of effectiveness in the institutional units. In most of our findings focusing on electoral systems, the contextual factors and their influence on governability, we observed a tendency to improve representation and/or to expand participation: Direct presidential elections, absolute majority for the election instead of plurality, the complete separation of presidential and parliamentary elections, the presence of small constituencies, the introduction of personal vote or as many votes as there are deputies to be elected in a constituency, the introduction of more proportional elements into electoral systems, the absence of thresholds, etc. There are a number of good arguments in favor of these reforms, but they all focus on the oncerns of representation and participation and not on those of effectiveness. The approach to institutions and their reform has to change from representation and participation to concentrate on effectiveness. However, if we look at the citicism of democracy today, at the search for more democracy and the institutional answers to its critics, one can distinguish three considerations and reform initiatives: (1) to open the nomination of candidates for parliamentary seats and public offices to independents or groups of civil society; (2) to enforce internal democracy in political parties; and (3) to introduce mechanisms of direct democracy. All these measures are important, but all of them are likely to encourage representation and participation. With regard to the first section of reform pro-

Elections and Electoral Systems

53

posals, political parties still maintain their monopolist position in most countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama), but they feel challenged by the civil society and fight against proposals to allow independent candidates to compete. These fears seem exaggerated, especially as civil society groups would have to organize in the same way as the parties if they wanted to be successful in the long term, but obviously, a possible reform tends to produce more dispersion of votes and greater fragmentation of political representation. Concerning internal democracy of parties, there is a general trend towards more regulation of these aspects. Electoral authorities have taken an interest in the internal life of parties after laws were passed obliging parties to follow democratic principles not only externally but also internally. Public scrutiny is becoming evident through the requirement to register parties and candidates with the electoral authorities. Nominations of party leaders and candidates for public office are supposed to be democratic and attempte are being made to open up the decision-making process to ordinary party members. Internal elections and primaries play an increasingly important role; however, the candidate for president is still generally nominated by traditional party organs. For parliamentary elections, openness is limited by the need to secure the efficiency of the parties, as defection of parliamentarians is a common problem. Also, attempts to introduce internal democratization have not yet been able to stop the widespread criticism of the parties. As far as direct democracy is concerned, many scholars doubt that conditions necessary for successful use are currently met in Latin America. Demands for direct democracy normally come from the civil society and are meant less as a form of participation complementary to representative democracy than as a radical critique of this type of democracy and a means against it. Recent experiences confirm the skepticism towards referendums. According to Daniel Zovatto (2005), mechanisms of direct democracy are rather distorting elements that are incapable of efficiently replacing the institutions of representative democracy, which are based on a party system strongly connected to society. All these considerations lead to the conclusion that the functions of elections as instruments for developing democracy within the broader context of political culture, social exclusion, and public policy requirements in Latin America have to be improved. After decades of focusing on representation and participation, effectiveness should play a greater role in the debates on ‘democracies in development’ (Payne et al. 2002) in order to acquire a better balance in the relationship between the three evaluative criteria for elections and electoral systems.

54

Elections and Electoral Systems

Bibliography Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Barzak, M. (2001). ‘Representation by Consultation? The Rise of Direct Democracy in Latin America’. Latin American Politics and Society, 43/3. Blais, A. and Dion, S. (1990). ‘Electoral Systems and the Consolidation of New Democracies’, in D. Ethier (ed.), Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Southern Europe, Latin America and Southern Asia. London: Macmillan: 250–268. Bovens, M. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, D. and Ranney, A. (eds.) (1994). Referendums around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. Cardoso, F. H. and Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Cerdas-Cruz, R., Rial, J., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1992). Una tarea inconclusa: Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1988–1991. San José: IIDH / CAPEL. Clarke, C. (1991). Society and Politics in the Caribbean. Oxford: McMillan. Collier, D. (ed.) (1979). The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Colomer, J. M. (2001). Instituciones políticas. Barcelona: Ariel — (2002). ‘Reflexiones sobre la reforma política en México’. Este país. Tendencias y opiniones, 137 (August): 2–12. Comisión Andina de Juristas (ed.) (1993). Formas de gobierno: Relaciones ejecutivo – legislativo. Lima: Comisión de Juristas. Cox, C. G. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Dahl, R. A. and Tufte, E. R. (1973). Size and Democracy. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Diamond, L., Linz, J. J., and Lipset, S. M. (eds.) (1989). Democracy in Developing Countries: Politics, Society, and Democracy in Latin America. Vol. 4. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Drake, P. W. and Silva, E. (ed.) (1986). Elections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980 – 85. San Diego, Calif.: University of California. Duverger, M. (1959). Political Parties. New York: John Wiley.

Elections and Electoral Systems

55

Eisenstadt, S. N. and Rokkan, S. (eds.) (1973). Building States and Nations. London: Sage Publications. Griner, S. and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (2004). De las Normas a las Buenas Prácticas. El desafío del financiamiento político en América Latina. San José: OEA/IDEA. Grofman, B. and Lijphart, A. (eds.) (1986). Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon. Hermet, G., Rose, R., and Rouquié, A. (ed.) (1978). Elections without Choice. London: McMillan. Huntington, S. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, Okl./ London: University of Oklahoma Press. Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (ed.) (2000). Diccionario Electoral. 2 Vols. San José: IIDH. International IDEA (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation (2nd edn.). Stockholm: International IDEA. — (2002). Voter Turnout since 1945. A Global Report on Political Participation, Stockholm: International IDEA. Jaquette, J. S. and Wolchik, S. L. (eds.) (1998). Women and Democracy. Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Jaramillo, J. (1994). Wahlbehörden in Lateinamerika. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Jones, M. (1995). Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Karl, T. L. (2000). ‘Electoralism’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQPress, 95–96. Katz, R. S. (1997). Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press. Krennerich, M. (1996). Wahlen und Antiregimekriege in Zentralamerika. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Lauga, M. (1999). Demokratietheorie in Lateinamerika. Die Debatte in den Sozialwissenschaften. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. LeDuc, L., Niem, R. G., and Norris, P. (eds.) (1996). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Lijphart, A. (1991). ‘Constitutional Choices for New Democracies’. Journal of Democracy, 2/1: 72-84. — (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (1999). Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, Conn./ London: Yale University Press.

56

Elections and Electoral Systems

Lijphart, A. and Waisman, C. (eds.) (1996). Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Linz, J. J. and Stepan, A. (eds.) (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. — (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and the Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, Md./ London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Linz, J. J. and Valenzuela, A. (ed.) 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore, Md./ London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lipset, S. M. (1959). ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’. American Political Science Review, 53: 69–105. — (1960). Political Man. New York: Doubleday. López Pintor, R. (2000). Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance. New York: UNDP. Mackenzie, W. J. M. (1958). Free Elections. London: George Allan and Unwin. Mackie, T. T. and Rose, R. (eds.) (1991). The International Almanac of Electoral History (3rd edn.). London: MacMillan. Maingot, A. P. (1985). Some Perspectives of Governing Elites in the EnglishSpeaking Caribbean. Claremont, Calif.: Claremont McKenna College. Mainwaring, S. and Shugart, M. S. (eds.) (1997). Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Middlebrook, K. J. (ed.) (1998). Electoral Observation and Democratic Transitions in Latin America. La Jolla: Center for U.S.–Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Morgenstern, S. and Nacif, B. (eds.) (2002). Legislatures and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nohlen, D. (1978). Wahlsysteme der Welt. Munich: Piper. — (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. — (ed.) (1993). Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericano y del Caribe. San José: IIDH/CAPEL. — (ed.) (1993). Elecciones y sistemas de partidos en América Latina. San José: IIDH/CAPEL. — (1996). Elections and Electoral Systems. New Delhi: McMillan India. — (2004): Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos (3rd edn.). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Nohlen, D. and Fernández, M. (ed.) (1991). Presidencialismo versus parlamentarismo. América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad. — (ed.) (1998). El presidencialismo renovado. Instituciones y cambio politico en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad.

Elections and Electoral Systems

57

Nohlen, D., Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Nohlen, D., Picado, S., Zovatto, D., and Orozco, J. J. (eds.) (2005). Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Norris, P. (ed.) (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. O’Donnell, G. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism. Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley, Calif.: Inst. of International Studies. O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P., and Whitehead, L. (eds.) (1986). Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Organization of American States (OAS) (ed.) (1999). Seminario Internacional sobre Legislación y organización electoral: Una vision comparativa. Lima: Transparencia. Pastor, R. A. (1999). ‘The Role of Electoral Administration in Democratic Transitions: Implications for Policy and Research’. Democratization, 6/4: 1–27. Payne, J. M., Zovatto, D., Carrillo, F., and Allamand, A. (eds.) (2002). Democracies in Development. Politics and Reform in Latin America. Washington, D.C.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Planas, P. (1998). Comunicación política y equidad electoral. Lima: Universidad de Lima. — (2001). Parlamento y gobernabilidad democrática en América Latina, 3 vols, Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Perú. Potter, D., Goldblatt, D., Kiloh, M., and Lewis, P. (ed.) (1997). Democratization. Cambridge: Polity Press. Prebisch, R. (1981). Capitalismo periférico: Crisis y transformación. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Rae, D. W. (1968). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Reynolds, A. and Reilly, B. (1997). The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm: International IDEA. Rial, J. and Zovatto, D. (ed.) (1998). Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1992–1996. Urnas y desencanto. San José: IIDH / CAPEL. Rose, R. (ed.) (2000). International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQPress. Rueschemeyer, D., Huber Stephens, E., and Huber, J. D. (1992). Capitalist Development & Democracy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

58

Elections and Electoral Systems

Rule, W. (2002). ‘Political Rights, Electoral Systems, and the Legislative Representation of Women in 73 Countries: A Preliminary Analysis’, in S. Nagel (ed.), Global Policy. New York: Marcel Dekker, 73–91. Rush, M. E. (ed.) (1998). Voting Rights and Districting in the United States. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (1997). Comparative Constitutional Engineering. An Inquiry into Structure, Incentives and Outcome (2nd edn.). Houndmills/ London: MacMillan. Shugart, M. S. and Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Thibaut, B. (1996). Präsidentialismus und Demokratie in Lateinamerika, Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Tuesta Soldevilla, F. (ed.) (1996). Simposio sobre reforma electoral. Lima: IFES. UNDP (ed.) (2005). Democracy in Latin America. Towards a Citizens’ Democracy, Buenos Aires: Aguilar. Valadés, D. (2003). El gobierno de gabinete. Mexico City: UNAM. Waldmann, P. (2002). Der anomische Staat, Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Zovatto, D. (2003). América Latina, in M. Carrillo et al. (eds.), Dinero y contienda politico-electoral. Reto de la democracia, Mexico City, 33–96. — (2005). ‘Instituciones de democracia directa’, in D. Nohlen et al. (eds.), Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina (2nd edn.). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

ARGENTINA by Mark P. Jones, Martín Lauga, and Marta León-Roesch

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Argentina’s experience with democratic government began in 1912. However, in the 1930s the country entered a prolonged political crisis, characterized by considerable political instability and the cyclical alternation between constitutional and de facto regimes. These cyclical crises appear to have ended with the consolidation of democracy in the post1983 era. Argentina obtained independence in 1816. During the next 50 years the country’s political life was marked by the struggle between the supporters of a federal and decentralized form of government and the supporters of a unitary and centralized form of government (with power centralized in the Province of Buenos Aires). The promulgation of the 1853 Constitution marked a milestone in Argentina’s history. It established a presidential form of government and a bicameral legislature. Federalism was adopted, but the Province of Buenos Aires remained the country’s economic and political center. In the second half of the 19th century, strong economic growth, based on the exportation of beef and cereals, led to the emergence of a national political elite that brought stability and legitimacy to the political system. This elite created the clientalist Partido Autónomista Nacional (PAN; National Autonomist Party). Although the 1853 Constitution established universal male suffrage, the elections (direct for chamber deputies; indirect for the president, vice president, and senators) were held in public and excluded the growing immigrant population. Furthermore, electoral results were often manipulated as the provincial governments controlled the electoral rolls. Under these conditions, the PAN became a hegemonic party, allowing neither formal nor de facto party competition. By the end of the 19th century the systematic electoral fraud carried out by the PAN had eroded the legitimacy of the political system. The

60

Argentina

opposition parties, including the powerful Unión Cívica Radical (UCR, Cicil Radical Union)—founded in 1890 by Leandro N. Alem—began to demand the secret and compulsory vote. In 1912, the Sáenz Peña electoral law introduced universal and secret suffrage for men 18 years of age and older. Suffrage was granted to native and naturalized citizens. Both voting and registration was compulsory. With this reform the old order had come to an end. Following these reforms, the UCR quickly established itself as the country’s principal political force, winning the presidential elections of 1916, 1922, and 1928. The UCR became the dominant party in a competitive party system. It had little programmatic and organizational cohesion, however, and was made up of the most heterogeneous and fragmented social class. Although the UCR benefited the most from the extension of suffrage it was unable to become the main representation of labor interests. At the same time, the PAN tried to stop the UCR’s success by merging eight provincial parties into the Partido Demócrata Progresista (PDP; Progressive Democratic Party)—founded in 1914. This attempt failed because the Argentine right lacked a national structure. On the left the Partido Socialista—founded in 1896—entered congress. From 1912 to 1930, most political conflicts were settled within the party system. Political actors were the UCR, the Conservatives, the PDP and the PS. There was little ideological-programmatic polarization between them as they shared a basic consensus on the development strategy: an export model of agricultural products. This first attempt at democracy began to fail with the rising abuse of the right to federal intervention, that is, the military’s intervention in provinces ordered by the national executive of President Yrigoyen. The physical and psychological deterioration of the president, his tendency to promote only personal allies in the military, his efforts to deny political rights to the opposition, and the effects of the economic Great Depression were the factors that intensified the political crisis and paved the way for a conservative restoration. In 1930, a military coup d’état overthrew the democratic government of President Hipólito Yrigoyen and banned the UCR. This marked the beginning of a long period of political instability and military intervention in politics, the so-called Década Infame (Infamous Decade). It was the return to a political system like the one before the Sáenz Peña Law had been introduced. It was characterized by restricted civic rights and limited political participation. The terms of Presidents Uriburu, Justo, Ortiz and Castillo were part of this era. All of them lacked public legiti-

Argentina

61

macy due to the widespread electoral fraud, which was openly justified as fraude patriótico (patriotic fraud). This practice ended in 1943, when a group of nationalist officers (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos, GOU, United Officer’s Group) instigated a military coup d’état and President Castillo was replaced by General Rawson. Two other coups followed shortly afterwards: Pedro Ramírez deposed Rawson and Edelmiro Farrel overthrew Ramírez. All three were military officers. It was Farrel’s government where Juan Domingo Perón began his rise to the top of the state. In the military regime Perón was vice president, the employment secretary and also in charge of the war department. Perón ran successfully in the 1946 presidential elections as the candidate of an alliance led by the Partido Laborista (Labor Party). Three months later, Perón dissolved both the party and the alliance and founded a new party called Partido Único de la Revolución (Single Party of the Revolution), which was renamed to Partido Peronista in 1947. In the years to come, the Partido Peronista enjoyed an overwhelming majority in both the lower chamber and the senate. At this point, the old dualism of Radicals versus Conservatives had been replaced by the new antagonism of Peronists versus Anti-Peronists. In 1949, a new Peronistinspired constitution was promulgated. In the course of the time, the Peronist regime became more and more authoritarian. The state intervened in society, while the Peronist Party occupied the political arena. The hegemonic and personalistic style of the party in power shaped the state’s character. Political institutions eroded and state, party and labor movement were amalgamated. Perón’s government was weakened by the death of his popular wife Eva, called Evita, in 1952, an economic crisis which meant the end of the distribution policy and a conflict with the Catholic Church. The voice of the opposition grew louder and in turn repression and political persecution increased. After a military insurgency in June 1955 had failed, a coup in September of the same year forced Perón into exile and established a military government. Peronism was banned, and elections to a constituent assembly were called. In 1957, the constituent assembly abolished the constitutional and legal reforms introduced by Perón’s government and reintroduced the 1853 Constitution. In the general election of 1958, two opposing factions of the UCR, the UCRI and the UCRP, competed, while Peronism—prohibited from participating in the election—remained the largest political force in the country. The introduction of proportional representation, as a mechanism to counteract Peronist political dominance, encouraged the fragmentation of the party system.

62

Argentina

In 1962, another coup overthrew President Arturo Frondizi from the UCRI, who had been elected with Peronist support. In 1963, new presidential elections were called, while the Peronists were still banned. Arturo Illia from the UCRP was elected, but he lasted just three years in office: In 1966, a coup deposed him and the military established an authoritarian regime from 1966 to 1970 led by Juan Carlos Onganía, followed by Roberto Levingston (1970 to 1971) and Alejandro Lanusse (1971 to 1973). During this period, all political parties were banned. In the next elections, held in March 1973, the Peronists—now the Partido Justicialista (PJ; Justice Party)—defeated the UCR. Perón, still in exile, returned to Argentina, and in September 1973 was elected president with over 60% of the vote. Perón’s sudden death in 1974 plunged the Peronist government into chaos. In 1976, a military coup d’état marked the beginning of the darkest period in Argentine history, characterized by unprecedented levels of repression and violence against government opponents. In 1983, following the United Kingdom’s victory over Argentina in the 1982 Malvinas (or Falklands) War, free and competitive elections were held. The UCR, headed by Raúl Alfonsín, won the elections, breaking the Peronist unbeaten streak that stretched back to the 1940s. Raúl Alfonsín’s presidency saw the start of a new period in Argentine politics, marked by an acceptance of the principles of competitive democracy and the rule of law, and the peaceful coexistence of the political actors within the framework of the 1853 Constitution. In 1989, the presidential election was won by the PJ candidate, Carlos Saúl Menem, due in part to the failure of the Alfonsín government to resolve the profound economic crisis facing the country. Following the 1989 partial renewal of the bicameral legislature (indirect in the case of the senate) the PJ held a near-majority of the seats in the chamber of deputies and an absolute majority in the senate. In 1994, as a consequence of a pact (Pacto de Olivos) between Menem and Alfonsín, a new constitution was promulgated—following a constituent assembly that for the most part rubber-stamped the MenemAlfonsín agreement. The 1994 Constitution introduced, among other things, the possibility of a single immediate re-election of the president. President Menem was re-elected in 1995. At the same time, the UCR fell to an anemic level of representation in the chamber of deputies, while an important new center-left political force (the Frente País Solidario) emerged. In 1999, the UCR and Frente País Solidario—along with several provincial parties—formed the Alianza Trabajo, Justicia, y Educación (Ali-

Argentina

63

anza THE; Labor, Justice and Education Alliance) that competed against the PJ in the chamber and presidential elections, presenting a joint chamber list in 23 of the 24 electoral districts. The Alianza TJE presidential candidate, Fernando de la Rúa (UCR), soundly defeated the PJ candidate, Eduardo Duhalde. Following the election, the Alianza TJE controlled a near-majority of the seats in the chamber. The PJ, however, retained its absolute majority in the senate. On 20 December 2001, under mounting social and economic pressure, President de la Rúa resigned from office. After a tumultuous period, in which three other individuals occupied the presidency (two in an interim capacity), on 1 January 2002 Eduardo Duhalde (PJ) was elected by the joint chamber of deputies-senate legislative assembly (262 votes in favor of Duhalde versus 21 against) to complete the remainder of de la Rúa’s term. However, Duhalde called early elections on 27 April 2003. Eighteen candidates participated in the presidential elections, of which Carlos Menem and Néstor Kirchner received the most votes. Due to the opinion polls, which predicted Menem’s defeat, he decided to withdraw from the second election round. According to the electoral provisions, the runoff scheduled for 18 May between Menem and Kirchner did not take place and the latter was automatically proclaimed president. On 25 May, Néstor Kircher assumed as president of Argentina. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The historical evolution of the Argentine electoral provisions can be observed in the 1853 Constitution (reformed in 1860, 1866, and 1898), the Ley No 8871 de 1912 (Ley Sáenz Peña) and other national laws. Electoral provisions were later modified by the constitutional reforms in 1949, 1957 (which abolished the 1949 Constitution and re-established the 1853 Constitution), and 1972 (Estatuto Provisional which only applied to the 1973 elections). Under the 1853 Constitution, both the president and the vice president were elected for a six-year term. Immediate re-election was prohibited (this was modified by the 1949 Constitution, which introduced immediate presidential re-election and direct election by a plurality vote; the 1972 Estatuto Provisional reduced the mandate to four years, permitted one re-election, and provided for direct election via majority runoff). Presidential elections were indirect, via an electoral college, which was formed by a number of electors twice the size of the total number of

64

Argentina

chamber deputies and senators. An absolute majority in the electoral college was required. If no candidate attained such a majority, the Argentine congress would choose from the two candidates who had received the most votes in the electoral college. Except for the periods from 1957 to 1963 and from 1973 to 1976, deputies were elected using a majority electoral formula (plurality or incomplete list). Except for the periods 1951–1955 and 1973–1976 (when elections were direct using plurality and the incomplete list method respectively), until 2001, the senators were indirectly elected for nine-year terms. In the provinces, the senators were elected by the provincial legislatures by plurality (in the Capital Federal by an electoral college). Universal suffrage was introduced in 1951. 1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitución de 1994; Código Electoral de 1983 (including subsequent modifications). Suffrage: Argentina has universal adult suffrage. Argentine citizenship is required (naturalized citizens may register three years after acquiring citizenship). The minimum voting age is 18 years. Voting is compulsory except for people over 70 years old, ill persons, those more than 500 km away from home, and people exercising vital public service functions on election day. Since 1991, Argentineans living abroad can vote in all national elections. Mentally ill, illiterate deaf-mutes, prisoners, and detainees are excluded from voting. Elected national institutions: The president and the vice president are directly elected for a four-year term. One immediate re-election is permitted. The 257 members of the Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Nación are directly elected for four-year terms. One-half of the membership (127 and 130) is renewed every two years. Deputies can be reelected. Vacancies are filled by those candidates who follow on the party list. The 72 members of the Honorable Senado de la Nación are directly elected for six-year terms. Following the complete renovation of the senate in 2001, two-thirds of the senators initially had two or four-year terms, only. One-third of the membership is renewed every two years, beginning in 2003. Senators can be re-elected. Vacancies are filled by those candidates who follow on the party list.

Argentina

65

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates for president and vice president must have been born in Argentina or be children of a native Argentinean. Nominated by political parties based on the parties’ own internal rules. The minimum age for candidacy is 30 years. - parliamentary elections: Candidates must have been born in the province in which they are running or have been a resident there for at least two years. Candidates running for the senate must have possessed Argentine citizenship for at least six years and candidates for the chamber of deputies for at least four years. In addition, candidates for the senate must have an annual income of at least 2000 pesos fuertes or the functional equivalent. Nominated by political parties. The minimum age for candidacy is 25 years for deputies and 30 years for senators. Electoral system - presidential elections: The president and the vice president are elected using the same (fused) electoral ticket following a two-round procedure. If in the first round no candidate receives either (1) over 45% of the valid vote, or (2) a minimum of 40% of the valid vote (that is, votes cast for candidates) and at the same time is more than ten percentage points ahead of the second place candidate, then a runoff is held between the top two candidates from the first round. - parliamentary elections: For the chamber of deputies, the Capital Federal and the 23 provinces make up a total of 24 MMCs. Due to partial renovation, the size of the districts varies. For the elections in which 127 deputies are elected, there are six constituencies of two deputies, ten of three, two of four, two of five, one of nine, one of 13, and one of 35. For the elections in which 130 deputies are elected, there are four constituencies of two deputies, nine of three, five of four, two of five, two of nine, one of twelve, and one of 35. Prior to 1991, both cycles had 127 deputies (in 1987 no deputies were elected from the then national territory of Tierra del Fuego). The candidates are presented on closed and blocked party lists. Every voter is entitled to a single vote. The seats are distributed using the d’Hondt formula. Lists that do not receive a percentage of the vote equal to at least 3% of the number of registered voters in the constituency cannot take part in the allocation of seats. Three senators per province and the Capital Federal are elected for a six year term with partial renewal (one third of the provinces renew all of their seats) every two years. The candidacies are presented on closed and blocked party lists. The party that gains the highest percentage of the vote receives two seats and the second place party one.

66

Argentina

Organizational Context of Elections: Elections are run by the Dirección Nacional Electoral. It is located within the Argentine ministry of the interior, currently under the jurisdiction of the ministry’s secretariat of political affairs. The Dirección Nacional Electoral is responsible for coordinating and running the entire electoral process for national level elections. In carrying out this task it coordinates with the 24 respective provincial election offices as well as the National Elections Court, the latter being responsible for resolving election-related legal disputes. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The official Argentine electoral and parliamentary statistics are reliable, although some of the data used here for the pre-1973 period come from secondary sources. During the post-1983 period, several distinct ‘definitive’ versions of the electoral results have been released. Thus, depending on which ‘definitive’ results one is consulting, the vote results will occasionally differ slightly. For several elections, no data were available on the individual results for minor parties and, therefore we could not always determine if a small party participated or not. Consequently, the information in Tables 2.4 and 2.8 may at times be inaccurate in this respect. Data for the 1989–2003 period come from three sources: the Departamento de Coordinación y Estadística de la Dirección Nacional Electoral, Ministerio del Interior, República Argentina; the Dirección de Información Parlamentaria de la Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Nación; and the outstanding reference work on Argentine political institutions by N. Guillermo Molinelli, M. Valeria Palanza, and Gisela Sin (1999).

Argentina

67

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year

Presidential Parliamentary electionsa elections Total Partial

1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1931 1934 1936 1937 1938 1940 1942 1943 1946 1948 1951 1954 1955 1957 1958 1960 1962 1963 1965 1966 1973 1973 1976 1983 1984 1985 1987 1989

02/04

Elections for ReferenConstit. As- dums sembly

02/04 03/03 07/03 02/04 23/03 07/03 01/04 02/03

02/04 01/04 08/11

Coups d’état

06/09

08/11 04/03 01/03

05/09 06/03 03/03 01/03 04/06 24/02

24/02 b

11/11 25/04c

07/03

05/12

11/11 25/04 19/09 28/07

23/02

23/02 27/03 18/03

07/07

29/03

07/07 17/03 b

11/03 23/09b

28/06 11/03 24/03

30/10

30/10 25/11

14/05

03/11 06/09 14/05

Argentina

68 Year Presidential Parliamentary electionsa (cont.) elections Total Partial 1991

Elections for Constit. Assembly

Referendums

Coups d’état

11/08 08/09 27/10 01/12 03/10

1993 1994 1995 14/05b 1997 1999 24/10b

10/04 14/05 26/10 08/08 12/09 26/09 24/10 14/10

2001 2003 27/04

a

Lower chamber. Direct elections. c Vice president only. b

2.2 Electoral Body 1916–2003 Year Type of electiona

Population

1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1928 1930 1931 1934 1936 1937 1938 1940 1942 1946 1948

8,302,932 8,589,923 8,968,716 9,521,398 10,215,787 10,804,170 11,437,900 11,437,900 12,046,937 12,286,756 12,939,573 13,371,734 13,608,428 13,840,658 14,283,723 14,755,720 15,787,174 16,519,120

Pr/Pap Pap Pap Pr/Pap Pap Pap Pr Pap Pap Pr/Pat Pap Pap Pr Pap Pap Pap Pr/Pat CA/Pap

Registered voters Votes cast Total % Total number pop. number 1,189,254 14.3 745,825 1,303,446 15.2 780,747 1,436,472 16.0 762,115 1,586,366 16.7 876,354 1,579,876 15.5 699,057 1,799,131 16.7 884,646 1,807,566 15.8 1,461,605 1,807,566 15.8 1,461,581 1,981,246 16.4 1,487,535 2,116,552 17.2 1,554,437 2,357,157 18.2 1,554,320 2,431,129 18.2 1,722,717 2,672,750 19.6 2,035,839 2,705,347 19.5 1,846,180 2,721,906 19.1 1,939,421 3,058,946 20.7 1,586,806 3,405,173 21.6 2,839,507 3,794,262 23.0 2,815,632

% reg. % pop. Voters 62.7 9.0 59.9 10.0 53.1 8.5 55.2 9.2 44.2 6.8 49.2 8.2 80.9 12.8 80.9 12.8 75.1 12.3 73.4 12.7 65.9 12.0 70.9 12.9 76.2 15.0 68.2 13.3 71.3 13.6 51.9 10.8 83.4 18.0 74.2 17.0

Argentina

69

Year Type of (cont.) electiona

Population

1951 1954 1957 1958 1960 1962 1963 1965 1973 1983 1984 1985 1987 1989 1989 1991 1993 1994 1995 1995 1997 1999 1999 2001c 2003

17,644,000 18,240,000c 19,100,000 19,380,000 19,920,000 20,540,000 20,850,000 22,180,000 23,390,000 29,227,000 29,643,000 30,055,000 31,497,000 31,929,000 31,929,000 32,974,000 33,869,000 34,318,000 34,768,000 34,768,000 35,672,000 36,578,000 36,578,000 37,500,000 38,740,807

a

Pr/Pat VPr CA Pr/Pat Pap Pap Pr/Pat Pap Pr/Pat Pr/Pat Ref Pap Pap Pr Pap Pap Pap CA Pr Pap Pap Pr Pap Pap Pr

Registered voters Total % number pop. b 8,633,998 48.9 9,194,157 50.4 9,662,620 50.6 10,002,327 51.6 10,187,586 51.1 10,596,321 51.6 11,353,936 54.5 11,460,766 51.7 14,302,497 61.1 17,929,951 61.4 17,824,795 60.1 18,649,101 62.1 19,452,790 61.8 20,034,252 62.8 20,034,252 62.8 20,764,012 63.0 21,463,761 63.4 21,647,583 63.1 22,178,154 63.8 22,178,154 63.8 23,199,814 65.0 24,121,947 66.0 24,118,320 66.0 24,884,338 66.4 25,480,440 65.8

Votes cast Total % reg. % pop. number Voters 7,593,948 88.0 43.0 7,906,858 86.0 43.3 8,703,322 90.1 45.6 9,088,497 90.9 46.9 8,870,202 87.1 44.5 9,084,512 85.7 44.2 9,717,677 85.6 46.6 9,565,574 83.5 43.1 12,235,481 85.5 52.3 14,927,572 83.3 51.1 12,902,637 72.4 43.5 15,628,821 83.8 52.0 16,263,572 83.6 51.6 17,086,704 85.3 53.5 17,086,704 85.3 53.5 16,595,952 79.9 50.3 17,242,141 80.3 50.9 16,778,983 77.5 48.9 18,203,452 82.1 52.4 18,203,452 82.1 52.4 18,465,875 79.6 51.8 19,878,018 82.4 54.3 19,829,220 82.2 54.2 d 18,799,011 75.6 50.1 19,930,111 78.2 51.4

CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pap = Parliament partial renovation; Pat = Parliament total renovation; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum; VPr = Vice president. b Introduction of women’s suffrage. c The 1983–1999 population data are based on official Argentine government projections, while the 1991 and 2001 data are based on official census data. d The number of votes cast for the senate elections is 18,802,968. The number stated here is for the lower chamber elections.

70

Argentina

2.3 Abbreviations Alianza HTE Alianza Honestidad, Trabajo, Eficiencia (Honesty, Labor, Efficiency Alliance) Alianza TJE Alianza Trabajo, Justicia y Educación (Labor, Justice and Education Alliance) ARI Alternativa por una República de Iguales (Alternative for a Republic of Equals)a CFI Alianza Confederación Federalista Independiente (Alliance Independent Federalist Confederation) FIP Frente de Izquierda Popular (People’s Front of the Left) FREJULI Frente Justicialista de Liberación (Justicialista Front for Liberation) FREJUPO Frente Justicialista de Unidad Popular (Justicialista Front of Popular Unity) FREPASO Frente para un País Solidario (Front for a Country with Solidarity) FUT Frente Unidad de Trabajadores (Workers’ Unity Front) MAS Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism) MID Movimiento de Integración y Desarrollo (Movement for Integration and Development) MODIN Movimiento por la Dignidad y la Independencia (Movement for Dignity and Independence) MOFESA Movimiento Federal Santacruzeño (Federal Movement of Santa Cruz) PAIS Política Abierta para la Integridad Social (Open Politics for Social Integration) PAN Partido Autónomista Nacional (National Autonomist Party) PDP Partido Demócrata Progresista (Progressive Democratic Party) PI Partido Intransigente (Intransigent Party) PJ Partido Justicialista (Justice Party) PSD Partido Socialista Democrático (Democratic Socialist Party) PSP Partido Socialista Popular (People’s Socialist Party) UceDé Unión del Centro Democrático (Union of the Democratic Center) UCR Unión Cívica Radical (Civic Radical Union) UCRI Unión Cívica Radical Intransigente (Intransigent Civic Radical Union) a

ARI changed its name to Afirmación para una República Igualitaria (Affirmation for a Republic of Equals) in 2002.

Argentina

71

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1916–2003 Party / Alliance Liga del Sur UCR Disidente Socialista Argentino Unión Democrática Provincial Concentración Autonomista Popular Conservador Socialista Demócrata Demócrata Progresista UCRb Concentración Catamarqueña Socialista Internacional Concentración Popular Unitario Concentración Cívica Liberal Liga Agraria UCR Negra UCR Oficialista UCR Popular Unión Provincial UCR Independiente Concentración Nacional Unión Popular UCRI UCR Principista UCR Roja UCR de Tucumán UCR Lencinista UCR Bloquistac Azules Bascartistas Liberal Georgista Obreros Idependientes UCR Personalista Unión Republicana Veristas Laborista Feminista Nacional

Years 1916 1916–1918 1916–1918; 1960–1965 1916–1920 1916–1922 1916–1924 1916–1930; 1962–1965 1916–1938 1916–1963 1916–1963 1916–1989; 1993–2001 1916–2001 1916–2003 1918 1918–1920 1918–1926 1918–1926 1918–1940 1918–1965 1920 1920 1920 1920 1920–1930; 1958 1920–1931 1922 1922 1922; 1958–1965 1922–1930 1922–1930 1922–1942 1922–1946 1922–1987; 1991; 1995 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924; 1938; 1946–1965 1924–1926

Elections contesteda 1 2 6 3 2 3 6 7 11 21 21 28 32 1 2 2 3 4 17 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 6 4 4 4 7 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2

Argentina

72 Party / Alliance (continued) Liberal Autonomista UCR Opositora Independiente UCR Unificada UCR Yrigoyenista UCR Antipersonalista Comunista Comité Independiente UCR Alem UCR Blanca UCR Dr. Carranza UCR (Tacuarí) Videla UCR (Avenidas de Mayo) Comunista Obrero Frente Único UCR Ferrocarril a Calingasta UCR Ferrocarril a Jáchal Comunista de la Rep. Argentina UCR Caballero UCR Corvalanista UCR Situacionista Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca Agrario Socialista Independiente Alianza Demócrata Progresista Socialista Liberal Pactista Lista Única Reformista Unión Nacional Agraria Demócrata Nacional Demócrata Nacional Antigubernista Federación Socialista Independientes Libertador Argentino Nacionalista Lista Obrera y Campesina Nacionalista Radical Salud Pública Nacional Unión Deportiva Unión Regional Intransigente UCR (Charcas)

Years 1924–1926 1924–1930 1924–1934 1924–1938 1924–1946 1924–1946; 1960–1962 1924–1958; 1995 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926–1934 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928–1930 1930 1930 1930 1930–1934; 1942–1946; 1960–1965; 1987–1989 1930–1940 1930–1940 1931

Elections contesteda 2 2 2 8 2 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 2 5 1

1931 1931 1931 1931–1934 1931–1946 1934

1 1 1 2 8 1

1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Argentina Party / Alliance (continued) UCR Lencinista Federalista UCR (Paso) UCR Provincia de Buenos Aires UCR (Talcahuano) UCR Tradicionalista Ferroviarios e Industriales UCR Impersonalista UCR de Buenos Aires Concordancia Concentración Obrera Demócrata Nacional Centro Renovación Integración Argentina Nacional Laborista Popular de Jujuy UCR de San Luis UCR Federalista Radical UCR de Santa Fé UCR Molinari-Rocco Bloque Opositor Concurrencista Demócrata Nacional Reorganizado Radical Unificado Servidores del Estado Socialista Obrero UCR de Salta UCR de San Juan UCR Junta Reorganizadora UCR Monteagudo UCR Junta Renovadora Nacional UCR de Mendoza UCR Frente Popular Frente Popular Agrario Demócrata Nacional Autónomo Laborista Independiente Patriótico 4 de Junio UCR de Santiago del Estero Unidad y Resistencia Unión Centros Independientes Alianza Libertadora Nacionalista UCR de la Rioja Laborista de Salta Nacionalista Independiente Salud Pública

73 Years 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934–1938 1934–1940 1934–1942 1934–1960 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936–1938 1936–1940 1936–1946 1937 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938–1946 1940 1940 1942 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946–1948 1946–1965 1948 1948 1951

Elections contesteda 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 9 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1

Argentina

74 Party / Alliance (continued) Unión Cívica Nacionalista PJd Alianza Chaqueña Azul y Blanco Cívico Independiente De los Trabajadores De los Trabajadores Popular y Recuperación Social Demócrata Formoseño Renovador UCR Antimperialista Unión Popular Populista Populista Unión Federal Unión Popular Demócrata Autonomista (Junta Renovadora Nacional) Demócrata Conservador Popular Del Pueblo Demócrata Conservador Demócrata Liberal Conservador Popular Demócrata Cristiano Liberal Popular UCR Intransigente Rojo y Blanco UCR (Lista Verde) Unión Cívica Principista Unión Propietarios de Inmuebles Obrero UCR Intransigente Popular Unión Cívica Formoseña PSDe Socialismo Argentino de los Trabajdores Blanco Conservador del Chaco Movimiento Cívico Bandera Popular Movimiento Demócrata Cristiano Movimiento Nacional Popular Movimiento Popular Argentino Provincial de Chubut Ruralista

Years 1951–1962 1951–2003 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958–1962 1958–1962 1958–1962 1958–1963

Elections contesteda 2 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 7

1958–1963 1958–1965 1958–1965 1958–1965 1958–1965; 1973; 1991– 1993 1958–1989 1960 1960 1960–1962 1960–1962 1960–1962 1960–1962; 1989; 2001– 2003 1960–1963 1960–1963 1960–1989 1961

2 2 7 1

1962 1962 1962

1 1 1

1962 1962 1962 1962 1962

1 1 1 1 1

4 1 1 2 2 2 5

Argentina Party / Alliance (continued) Unión Cívica Demócrata Popular Socialismo Argentino de Vanguardia Demócrata Unido Tres Banderas Unión Conservadora Movimiento Popular Neuquino Conservador Obrero Popular Cruzada de Acción Nacional De la Justicia Social Movimiento de Frente Nacional Social Agrario Unión Nacional Colorado Independencia Nacional Unión del Pueblo Argentino Acción Popular Argentina Alianza de la Justicia Social De la Revolución Libertadora Reconstrucción Nacional MID Acción Chubutense Alianza Popular Federalista Alianza Republicana Federal Confederación Popular Federalista FIP Movimiento Popular Pampeano Movimiento Popular Provincial Nueva Fuerza Orientación Legalista Socialista de los Trabajadores Unión Cívica Cruzada Renovadora Partido Popular Cristiano FREJULI Movimiento Popular Catamarqueño Intransigenteg Movimiento Popular Jujeño UCeDé Pacto Federalg Renovador de Salta Pacto Autonomista Liberalh Frente Acción Provinciana Partido Popular Rionegrino

75 Years 1962 1962–1963 1962–1963 1962–1965 1962–1965 1962–1965 1962–2001 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963–1965 1963–1965 1963–1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965–1993 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973; 1993 1973–1985 1973–1989 1973–1995 1973–1995 1983–1987; 1991–2001 1983–1989 1983–1995; 2001 1985-1999 1987 1987–1989

Elections contesteda 1 2 2 3 3 3 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 8 7 9 3 8 8 1 2

Argentina

76 Party / Alliance (continued) Socialista Popular Unidad Socialista/HTE Mov. Patriótico de Liberación Alianza Acuerdo Político Alianza de Centro Blanco de los Jubilados Confederación Federalista Independiente Frente Humanista-Verde FREJUPO Popular Humanismo y Liberación Socialista Unificada Cristiano Alianza Izquierda Unida Corriente Renovadora Partido Federal Cruzada Renovadora Fuerza Republicana Afirmación Peronista Frente por la Justicia Social Movimiento al Socialismo Movimiento Peronista Acción Chaqueña MODIN Movimiento Popular Fueguino Frente de la Esperanza Frente Grande Corriente Grande Mov. Azul y Blanco Participación y Justicia Renovación Cívica Linea Abierta Mov. Popular Provincial de San Luis PAIS Partido Republicano Democrático Frepaso Acción por la República Alianza TJE Frente Cívico y Social Partido Nuevo Desarrollo y Justicia Movimiento Cívico y Social Movimiento Popular Unido Unidad Bonaerense ARI

Years 1987–1989 1987–1993 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989

Elections contesteda 2 4 1 1 1 1 1

1989 1989 1989 1989 1989; 2001–2003 1989–1991 1989–1991; 2001 1989–1993; 1997–1999 1989–2001 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991–1995 1991–1995 1991–1997 1993 1993 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995–1997 1995–1997

1 1 1 1 3 2 3 5 7 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

1995–1997 1995–1997 1995–2001 1997–2001 1997–2001 1997–2001 1997–2001 1999 1999 1999 1999 2001–2003

2 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2

Argentina Party / Alliance (continued) Autodeterminación y Libertad Fiscal Frente Nuevo País Frente por Todos Humanista Polo Social Unidad Federalista Alianza Frente por la Lealtad Alianza Frente por la Victoria Alianza Movimiento Federal para Recrear el Crecimiento Alianza Frente Movimiento Popular Confederación que se vayan todos a

77 Years 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001–2003 2001 2001 2003 2003 2003

Elections contesteda 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

2003

1

2003

1

This column includes the participation of the parties in both paliamentary and presidential elections, counting as only one election when both of them have been held on the same day (same year for the 1983–1999 period). For the period since 1991, only parties that won at least 1% of the vote in the election or won at least one seat are considered to have participated in the election. Furthermore, it should be noted that the definition of participation employed does not include most parties (i.e. other than the PJ or UCR) that compete in an electoral alliance as participating parties in the given election. The alliances are listed instead. b Contested under the name of UCR del Pueblo in 1958, 1960, 1962, 1963 and 1965. c It continues to exist as the Partido Bloquista (San Juan). d In 1946, it participated under the name of Partido Laborista. In 1948, 1951, and 1954 it used the name Partido Peronista. It was part of the Frente Justicialista de Liberación from 1973 to 1985 and of the Frente Justicialista de Unidad Popular in 1989. e Participated in 1989 along with the Partido Socialista Popular under the name of Unidad Socialista. f Participated as Alianza Popular Revolucionaria in 1973. g In the elections of 1989, it participated as part of the alliance called Confederación Federalista Independiente which also included the Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Movimiento Renovador de Salta, Movimiento Popular Catamarqueño, Acción Transformadora de Corrientes, and Partido Línea Popular of Entre Ríos and La Rioja. h The Pacto Autonomista Liberal (PAL) is a long-standing alliance between the Partido Autonomista and Partido Liberal in the province of Corrientes.

Argentina

78 2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1984a Total number 17,824,795 12,902,637 141,349 64,209 12,697,079 10,492,391 2,204,688

% – 72.4 1.1 0.5 98.4 82.6 17.4

This non-binding referendum was held on whether or not the public was in agreement with the government’s negotiated settlement with Chile to resolve the Beagle Canal dispute.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1948a Total number Registered voters 3,794,262 Votes cast 2,815,632 Blank votes —b Invalid votes 118,610 Valid votes 2,697,022 Peronistas 1,728,120 UCR 756,102 Socialista 2,070 Comunista 82,957 Demócrata 18,933 UCR Intransigente – Demócrata Progresista – Demócrata Cristiano – Others 108,840c Year

a

% – 74.2 —b 4.2 95.8 64.1 28.0 0.1 3.1 0.7 – – – 4.0

1957c Total number 9,662,620 8,703,322 2,115,861d 36,066 6,551,395 – 2,106,524e 525,721 228,821 333,749 1,847,603 263,805 420,606 824,566

Data on the composition of the constituent assembly (seats) are not available. Blank votes are counted as ‘invalid’. c Including Concentración Obrera (4,091) and Nacionalista Independiente (1,659). d The majority of the blank votes were cast by Peronists. e Participated as UCR del Pueblo. b

% – 90.1 24.3 0.4 75.3 – 32.2 8.0 3.5 5.1 28.2 4.0 6.4 12.6

Argentina Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PJ UCR Frente Grande MODIN Al. Unidad Socialistab Fuerza Republicana Partido Demócrata Progresista UCeDé Alianza del Centroc Partido Demócrata (Mendoza) Pacto Autonomista Liberal Alianza por el No Alianza HTEb Frente de la Esperanza (San Juan)d Partido Renovador de Salta Cruzada Renovadora Acción Chaqueña Mov. Popular Jujeño Mov. Popular Neuquino Partido Bloquista Mov. Popular Fueguino Others a

79 1994 Total number 21,647,583 16,778,983 782,477 224,163 15,772,343

%a – 77.5 4.7 1.3 94.0

Seats

%

5,977,389 3,114,166 2,082,622 1,461,451 353,568 277,808 254,584

37.9 19.7 13.2 9.3 2.2 1.8 1.6

305 134 74 31 21 2 7 3

100.0 43.9 24.3 10.2 6.9 0.7 2.3 1.0

237,014 228,957 217,631

1.5 1.5 1.4

3 1 4

1.0 0.3 1.3

187,030

1.2

5

1.6

158,604 111,731 94,946

1.0 0.7 0.6

0 1 3

0.0 0.3 1.0

93,429

0.6

3

1.0

74,968 67,613 56,813 47,023 33,486 10,481 631,029

0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 4.0

3 2 2 2 1 3 –

1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.0 –

Only parties that won at least 1% of the popular vote or a seat are listed. The Alianza Unidad Socialista and Alianza HTE were both led by the country’s main socialist parties (i.e. Partido Socialista Popular and Partido Socialista Democrático). c The Alianza del Centro was an alliance led by the UCeDé in the Province of Buenos Aires and Capital Federal (in the Capital Federal it was called Alianza del Centro Liberal). d Frente de la Esperanza was the name adopted by the most popular faction of the PJ in the province of San Juan, which competed against the official party list in this election. b

Argentina

80 2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1916–2001 Year

1916 Total number Registered voters 1,189,254 Votes cast 745,825 Invalid votes 26,256 Valid votes 719,569 UCR 336,980 Conservador 96,103 Demócrata Progresista 63,098 Socialista 52,215 UCR Disidente 28,116 Autonomista 21,323 Concentración 17,965 Popular 16,141 Unión Democrática 13,921 Demócrata 6,314 Provincial 5,265 Liberal – Socialista Argentino – Others 62,128 a

% – 62.7 3.5 96.5 46.8 13.4 8.8 7.3 3.9 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 0.9 0.7 – – 8.6

1918 Total number 1,303,446 780,747 16,750 763,997 367,263 76,864 – 64,414 66,058 8,759 8,033a – 11,289 57,826 – 14,054 35,281 54,156

% – 59.9 2.1 97.9 48.1 10.1 – 8.4 8.6 1.1 1.1 – 1.5 7.6 – 1.8 4.6 7.1

Participated as Concentración Catamarqueña.

Year

1920 Total number Registered voters 1,436,472 Votes cast 762,115 Invalid votes 18,790 Valid votes 743,325 UCR 338,723 Conservador 104,569 Socialista 85,693 Demócrata Progresista 76,900 Liberal 29,186 UCRI 9,320 Provincial 8,092a UCR Lencinista 7,319 Unión Democrática 6,120 Autonomista 5,551 Concentración – Nacional UCR Tucumán –

– 53.1 2.5 97.5 45.6 14.1 11.5 10.3 3.9 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 –

1922 Total number 1,586,366 876,354 48,203 828,151 406,304 62,029 54,813 63,147 22,874 6,707 16,812 14,150 – – 64,942

–

16,671

%

% – 55.2 5.5 94.5 49.1 7.5 6.6 7.6 2.8 0.8 2.0 1.7 – – 7.8 2.0

Argentina Year (continued) UCR Bloquista Others a

81 1920 Total number – 71,852b

% –

1922 Total number 7,048 92,654c

% 0.9 11.2

Changed its name to Unión Provincial in 1920. Including UCR Independiente (2,785 votes). c Including the Partido Popular (2,123 votes).

b

Year

1924 Total number Registered voters 1,579,876 Votes cast 699,057 Invalid votes 13,880 Valid votes 685,177 UCR 181,179 Socialista 101,724 UCR Unificada 75,191 Demócrata Progresista 66,029 UCR Antipersonalista 46,435 Conservador 35,902 a Autonomista 25,692 Concentración 20,084 UCR Lenicinista 15,485 Liberal 15,058 Laborista 9,009 Demócrata 7,175 Popular 5,733 UCR Bloquista – Provincial – Comunista – UCR Independiente – Others 80,481 a

% – 44.2 2.0 98.0 26.4 14.8 11.0 9.6 6.8 5.2 3.7 2.9 2.3 2.2 1.3 1.0 0.8 – – – – 11.7

Participated as Autonomista-Liberal in 1924 and 1926.

1926 Total number 1,799,131 884,646 20,027 864,619 337,898 97,880 74,463 45,936 – 38,584 26,618 – 18,327 23,200 – – – 13,333 9,288 7,088 5,736 166,268

% – 49.2 2.3 97.7 39.1 11.3 8.6 5.3 – 4.5 3.1 – 2.1 2.7 – – – 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 19.2

Argentina

82 Year

1928 Total number Registered voters 1,807,566 Votes cast 1,461,581 Invalid votes 101,256 Valid votes 1,360,325 UCR 839,140 UCR Antipersonalista 134,222 Frente Unico 87,709a Conservador 73,048 Socialista 65,660 UCR Unificada 47,412 Liberal 27,018 UCR Lencinista 20,166 UCR Bloquista 16,379 Demócrata 14,173 Demócrata Progresista – Socialista Independiente – Autonomista – Defensa Provincial – Provincial – Comunista – Others 35,398 a

% – 80.9 6.9 93.1 61.7 9.9 6.4 5.4 4.8 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 – – – – – – 2.6

1930 Total number 1,981,246 1,487,535 39,868 1,447,667 618,411 47,891 – 153,826 123,734 53,221 39,543 19,375 2,883 – 136,121 110,792 17,152 12,778b 7,231 6,834 97,875c

% – 75.1 2.7 97.3 42.7 3.3 – 10.6 8.5 3.7 2.7 1.3 0.2 – 9.4 7.7 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.5 6.8

Alliance between one sector of the UCR Antipersonalista and the Confederación de los Partidos de Derecha. b Participated as Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca. c Including the Partido Popular (2,263 votes) and the UCR Tucumán (1,905 votes).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Demócrata Nacional Demócrata Progresista Concentración Obrera Lista Única UCR Antipersonalista UCR Antipersonalista/ Socialista Independiente Liberal UCR Unificada UCRI UCR Bloquista

1931 Total number 2,116,552 1,554,437 149,662 1,404,775 452,560 436,121a – 126,370d 55,497 86,435d 27,139 26,629 6,910 18,678

– 73.4 9.6 90.4 32.2 31.0 – 9.0 4.0 6.2

1934 Total number 2,357,157 1,554,320 126,095 1,428,225 410,883 127,177 18,965 – 19,630 –

1.9 1.9 0.5 1.3

24,264 35,864 – 7,859

%

% – 65.9 8.1 91.9 28.8 8.9 1.3 – 1.4 – 1.7 2.5 – 0.6

Argentina Year (continued) Popular Demócrata NacionalLiberal/Pactista-UCR Antipersonalistac Defensa Provincial Socialista UCR Concentración Nacional UCR Talcahuano UCR Avenida de Mayo UCR de Buenos Aires Salud Pública Independiente UCR Lencinista Federalista Unión Nacional Agraria UCR Lencinista Demócrata Nacional Antigubernista UCR Tradicionalista UCR Impersonalista Others a

83 1931 Total number 9,246 28,835 22,195 – – –

0.7 2.1

1934 Total number 19,345 –

1.6 – – –

10,159 264,294 194,794 58,950b

0.7 18.5 13.6 4.1

%

% 1.4 –

– –

– –

32,081 26,767

2.2 1.9

– – – –

– – – –

24,750 17,231 14,103 12,032

1.7 1.2 1.0 0.8

– – –

– – –

9,935 8,756 8,577

0.7 0.6 0.6

8,236 7,841 65,732f

0.6 0.5 4.6

– – 108,160e

– – 7.7

It participated as part of an electoral alliance with the Partido Socialista. It participated as Concordancia since 1934. c Alliance between parts of Demócrata Nacional and UCR Antipersonalista-Socialista Independiente. d Sectors of these parties participated in only one alliance. e Including Socialista Independiente (4,947 votes). f UCR Provincia de Buenos Aires (5,753 votes), Federación Socialista (4,949), UCR Paso (4,762), UCR Bloquista Junta Reorganizadora (4,560), Nacionalista Radical (1,752), Libertador (1,685), Salud Pública Nacional (1,471), Lista Obrera y Campesina (1,105), UCR Charcas (1,095), Unión Deportiva (1,027), Ferroviarios e Industriales Independientes (797), Socialista Independiente (518), Argentino Nacionalista (511), Unión Regional Intransigente (13) and an unknown rest of 35,734. b

Argentina

84 Year

1936 Total number Registered voters 2,431,129 Votes cast 1,722,717 Invalid votes 88,080 Valid votes 1,634,637 UCR 720,009 Demócrata Nacional 370,315 Socialista 150,442 UCR de Santa Fé 82,625 Demócrata Progresista 80,542 UCR Unificada 43,615 Demócrata Nacional/ 39,798 UCR Antipersonalista UCR de Tucumán 32,903 Concordancia 30,443 Concentración Nacio– nal Liberal 17,043 Socialista 12,073 Independiente Radical 10,987 Popular de Jujuy 11,171 Popular 2,775 UCR Antipersonalista – Concentración Obrera – Others 29,896a a

– 70.9 5.1 94.9 44.0 22.7 9.2 5.1 4.9 2.7 2.4

1938 Total number 2,705,347 1,846,180 68,957 1,777,223 439,064 599,751 99,112 — — 22,751 –

2.0 1.9 –

— — 156,325

— — 8.8

1.0 0.7

16,646 –

0.9 –

0.7 0.7 0.2 – – 1.8

— — 11,700 25,519 13,859 392,496b

— — 0.7 1.4 0.8 22.1

%

% – 68.2 3.7 96.3 24.7 33.7 5.6 — — 1.3 –

UCR de Buenos Aires (7,142 votes), UCR Federalista (6,919), Salud Pública (5,387), UCR de San Luis (4,063), Demócrata Nacional Centro Renovación (2,719), Nacional Laborista (1,681), Integ. Argentino (267) and an unknown rest of 1,718. b Including: UCR Santa Fé (157,958 votes), Partido Laborista (3,357), UCR Bloquista (966), eleven other UCR fractions and another four small parties.

Argentina Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes UCR Demócrata Nacional Socialista Concentración Nacional UCR Antipersonalista Concentración Obrera Demócrata Progresista UCR Tucumán Defensa Provincial Others a

85 1940 Total number 2,721,906 1,939,421 109,119 1,830,302 877,051 453,869 155,152 68,948a 32,740 30,312 – – – 212,230b

% – 71.3 5.6 94.4 47.9 24.8 8.5 3.8 1.8 1.7 – – – 11.6

1942 Total number 3,058,946 1,586,806 82,256 1,504,550 49,607 676,293 188,975 193,617 167,550 32,126 49,198 26,612 13,229 107,343c

% – 51.9 5.2 94.8 3.3 44.9 12.6 12.9 11.1 2.1 3.3 1.8 0.9 7.1

It participated in an alliance with the UCR Junta Reorganizadora Nacional and the Frente Nacional. b Including UCR Santa Fé (122,007 votes), Partido Socialista Independiente and another six parties. c Including the Partido Conservador (3,011 votes).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Laborista-UCR Junta Renovadora UCR Laborista Independiente Demócrata Nacional Laborista Demócrata Progresista Comunista Socialista Demócrata Nacional/ UCR Antipersonalista Liberal UCR Bloquista Peronista Demócrata Others

a

1946 Total number 3,405,173 2,839,507 71,293 2,768,214a 765,458b

– 83.4 2.5 97.5 27.7

1951 Total number 8,633,998 7,593,948 122,860 7,471,088 –

765,186c, d 301,174b 200,628d 142,015c 71,606d 41,864d 35,492d 19,608d

27.6 10.9 7.2 5.1 2.6 1.6 1.3 0.7

2,415,750 – – – 2,625 71,318 54,920 –

32.3 – – – 0.0 1.0 0.7 –

16,118 13,696d – – 395,669f

0.6 0.5 – – 14.2

– – 4,745,168e 174,399 6,908g

– – 63.5 2.3 0.1

%

% – 88.0 1.6 98.4 –

The sum of all parties’ votes exceeds the official number of valid votes as stated here by 300. Parties that supported the presidential ticket Perón-Quijano. c Participated as UCR Comité Nacional. b

Argentina

86 d

Participated in the alliance Unión Democrática supporting the presidential ticket Tamborini-Mosca. Participated as Partido Peronista between 1951 and 1954. f Including Concentración Obrera (4,241 votes), UCR Lencinista (4,044), Defensa Provincial (3,937), Unión Centros Independientes (872). g Concentración Obrera (1,233 votes), Salud Pública (5,512), and Unión Cívica Nacionalista (163). e

Year

1954 Total number Registered voters 9,194,157 Votes cast 7,906,858 Blank votes — Invalid votes 163,374a Valid votes 7,743,484 Peronista 4,977,586 UCR 2,502,109 Demócrata 104,006 Comunista 88,007 Demócrata Progresista 46,077 Socialista 22,516 UCRI – Demócrata Cristiano – Liberal – Others 3,183b a

% – 86.0 — 2.1 97.9 64.3 32.3 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.3 – – – 0.0

1958 Total number 10,002,327 9,088,497 814,400 22,724 8,251,373 – 2,617,693c 145,935 42 126,991 264,721 4,070,398d 285,650 51,092 688,851

% – 90.9 9.0 0.2 90.8 – 31.7 1.8 0.0 1.5 3.2 49.3 3.5 0.6 8.3

Invalid and blank votes are combined. Concentración Obrera. c Participated as UCR del Pueblo between 1958 and 1965. Since 1973, it has participated as UCR. d The Partido Peronista was banned; its supporters mainly voted for the UCRI due to the pact signed between Perón and Frondizi. b

Argentina 1960 Total number Registered voters 10,187,586 Votes cast 8,870,202 Blank votes 2,178,181a Invalid votes 55,329 Valid votes 6,636,692 UCR 2,060,264 UCRI 1,813,454 Socialista Argentino 352,960 Demócrata Cristiano 344,039 PSD 313,227 Demócrata 291,544 Demócrata Progresista 241,611 Socialista 80,556 Liberal 64,616 Defensa Provincial 47,319b Bandera Blanca Demócrata Liberal 33,946 Unión Popular – Tres Banderas – UCR Bloquista – Others 993,156c

87

Year

a

– 87.1 24.6 0.6 74.8 31.0 27.3 5.3 5.2 4.8 4.4 3.6 1.2 1.0 0.7

1962 Total number 10,596,321 9,084,512 — 332,956d 8,751,556 1,688,805 2,284,091 139,137e 169,824 250,172 173,334 156,114 12,346 72,179 32,732

0.5 – – – 15.0

– 1,592,446f 270,248 54,441 1,855,687g

%

% – 85.7 — 3.7 96.3 19.3 26.1 1.6 1.9 2.9 2.0 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.4 – 18.2 3.1 0.6 21.2

The majority of the blank votes were cast by peronists. Participated as Defensa Provincial. c Including the Partido Comunista (20,145 votes) and Concentración Obrera (9,098). d Null and blank votes are combined. e Participated as Socialista Argentino Casa del Pueblo. f Peronism used this party as a vehicle to present candidates. g Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino, Concentración Obrera (5,758), Unión Cívica Nacionalista (2,092), and the Partido Comunista (1). b

Argentina

88 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes UCR UCRI Unión del Pueblo Argentino Demócrata Progresista Demócrata Cristiano Socialista Argentino PSD Demócrata Tres Banderasc Demócrata Liberal Unión Popular MID UCR Bloquista Liberal Others a

1963 Total number 11,353,936 9,717,677 1,828,673 236,975 7,652,029a 2,771,064 1,593,002 728,662 619,471 434,823 278,856 258,787 185,261 113,941 38,772 – – – – 959,390

– 85.6 18.8 2.4 78.7 31.9 20.8 9.5

1965 Total number 11,460,766 9,565,574 361,832 38,324 9,165,418 2,724,259 417,395b 183,048

8.1 5.7 3.6 3.4 2.4 1.5 0.5 – – – – 12.5

291,603 250,705 184,779 170,362 188,330 148,067 34,074 2,833,528d 606,179e 75,225 54,211 1,003,653f

%

% – 83.5 3.8 0.4 95.8 29.7 4.6 2.0 3.2 2.7 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.6 0.4 30.9 6.6 0.8 0.6 11.0

The official number of valid votes as stated here exceeds the sum of all parties’ votes by 330,000. b The sector led by Oscar Alende retained the name UCRI. c Including the Partido Conservador de Chaco, Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca, and the Movimimiento Popular Neuquino. d Peronism used this party as a vehicle to present candidates. e UCRI sector which defected during the government of Arturo Frondizi. f Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (21,052 votes) and Defensa Provincial Bandera Blanca (12,163).

Argentina Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PJ UCR Alianza Popular Federalista UCRI Alianza Republicana Federal Nueva Fuerza PSD Socialista de los Trabajadores MID Demócrata Cristiano Others a

89 1973 Total number 14,302,497 12,235,481 273,682 51,710 11,910,089 5,899,543a 2,535,537 1,757,784b

% – 85.6 2.2 0.4 97.3 49.5 21.3 14.8

885,272c 342,970

7.4 2.9

235,305 108,361 73,799

2.0 0.9 0.6

—a – 71,518d

— – 0.6

1983 Total number 17,929,951 14,927,572 — 371,114e 14,556,458 5,697,610f 7,104,748 – 411,883g – – – – 223,763 139,881 978,573h

% – 83.3 — 2.5 97.5 39.1 48.8 – 2.8 – – – – 1.5 1.0 6.7

Participated as Partido Justicialista, being part of the Frente Justicialista de Liberación (FREJULI) along with MID, the Partido Conservador Popular, the Partido Popular Cristiano, other minor socialist parties and some provincial parties. b Consisting of Movimiento Federal 17 de Octubre, Partido Renovador de la Capital, Unión Popular de Catamarca, Partido Renovador de Corrientes, Partido Democrático Federal de Misiones, Unión Popular, and Partido Demócrata Progresista. d Including the Frente Izquierda Popular (48,571 votes). c The sector led by Oscar Alende participated in the 1973 elections as Alianza Popular Revolucionaria. Afterwards it adopted the name Partido Intransigente. e Invalid and blank votes are combined. f Participated as Partido Justicialista outside of FREJULI. g Participated since that year as Partido Intransigente. h Includes the following parties: Demócrata Progresista (2,907 votes), Comunista, FIP, Movimiento de Afirmación Socialista (MAS), Partido Obrero y Partido Socialista Popular, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Pacto Autonomista Liberal de Corrientes, Partido Bloquista (San Juan), Movimiento Popular Neuquino and others.

Argentina

90 Year

1985 Total number Registered voters 18,649,101 Votes cast 15,628,812 a Blank votes — Invalid votes 301,905 Valid votes 15,326,907 UCR 6,678,860b PJ 5,303,163b PI 931,325 UCeDé 491,889b Demócrata Progresista 190,305 MID 35,161 Others 1,696,204c a

% – 83.8 — 1.9 98.1 43.6 34.6 6.1 3.2 1.2 0.2 11.1

1987 Total number 19,452,790 16,263,572 — 865,800 15,397,772 5,948,610 6,609,012d 322,611 917,499 216,932 154,692 1,228,416e

% – 83.6 — 5.3 94.7 38.6 42.9 2.1 6.0 1.4 1.0 8.0

Invalid and blank votes are combined. Peronist forces participated as two parties known as FREJULI and as PJ. The number includes the votes obtained by both of them and also votes garnered in two other provinces by peronist lists: the Frente Renovador Justicialista in the Province of Buenos Aires (1,549,744 votes) and the Frente Justicialista de Chubut (43,587). In a similar manner, votes won by the UCR in an alliance in Catamarca (57,872) are added to the original UCR total and votes won by UCeDé led alliances with other parties in the Capital Federal (204,943) and the Province of Buenos Aires (229,485) are included in its row. c Includes Partido Demócrata Cristiano (65,947 votes), Alianza Unidad Socialista, Frente del Pueblo, Partido Obrero, PSP and the provincial parties Movimiento Popular Neuquino, and Movimiento Popular Pampeano. d Participated as Partido Justicialista outside FREJULI. e Includes Partido Demócrata Cristiano (35,929 votes), Alianza Unidad Socialista, Frente del Pueblo, Partido Obrero, PSP, the provincial parties Movimiento Popular Neuquino, Movimiento Popular Pampeano and others. b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PJ UCR Alianza de Centro CFI Alianza Izquierda Unida Alianza Unidad Socialista Blanco de los Jubilados Fuerza Republicana

1989 Total number 20,034,252 17,086,704 307,879 135,942b 16,642,883 7,436,640c 4,784,584 1,596,963d 629,108e 580,944f

% – 85.3 1.8 0.8 97.4 44.7 28.8 9.6 3.8 3.5

1991a Total number 20,764,012 16,595,952 834,527 127,252 15,634,173 6,288,222 4,538,831 – – –

% – 79.9 5.0 0.8 94.2 40.2 29.0 – – –

426,145g

2.6

243,035h

1.6

301,101 213,957

1.8 1.3

— 282,478

— 1.8

Argentina Year (continued) Pacto Autonomista Liberal Corriente Renovadora Cruzada Renovadora Mov. Popular Neuquino UCeDé MID Alianza HTE Mov. al Socialismo Partido Renovador de Salta Frente por la Justicia Social Acción Chaqueña Partido Demócrata Progresista Partido Bloquista Others a

91 1989 Total number 143,497 113,387 87,273 49,070 – – – – –

% 0.9

1991a Total number 167,276

% 1.1

0.7 0.5 0.3 – – – – –

80,476 77,425 77,381 811,929 543,375 225,769h 212,202 189,009

0.5 0.5 0.5 5.2 3.5 1.4 1.4 1.2

–

–

159,561

1.0

– –

– –

149,441 133,203

1.0 0.9

74,603 1,379,957i

0.5 8.8

– 280,214

– 1.7

Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. b Including 36,393 votes that were excluded due to tally sheet differences. c Competed as part of the FREJUPO along with the MID, Demócrata Cristiano, PI and other minor socialist parties. Not included are votes where one of the parties integrating the alliance presented separately: Partido del Trabajo y del Pueblo (3,836 votes), Partido Demócrata Cristiano (1,831), MID (1,830), and Movimiento Patriótico de Liberación (17,321). d Not included here are votes where one of the parties intergrating the alliance presented separately: UCeDé (52,366 votes), Partido Demócrata Progresista (800). The parties/alliances participating in the Alianza de Centro were UCeDé, Partido Demócrata Progresista, and Concentración Demócrata (an alliance of provincial parties). e The parties participating in the CFI were the Partido Federal, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Partido Renovador de Salta, Movimiento Popular Catamarqueño, Acción Transformadora (Corrientes), and Partido Línea Popular (Entre Ríos and La Rioja). f The main parties participating in the Izquierda Unida were the Partido Comunista, Movimiento al Socialismo, and Izquierda Democrática y Popular. g In 1989, the Alianza Unidad Socialista consisted principally of the PSP and PSD. The Alianza Unidad Socialista row does not include votes won by either the PSP (18,876 votes) or PSD (1734) where they presented separately. h In 1991, the Alianza Socialista was composed principally by the PSP and PSD. The Alianza HTE was dominanted by the PSP. Votes won by the PSP (14,249 votes) and PSD (705) alone, or in other alliances, are not included in either of these rows. i Including the Movimiento Popular Jujeño (49,865 votes) and the Movimiento Popular Fueguino (9,704).

Argentina

92 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PJ UCR MID Frente Grande UCeDé Fuerza Republicana Partido Demócrata Progresista Pacto Autonomista Liberal Acción Chaqueña Alianza HTE Frente de la Esperanza (San Juan) Partido Renovador de Salta Partido Demócrata (Mendoza) Unidad Socialista Frepasof Others a

1993a Total number 21,463,761 17,242,141 700,562 180,554 16,361,025 6,946,586 4,946,192 946,304 571,137 428,522 227,726 216,082

% – 80.3 4.1 1.1 94.9 42.5 30.2 5.8 3.5 2.6 1.4 1.3

1995a Total number 22,178,154 18,203,452 1,087,329 161,477d 16,954,646 7,294,828 3,679,864 287,196 – 536,679 140,955 158,857

% – 82.1 6.0 0.9 93.1 43.0 21.7 1.7 – 3.2 0.8 0.9

181,576

1.1

158,269

0.9

125,597 125,400 122,065

0.8 0.8 0.8

—e – –

120,669

0.7

135,622

0.8

113,528

0.7

114,581

0.7

109,552b – 1,180,089c

0.7 – 7.2

– 3,507,792 940,003g

– 20.7 5.5

— – –

Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. b Both the Unidad Socialista and Alianza HTE were vehicles for the PSP and the PSD. Not included in either row are votes for the PSP (14,411 votes) where it presented separately. c Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (55,375 votes), the Movimiento Popular Jujeño (45,369) and the Movimiento Popular Fuegino (7,972). d Including 38,641 votes that were excluded due to tally sheet differences. e Exact number of votes not available, subsumed under ‘others’. f The principal members of the Frepaso alliance included the Frente Grande, PSP, PSD, PI, Partido Demócrata Cristiano, and PAIS. PAIS withdrew from Frepaso in 1996. g Including the Partido Bloquista (66,082 votes), the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (60,781), the Movimiento Popular Jujeño (32,707), and the Movimiento Popular Fuegino (7,638).

Argentina Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Alianza TJE PJ UCR Acción por la República Frepaso Fuerza Republicana Partido Demócrata (Mendoza) Partido Nuevo Partido Demócrata Progresista Desarrollo y Justicia Pacto Autonomista Liberal Mov. Popular Neuquino Unidad Bonaerense Others a

93 1997a Total number 23,199,814 18,465,875 953,174 261,265b 17,251,436 6,274,614c 6,267,891 1,256,956 662,403 484,586 247,129 228,291

% – 79.6 5.2 1.4 93.4 36.4 36.3 7.3 3.8 2.8 1.4 1.3

1999a Total number 24,118,320 19,829,220 1,122,778 192,829 18,513,613 8,102,252e 6,653,074f – 1,502,221g – 99,572 235,357

% – 82.2 5.7 1.0 93.4 43.8 35.9 – 8.1 – 0.5 1.3

223,660 159,035

1.3 0.9

115,464 289,655

0.6 1.6

77,476 77,219

0.5 0.5

– 85,207

– 0.5

42,701 – 1,249,475d

0.2 – 7.2

89,798 289,860 1,051,153h

0.5 1.6 5.7

Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. Votes cast abroad for a few provinces are not included in the 1999 congressional totals due to a lack of data. b This figure includes 1268 votes that were under legal review. c The Alianza TJE consisted of the UCR, FREPASO, and other smaller parties (e.g., district level parties such as the Partido Renovador de Salta). The Alianza TJE presented legislative lists in 14 of the 24 districts. In the remaining 10 districts the UCR and Frepaso presented seperate lists (alone or in alliance with district level parties). d Including the Movimiento Popular Fueguino (10,740 votes). e The Alianza TJE was composed of the UCR, Frepaso, and several district level parties (e.g. Cruzada Renovadora, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Partido Bloquista, Partido Renovador de Salta). Votes won by the UCR and Frepaso in the one district where they presented seperately are included in the Alianza TJE row. Votes won by parties that presented a fused list with the Alianza TJE candidates are also included in this row. f This row includes votes won by parties that presented a fused list with the PJ, most prominent of which was the UCeDé in the provinces of Buenos Aires and Córdoba (499,699 votes). g Includes votes won by parties that presented a fused list with Acción por la República: UCeDé in the province of Santa Fé and Movimiento Popular Patagónico in the province of Río Negro. h Including the Movimiento Popular Unido (57,662 votes).

Argentina

94 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PJ Alianza TJEc ARI UCR Polo Social Izquierda Unida Partido Humanista Unidad Federalista UCeDé Partido Obrero Partido Nuevo Acción por la República Autodeterminación y Libertad Partido Demócrata (Mendoza) Frente Nuevo País Partido Demócrata Progresista Fuerza Republicana Partido Renovador de Salta Frente por Todos Fiscal Others a

2001 Total number 24,884,338 18,799,011 2,022,607 2,486,296 14,290,108 5,114,918 b 2,293,187 1,053,359 926,501 584,244 499,621 369,822 296,804 260,204 237,195 174,089 156,534

%a – 75.6 10.8 13.2 76.0 35.8 16.1 7.4 6.5 4.1 3.5 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.1

135,361

1.0

126,769

0.9

122,841 109,796

0.9 0.8

103,447 95,001

0.7 0.7

75,408 74,002 1,481,005d

0.5 0.5 10.4

Party specific vote totals are only provided where the party won either 1% of the popular vote or a seat. b Includes votes won by parties that presented a fused list with the PJ. c The Alianza TJE was composed of the UCR, Frepaso, and a small number of minor parties. The Alianza TJE presented candidates in 15 provinces. The UCR presented alone (or in alliance with provincial-level partners) in the remaining nine provinces. Frepaso presented alone in some of these latter nine provinces, garnering a meager 25,880 votes. d Including the Movimiento Popular Neuquino (60,852 votes).

Argentina

95

2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 2001 2001a Total number Registered voters 24,884,338 Votes cast 18,802,968 b Invalid votes 4,252,302 Valid votes 14,550,666 PJ 3,761,010 Alianza TJE 1,471,785 ARI 714,395 Frente Polo Social 600,086 UCR 513,594 Alianza Izquierda Unida 404,935 UCeDé 375,829 Frente de Todos 363,286 Frente Justicialista por 353,573 Santa Fe Partido Humanista 330,845 Unidad Federalista 312,676 PAUFE Alianza Santafesina 245,907 Alianza Frente por un 226,998 Nuevo País Partido del Socialismo 192,282 Auténtico Frente Fundacional 185,184 Justicialista Frente para la Unidad 174,797 Acción por la República 172,832 Alianza Obrero-MAS 163,078 Frente para el Cambio 162,496 Alianza Frente Unión 150,291 por Buenos Aires Alianza Grande 137,065 Alianza por Mendoza 131,852 Partido Demócrata 127,343 116,637 Alianza Frente Justicialista/ Todos por el Cambio Partido de los Trabaja105,757 dores Socialistas Partido Demócrata 104,411 Progresista Year

% – 75.6 22.6 77.4 25.8 10.1 4.9 4.1 3.5 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7

Argentina

96 Year (continued) Movimiento Acción Vecinal Fuerza Republicana Partido Demócrata Cristiano Renovador de Salta Autodeterminación y Lib. Fuerza de Unidad Popular Alianza FISCAL MID Frente Cívico Jujeño Alianza Unidos por San Juan Alianza por San Juan Alianza Frente de la Unidad Socialista Popular Frente para Todos Alianza Frente Cívico y Social Frente Justicialista Popular Socialista Democrático Othersc a

2001a Total number 103,350

% 0.7

99,408 98,147

0.7 0.7

94,423 92,647

0.6 0.6

88,349

0.6

87,354 86,913 83,291 83,006

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

81,699 81,190

0.6 0.6

77,217 77,128 72,061

0.5 0.5 0.5

71,804

0.5

71,378 1,502,357

0.5 10.3

Many parties participated in varying alliances in the different provinces. Individual party votes listed here only comprise those votes where the party ran alone. Alliance votes are listed under the corresponding alliance name. b Including blank votes. c Partido Obrero (63,655 votes), Movimiento Popular Neuquino (61,613), Frente Compromiso Social (56,663), Popular Nuevo Milenio (54,054), Popular de la Reconstrucción (53,140), Jubilados en Acción (51,975), Acción Popular (50,390), Frente Cívico y Social Correntino (46,202), PI (45,257), Partido Comunista (44,716), Frente Renovador Popular FREPEBA (43,349), Frente con Todos (42,326), Movimiento de Bases (40,197), Movimiento Socialista Entreriano (40,113), Acción para el Cambio (35,614), Partido Laborista (30,634), Nacionalista Constitucional (29,294), Alianza Polo Social Intransigente (28,849), Alianza por el Trabajo y la Justicia (28,784), Movimiento para el Socialismo y el Trabajo (28,703), Frente de los Jubilados (25,294), Frente de la Gente (24,037), Frente Unión para el Cambio (24,020), Partido Socialista Auténtico (23,917), Frente del Pueblo Unido (22,892), Acción Chubutense (22,379), Movimiento Popular para la Reconquista (21,030), Movimiento Popular Bonaerense (20,793), Acción Nativa (20,333), Alianza Frente Unidos por Catamarca (20,041), FREPASO (19,839), Desarrollo y Justicia (18,183), Partido Ecologista (17,656), Alianza Santacruzeña (17,434), Humanista, Derechos Humanos y Ecologista (17,428), Progreso Social (17,348), Nuevo Movimiento (16,619), Demócrata Liberal (16,355), Por un nuevo Jujuy (15,871), Cambio Córdoba (15,501), Movimiento Socialista Trabajadores (14,444), Frente Cívico/ARI (13,030), Frente Popular (12,896), MODIN (12,849), Movimiento Renovación Cívica

Argentina

97

(12,518), Provincial Rionegrino (11,771), Movimiento Patagónico Popular (11,547), Frente de Liberación (10,464), Humanista-Ecologista (10,447), Movimiento Demócrata Independiente (10,343), MOFESA (8,514), Movimiento Social de los Trabajadores (7,134), Solidaridad y Esperanza (7,092), Movimiento de Unidad Vecinalista (7,005), Partido Autonomista (6,638), Memoria y Participación (6,582), Frente del Norte/ARI (6,548), Partido Social Demócrata (6,462), Frente Unidad Trabajadora (6,437), Federal Fueguino (6,330), Generación Intermedia (6,192), Unidad Federalista (6,166), Frente Federal de Córdoba (5,861), FUT (4,500), Acción Cívica Provincial (3,182), Alianza Pacto de la Unidad, Fe y Esperanza (2,926), Nueva Dirigencia (2,764), Movimiento Popular Fueguino (2,757), Frente Grande (2,506), Alianza Unidad Social (2,310), Corriente Patria Libre (1,374), Unión Vecinal de Córdoba (177), and Nuevo Frente (93).

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1916–2001 Year UCR Conservador Socialista Demócrata Progresista UCR Disidente Unión Provincial Coalición Liberal Autonomista Liberal Liga del Sur Popular Provincial Unión Democrática Demócrata Concentración Cívica Oficial Concentración Popular UCR Bloquista UCRI Independents Others Vacancies

1916 Seats 120 44 28 9 8

% 100.0 36.7 23.3 7.5 6.7

1918 Seats 120 56 19 6 14

% 100.0 46.7 18.8 5.0 11.7

1920 Seats 158 84 14 10 19

% 100.0 53.2 8.9 6.3 12.0

1922 Seats 158 91 14 10 14

% 100.0 57.6 8.9 6.3 8.7

4 4 3

3.3 3.3 2.5

8 4 3

6.7 3.3 2.5

3 3 3

1.9 1.9 1.9

3 3

1.9 1.9

3 2 2 2 2

2.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

3 – – – 1

2.5 – – – 0.8

4 – – 0 0

2.5 – – 0.0 0.0

3 – 0 0 –

1.9 – 0.0 0.0 –

1 1

0.8 0.8

0 –

0.0 –

– 1

– 0.6

– –

– –

2 –

1.7 –

– 1

– 0.8

– 1

– 0.6

– 2

– 1.3

– – 2 0 3

– – 1.6 0.0 2.5

– – 4 0 1

– – 3.3 0.0 0.8

– 0 – 10 3

– 0.0 – 6.3 1.9

2 1 – 7 7

1.3 0.6 – 4.4 4.4

Argentina

98 Year UCR Socialista Conservador Demócrata Progresista UCR Unificada Coalición Liberal Autonomista Liberal UCR Lencinista UCR Antipersonalista Unión Provincial Concentración Popular UCR Bloquista Demócrata Nacional UCRI Unión Comercio y Producción Demócrata Concentración Cívica Socialista Independiente Frente Único Others Independents Vacancies

1924 Seats 158 72 18 14 14

% 100.0 45.6 11.4 8.9 8.9

1926 Seats 158 60 19 15 9

% 100.0 38.0 12.0 9.5 5.7

1928 Seats 158 92 4 14 –

% 100.0 58.2 2.5 8.9 –

1930 Seats 158 98 1 12 3

% 100.0 62.0 0.6 7.6 1.9

7 5

4.3 3.2

16 5

10.1 3.2

11 5

6.7 3.2

4 2

2.5 1.3

4 4 3

2.5 2.5 1.9

7 2 7

4.4 1.3 4.3

6 1 5

3.8 0.6 3.2

4 1 3

2.5 0.6 1.9

3

1.9

2

1.3

2

1.3

1

0.6

3

1.9

1

0.6

–

–

–

–

2 2

1.3 1.3

2 –

1.3 –

2 –

1.3 –

0 –

0.0 –

1 1

0.6 0.6

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

0 0

0.0 0.0

5 1

3.2 0.6

6 1

3.8 0.6

7 –

4.4 –

–

–

–

–

6

3.8

15

9.5

– 0 – 5

– 0.0 – 3.2

– 0 6 1

– 0.0 3.8 0.8

1 0 – 2

0.6 0.0 – 1.3

1 2 – 4

0.6 1.3 – 2.5

Argentina Year Demócrata Nacional Socialista UCR Antipersonalista Demócrata Progresista Socialista Independiente Liberal UCR Unificada Popular UCR Bloquista Defensa Provincial UCR Independents Others Not incorporated Vacancies a

99 1931 Seats 158 58

% 100.0 36.7

1934 Seats 158 60

% 100.0 38.0

1936 Seats 158 55

% 100.0 34.8

1938 Seats 158 59

43a 17

27.2 10.8

43 16

27.2 10.1

25 11

15.8 6.7

5 5

3.2 3.2

14

8.9

12

7.6

6

3.8

–

–

11

6.7

6

3.8

2

1.3

–

–

5 4 2 2 2

3.2 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.3

4 4 2 1 1

2.5 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.6

2 4 2 1 –

1.3 2.5 1.3 0.6 –

1 5 0 0 –

0.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 –

– – 0 –

– – 0.0 –

2 2 2 –

1.3 1.3 1.3 –

40 2 6 1

25.3 1.3 3.8 0.6

64 – 18 –

40.5 – 11.4 –

–

–

3

1.9

1

0.6

1

0.6

All socialists apart from Socialistas Independientes have been combined.

% 100.0 37.3

Argentina

100 Year

1940 Seats 158 76 49

UCR Demócrata Nacional UCR 7 Antipersonalista Socialista 5 UCR Unificada 5 Laborista/ – UCR Junta Renovadora Laborista – Independiente Laborista – UCR Bloquista – – Demócrata Progresista Peronista – Others 16 Not – incorporated Vacancies – a

1942 Seats 158 63 48

% 100.0 40.0 30.3

1946 Seats 158 44a, b 1b

1951 Seats 149 14 –

% 100.0 9.4 –

4.4

19

12.0

0

0.0

–

–

3.5 3.2 –

17 2 –

10.7 1.3 –

0 – 62c

0.0 – 39.2

0 – –

0.0 – –

–

–

–

28c

17.7

–

–

– – –

– – –

– – –

11c 1b 1b

7.0 0.6 0.6

– – 0

– – 0.0

– 10.1 –

– 6 2

– 3.8 1.3

– 10d –

– 6.3 –

135 – –

90.6 – –

–

1

0.6

–

% 100.0 48.1 31.0

% 100.0 27.8 0.6

–

–

–

Participated as UCR Comité Nacional. Part of the alliance Unión Democrática which won a total of 49 seats (31%). c Parties supporting the presidential ticket Perón-Quijano obtained 109 seats (69%), including eight seats included under ‘others’. d Includes: UCR Irigoyenista, UCR Junta Renovadora, UCR La Rioja Laborista, Laborista, UCR Irigoyenista, UCR Junta Renovadora (supporting the ticket Perón-Quijano), UCR Antipersonalista-Demócrata Nacional (supporting the ticket Tamborini-Mosca). b

Argentina Year Peronista UCR UCRI Liberal Federación de Partidos de Centro Defensa Provincial Others Not incorporated Vacancies a

101 1954a Seats 157 140 12 – – –

% 100.0 89.2 0.8 – – –

1958 Seats 187 – 52b 133c 2 –

% 100.0 – 27.8 71.1 1.1 –

1960 Seats 192 – 74 109 0 3

–

–

–

–

1

0.5

– 1 4

– 0.6 2.6

0 – –

0.0 – –

2d 1 2

1.0 0.5 1.0

% 100.0 – 38.5 56.8 0.0 1.6

1962e Seats

% 100.0

Based on 1955 seat data. It participated as the UCR del Pueblo between 1958 and 1965. c The Partido Peronista was banned. Its supporters voted primarily for the UCRI because of a pact between Perón and the UCRI leader (Frondizi). d Belonging to the UCR Disidente. e Elections annuled by a decree issued by President Guido. b

Year

1963 Seats 192 UCR 72 UCRI 40 Unión del Pue- 14 blo Argentino 12 Demócrata Progresista Demócrata 7b Cristiano Socialista 6 Argentino Socialista 5 Democrático Demócrata 4 c 4 Unión Popular Tres Banderas 3 Liberal 2b Mov. Popular 2 Neuquino Autonomista 2 Lib. de Corrientes

% 100.0 37.5 20.8 7.3

1965 Seats 192 68 11 7

% 100.0 35.4 5.7 3.6

1973 Seats 243 51 12a –

% 100.0 21.0 4.9 –

1983 Seats 254 129 0 –

% 100.0 50.8 0.0 –

6.2

9

4.7

3

1.3

0

0.0

3.6

4

2.1

–

–

1

0.4

3.1

4

2.1

–

–

–

–

2.6

2

1.0

0

0.0

–

–

2.1 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1

0 52d 0 0 0

0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 1 – – 2

0.8 0.4 – – 0.8

– – – – 2

– – – – 0.8

1.1

2

1.0

3e

1.3

2

0.8

Argentina

102 Year (continued) Partido Bloquista Defensa Provincial Federación de Partidos de Centro MID PJ Alianza Popular Federalista Mov. Popular Pampeano Mov. Popular Jujeño Intransigente UceDé Others Vacancies a

1963 Seats 192 1

% 100.0 0.5

1

0.5

–

1965 Seats 192 2

% 100.0 1.0

1973 Seats 243 3

% 100.0 1.3

1983 Seats 254 2

% 100.0 0.8

1

0.5

–

–

–

–

–

10f

5.2

–

–

–

–

– – –

– – –

16 –g –

8.3 – –

12 131h 5j

4.9 53.9 2.1

– 111i –

– 43.7 –

–

–

–

–

2

0.8

1k

0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

1

0.4

– – 8.9 –

– – 3 1

– – 1.6 0.5

– – 15 –

– – 6.2 –

3 2 – –

1.2 0.8 – –

– – 17 –

Participated that year as Alianza Popular Revolucionaria. Since 1983, it used the name Partido Intransigente. b Participated in the alliance Federación de Partidos de Centro along with the Unión Conservadora, Demócrata Conservador, Demócrata Liberal, and Demócrata Unido. c The Peronists used this party as a vehicle to present candidates. d It was part of the Justicialista delegation in the chamber of deputies along with Blanco de los Trabajadores, Tres Banderas, Movimiento Popular Mendocino, Movimiento Popular Neuquino, Laborista Nacional, Acción Popular, Sanluiseña, and Acción Popular. e Participated as the Pacto Autonomista-Liberal de Corrientes. f Participated as Federación Nacional de Partidos de Centro together with Unión Conservadora, Demócrata, Liberal, Demócrata Unido y Demócrata Liberal. g The Jusiticialistas ran as Unión Popular. h Paricipated as the PJ, forming part of the FREJULI along with MID, Partido Conservador Popular, Cristiano, minor socialist parties, and some provincial parties. i It participated as Partido Justicialista and it was part of the Justicialista delegation in the chamber of deputies. j Consisted of the Movimiento Federal 17 de Octubre, Partido Renovador de la Capital, Unión Popular de Catamarca, Renovador de Corrientes, Democrático Federal de Misiones, Unión Popular, and Demócrata Progresista. k Participated as Movimiento Federal Pampeano.

Argentina Year UCR PJ PI Pacto Autonomista Liberald UCeDé Demócrata Cristiano Mov. Popular Neuquino Mov. Popular Jujeño Partido Bloquista Demócrata Progresista MID Partido Renovador de Salta Partido Demócrata de Mendoza Partido Popular Rionegrino Unidad Socialista Defensa Provincial Frente Acción Provinciana Fuerza Republicana Partido Federal Humanismo y Liberación Socialista Unificada Cristiano Izquierda Unida Blanco de los Jubilados Cruzada Renovadora

103 1985 Seats 254 130 101 6 3

% 100.0 51.2 39.8 2.4 1.2

1987 Seats 254 117b 106c 5 4

% 100.0 46.1 41.7 2.0 1.6

1989 Seats 254 90 120 2 3

% 100.0 35.4 47.2 0.8 1.2

1991 Seats 257a 84 116 2 3

% 100.0 32.7 45.1 0.8 1.2

3 2

1.2 0.8

7 3

2.8 1.2

11 3

4.3 1.2

10 1

3.9 0.4

2

0.8

2

0.8

2

0.8

2

0.8

2

0.8

0

0.0

2

0.8

2

0.8

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

3

1.2

3

1.2

1 1

0.4 0.4

1 2

0.4 0.8

1 2

0.4 0.8

2 3

0.8 1.2

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

–

–

1

0.4

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

1

0.4

3

1.2

–

–

1

0.4

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2

0.8

4

1.6

– –

– –

– –

– –

2 2

0.8 0.4

1 –

0.4 –

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

– –

– –

– –

– –

1 1

0.4 0.4

– 1

– 0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

2

0.8

Argentina

104 Year 1985 (continued) Seats Mov. Peronista – Afirmación – Peronista MODIN – Mov. Popular – Fueguino Acción – Chaqueña Partido Conser– vador Popular Mov. al – Socialismo

– –

1987 Seats – –

– –

1989 Seats – –

– –

– –

– –

–

–

– –

%

– –

1991 Seats 5 3

– –

– –

3 2

1.2 0.8

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

%

%

% 1.9 1.2

a

Since 1991, the chamber of deputies has 257 seats (three more due to the provincialization of Tierra del Fuego); between 1991 and 1993 one seat remained vacant. b Includes one seat of the Alianza UCR-Movimiento Popular Jujeño known also as Convergencia Programática. The UCR lost its quorum in the chamber of deputies following the 1987 chamber election. c Includes one independent from Córdoba (Alianza Partido Justicialista-Independiente). d The two members of the Pacto Automista Liberal of Corrientes (Partido Autonomista and Partido Liberal) maintained separate delegations in the chamber of deputies between 1983 and 1999. They are however included together here.

Year Justicialista UCR MODIN Unidad Socialista Pacto Autonomista Liberalb Unión del Centro Democrático Partido Renovador de Salta Mov. Popular Fueguino Fuerza Republicana Frente Grande Mov. Popular Neuquino

1993 Seats 257 127 84 6 5

% 100.0 49.4 32.7 2.3 2.0

1995 Seats 257 131 68 3 –

% 100.0 51.0 26.5 1.2 –

1997 Seats 257 119 66 – –

% 100.0 46.3 25.7 – –

1999 Seats 257 99 –a – –

% 100.0 38.5 –a – –

4

1.6

4

1.6

3

1.2

2

0.8

4

1.6

2

0.8

1

0.4

1

0.4

3

1.2

3

1.2

3

1.2

2

0.8

3

1.2

2

0.8

2

0.8

1

0.4

3

1.2

1

0.4

2

0.8

3

1.2

3 2

1.2 0.8

2

0.8

2

0.8

2

0.8

Argentina Year 1993 (continued) Seats Partido 2 Demócrata Progresista Mov. Popular 2 Jujeño Acción 2 Chaqueña Partido 1 Demócrata de Mendoza Partido 1 Bloquista Partido 1 Intransigente Cruzada 1 Renovadora MID 1 Partido Conser- 1 vador Popular Partido Popular 1 Cristiano Frepasoc – c PAIS – – Mov. Popular Provincial de San Luis Partido – Republicano Democrático Linea Abierta – Mov. Azul y – Blanco Corriente – Grande Participación y – Justicia Partido – Comunista Renovación – Cívica Acción por la – República

105

0.8

1995 Seats 2

0.8

1997 Seats 2

0.8

1999 Seats 3

0.8

1

0.4

1

0.4

0

0

0.8

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

0.4

2

0.8

3

1.2

3

1.2

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

1

0.4

0.4

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

0.4

–

–

1

0.4

1

0.4

0.4 0.4

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

0.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

%

%

%

% 1.2

– – –

22 3 1

8.6 1.2 0.4

38 2 1

14.8 0.8 0.4

–a – –

–a – –

–

1

0.4

1

0.4

–

–

– –

1 1

0.4 0.4

1 –

0.4 –

– –

– –

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3

1.2

11

4.3

Argentina

106 Year 1993 (continued) Seats Partido Nuevo – Frente Cívico y – Social Desarrollo y – Justicia Alianza TJEa – Mov. Social y – Entrerriano Unidad – Bonaerense Mov. Cívico y – Social

– –

1995 Seats – –

– –

1997 Seats 2 2

–

–

–

– –

– –

– –

%

0.8 0.8

1999 Seats 3 2

1

0.4

1

0.4

– –

0 –

0.0 –

119 1

46.3 0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

–

–

–

–

1

0.4

%

a

%

% 1.2 0.8

The Alianza TJE delegation is a combination of the UCR (82 deputies) and Frepaso (37 deputies). While the Alianza TJE is a formal delegation, the UCR and Frepaso maintain their own seperate delegations as well. While the Alianza TJE existed since 1997, the UCR and Frepaso did not create this unified delegation until 1999. b The two members of the Pacto Autonomista Liberal of Corrientes (the Partido Autonomista and Partido Liberal) maintained separate delegations in the chamber of deputies between 1983 and 1999. They are however included together here. c Frepaso (Frente del País Solidario) was an alliance of the Frente Grande, Partido Demócrata Cristiano, PI, PSP, PSD, and PAIS. Early in 1996, PAIS officially left the Frepaso alliance, although many of its members remained in Frepaso. By 2001, the Frepaso alliance consisted of only a faction of the Frente Grande, with another Frente Grande faction functioning as a separate delegation.

Year PJ UCR ARI Frente Grande Frepaso Acción por la República Partido Demócrata Progresista Movimiento Popular Neuquino Autodeterminación y Libertad Frente Cívico Social Frente para el Cambio Fuerza Republicana Partido Demócrata de Mendoza Partido Renovador de Salta PSP Frente Polo Social

2001 Seats 257 121 65 16 8 7 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

% 100.0 47.1 25.3 6.2 3.1 2.7 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Argentina Year (continued) Unidad Federalista Autonomista de Corrientes Partido Bloquista Fiscal Izquierda Unida Movimiento Cívico Social Partido Demócrata de Capital Federal Partido Federal PI Partido Nuevo Renovación Cívica UceDé

107 2001 Seats 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

% 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 2001 Year PJ Alianza TJE UCR Frente de Todos Alianza Frente Cívico y Social Alianza Frente de la Unidad Alianza Frente Justicialista/ Todos por el Cambio Alianza Unidos por San Juan Frente Cívico Jujeño Frente Fundacional Justicialista Frente Justicialista por Santa Fe Frente para el Cambio Frente para la Unidad Movimiento Popular Neuquino Alianza Grande Alianza por Mendoza Alianza por San Juan Alianza Santacruzeña Alianza Santafesina ARI Frente con Todos

2001 Seats 72 25 7 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

% 100.0 34.7 9.7 8.3 4.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Argentina

108 Year (continued) Frente Justicialista Popular Fuerza de Unidad Popular Fuerza Republicana Renovador de Salta

2001 Seats 1 1 1 1

% 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

2.9 Presidential Elections 1916–2003 1916 Total number Registered voters 1,189,254 Votes cast 745,825 Invalid votes 26,256 Valid votes 719,569 Hipólito Irigoyen (UCR) 336,980 Leopoldo Angel D. Rojas 96,103 (Conservador) Nicolás Lisandro de la Torre 63,098 (Demócrata Progresista) Juan B. Justo (Socialista) 52,215 Other parties with representation 109,045 Other parties without representation 62,128 a

b

8.8 7.3 15.1 8.6

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 133 152 46 104 43 14 64 – Total Absent

20 14 8a – 298 2

Votes for the candidate Alejandro Carbo.

1922 Total number Registered voters 1,586,366 Votes cast 876,354 Invalid votes 48,203 Valid votes 828,151 Marcelo de Alvear (UCR) 406,304 Norberto Piñero (Concentración 64,942 a Nacional) Carlos Ibarguren 63,147 (Demócrata Progresista) Nicolás Repetto (Socialista) 54,813 Other parties with representation 148,414 Other parties without representation 90,531 a

% – 62.7 3.5 96.5 46.8 13.4

% – 55.2 5.5 94.5 49.1 7.8

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 216 235 23 60

7.7

25

10

6.6 17.9 10.9

22 90

22 9b

Total Absent

336 40

Formed by conservative groups. Votes for the candidates Miguel Laurencena (6), Rafael Núñez (2), and Jose A. Correa (1).

Argentina 1928 Total number Registered voters 1,807,566 Votes cast 1,461,605 Invalid votes 101,256 Valid votes 1,360,349 Hipólito Irigoyen (UCR) 839,140 Leopoldo Melo (UCR 134,222 Antipersonalista) Nicolás Matienzo (Socialista) 65,660 Other parties with representation 209,559 Other parties without representation 111,768

109 % – 80.9 6.9 93.1 61.7 9.9 4.8 15.4 8.2

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 249 245 40 71a 3 84 Total Absent

a

3 319 57

Supported by the Frente Único (an alliance of conservative parties) which won 87,709 votes (6.4%) and 20 electors.

1931 Total number Registered voters 2,116,552 Votes cast 1,554,437 Invalid votes 149,662 Valid votes 1,404,775 Agustín P. Justo (Demócrata 452,560 Nacional) Lisandro de la Torre (Alianza 436,125 Demócrata Progresista Socialista) Other parties with representation 412,877 Other parties without representation 103,213

% – 73.4 9.6 90.4 32.2

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 135 237

31.0

124

29.4 7.3

117a Total Absent

a

122 12b 371 5

Includes 24 electors of a sector of the UCR Antipersonalista who did not participate in any alliance, 12 electors of the Partido Liberal and 11 more of the UCR Unificada. b Votes for Francisco Berroetaveña.

1937 Total number Registered voters 2,672,750 Votes cast 2,035,839 Invalid votes 72,902 Valid votes 1,962,937 Roberto M. Ortiz (Concordancia 1,094,685 a Demócrata Nacional) Marcelo T. de Alvear (UCR) 814,750 Other parties without representation 53,502 a

% – 76.2 3.6 96.4 55.8 41.5 2.7

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 248 245 128

127

Total Absent

372 4

The Concordancia was an alliance between the UCR Antipersonalista, the Partido Demócrata Nacional and the Partido Socialista Independiente. They ran separately in the election and joined in the electoral college.

Argentina

110 1946 Total number Registered voters 3,405,173 Votes cast 2,839,507 Invalid votes 71,293 Valid votes 2,768,214 Juan D. Perón (Laborista) 1,487,886 José P. Tamborini (Unión 1,207,080 a Democrática) Other parties without representation 73,248

% – 83.3 2.6 97.4 53.7 43.6

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 304 299 72 66

2.7 Total Absent

a

365 11

Coalition of the following parties: UCR, Partido Socialista, Demócrata Progresista and Partido Comunista.

1951a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Juan D. Perón (Peronista) Ricardo Balbín (UCR) Others a

Total number 8,633,998 7,593,948 122,860 7,471,088 4,745,168 2,415,750 310,170

% – 88.0 1.6 98.4 63.5 32.3 4.2

The direct election of the president according to the constitution of 1949 was abolished in 1955.

1958 Total number Registered voters 10,002,327 Votes cast 9,088,497 Blank votes 814,400 Invalid votes 22,724 Valid votes 8,251,373 Arturo Frondizi (UCRI) 4,070,398 Ricardo Balbín (UCR del Pueblo) 2,617,693 Ernesto R. Meabe (Liberal) 51,092 Other parties without representation 1,512,190

% – 90.9 9.0 0.2 90.8 49.3 31.7 0.6 18.4

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 319 318 142 135 5 5 Total Absent

458 8

Argentina

111

1963 Total number Registered voters 11,353,936 Votes cast 9,717,677 Blank votes 1,828,673 Invalid votes 236,975 Valid votes 7,652,029 Arturo Illia (UCR del Pueblo) 2,441,064 Oscar Alende (UCRI) 1,593,002 Pedro E. Aramburu (Unión del 728,662 Pueblo Argentino) Alfredo Palacios (Socialista 278,856 Argentino) Other parties with representation 2,424,522 Other parties without 185,923 representation

% – 85.6 18.8 2.4 78.8 31.9 20.8 9.5

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 168 270 110 86 42 74

3.6

12

12

31.7 2.4

144

19a

Total Absent Blank votes

a

461 12 3

Carlos Sylvestre Begnis (11 votes), Alejandro Leluar (4), Eduardo Blanchel (3), and León Justo B. (1).

1973 (I) Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Héctor J. Cámpora (FREJULI)a Ricardo Balbín (UCR) Francisco Manrique (Alianza Popular Federalista)b Oscar Alende (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria) Julio Chamizo (Nueva Fuerza) Othersc a

Total number 14,302,497 12,235,481 273,682 51,710 11,910,089 5,899,543 2,535,537 1,757,784

% – 85.5 2.2 0.4 97.3 49.5 21.3 14.8

885,272

7.4

235,305 596,648

2.0 5.0

Formed by the Partido Justicialista, Partido Conservador, Popular Cristiano, other minor socialist parties, and some provincial parties. With Balbín’s assent, a decision was made by the military not to hold a second round, and Cámpora was declared the winner. b Formed by the Movimiento 17 de Octubre, Partido Renovador de la Capital, Unión Popular de Catamarca, Partido Renovador de Corrientes, Partido Demócrata Federal de Misiones, Unión Popular, and Partido Demócrata Progresista. c Including Jorge A. Ramos (FIP; 48,571).

Argentina

112 1973 (II) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Juan D. Perón (FREJULI) Ricardo Balbín (UCR) Francisco Manrique (Alianza Popular Federalista) Others a

Total number 14,302,497 — — 11,897,443 7,359,252a 2,905,719 1,450,998

% – — — — 61.8 24.4 12.2

181,474

1.6

Includes 889,727 votes of the FIP that participated separately but supported Perón.

1983 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Raúl Alfonsín (UCR) Italo A. Lúder (PJ) Oscar Alende (PI) Rogelio Frigerio (MID) Others

Total number 17,929,951 14,927,572 — 14,556,458 7,104,748 5,697,610 411,883 223,763 1,118,454

%

Votes – Electoral Cast 83.3 College in the — Seats Electoral 97.5 Won College 48.8 317 336 39.1 259 247 2.8 2 2 1.5 2 2 7.7 20 1 Total 588 Abstentions from the Electoral College Vote 12

Argentina 1989 Total number Registered voters 20,034,252 Votes cast 17,086,704 Blank votes 221,585 Invalid votes 118,862 Valid votes 16,746,257 Carlos Menem (FREJUPO) 7,956,628 Eduardo Angeloz (UCR) 5,433,369 1,201,015 Alvaro Alsogaray (Alianza de Centro) Eduardo Angeloz (CFI) 779,182a Nestor Vicente (Alianza Izquierda 409,751 Unida) Carlos Menem (Blanco de los 301,527b Jubilados) Guillermo Estévez Boero (Alianza 237,683 Unidad Socialista) Antonio Bussi (Fuerza Republicana) 188,632 c Other parties with representation 82,281 Other candididates or parties 156,189 without representation – Abstentions from the electoral college vote a

113 % – 85.3 1.3 0.7 98.0 47.5 32.5 7.2

Votes Electoral Cast College in the Seats Electoral Won College 312 325 213 231 33 33

4.7 2.5

21 1

1.8

7

1.4

0

0

1.1 0.5 0.9

7 6 0

7 0

–

–

3

1

The CFI supported Angeloz and vice presidential candidate Guzmán while the UCR supported Angeloz and vice presidential candidate Casella. b This includes only votes won by the Partido Blanco de los Jubilados in those provinces where the party supported Menem. c Three district level parties did not present a presidential candidate, but a list of presidential electors and won electoral college seats. The Movimiento Popular Neuquino won 35,446 votes and four seats, the Alianza Bloquista (led by the Partido Bloquista) won 27,004 votes and one seat, and Acción Chaqueña won 19,831 votes and one seat.

Argentina

114 1995 Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Carlos Menem (PJ)a José O. Bordón (Frepaso)b Horacio Massacessi (UCR)c Aldo Rico (Movimiento por la Dignidad y la Independencia) Others

a

Total number 22,178,154 18,203,452 653,434 155,167 17,394,851 8,680,520 5,095,929 2,955,997 294,467 367,938

% – 82.1 3.6 0.9 95.6 49.9 29.3 17.0 1.7 2.1

Several other parties (e.g. Acción Chaqueña, Movimiento Popular Jujeño, Partido Bloquista, Partido Renovador de Salta, UCeDé) also presented Menem as their candidate. These votes are included in Menem’s overall total. b Includes votes received from the lists of the Alianza Cruzada-Frente Grande and Alianza Frente País in San Juan, and of the Movimiento de Izquierda en Chaco. c Includes votes received in three provinces from the MID, and in Córdoba from the Partido Federal (the Partido Federal presented Menem as its candidate in Capital Federal).

1999 Total number Registered voters 24,121,947 Votes cast 19,878,018 Blank votes 728,408 Invalid votes 199,987 Valid votes 18,949,623 a Fernando de la Rúa (Alianza TJE) 9,165,032 Eduardo Duhalde (Alianza Concer7,330,962 b tación Justicialista por el Cambio) 1,859,461 Domingo Cavallo (Alianza Acción c por la República) Patricia Walsh (Alianza Izquierda 151,208 Unida) Lía Méndez (Partido Humanista) 131,779 Jorge Altamira (Partido Obrero) 113,898 Others 197,283

a

% – 82.4 3.6 1.0 95.3 48.4 38.7 9.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.0

Other parties that participated outside the Alianza TJE but nevertheless presented de la Rúa as their presidential candidate are included here. Among them are the Pacto Autonomista Liberal in Corrientes and the Partido Demócrata Progresista in Santa Fé. b This total includes votes won by Duhalde as the candidate of the UCeDé in those provinces where the party presented a separate list, except for Santa Fé where the party had Domingo Cavallo as its candidate. Votes won by Duhalde as the candidate of other parties (e.g. Partido Nuevo in Corrientes) are also included in this total. c UCeDé votes in Santa Fé are included with Cavallo’s vote total.

Argentina 2003 Total number Registered voters 25,480,440 Votes cast 19,930,111 Blank votes 196,574 Invalid votes 345,642 Valid votes 19,387,895 Carlos S. Menem (Alianza Frente 4,740,907 a por la Lealtad) Néstor C. Kirchner (Alianza Frente 4,312,517 para la Victoria) 3,173,475 Ricardo López Murphy (Alianza Movimiento Federal para Recrear el Crecimiento) Adolfo Rodriguez Saá (Alianza 2,735,829 b Frente Movimiento Popular) Elisa M. A. Carrió (ARI) 2,723,574 Leopoldo R. G. Moreau (UCR) 453,360 Patricia Walsh (Alianza Izquierda 332,863 Unida) Alfredo P. Bravo (Socialista) 217,385 Jorge Altamira (Partido Obrero) 139,399 Enrique Venturino (Confederación 129,764 para que se vayan todos) Guillermo A. Sullings (Humanista) 105,702 c Others 323,120

a

115 % – 78.2 1.0 1.7 97.3 24.5 22.2 16.4 14.1 14.0 2.3 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.7

Including votes for Menem garnered by the UCeDé. Including votes for Rodriguez Saá garnered by the Partido Unión y Libertad. c José C. Arcagni (Alianza Tiempo de Cambios; 63,449 votes), Mario Mazzitelli (Partido Socialista Auténtico; 50,239), Carlos A. Zaffore (MID; 47,951), Manuel E. Herrera (Partido Demócrata Cristiano; 47,750), Gustavo Breide Obeid (Partido Popular de la Reconstrucción; 42,460), Juan R. Mussa (Alianza Unidos o Dominados; 39,505), Ricardo C. Terán (MODIN; 31,766). b

Argentina

116 2.10 List of Power Holders 1916–2004 Head of State Hipólito Irigoyen

Years 1916–1922

Marcelo T. de Alvear Hipólito Irigoyen

1922–1928 1928–1930

José Félix Uriburu

1930–1932

Agustín P. Justo

1932–1938

Roberto M. Ortiz

1938–1942

Ramón S. Castillo

1942–1943

Pedro Pablo Ramírez 1943–1944

Edelmiro J. Farrel

1944–1946

Juan Domingo Perón 1946–1955

Eduardo Lonardi

1955

Pedro Eugenio Aramburu Arturo Frondizi

1955–1958 1958–1962

José María Guido Arturo H. Illia

1962–1963 1963–1966

Remarks Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1916. Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1922. Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1928. He was overthrown by a military coup on 06/09/1930. Military officer. Provisional president. He took over office after the coup of 06/09/1930 and remained in power until 20/02/1932. Military officer. Elected president. Assumed office on 20/02/1932. Elected president. Assumed office on 20/02/1938 and resigned due to illness on 24/07/1942. Assumed office on 25/07/1942. He resigned after a coup d’état on 04/06/1943. Military officer. Assumed office on 06/06/1943, replacing General Rawson who, as president of the military junta, had taken over the presidency on 04/06/1943. Resigned on 09/03/1944. Military offcer. He was vice president under Ramírez and assumed office on 10/03/1944. Elected president. Assumed office on 04/06/1946. He was overthrown by a coup d’état on 16/09/1955 but remained in office until 23/09/1955. Military officer. Assumed office on 23/09/1955. Military officer. Assumed office on 13/11/1955. Elected president. Assumed office on 01/05/1958. He was overthrown by the the military on 29/03/1962. Assumed office on 29/03/1962. Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1963 and was overthrown by a coup d’état on 28/06/1966.

Argentina

117

Head of State (cont.) Years Juan Carlos Onganía 1966–1970 Roberto M. Levingston

1970–1971

Alejandro A. Lanusse Héctor J. Cámpora

1971–1973

Raúl Lastiri

1973

Juan D. Perón

1973–1974

María E. Martínez de Perón

1974–1976

Jorge R. Videla

1976–1981

Roberto E. Viola

1981

Leopoldo Galtieri

1981–1982

Reynaldo A. Bignone Raúl A. Alfonsín

1982–1983

Carlos S. Menem

1989–1999

Fernando de la Rúa

1999–2001

Ramón Puerta

2001

Adolfo Rodríguez Saá

2001

Eduardo Camaño

2001

Eduardo Duhalde

2002–2003

Néstor Kirchner

2003–

1973

1983–1989

Remarks Military officer. Assumed office on 29/06/1966 and was removed by the military junta on 08/06/1970. Military officer. Assumed office on 18/06/1970. The military junta removed him on 22/03/1971. Military officer. Assumed office on 23/03/1971. Elected president. Assumed office on 25/05/1973 and resigned on 13/07/1973. President of the chamber of deputies. Assumed office on 13/07/1973 in lieu of Cámpora. Elected president. Assumed office on 12/10/1973 and died in office on 01/07/1974. Being the vice president she replaced Perón on 01/07/1974. She was overthrown by a coup d’état on 24/03/1976. Military officer. Assumed office on 29/03/1976. Military officer. Assumed office on 30/03/1981. Military officer. Assumed office on 22/12/1981 and resigned on 17/06/1982. Military officer. Assumed office on 01/07/1982. Elected president. Assumed office on 10/12/1983. He resigned on 08/07/1989, six months before the regular end of his term. Elected president. Assumed office on 08/07/1989. Elected president. Assumed office on 10/12/1999 and resigned on 20/12/2001. President of the senate; he took over the vacant presidency on 21/12/2001. Elected by the legislative assembly. Assumed office on 23/12/2001 and resigned on 30/12/2001. President of the chamber of deputies. President for one day on 31/12/2001. Elected by the legislative assembly as provisional president. Assumed office on 01/01/2002. Assumed office on 25/05/2003.

118

Argentina

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Departamento Coordinación y Estadística, Dirección Nacional Electoral, Ministerio del Interior, República Argentina (2001). Departamento Archives. Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1983). Elecciones. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación. Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1984). Sistema electoral nacional. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación. Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1987). Elecciones nacionales generales. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación. Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (1987). Régimen electoral. Legislación nacional. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación. Dirección de Información Parlamentaria (2002). DIP Archives. Buenos Aires: Congreso de la Nación. Dirección Nacional Electoral (1987). Fechas de actos comiciales. Buenos Aires: Ministerio del Interior. Dirección Nacional Electoral, Departamento de Estadisticas (1999). Archives of the Departamento de Estadisticas. Dirección Nacional del Servicio Estadístico (1950). Anuario estadístico de la República Argentina, Vol. I, 1949–1950. Buenos Aires. Legislación Electoral. Código Electoral Nacional. Cordoba (Argentina): Editorial Comercio y Justicia. Leyes de Elecciones Nacionales y de Formación del Padrón Electoral con sus respectivos Decretos Reglementarios (1914). Buenos Aires: Librería Nacional. Subsecretaria de Informaciones (1946). Las fuerzas armadas restituyen el imperio de la soberania popular. Buenos Aires: Ministerio del Interior.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Academia Nacional de la Historia (1965). Historia argentina contemporánea. Buenos Aires. Adrogué, G. (1995). ‘El nuevo sistema partidario argentino’, in C. Acuña (ed.), La nueva matriz política argentina. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 27–70. Alcántara Saez, M. (1987). ‘Hacia la alternancia política en Argentina? (Las elecciones del 6 de setiembre de 1987)’, in Revista de Estudios Políticos, Nueva Epoca (Madrid), 58: 300–302.

Argentina

119

Badeni, G. (1976). Comportamiento electoral en Argentina. Buenos Aires: Plus Ultra. Botana, N. (1977). El orden conservador. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. Botana, N. et al. (1985). La Argentina electoral. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. Brenes Camacho, G. (1989). ‘Argentina’, in Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano, 1: 36–41. Cabrera, E. and Murillo, V. (1994). ‘The 1993 Argentine Elections’, in Electoral Studies, 13: 150–156. Calvo, E. and Abal Medina, J. M. (eds.). (2001). El Federalismo Electoral Argentino: Sobrerepresentación, reforma política y gobierno dividido en la Argentina. Buenos Aiers: EUDEBA. Cantón, D. (1969). Materiales para el estudio de la sociología política en la Argentina, Vol. I. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigación Torcuato di Tella. — (1973). Elecciones y partidos políticos en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI. — (1985). El pueblo soberano. Las elecciones de 1983. Buenos Aires. Cantón, D. et al. (1986). La democracia constitucional y su crisis. Buenos Aires: Paidós. Catterberg, E. (1991). Argentina Confronts Politics: Political Culture and Public Opinion in the Argentine Transition to Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Corbacho, A. L. (1998). ‘Reformas Constitucionales y Modelos de Decision en la Democracia Argentina, 1984-1994’, in Desarrollo Económico, 37: 591–616. De Luca, M., Jones, M. P., and Tula, M. I. (2002). ‘Back Rooms or Ballot Boxes? Candidate Nomination in Argentina’, in Comparative Political Studies, 35: 413–36. De Luca, M. and Malamud, A. (1996). ‘La estabilidad democrática en la Argentina de fin de siglo’, in J. Pinto (ed.), Las nuevas democracias del Cono Sur: cambios y continuidades. Buenos Aires: Oficina de Publicaciones (CBC) de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 215–242. De Riz, L. (1995). ‘Argentina: Democracy in Turmoil’, in J. I. Domínguez and A. F. Lowenthal (eds.), Constructing Democratic Governance: South America in the 1990s. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 147–165. Del Carril, B. (1989). Los colegios electorales en la democracia masiva. Buenos Aires: Ed. Emecé. Echegaray, F. (1993). ‘¿Adiós al bipartidismo imperfecto? Elecciones y partidos provinciales en la Argentina’, in Nueva Sociedad, 124: 46–52. Etchepareborda, R. (1983). Irigoyen/1. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina.

120

Argentina

— (1983). Irigoyen/2. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina. Ferreira Rubio, D. and Goretti, M. (1998). ‘When the President Governs Alone: The Decretazo in Argentina, 1989–93’, in J. M. Carey and M. S. Shugart (eds.), Executive Decree Authority. New York: Cambridge University Press, 33–61. Ferrer, G. (1971). Los partidos políticos. Buenos Aires: Colección Historia Popular. Fraga, R. (1995). Argentina en las Urnas 1916-1994. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios Union para la Nueva Mayoría. Fundación de Estudios Contemporáneos (FUNDECO) (1981). Partidos políticos. Estatuto de ordenamiento. Sistema electoral. Buenos Aires: FUNDECO. Galletti, A. (1961). La política y los partidos. Buenos Aires. Gallo, E. and Cortés Conde, R. (1972). La República Conservadora. Buenos Aires. — (1973). La formación de la Argentina moderna. Buenos Aires: Paidós. Gallo, R. (1983). La división del radicalismo. Buenos Aires: Ed. Belgrano. García, C. R. (1983). Historia de los grupos y partidos políticos de la República Argentina desde 1810 a 1983. Buenos Aires: Sainte Claire. Gibson, E. L. (1996). Class and Conservative Parties: Argentina in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gómez de la Fuente, P. and Pérez Colman, C. (1995). Glosario Electoral Argentino. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor Argentino. González Calderón, J. (1975). Curso de derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Ed. Depalma. Haffa, A. (1984). ‘Wahlen und Redemokratisierungsprozeß in Argentinien’, in D. Nohlen (ed.), Wahlen und Wahlpolitik in Lateinamerika. Heidelberg: Esprint, 109–128. Halperín Donghi, T. (1986). La democracia de masas. Buenos Aires: Paidós. Jones, M. P. (2002). ‘Explaining the High Level of Party Discipline in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies’, in S. Morgenstern and B. Nacif (eds.), Legislative Politics in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 147–184. — (1997). ‘Evaluating Argentina’s Presidential Democracy: 1983–1995’, in S. Mainwaring and M. S. Shugart (eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 259–299. Jorrat, J. R. (1986). ‘Las elecciones de 1983: ¿Desviación o realineamiento?’, in Desarrollo Económico, 101: 89–120. Kvaternic, E. (1987). Crisis sin salvataje: la crisis político-militar de 1962– 63. Buenos Aires: Ides. Levitsky, S. (2001). ‘An Organized Disorganization: Informal Organization and the Persistence of Local Party Structures in Argentine Peronism’, in Journal of Latin American Studies, 33: 29–65.

Argentina

121

López, E. (1986). ‘Argentina: procesos electorales y consolidación de la democracia’, in Sistemas Electorales y representación política en Latinoamérica. Madrid: Fundación Ebert-ICI. Luna, F. (1973). Argentina de Perón a Lanusse. Buenos Aires: Planeta. — (1981). Irigoyen. Buenos Aires: Ed. Belgrano. McGuire, J. W. (1995). ‘Political Parties and Democracy in Argentina’, in S. Mainwaring and T. R. Scully (eds.), Building Democratic Institutions. Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 200–246. — (1997). Peronism Without Perón: Unions, Parties, and Democracy in Argentina. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Manzetti, L. (1993). Institutions, Parties, and Coalitions in Argentine Politics. Pittsburgh, Pen.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Maronese, L., Cafiero de Nazar, A., and Waisman, V. (1985). El voto peronista 1983. Perfil electoral y causas de la derrota. Buenos Aires: El Cid. Matienzo, J. N. (1917). El gobierno representativo federal en la República Argentina. Madrid. Mazo, G. del (1964). Breve historia del radicalismo. Buenos Aires: Coepla. Melo, C. (1970). Los partidos políticos argentinos. Córdoba (Argentina): Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Miguens, J. E. (1983). ‘The presidential elections of 1973 and the end of an ideology’, in F. Turner and J. E. Miguens (eds.), Juan Perón and the Reshaping of Argentina. Pittsburgh, Pen.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 147–170. Molinelli, N. G. (1991). Clase Política y Reforma Electoral. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. — (1989). Colegios electorales y asambleas legislativas 1854-1983. Buenos Aires: Manantial. Molinelli, N. G., Palanza, M. V., and G. Sin. (1999). Congreso, Presidencia y Justicia en Argentina: Materiales para su estudio. Buenos Aires: CEDI Fundación Gobierno y Sociedad, Temas Grupo Editorial. Mora y Araujo, M. and Llorente, I. (eds.) (1980). El voto peronista. Ensayos de sociología electoral argentina. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. Nohlen, D. (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. Novaro, M. and Palermo, V. (1998). Los Caminos de la Centroizquierda: Dilemas y Desafíos del Frepaso y de la Alianza. Buenos Aires: Editorial Losada. Palacio, E. (1988). Historia de la Argentina 1515–1983. Buenos Aires: Ed. XV, Abeledo-Perrot. Palermo, V. (1986). Democracia interna en los partidos. Las elecciones partidarias de 1983 en el radicalismo y justicialismo porteños. Buenos Aires: IDES.

122

Argentina

Peralta-Ramos, M. (1989). Class Conflict and Political Instability in Argentina since 1930. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Ramella, P. (1986). Derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Ed. De Palma. Rock, D. (1975). Politics in Argentina, 1890-1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romero, L. A. et al. (1968). El radicalismo. Buenos Aires: Carlos Pérez Editor. Rowe, J. W. (1963). The Argentine Elections of 1963. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems (ICOPS). Sabsay, D. A. and Onaindia, J. M. (1994). La Constitución de los Argentinos: Análisis de Su Texto Luego de la Reforma de 1994. Buenos Aires: Errepar. Schoultz, L. (1983). The Populist Challenge: Argentine Electoral Behavior in the Post War Era. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Serrafero, M. D. (1997). Reelección y Sucesión Presidencial. Poder y Continuidad. Argentina, América Latina, y E.E.U.U. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano. Smith, P. (1974). Argentina and the Failure of Democracy: Conflict Among Political Elites. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. Tula, M. I. (1995). ‘La reforma electoral en los ’90: algunos comentarios sobre la Ley de Lemas en la Argentina’, in R. Sidicaro and J. Mayer (eds.), Política y sociedad en los años del menemismo. Buenos Aires: Carrera de Ciencia Política-Oficina de Publicaciones (CBC) de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 243–68. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (1988). El constitucionalismo en las postrimerías del siglo XX. México: UNAM. Zarini, H. J. (1984). Constitución de la Nación Argentina. Buenos Aires: De Palma.

BOLIVIA by Jorge Lazarte R.

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Bolivia is a multicultural and pluri-ethnic country with an indigenous majority, and a population estimated at 8,274,325 according to the 2001 census. Its major natural resources, which have greatly influenced the history of the country, are distributed across a territory of 1,098,581 square kilometers. Today, Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in the region, with one of the fastest growing rates of income inequality. From the foundation of the Republic in 1825 the political system has been organized around three branches of state: the executive, legislature and judiciary. The constitutional reforms of 1994 introduced a Constitutional Tribunal, a Judicial Council, and a Human Rights Ombudsman. Until 1982, Bolivia was regarded as one of the most unstable countries in the region. Currently under democratic rule, it is experiencing the longest period of political stability in its history. After independence in 1825, Bolivia went through a period of military regimes led by so-called caudillos. These caused political instability and economic stagnation and lasted until the end of the Pacific War against Chile (1879–1880). For Bolivia, the war ended in 1880, when it abandoned the conflict following the defeat of El Alto de la Alianza. In the years after the war, Bolivia’s economy experienced a boom, triggered by the discovery of large silver and later tin deposits. This economic upturn led to the emergence and consolidation of a new oligarchic elite, which was based on the mining industry and ore exports. These factors led to an initial period of modernization facilitated by the creation of political parties and the growing awareness that political stability was a necessary condition for economic growth. Between 1884 and 1920, the emerging multi-party system was dominated by two parties, the conservative Partido Conservador and the liberal Partido Liberal. From the 1920s onwards, the Partido Republicano took power. Although it was a breakthrough that these parties had come into existence at all, they still

124

Bolivia

competed within a restricted democracy, tainted by unreliable election results and political violence. With regard to the basic principles of suffrage, the various constitutions enacted in the 19th century were very similar. The right to vote did not include women, Indians, the poor or illiterate. Regardless of some small changes, this system prevailed until 1952. During the first two decades of the 20th century, trade union structures emerged and a more pluralist trend in politics could be observed: new political ideologies, parties and social groups appeared. In turn, the influence of the traditional elite began to decline. This process was accelerated by the worldwide economic crisis of 1930 and particularly by the national unrest provoked by the Bolivian defeat in the Chaco War against Paraguay (1932–1935). The post-war period deepened the crisis of the oligarchic establishment, which culminated in the so-called Revolución Nacional in 1952. This change of power was brought about by the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR; Revolutionary Nationalist Movement). Founded in 1941, it was mainly supported by miners and the urban lower and middle classes. The revolution was the climax of a period of unrest. Harsh repressions against the unions, Indians, and the political opposition together with the abrogated elections in 1951, which should have been won by the MNR, had led to a popular insurrection. As for the 1951 election, it became clear that the MNR would be victorious shortly after the ballots had been closed. As a result, even before all votes had been counted, the then incumbent government resigned in favor of a military junta in order to prevent a so-called communist take-over. The following turmoil ended with the defeat of the army and the collapse of the old system in 1952. During the subsequent period, the MNR-government was actively supported by the powerful Central Obrera Boliviana (COB; Bolivian Labor Headquarters), the Bolivian Workers Union. This alliance introduced important reforms, such as the agrarian reform, the nationalization of mines and universal suffrage. Undeniably, the implementation of universal suffrage was a step forward. However, it did not put an end to political violence or electoral fraud. These problems simply changed in scale and became a ‘bad habit’. Overall, many of the revolutionary goals were not reached and the government failed to establish a democratic order with fair and regular elections. Moreover, the political arena became determined by an increasingly bitter conflict between the COB and the MNR government. The re-election of MNR leader and president Víctor Paz Estenssoro, with a constitutional reform imposed using the party’s congressional

Bolivia

125

majority, was the spark which is triggered a military coup d’état led by General René Barrientos in November 1964. This marked the beginning of an instable period of authoritarian and conservative military regimes. When civil and political liberties were withheld, this led to political and social uproar. The unions were seen as the most important opposition, but guerrillas gained relevance, particularly the movement led by Che Guevara. In this context of violence, confrontation, and general ungovernability a new conservative military coup d’état took place in 1971. For the next decade, Bolivia’s political system was characterized by antagonism between the military forces and unions, in particular the COB. The elections that were held during this period were semicompetitive, fraudulent, and solely aimed at legitimizing the military government. There were very few guarantees regarding the organization of parties and the right to exercise the right to vote. Although the military leaders did not abolish political parties in general, inner-party democracy was weakened and the hitherto most important mass party, the MNR, suffered various splits, which led to the creation of various other parties. However, the MNR was still the dominant player in this polarized and fragmented party system. The end of the military regime was brought about in 1982, after successive political crises and internal struggles within the armed forces. Mainly due to pressure from the unions, the business sector and the Church, the last military government ceded power to the Unión Democrática y Popular (UDP; Democratic and Popular Unity), a center-left coalition. The UDP had already won the elections held in June 1980. However, another military coup d’état prevented it from governing. Redemocratisation did not begin until 1982, when competitive elections were held regularly. In the general elections of 1985, President Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) handed power over to the winning candidate of the opposition, Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR). Even though the country had to cope with a severe economic crisis caused by hyperinflation, the change in government in 1989 respected the democratic rules. Thus, Jaime Paz Zamora of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (MIR; Movement of the Revolutionary Left), a social-democratic party took office. However, both changes were not a direct result of the elections. Neither Paz Estenssoro nor Paz Zamora won a majority of votes, but were elected by congress. Both governments were backed by majority coalitions in parliament in order to avoid the presidency of former military leader Hugo Banzer of the Acción Democrática y Nacionalista (ADN; Nationalist Democratic Action). These majorities were also the necessary basis for important

126

Bolivia

reforms to strengthen parties, the constitution and the electoral law in the late 1980s and early 90s. The 1980s also saw a process of consolidation within the party system. The resulting most important parties were the MNR, the MIR, the ADN. Later, populist parties with authoritarian structures, such as the Conciencia de Patria (CONDEPA; Fatherland’s Conscience) and the Unión Cívica Solidaridad (UCS; Civic Union Solidarity), emerged to channel popular dissatisfaction with the political system. Thus, they acted as an important element of the redemocratization process. In 1993, Gonzalo Sánchez de Losada (MNR) became head of state with a clear majority of votes far ahead of the next candidate, Banzer. Despite his majority, Sánchez de Losada built up a coalition government comprising the MNR, the USC, the center-left Movimiento Bolivia Libre (MBL; Movement Free Bolivia) and the ethnic-cultural Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari de Liberación (MRTKL; Revolutionary Movement of Liberation Tupaj Katari). Between 1993 and 1997, this coalition implemented important economic and social reforms, such as the privatization of various companies, the reform of the pension system, educational reforms, and the extension of democracy. The general elections of 1997 were won by the ADN, which achieved not only the relative majority but whose candidate, former general Banzer, could finally take office as president. He was supported by the ADN’s coalition partners, the MIR, the UCS, and the CONDEPA. The biggest challenge for Banzer was to prove that he could rule the country democratically. With the aim of distancing himself from his authoritarian past, Banzer tried to govern with minimum recourse to violence, but in doing so, he allowed social conflicts to paralyze the government. He was unable to complete his presidential mandate due to serious illness and resigned in August 2001, leaving the country in a state of economic recession in the midst of the political vacuum. Banzer was replaced by Vice President Jorge Quiroga, who concluded the presidential period with a change in style of government. In the 2002 elections, an electoral revolution in which the poor voted for their kind of leader, for the first time in the history of the country, to a multi-ethnic and pluri-cultural parliament, with a strong presence of indigenous representatives. This phenomenon was in parallel to the collapse of the system of parties which had dominated the political landscape for the last 20 years. A new system of political parties emerged in their place, polarized between the systemic traditional parties and the new anti-systemic parties. Both processes reflect growing popular dis-

Bolivia

127

content which has manifested itself in recent years in different forms of social ingovernability. The electoral results of 2002 were an additional test of political and institutional stability, but altered the balance of power in the political class. While the traditional political parties continued to govern, the opposition was now in the hands of the anti-systemic parties, which had a strong political presence in congress, and the capacity for social mobilization in the streets. These developments reflected demands for change in two directions: more participative institutional reforms, and a redirection of the neoliberal economic model which had been in place since 1985. When the government tried to strike an economically very unfavorable deal with Mexico and the USA, widespread dissatisfaction led to popular unrest at the end of October 2003. The riots culminated in the forced resignation of President Lozada and his flight to the USA. Lozada was succeeded by his former vice president Mesa whose aim was to reconcile the protesting citizens and to depart from the strictly liberal economic policy. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since independence in 1825, Bolivia’s electoral system has been shaped by the numerous constitutions and electoral laws. On the national level, these regulations referred to the presidential and parliamentary elections. During the 19th century, the president was elected for a term varying between three years and the rest of the respective candidate’s life. Later the term of office was either four or five years. Re-election was usually impossible. Only the 1886 and the 1956 Constitutions allowed for a president to stand in the following election period. In 1839, the direct election of the president was introduced. In order to win, a candidate had to gain two-thirds of all the votes. Later, it was sufficient to obtain the majority of votes. The constitution of 1956 even established plurality rule. If these criteria were not met, the president was chosen by the congress from the group of most successful candidates. Taking this provision into account, Bolivia is often classified as ‘parliamentarized presidentialism’. Both houses of congress, the senate and the house of representatives, were elected for a term ranging from three to eight years. These elections were held in a way that only a part of the respective house—either a third or half of it—was renewed at a time. Sometimes there were regulations ruling out re-election of a candidate.

128

Bolivia

Until redemocratization, the number of seats in the house of representatives had always been dependent on the population size in each constituency. Before 1924 and after 1956, there were eight or nine MMCs; between 1924 and 1956 regulations provided either for SMCs or for smaller MMCs. Since the 1980 elections, the number of seats has been fixed to 130. Voters had a single vote with which they could vote for a closed list. This vote was simultaneously used to determine the distribution of seats in the senate and the race for presidency. Until 1878, this was done following majority rules; from then on plurality rules applied. Since 1956, seats had been distributed according to various proportionality formulas, which changed frequently after Bolivia’s redemocratization. The system was further complicated by quotas and thresholds. The fact that these restrictions could be overruled by the National Electoral Court (NEC) added to the confusing character of the allocation of seats, particularly as the NEC was controlled by the major parties, which were continually losing the trust of the electorate. This increasingly unsatisfying situation, which threatened to undermine the legitimacy of the system, led to the major electoral reform in 1994. The main alteration was the shift to a mixed-member proportional system based on the German model. Its aims were to strengthen the representatives versus their parties, to link them to their constituencies and to improve the voters’ choice. From then on, voters have had two votes: one for a list, the other for a candidate of the respective constituency. The former not only determines the overall distribution of the now constitutionally-fixed 130 seats, but is also used to elect the president and the senators. Despite this wide-ranging overhaul, there were still some unclear issues hindering a smooth running of the system, particularly in regard to potential overhang seats. Thus, in 1997, another reform was introduced in order to amend the constitution. It established a nationwide threshold of 3%, the use of the d’Hondt formula, and the regulation that there must not be overhang seats. This means that nominal-tier seats that exceed the number of seats a party is entitled to according to its overall listed votes in a certain departamento, will lead to a reduction of the distributed list seats. The law provides for the least successful parties to be the first ones that will be deprived of seats. The senate has always comprised a fixed number of deputies. Each departamento has sent the same number of senators. Initially, they were elected in two-member-constituencies; since 1966 the departamentos have been divided into three-member constituencies. Until that year, a majority of votes was required to win a constituency. From 1966 on-

Bolivia

129

wards, the party with most votes obtained two seats, the second-best party one. In regard to suffrage, Bolivia’s electoral history can be divided into two stages. The first period was ended by the National Revolution, which destroyed the traditional oligarchic system. Until 1952, both active and passive suffrage were restricted to literate male citizens. Already mentioned in the constitution of 1826, this constraint was explicitely laid down in the constitution of 1839. From 1831 onwards, passive suffrage became linked to a minimum income or level of wealth. Nine years later, these limitations were extended to active suffrage as well. As a consequence, native citizens became excluded from the right to vote. In contrast to this, during the 19th century, foreigners were entitled to take part in elections if they fulfilled certain requirements, as for example in regard to the length of their stay in the country. Thus, until 1956, the Bolivian population was divided into citizens with rights, native-born citizens, nationalized citizens, and Bolivians without the right to vote. It was not until 1952, that universal suffrage was introduced. All unmarried Bolivians, including women, were granted the right to vote as soon as they were 21 years old. Married couples could vote once they were 18. The Electoral Statute of 1956, and later the 1959 Law acknowledged the right of citizenship to all Bolivians, men and women over the age of 21, but made no reference to married couples. The constitutional reform of 1995 established the age of citizenship at 18, thus abolishing the distinction with married couples. The reforms of the electoral law in 1997 abolished this distinction and established 18 as the minimum age for all Bolivians. Passive suffrage, however, remained restricted to literate citizens until 1961. The new system also kept compulsory voting, which had been introduced in 1924. Under democracy, the opposition parties and the government have passed successive electoral and constitutional reforms. This has been instrumental in solving the most serious problem in Bolivia; namely the chronic instability and non-governability of the political system. The reforms of the Electoral Law in 1991 established new rules and guarantees for the electoral system, which included the principle of preclusion, by which the results of the polling station cannot be revised, and the system of election of the Electoral Court by a two-third congressional majority. The law of 1992 established the irrevocable principle for Electoral Court resolutions. The Electoral Law of 1997 regulated the election for uni-nominal representatives of the lower chamber, introduced in the Constitutional Reform of 1995. Finally, in 1999 the Electoral Law became the Electoral Code. All these developments are evidence of

130

Bolivia

this political compromise and of concerted agreements that have transformed the basis of Bolivia’s political stability, creating a new political order. Since 1985 an alternation in government has taken place in each legislative period. Furthermore, the position of parliament in the political process has been strengthened as regards the role of the president. 1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Political Constitution of 1995 and the Electoral Code of 1999 establish the legal bases for the electoral system. Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, direct, equal, and secret. Every Bolivian citizen has the right to vote as soon as he or she turns 18. All citizens must register to be allowed to vote. Voting is compulsory. Passive suffrage requires a certain minimum age, 35 years for president of the republic, vice president and senator, and 25 years for members of the lower house. Bolivian citizenship and—for male candidates—the completion of military service. Elected national institutions: president and bicameral congress consisting of the house of representatives and the senate. The president is elected by the same vote that is used to determine the overall distribution of seats in the house of representatives and to elect the senators. The term of office is five years for each. Nomination of candidates: Parties have the monopoly of nominating candidates for all three institutions. However, it is customary for the parties to add the names of independents to their lists. The constitution also allows for civil institutions to participate in elections and to present candidates, but only in alliance with political parties, after legal recognition by the Electoral Court. This has not been the case since the 1960s. In fact, these alliances have been formed very rarely. Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority. If no candidate achieves this majority, congress chooses the president from the two best-placed candidates. If there is a draw, this procedure can be repeated twice. If no clear result is obtained after these two additional rounds, the candidate who achieved a simple majority in the general elections is automatically elected. The second best candidate is elected vice president.

Bolivia

131

- parliamentary elections: The seats in the house of representatives are allocated using the mixed-member proportional system (MMP), providing the voter with two votes. The house consists of 130 members: 68 are elected according to the first-past-the-post system in SMCs (first vote), the remaining 62 are elected from closed lists in nine MMCs (second vote), which vary in size based on their population. These 62 seats are allocated proportionally using the d’Hondt formula. In order to be represented in the house, a party must obtain at least 3% of the valid votes at national level. The overall distribution of seats is determined by the share of list votes each party gets. Regional lists may not be linked, and there are no overhang seats. If the number of directly-elected candidates exceeds the number of seats a party is entitled to in a certain departamento, the overall number of seats to be allocated to the lists in the respective departamento will be reduced. This reduction happens at the expense of the weakest parties. The senate has 27 seats, three for each departamento. Based on the share of list votes in each of these nine districts, the most successful party obtains two seats, the second best, one. Organizational context of elections: According to the constitution and the Electoral Code, the National Electoral Court is responsible for organizing and administering the elections, supported by the Departmental Courts in each departamento. The National Electoral Court has both jurisdictional and administrative functions. Its decisions on electoral matters are not open to appeal. It is independent of any other state institution. It consists of seven members. Four are elected by a twothirds’ majority in congress and one is appointed by the president. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics With respect to electoral statistics, two stages can be distinguished in the period starting from 1952. The first period extends to 1985, and the official reports submitted to congress by the Electoral Court are untraceable. For the purposes of this article the Legislative Annual Reports (1956, 1960, and 1964) of congress have been used to report the results of each electoral process. The data on the partial renovation of congress can be found in the parliamentary reports (1958, 1962) of the lower chamber of congress. Neither of these sources coincide with the data included in the tables, nor do they reflect the same information. Thus, additional information

132

Bolivia

from the press has been very important. It is worth stressing that the differences in information are minor. This explains in part the different electoral results which feature in several publications and which frequently cite no sources, and are repeated over time. The electoral data used in this article have been checked against the official sources that are available, correcting many old and widely-cited errors, with the exception of the data for the 1978 and 1980s, taken from Mesa (2003). This source has also been used for the list of power-holders. Under these conditions, the press became the most accessible source of electoral information in these years. Nowadays, the information of the yearly reports of the national congress has become more accessible. These are the reports sent by the electoral authorities. Another source of consultation are the various publications, such as essays and research papers which are usually obtained from the press. In the second stage, from 1985 to the present day, the situation has been very different as a consequence of democratic institutionalization. Electoral instititutions are now stable and permanent. They have headquarters and offices with available archives, which are appropriatley stored and readily accessible. The reports for each election, printed out and distributed to all parties and the media, can be consulted in the libraries of the national congress and the Electoral Court. In 1991 a process of computerization began in the electoral statistics. The press, in turn, registers the final results of the electoral body, although they are not official. An additional source are the electoral reports elaborated by the Interamerican Institute of Human Rights through its specialized body, the Centre of Assistance and Electoral Training (Centro de Asesoría y Capacitación Electoral, IIDH-CAPEL). CAPEL also registers short reports accompanied by data published in its Latin American Electoral Bulletin. The source for these reforms is the Electoral Court. The National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) also publishes electoral information taken from the National Electoral Court. Other electoral data, such as the percentage of registered voters according to sociodemographic variables, have not been elaborated yet, except for the elections of 1997 and 2002, separated by gender. Some research exists on the orientation of the vote, but the information is not available for each election.

Bolivia

133

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year

Presidential Parliamentary Elections for Referendums Elections Elections Constitutional Assembly 06/05 06/05 17/06 17/06 20/07 05/06 05/06 04/06 31/05 31/05

1951 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1964 1966 03/07 1969 1970 1971 1978 09/07b 1979 01/07 1980 29/06 1981 1982 1985 1989 1993 1997 2002 2004 a b

14/07 07/05 06/06 01/06 30/06

Coups d’étata

05/11 03/07

03/07 26/09 07/10 21/08 21/07 24/11 01/11 18/07 04/08 04/09 19/07

09/07b 01/07 29/06

14/07 07/05 06/06 01/06 30/06 18/07

Only those coups d’état which have brought about a new president are taken into account. Annulled.

Bolivia

134 2.2 Electoral Body Year 1951 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1978 1979 1980 1985 1989f 1993 1997 2002 2004 a

Type of Populationb Registered voters electiona Total % number pop. Pr 2,823,862 204,649 7.2 Pr/Pa 3,139,453 1,126,528 35.8 d Pa 3,279,315 — — Pr/Pa 3,428,092 1,300,000 37.9 d Pa 3,585,790 — — Pr/Pa 3,753,077 1,411,560 37.6 Pr/Pa 3,931,909 1,270,611 32.3 Pr/Pa 5,292,497 1,921,556 36.3 Pr/Pa 5,433,412 1,871,070 34.4 Pr/Pa 5,579,367 2,004,284 35.9 Pr/Pa 6,380,973 2,108,458 33.0 Pr/Pa 7,122,483 2,136,587 29.9 Pr/Pa 7,063,200 2,399,197 33.9 Pr/Pa 7,767,059 3,252,501 41.8 Pr/Pa 8,823,743 4,155,055 47.0 Ref 8,809,000 4,458,293 50.6

Votes cast Total number 126,123c 958,016 472,463c 987,730 1,064,480 1,297,319 1,099,994 1,971,968 1,693,233 1,489,484 1,728,365 1,573,790 1,731,309 2,321,117 2,994,065 2,678,518

% reg. voters 61.6 85.0 — 76.0 — 91.9 86.6 —e 90.5 74.3 82.0 73.7 72.2 71.4 72.06 60.1

% pop. 4.4 30.5 14.4 28.8 29.6 34.5 27.9 37.2 31.1 26.6 27.0 22.0 24.5 29.8 33.9 30.4

Pa = Parliament; Pap = Parliament Partial; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum. Presidential and parliamentary elections are held simultaneously in Bolivia since 1967. b Censuses: 1950: 2,713,630; 1976: 4,613,486; 1992: 6,420,792; and 2001: 8,274,325. Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística. c Only valid votes are available. However, these do not include votes from Beni and Pando. d Mid-term elections. In 1958, according to the corresponding constitution of the time, a third of the senate and half of the chamber of deputies was renewed. The elections were held in the departments of La Paz, Cochabamba, Oruro, Tarija, Beni and Pando. In 1962, this partial renovation took place in the departments of La Paz, Chuquisaca, Cochabamba, Santa Cruz, Oruro, Beni, Pando, Potosí and Tarija. There is no information on the number of registered voters. Following the 1967 reform, both chambers are fully elected, and this takes place at the same time as the presidential election. e In 1978, the official number of voters was higher than the number of registered voters. Elections were annulled because of electoral fraud. f In the presidential elections, the number of voters sank by 10,608 votes, because the FSB did not present a presidential candidate.

Bolivia

135

2.3 Abbreviations ACB ACP ADN ADR ADRN AFIN AID ALIN A-MNR ANPD AP APIN ARBOL ARENA ASD AUR CDC COB CONDEPA CUN EJE FBA FDR-NA FLIN FNP FPU FRB FRI FSB

Acción Cívica Boliviana (Bolivian Civic Action) Acción Cívica Popular (Popular Civic Action) Acción Democrática Nacionalista (Nationalist Democratic Action) Alianza Demócrata Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Democratic Action) Alianza Democrática de la Revolución Nacional (Democratic Alliance of the National Revolution) Alianza de Fuerzas de la Izquierda Nacional (Alliance of the Forces of the National Left) Alianza Institucionalista Democrática (Democratic Institutionalist Alliance) Alianza de Liberación de Izquierda Nacional (Liberation Alliance of the National Left) Alianza del Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (Alliance of the Revolutionary National Movement) Asociación Nacional de Profesionales Demócratas (National Association of Democratic Professions) Acuerdo Patriótico (Patriotic Agreement) Alianza Popular de Integración Nacional (Popular Alliance of National Integration) Alianza Renovadora Boliviana (Bolivian Renewal Alliance) Alianza Renovadora Nacional (National Renewal Alliance) Alternativa al Socialismo Democrático (Alternative to Democratic Socialism) Acción Humanista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Humanist Action) Comunidad Democrática Cristiana (Christian Democratic Community) Central Obrera Boliviana (Bolivian Labor Headquarters) Conciencia de Patria (Fatherland’s Conscience) Comité de Unidad Nacional (National Unity Committee) Eje de Convergencia Patriótica (Axis of Patriotic Accordance) Frente Boliviano Anticomunista (Anti-Communist Bolivian Front) Frente Democrático Revolucionario – Nueva Alternativa (Revolutionary Democratic Front – New Alternative) Frente de Liberación de Izquierda Nacional (Liberation Front of the National Left) Fuerza Nacional Progresista (Progressive National Force) Frente del Pueblo Unido (United People’s Front) Frente de la Revolución Boliviana (Front of the Bolivian Revolution) Frente Revolucionario de Izquierda (Revolutionary Front of the Left) Falange Socialista Boliviana (Bolivian Socialist Falange)

136 FULKA IU LJ MARC MAS MBL MCC MFD MIN MIP MIR MITKA MKN MNR MNR-A MNRA MNRI MNRI-1 MNRP MNR-U MNRV MPC MPLN MRP MRTK MRTK-1 MRTKL

Bolivia Frente Único de Liberación Katarista (United Katarista Liberation Front) Izquierda Unida (United Left) Libertad y Justicia (Liberty and Justice) Movimiento Agrario Revolucionario del Campesinado Farmers’ Revolutionary Agrarian Movement) Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism) Movimiento Bolivia Libre (Movement Free Bolivia) Movimiento Ciudadano para el Cambio (Movement Citizen for Change) Movimiento Federalista Democrático (Democratic Federalist Movement) Movimiento de la Izquierda Nacional (Movement of the National Left) Movimiento Indígena Pachakuti (Pachakuti Indigenous Movement) Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) Movimiento Indio Tupaj Katari (Indian Movement Tupaj Katari) Movimiento Katarista Nacional (National Katarista Movement) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario – Alianza (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement – Alliance) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario Andrade sector (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement Sector Andrade) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario de Izquierda (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement of the Left) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario de Izquierda Uno (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement of the Left One) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario del Pueblo (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario Unido (United Revolutionary Nationalist Movement) Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario Vanguardia (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement Vanguard) Movimiento Popular Cristiano (Christian Popular Movement) Movimiento Popular de Liberación Nacional (Popular Movement of National Liberation) Movimiento Revolucionario Pazestenssorista (Pazestenssorista Revolutionary Movement) Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari (Revolutionary Movement Tupaj Katari) Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari Uno (Revolutionary Movement Tupaj Katari One) Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari de Liberación (Revolutionary Movement of Liberation Tupaj Katari)

Bolivia NFR OID ONI PCB PC-ML PDB PDC PIR PL PMNRA POR PRA PRA-A PRB PRIN-A PRO PRTB PS PS-A PS-A PS-1 PSC PDC PSD PUB PURS UCN UCS UDP UNB UNP VO VR-9 VSB

137 Nueva Fuerza Republicana (New Republican Force) Ofensiva de la Izquierda Democrática (Offensive of the Democratic Left) Organización Nacional de Independientes (National Organization of Independents) Partido Comunista de Bolivia (Communist Party of Bolivia) Partido Comunista Marxista Leninista (Marxist Leninist Communist Party) Partido Democrático Boliviano (Bolivian Democratic Party) Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) Partido de la Izquierda Revolucionario (Party of the Revolutionary Left) Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) Partido del Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario Auténtico (Party of the Authentic National Revolutionary Movement) Partido Obrero Revolucionario (Revolutionary Workers’ Party) Partido Revolucionario Auténtico (Authentic Revolutionary Party) Partido Revolucionario Auténtico – Alianza (Authentic Revolutionary Party – Alliance) Partido Revolucionario Barrientista (Barrientista Revolutionary Party) Partido Revolucionario de la Izquierda Nacional – Alianza (Revolutionary Party of the National Left – Alliance) Partido Ruralista Oriental (Eastern Rural Party) Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores de Bolivia (Revolutionary Party of the Workers of Bolivia) Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Aponte (Socialist Party Aponte) Partido Socialista Atahuichi (Socialist Party Atahuichi) Partido Socialista Uno (Socialist Party One) Partido Social Cristiano (Christian Social Party) Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) Partido Social Demócrata (Social Democratic Party) Partido de la Unión Boliviana (Party of the Bolivian Unity) Partido de la Unión Republicana Socialista (Party of the Socialist Republican Union) Unión Cívica Nacional (National Civic Union) Unión Cívica Solidaridad (Civic Union Solidarity) Unidad Democrática y Popular (Democratic and Popular Unity) Unión Nacional Barrientista (Barrientista National Union) Unión Nacionalista del Pueblo (Nationalist Union of the People) Vanguardia Obrera (Workers’ Vanguard) Vanguardia Revolucionaria 9 de Abril (Revolutionary Vanguard of 9th of April) Vanguardia Socialista de Bolivia (Socialist Vanguard of Bolivia)

Bolivia

138 2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances Party / Alliance

Years

ACB FSBb MNRc PIR PCBd PORe PSCf PMNRA UCN AIDg CDCh FLINi FRBj MNRA MRP ADRNk MITKA MNRP PDCl PRBm PRO PSn UDPo UNPp FRI ADNq APINr MNR-As PS-1 PUB VOt AFIN FDR-NAu MITKA-1 MNR-Uv PRA-Aw PRINx MNRIy MNRI-1z MRTK-Chilaaa ACP

1951 1951–1962; 1980–1993 1951–1964; 1985–2002 1951 1956–1960 1956–1960; 1962; 1985 1958; 1962 1960–1962 1964 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1978 1978–1980 1978 1978–1985 1978 1978 1978; 2002 1978–1980 1978 1978 1979–2002 1979 1979–1980 1979–1989 1979–1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1985 1985 1985 1985

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya 1 1 8 10 9 11 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bolivia Party / Alliance (continued) ARENA AUR FNP FPUbb IUcc MIRdd MNRV MRTKLee CONDEPA FULKA MINff MBLgg MAS NFR LJ MCC a

139 Years 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985–1997 1985–2002 1985 1985–1989 1989–2002 1989 1989 1993–1997 2002 2002 2002 2002

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Only the number of elections to the lower house is indicated. Total number: 15. Member of the CDC in 1966, of the UNP in 1978, of the ADN in 1979, and in alliance with the UCS in 2002. The different divisions of the FSB are not taken into account; they kept the same name and took part in several electoral alliances between 1979 and 1980. c Member of the ARDN in 1978 and of the A-MNR in 1979 and 1980. d Member of the FLIN in 1966, of the UDP in 1978, in 1979 and 1980, of the FPU in 1985 and of the IU in 1989. e Includes various factions with the same name. f The party changed its name to PDC in 1965. g Electoral alliance formed by the PURS and the PL. h Electoral alliance formed by the FSB, the ANPD and the ADR. i PCB-dominated electoral alliance. j Electoral alliance formed by the MPC, the PRA, the PIR and the PSD. k Electoral alliance between the MNR and the PRA in 1978. l Its name was PSC until 1965. The PDC was a member of the A-MNR in 1979, and of the FDR-NA in 1980. It formed an alliance with the PRB in 1978 and with the ADN in 1989, 1993, and 1997. m In 1978, the PRB formed an alliance with the PDC. n After 1978, this party contested elections under the label PS-1. o Electoral alliance comprising in 1978 ALIN, MIR, MIN, MNRI, MPLN, MRTK, OID, PCB and PS-Aponte; in 1979 ALIN, MIN, MIR, MNRI, MPLN, MRTK, PCB, PRIN, PRTB and PSAtahuichi; and in 1980 MIR, MNRI, MPLN, PCB, PS-Atahuichi and VO. p Electoral alliance formed by FSB, PIR, UNB and CUN in 1978. q In 1993, it formed an alliance with the MIR and the PDC. r MARC and a faction of the FSB merged in 1979. s Electoral alliance formed by MNR, MRTK-Chila, PCML, PDC and PRA in 1979, and by MNR, MNRI-1 and PCML in 1980. t Member of the UDP in 1980. u In 1980, electoral alliance comprising the ALIN, the PDC, the PS-Aponte and the OID. v In 1980, the MNR-U formed an alliance with the MIN. w Member of the FRB in 1966, of the ARDN in 1978, of the A-MNR in 1979. Originally, the PMNRA split into the PRA and several other factions. x Member of the FRI in 1978 and of the UDP in 1979. b

Bolivia

140 y

Member of the UDP between 1978 and 1980. Member of the A-MNR in 1980. aa Member of the MNRA in 1979. bb Electoral alliance between the PCB and the MIR-BL in 1985. cc Electoral alliance formed by Eje de Convergencia, the MBL, MIR-Masas and the PCB in 1989.This alliance changed its internal composition in the following years. dd Member of the UDP between 1978 and 1980. In 1993, it formed an alliance with the ADN. ff Member of the UDP in 1978 and 1979. Formed an alliance with the MNR-U in 1980. ee In 1993, it formed an alliance with the MNR. gg In 2002, it formed an alliance with the MNR. z

2.5. Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Blank votes Valid votes Yes No a

2004 Total number 4,458,293 2,678,518 Question Ia 324,168 289,914 2,064,436 1,788,694 275,742

%

Total number

%

60.1

2,670,131 Question IIb 333,924 260,435 2,075,772 1,913,642 162,130

59.9

12.1 10.8 77.1 86.6 13.4

12.5 9.8 77.7 92.2 7.8

The first question asked whether the Hydrocarbons Act 1689 should be repealed. The second question asked if all hydrocarbons at the wellhead should become property of the state again. b

Year (continued) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Blank votes Valid votes Yes No a

2004 Total number 4,458,293 2,670,283 Question IIIa 286,625 329,454 2,054,204 1,793,594 260,610

%

Total number

%

59.9

2,670,106 Question IVb 286,106 457,699 1,926,301 1,055,529 870,772

59.9

10.7 12.3 76.9 87.3 12.7

10.7 17.1 72.2 54.8 45.2

The third question asked whether (the former state-owned oil company) Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB) should be refounded, recovering state’s ownership of all the stakes currently held by Bolivians within capitalized oil companies, so that YPFB could participate in every step of the hydrocarbon production. b The fourth question asked to approve or disapprove president Carlos Mesa’s policy of using gas as a strategic resource to recover a useful and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

Bolivia Year (continued) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Blank votes Valid votes Yes No a

141 2004 Total number 4,458,293 2,669,267 Question Va 312,918 445,435 1,910,914 1,179,893 731,021

% 59.9 11.7 16.7 71.6 61.7 38.3

The last question asked whether Bolivia should export gas under a national policy framework that a) allowed the coverage of gas consum of all Bolivians, b) facilitated the industrialization of gas on national territory, c) imposed on foreign oil firms taxes and/or royalties of up to 50% of the production value of oil and gas, and d) reserved the revenues of the export and the industrialization of gas mainly for education, health, infrastructure, and labor.

2.6. Elections for Constitutional Assembly The general elections of 1966 were called in order to elect the constitutional assembly and the national congress at the same time. 2.7 Parliamentary Elections Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1956–2002 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MNR FSB PCB PSC Othersa a

1956 Total number 1,126,528 958,420 25,532 932,888 787,792 130,494 12,273 – 2,329

% – 85.0 2.7 97.3 84.4 14.0 1.3 – 0.2

1958 Total number — 443,992 9,053 434,939 371,450 53,264 5,343 2,888 1,994

Others include in 1956: POR (2,329 votes). In 1958: POR (1,994).

% – — 2.0 98.0 85.4 12.2 1.2 0.6 0.4

Bolivia

142 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MNR PRA FSB PCB PSC Othersa a

1960 Total number 1,300,000 987,730 21,081 966,649 735,619 139,713 78,963 10,934 – 1,420

% – 76.0 2.1 97.9 76.1 14.5 8.2 1.1 – 0.1

1962 Total number — 1,064,480 19,979 1,046,636 886,572 44,296 74,178 20,352 19,825 378

% – — 1.8 98.2 84.7 4.2 7.0 1.9 1.8 0.0

Others include in 1960: POR (1,420 votes). In 1962: POR (278); PMNRA (100).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MNR FBA UCN Othersa a

1964 Total number 1,411,560 1,297,319 158,162 1,139,157 1,114,717 12,245 11,142 1,053

% – 91.9 12.2 87.8 97.9 1.1 1.0 0.1

Others include: FSB (613 votes); PSC (228); PRA (92); PCB (74); PRIN (23); POR (16); ACB (7).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes FRB CDC MNR-A MRP FLIN AID

1966 Total number 1,270,611 1,102,951 90,503 1,012,448 680,532 138,054 88,099 61,309 33,054 11,400

% – 86.6 8.2 91.8 67.2 13.6 8.7 6.0 3.2 1.1

Bolivia Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes UNP UDP ADRN PDC / PRB MNRP FRI MITKA Othersc a

143 1978 Total numbera 1,921,556 1,971,968 53,330 1,937,341 986,140 484,383 213,622 167,131 40,905 23,459 12,207 9,494

%b – 103.6 2.7 98.2 50.9 25.0 11.0 8.6 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.5

In 1978, the official number of votes cast surpassed the number of registered voters. At the same time, it was still lower than the sum of valid, blank and invalid votes. The elections were annulled. b Irregularities in percentages correspond to the irregularities in the numbers of votes. c Others include: PS (8,323 votes); PRO (1,171).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes UDP MNR-A ADN PS-1 APIN MITKA PUB VO a

1979 Total numbera 1,871,070 1,693,233 223,856 1,469,377 528,696 527,184 218,857 70,765 60,262 28,344 18,976 16,560

%b – 90.5 13.2 86.8 36.0 35.9 14.9 4.8 4.1 1.9 1.3 1.1

The total amount of party votes (1,469,644) and the number of valid votes do not coincide. The lack of correlation between the number of valid votes and the sum of votes per party does not affect the results indicated in percentages. b

Bolivia

144 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes UDP MNR-A AD N PS-1 MITK-1 MITKA PUB FDR-NA P RA-A MNR-U FSB AFIN PRIN-Alianza Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ADN MNR MIR MNRI MNRV PS-1 FPU MRTKL PDC FSB MRTK POR ACP MNRI-1 IU FNP AUR ARENA

1980 Total number 2,004,284 1,489,484 180,450 1,309,034 507,173 263,706 220,309 113,959 17,023 15,852 16,380 39,401 36,443 24,542 21,372 17,150 15,724

% – 74.3 12.1 87.9 38.7 20.2 16.8 8.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2

1985 Total number 2,108,458 1,728,365 224,309 1,504,056 493,735 456,704 153,143 82,418 72,197 38,786 38,124 31,678 24,079 19,985 16,269 13,712 12,918 11,696 10,892 9,635 9,420 8,665

% – 82.0 13.0 87.0 32.8 30.4 10.2 5.5 4.8 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

Bolivia Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MNR AD N MIR CONDEPA IU PS-1 MRTKL FULKA FSB MIN Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MNR-MRTKL AP(ADN-MIR) CONDEPA UCS MBL ARBOL ASD VR-9 FSB EJE IU MKN Othersa a

145 1989 Total number 2,137,285 1,573,790 157,921 1,415,869 363,113 357,298 309,033 173,459 113,509 39,763 22,983 16,416 10,608 9,687 1993 Total number 2,399,197 1,731,309 83,599 1,647,710 585,837 346,865 235,427 226,816 88,260 30,867 30,286 21,100 20,947 18,176 16,173 12,627 14,362

% – 73.6 10.0 89.9 25.6 25.2 21.8 12.2 8.0 2.8 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.6

% – 72.2 4.8 95.2 35.6 21.1 14.3 13.8 5.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8

Others include: MFD (6,269 votes) and independents (8,096).

Bolivia

146 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ADN-NFR-PDC MNR CONDEPA-MP MIR-NM UCS IU MBL VSB EJE PDB Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MNR-MBL MAS NFR MIR-FRI MIP UCS-FSB ADN LJ PS MCC Othersa a

1997 Total number 3,252,501 2,321,117 143,946 2,177,171 484,705 396,235 373,528 365,005 350,728 80,806 67,244 30,212 18,327 10,381

% – 71.4 6.2 93.7 22.3 18.2 17.2 16.8 16.1 3.7 3.1 1.4 0.8 0.5

2002 Total number 4,155,055 2,994,065 215,257 2,778,808 624,126 581,884 581,163 453,375 169,239 153,210 94,386 75,522 18,162 17,405 10,336

% – 72.1 7.2 92.8 22.5 20.9 20.9 16.3 6.1 5.5 3.4 2.7 0.7 0.6 0.4

Others include: CONDEPA (10,336 votes).

Bolivia

147

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1966–2002 Yeara FRB CDC MNP AMNR UDP ADN PS-1 APIN MITK PUB FDR-NA FSB PRA MNR-U MITK-1 a

1966 Seats 102 82 19 1 – – – – – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 80.4 18.6 1.0 – – – – – – – – – – – –

1979 Seats 117 – – – 48 38 19 5 5 1 1 – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – 41.0 32.4 16.2 4.3 4.3 0.9 0.9 – – – – –

1980 Seats 130 – – – 34 47 24 10 – 1 – 5 3 3 2 1

% 100.0 – – – 26.2 36.2 18.5 7.7 – 0.8 – 3.8 2.3 2.3 1.5 0.8

No data are available for the period from 1959 to 1964. The 1978 elections were annulled.

Year ADN PS-1 MNR MIR MNRI MNRV FPU PDC FSB MRTKL IU CONDEPA AP UCS MBL ASD ARBOL EJE

1985 Seats 130 41 5 43 15 8 6 4 3 3 2 – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 31.5 3.8 33.1 11.5 6.2 4.6 3.1 2.3 2.3 1.5 – – – – – – – –

1989 Seats 130 38 – 40 33 – – – – – – 10 9 – – – – – –

% 100.0 29.2 – 30.8 25.4 – – – – – – 7.7 6.9 – – – – – –

1993 Seats 130 – – 52a – – – – – – – – 13b 35 20 7 1 1 1

% 100.0 – – 40.0 – – – – – – – – 10.0 26.8 15.4 5.4 0.8 0.8 0.8

1997 Seats 130 32c – 26 23 – – – – – – 4 19b – 21 5 – – –

% 100.0 24.6 – 20.0 17.7 – – – – – – 3.1 14.6 – 16.2 3.8 – – –

Bolivia

148 a

MNR and MRTKL. CONDEPA and MP. c ADN, NFR and PDC. b

Year UCS-FSB NFR ADN MIR-FRI MAS MIP MNR-MBL PS

2002 Seats 130 5 25 4 26 27 6 36 1

% 100.0 3.8 19.2 3.1 20.0 20.8 4.6 27.6 0.7

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1966–2002 Yeara FRB CDC MNP AMNR UDP ADN PS-1 a

ADN MNR MIR CONDEPA AP UCS

1985 Seats 27 10 16 1 – – –

MNR and MRTKL. CONDEPA and MP. c ADN, NFR and PDC. d MIR and NM. b

% 100.0 66.7 29.6 3.7 – – – –

1979 Seats 27 – – – 16 8 3 –

% 100.0 – – – 59.3 29.6 11.1 –

1980 Seats 27 – – – 10 10 6 1

% 100.0 – – – 37.0 37.0 22.2 3.7

No data are available for the period between 1959 and 1964. The 1978 elections were annulled.

Year

a

1966 Seats 27 18 8 1 – – – –

% 100.0 37.0 59.3 3.7 – – –

1989 Seats 27 8 9 8 2 – –

% 100.0 29.6 33.3 29.6 7.4 – –

1993 Seats 27 – 17a – 1b 8 1

% 100.0 – 63.0 – 3.7 29.6 3.7

1997 Seats 27 11c 5 6d 3 – 2

% 100.0 40.7 18.5 22.2 11.1 – 7.5

Bolivia Year NFR ADN MIR-FRI MAS MNR-MBL

149 2002 Seats 27 2 1 5 8 11

% 100.0 7.4 3.7 18.5 29.6 40.7

2.9 Presidential Elections 1951–2002 1951 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) Gabriel Gosalvez (PURS) Bernardino Bilbao Rioja (FSB) Guillermo Gutiérrez Vea Murguía (ACB) Tomás Manuel Elío (PL) José Antonio Arze (PIR)

Total number 204,649 — — 126,123 54,129 40,381 13,259 6,654

1956 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Hernán Siles Zuazo (MNR) Oscar Unzaga de la Vega (FSB) Felipe Iñíguez Medrano (PCB) Hugo Gonzales Moscoso (POR)

Total number 1,126,528 958,016 25,532 932,484 787,792 130,494 12,273 2,329

% – 85.0 3.7 97.3 84.4 14.0 1.3 0.2

1960 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) Walter Guevara Arze (PRA) Mario Gutiérrez Gutiérrez (FSB) Victor Paz Estenssoro (PCB) Hugo Gonzales de Moscoso (POR)

Total number 1,300,000 987,730 21,081 966,649 735,619 139,713 78,963 10,934 1,420

% – 76.0 2.1 97.9 76.1 14.5 8.2 1.1 0.1

6,530 5,170

% – — — 61.6 42.9 32.0 10.5 5.3 5.2 4.1

Bolivia

150 1964 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) Party votesa a

Total number 1,411,560 1,297,319 158,162 1,139,157 1,114,717 24,440

% – 91.9 12.2 87.8 97.9 2.1

Parties that did not present a presidential candidate, but contested parliamentary elections.

1966 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes René Barrientos Ortuño (FRB) Bernardino Bilbao Rioja (CDC) Víctor Andrade (MNR-A) Mario Diez de Medina (MNP) Felipe Iñíguez (FLIN) Enrique Hertzog (AID)

Total number 1,270,611 1,099,994 90,503 1,009,491 680,532 138,054 88,099 60,309 33,054 11,400

% – 86.6 8.2 91.8 67.2 13.6 8.7 6.0 3.2 1.1

1978a Total number Registered voters 1,921,556 Votes cast 1,971,968 Invalid votes 53,330 Valid votes 1,937,341 Juan Pereda Asbún (UNP) 986,140 Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) 484,383 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (ADRN) 213,622 René Bernal Escalante (PDC/PRB) 167,131 Juan Pereda Asbún (MNRP) 40,905 Casiano Amurrio (FRI) 23,459 Luciano Tapia Quisbert (MITKA) 12,207 Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz (PS) 8,323 René Bernal (PRO) 1,171

% – 102.6 2.7 98.2 50.9 25.0 11.0 8.6 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.1

a

In 1978, the official number of votes surpassed that of registered voters, being at the same time lower than the total sum corresponding to the valid, blank and invalid votes. The elections were annulled.

Bolivia 1979a Total number Registered voters 1,871,070 Votes cast 1,693,233 Invalid votes 223,856 Valid votes 1,469,377 Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) 528,696 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (A-MNR) 527,184 Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN) 218,857 Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz (PS-1) 70,765 René Bernal Escalante (APIN) 60,262 Luciano Tapa Quisbert (MITKA) 28,344 Walter Gonzales Valda (PUB) 18,976 Ricardo Catoira (VO) 16,560 a

151 % – 90.5 12.2 86.8 36.0 35.9 14.9 4.8 4.1 1.9 1.3 1.1

The number of valid votes does not match the sum of votes per party. However, this mismatch does not affect the results indicated in percentages.

1980 Total number Registered voters 2,004,284 Votes cast 1,489,484 Invalid votes 180,450 Valid votes 1,309,034 Hernán Siles Zuazo (UDP) 507,173 Víctor Paz Estenssoro (A-MNR) 263,706 Hugo Banzer Suarez (ADN) 220,309 Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz (PS-1) 113,959 Luis Adolfo Siles Salinas (FDR-NA) 39,401 Walter Guevara Arze (PRA) 36,443 Guillermo Bedregal (MNR-U) 24,542 Carlos Valverde (FSB) 21,372 Roberto Jordan Pando (AFIN) 17,150 Constantino Lima (MITKA-1) 17,023 Walter Gonzáles (PUB) 16,380 Luciano Tapia Quisbert (MITKA) 15,852 Juan Lechín Oquendo (PRIN) 15,724

% – 74.3 12.1 87.9 38.7 20.2 16.8 8.7 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2

Bolivia

152 1985 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN) Víctor Paz Estenssoro (MNR) Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR) Roberto Jordan Pando (MNRI) Carlos Serrate Reich (MNRV) Ramiro Velasco R. (PS-1) Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (FPU) Genaro Flores Santos (MRTKL) Luis Ossio Sanjines (PDC) David Añez Pedraza (FSB) Macabeo Chila Prieto (MRTK) Guillermo Lora Escobar (POR) Raúl Catacora Cordova (ACP) Francisco Figueroa (MNRI-1) Isaac Sandoval Rodríguez (IU) Juan Santa Cruz (AUR) Humberto Cayoja Riart (ARENA) Luis Fernando Mostajo (FNP)

Total number 2,108,458 1,728,365 224,309 1,504,056 493,735 456,704 153,143 82,418 72,197 38,785 38,124 31,678 24,079 19,985 16,269 13,712 12,918 11,696 10,892 9,420 8,665 9,635

% – 82.0 13.0 87.0 32.8 30.4 10.2 5.5 4.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

1989 Total number Registered voters 2,137,285 Votes cast 1,573,790 Invalid votes 157,921 Valid votes 1,415,869a Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (MNR) 363,113 Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN) 357,298 Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR) 309,033 Carlos Palenque (CONDEPA) 173,459 Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (IU) 113,509 Roger Córtez Hurtado (PS-1) 39,763 Víctor Hugo Cárdenas (MRTKL) 22,983 Genaro Flores Santos (FULKA) 16,416 Luis Sandoval Morón (MIN) 9,687 a FSB 10,608

% – 73.6 10.0 89.9 25.6 25.2 21.8 12.2 8.0 2.8 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.7

a

The FSB did not present a presidential candidate, but contested the parliamentary elections.

Bolivia

153

1993 Total number Registered voters 2,399,197 Votes cast 1,731,309 Invalid votes 83,599 Valid votes 1,647,710 Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada 585,837 (MNR-MNRKL) Hugo Banzer Suárez (AP: ADN346,865 MIR) Carlos Palenque (CONDEPA) 235,427 Max Fernández Rojas (UCS) 226,816 Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (MBL) 88,260 Casanio Ancalle Choque (ARBOL) 30,867 Jerjes Justiniano Talavera (ASD) 30,286 Carlos Serrate Reich (VR-9) 21,100 Mario Serrate Paz (FSB) 20,947 Félix C. Aguilar (EJE) 18,176 Ramiro V. Romero (IU) 16,137 Fernando Untoja Choque (MKN) 12,627 Oscar Bonifáz (ONI) 8,096 Carlos Valverde (MFD) 6,269 1997 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Hugo Banzer Suárez (ADN-NFRPDC) Juan Carlos Durán (MNR) Remedios Loza alvarado (CONDEPA-MP) Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR-NM) Ivo Kuljis (UCS) Alejandro Véliz Lazo (IU) Miguel Urioste (MBL) Jerjes Justiniano (VSB) Ramiro Barrenechea Z. (EJE PACHAKUTI) Eudoro Galindo(PDB)

Total number 3,252,501 2,321,117 143,946 2,177,171 484,705

% – 72.2 4.8 95.2 35.6 21.1 14.3 13.8 5.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 % – 71.4 6.2 93.8 22.2

396,235 373,528

18.2 17.1

365,005 350,728 80,806 67,244 30,212 18,327

16.7 16.1 3.7 3.0 1.4 0.8

10,381

0.5

Bolivia

154 2002 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (MNRMBL) Evo Morales (MAS) Manfred Reyes (NFR) Jaime Paz (MIR-FRI) Felipe Quispe (MIP) Johnny Fernández (UCS-FSB) Ronald MacLean (ADN) Alberto Costa (LJ) Rolando Morales (PS) René Blattmann (MCC) Nicolás Valdivia (CONDEPA)

Total number 4,155,055 2,994,065 215,257 2,778,808 624,126

% – 72.1 7.2 92.8 22.5

581,884 581,163 453,375 169,239 153,210 94,386 75,522 18,162 17,405 10,336

20.9 20.9 16.3 6.1 5.5 3.4 2.7 0.7 0.6 0.4

2.10 List of Power Holders 1825–2004 Head of State Simón Bolívar

Years 1825–1826

Antonio José de Sucre José María Perez de Urdininea José Miguel de Velasco Pedro Blanco

1826–1828 1828 1828 1828–1829

José Miguel de Velasco Andrés de Santa Cruz

1829

José Miguel de Velasco

1839–1841

1829–1839

Sebastián de Ágreda 1841

Remarks ‘Liberator’, invested with the ‘Supreme Executive Power’ from 12/08/1825 to 29/12/1825. In charge of the ‘Supreme Executive Power’ from 29/12/1825 to 18/04/1828. From 12/04/1828 to 02/08/1828. Interim president. From 02/08/1828 to 28/12/1828. From 28/12/1828 to 01/01/1829; provisional head of state. From 01/01/1829 to 24/05/1829. Interim president. From 24/05/1829 to 17/02/1839; provisional until 15/08/1831; also Supreme Protector of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation from 28/10/1836 to 20/02/1839. From 22/02/1839 to 10/06/1841; provisional supreme chief until 16/06/1839; provisional head of state until 15/08/1840. From 10/06/1841 to 09/07/1841 as provisional chief.

Bolivia

155

Head of State (cont.) Years Mariano Enrique 1841 Calvo José Ballivián 1841–1847 Eusebio Guilarte

1847–1848

Manuel Isidoro Belzu 1848 José Miguel de 1848 Velasco Manuel Isidoro 1848–1855 Belzu Jorge Córdova José María Linares

1855–1857 1857–1861

Ruperto Fernández, 1861 José María de Achá and Manuel Antonio Sánchez José María de Achá 1861–1864 Mariano Melgarejo

1864–1871

Agustín Morales

1871–1872

Juan de Dios Bosque Tomás Frías Adolfo Ballivián Tomás Frías Hilarión Daza Uladislao Silva

1872 1872–1873 1873–1874 1874–1876 1876–1879 1879–1880

Narciso Campero Aniceto Arce Narciso Campero Gregorio Pacheco Aniceto Arce Mariano Baptista Severo Fernández Alonso Serapio Reyes Ortiz

1880 1880 1880–1884 1884–1888 1888–1892 1892–1896 1896–1899 1899

Remarks From 09/07/1841 to 22/09/1841. From 22/09/1841 to 23/12/1847; provisional until 15/08/1844. From 23/12/1847 to 02/01/1848 as interim head of state. From 06/01/1848 to 18/01/1848; interim. From 18/01/1848 to 06/12/1848; provisional. From 06/12/1848 to 15/08/1855; in rebellion from 13/10/1848; provisional until 15/08/1850. From 15/08/1855 to 21/10/1857. From 21/10/1857 to 14/01/1861; provisional; in rebellion from 09/09/1857. Governing junta from 14/01/1861 to 04/05/1861; Sánchez only until 09/04/1861. From 04/05/1861 to 28/12/1864; provisional until 15/08/1862. From 28/12/1864 to 15/01/1871; provisional until 15/08/1870. From 15/01/1871 to 27/11/1872; ‘Supreme Chief of the Revolution’ until 21/01/1871, in rebellion from 26/11/1870; provisional until 25/08/1872. From 27/11/1872 to 28/11/1872. From 28/11/1872 to 09/05/1873. From 09/05/1873 to 14/02/1874. From 14/02/1874 to 04/05/1876. From 04/05/1876 to 27/12/1879; provisional. President of the junta from 27/12/1879 to 19/01/1880. From 19/01/1880 to31/05/1880; provisional. From 31/05/1880 to 19/06/1880; interim. From 19/06/1880 to 03/09/1884. From 03/09/1884 to 15/08/1888. From 15/08/1888 to 11/08/1892. From 11/08/1892 to 19/08/1896. From 19/08/1896 to 12/04/1899. From 12/04/1899 to 25/10/1899 president of the federal junta; in rebellion from 12/12/1898.

Bolivia

156 Head of State (cont.) Years Manuel Pando 1899–1904 Ismael Montes Eliodoro Villazón Ismael Montes José Gutiérrez Guerra José María Escalier, Bautista Saavedra, José Manuel Ramírez Bautista Saavedra Felipe S. Guzmán

1904–1909 1909–1913 1913–1917 1917–1920 1920–1921

Government junta from 13/07/1920 to 28/01/1921.

1921–1925 1925–1926

From 28/01/1921 to 03/09/1925. From 03/09/1925 to 10/01/1926; provisional. From 10/01/1926 to28/05/1930.

Hernando Siles 1926–1930 Reyes Council of Ministers 1930

1931–1934

Council of Ministers in power from 28/05/1930 to 28/06/1930. Its members were Alberto Diez de Medina, Germán Antelo Arauz, Franklin Mercado, José David Toro, José Aguirre Achá, Fidel Vega, Carlos Banzer, and Ezequiel Romecín Calderón. On 17/06/1930, Romecín replaced Antelo. Chairman of the military junta from 28/06/1930 to 05/03/1931. From 05/03/1931 to 1/12/1934.

1934–1936

From 1/12/1934 to 17/05/1936.

1936

Provisional chairman of the junta from 17/05/1936 to 20/05/1936. Chairman of the junta from 20/05/1936 to 13/07/1937. From 13/07/1937 to 23/08/1939; until 28/05/1938 chairman of the junta. From 23/08/1939 to 15/04/1940; provisional. From 15/04/1940 to 20/12/1943. From 20/12/1943 to 21/07/1946; chairman of the junta until 05/04/1944; provisional president from 05/04/1944 to 06/08/1944. From 21/07/1946 to 17/08/1946; senior judge until 22/07/1946, then chairman of the provisional junta.

Carlos Blanco Galindo Daniel Domingo Salamanca José Luis Tejada Sorzano Germán Busch

1930–1931

José David Toro

1936–1937

Germán Busch

1937–1939

Carlos Quintanilla

1939–1940

Enrique Peñaranda 1940–1943 Gualberto Villarroel 1943–1946 Néstor Guillén

Remarks From 25/10/1899 to 14/08/1904; interim from 06/08/1904. From 14/08/1904 to 12/08/1909. From 12/08/1909 to 14/08/1913. From 14/08/1913 to 15/08/1917. From 15/08/1917 to 12/07/1920.

1946

Bolivia

157

Head of State (cont.) Tomás Monje Gutiérrez Enrique Hertzog Mamerto Urriolagoitia Hugo Ballivián Rojas

Years 1946–1947

Hernán Siles Zuazo

1952

Víctor Paz Estenssoro Hernán Siles Zuazo

1952–1956

Víctor Paz Estenssoro René Barrientos Ortuño René Barrientos Ortuño, Alfredo Ovando Candia

1960–1964

Alfredo Ovando Candia René Barrientos Ortuño

1966

Luis Adolfo Siles Salinas

1969–1969

Alfredo Ovando Candia

1969–1970

1947–1949 1949–1951 1951–1952

1956–1960

1964–1965 1966–1966

1966–1969

Juan José Torres 1970–1971 Gonzales Hugo Banzer Suárez 1971–1978 Juan Pereda Asbún

1978

Remarks Chairman of the provisional junta from 17/08/1946 to 10/03/1947. From 10/03/1947 to 22/10/1949. From 22/10/1949 to 16/05/1951; acting for Hertzog from 07/05/1949 to 24/10/1949. Army officer; head of the military junta from 16/05/1951 to 11/04/1952; annulled the elections of 15/05/1951; the junta was toppled by a revolution. Interim president from 11/04/1952 to 15/04/1952; elected vice president in the annulled 1951 elections. From 15/04/1952 to 06/08/1956; elected president in the annulled 1951 elections. Constitutional president from 06/08/1956 to 06/08/1960. From 06/08/1960 to 04/11/1964; resigned after the military uprisign and left the country. Army officer; presided the military junta that was in power from 05/11/1964 to 26/05/1965. Army officers; both generals presided the military junta from 26/05/1965 to 02/01/1966; Barrientos withdrew to contest the presidential elections. Army officer; from 02/01/1966 to 06/08/1966. Army officer; from 06/08/1966 to 27/04/1969; elected in the presidential elections of 03/07/1966; died in an accident. Interim president from 27/04/1969 to 26/09/1969; in accordance with the constitution, he took the presidential office as elected vice president. Overthrown by a military coup. Army officer; governed at the head of the military junta from 26/09/1969 to 06/10/1970; resigned after a military coup. Army officer; from 07/10/1970 to 21/08/1971; overthrown by a military coup. Army officer; from 22/08/1981 to 21/07/1978. Overthrown by a military coup. Army officer; president appointed by the military on 21/07/1978. Overthrown by a military coup on 24/11/1978.

Bolivia

158 Head of State (cont.) Years David Padilla 1978–1979 Arancibia Walter Guevara Arze 1979 Alberto Natusch Busch

1979

Lidia Gueiler Tejada 1979–1980

Luis García Meza Tejada

1980–1981

Celso Torrelio Villa

1981–1982

Guido Vildoso Calderón

1982

Hernán Siles Zuazo

1982–1985

Víctor Paz Estenssoro

1985–1989

Jaime Paz Zamora

1989–1993

Gonzalo Sánchez de 1993–1997 Lozada Hugo Banzer Suárez 1997–2001 Jorge Quiroga Ramírez

2001–2002

Gonzalo Sánchez de 2002–2003 Lozada Carlos Diego Mesa 2003–

Remarks Army officer; from 24/11/1978 to 08/08/1979; yielded the post to the interim president. Provisional president elected by congress on 08/08/1979. Overthrown by a military coup on 01/11/1979. Army officer; from 01/11/1979 to 16/11/1979; resigned after a general strike and due to pressure of the military. Provisional president, elected by congress on 16/11/1979 after the overthrow of the constitutional President Guevara Arze. Deposed by a military coup on 17/07/1980. Army officer; presided the military junta from 18/07/1980 to 04/08/1981; overthrown by a military coup; the military appointed a new government. Army officer; president appointed by the military on 04/08/1981; resigned on 20/07/1982. Army officer; president appointed by the military junta on 21/07/1982; withdrew on 10/10/1982, after congress had elected a president. Constitutional president from 10/10/1982 to 06/08/1985. Won the elections on 29/06/1980 by plurality and was appointed by congress. Constitutional president from 06/08/1985 to 06/08/1989; elected by congress despite having obtained the second highest vote in the elections on 14/07/1985. Constitutional president from 06/08/1989 to 06/08/1993; elected by congress despite having received the third highest vote in the elections on 07/05/1989. Constitutional president from 06/08/1993 to 06/08/1997. Constitutional president from 06/08/1997 to 07/08/2001; resigned because of illness. Caretaker president from 07/08/2001 to 06/08/2002; as vice president he took office when Banzer stepped back. Elected on 06/08/2002, forced to resign by a national uprising on 17/10/2003. Former vice president. Succeeded Lozada after his resignation on 17/10/2003.

Bolivia

159

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Constitución Política del Estado (authorized and published by the Convención Nacional) (1938). La Paz. Constitución Política del Estado (authorized and published by Dr. Hugo Mealla Caso) (1945). La Paz: Editorial del Estado. Constitución Política del Estado (published by República de Bolivia) (10th edn. 1960). La Paz: Gisbert y Cia. Constitución Política del Estado (published by República de Bolivia) (12th edn. 1967). La Paz: Gisbert y Cia. Constitución Política del Estado, Cámara de Diputados, 1997. Corte Nacional Electoral (1985). Ley Electoral (del 8 de abril de 1980) (2nd edn.). La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1987). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1991). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1993). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Electoral (1997). Ley Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1999). Código Electoral. La Paz. Corte Electoral (2002). Código Electoral. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1997). Estadísticas Electorales 1985–1997. La Paz. Corte Nacional Electoral (1985, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2002). Informe al H. Congreso Nacional Elecciones Generales. La Paz. Estatuto Electoral (1956). Decreto Supremo No. 04315. La Paz: Subsecretaría de Prensa, Informaciones y Cultura. Gaceta Oficial de Bolivia (various years). Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1985). Bolivia. Estimaciones y proyecciones de población. La Paz. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1988). Proyecciones de la Población en Bolivia. La Paz. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1997). Proyecciones de Población. La Paz. Instituto Nacional de Población (2002). Bolivia, Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población. Período,1950–2050. La Paz. Ley Electoral, Edición oficial (1937). La Paz. Ley Electoral, Decreto Ley No. 07137 de 1965 y Decreto Ley No. 07490 de 1966. La Paz: Corte Nacional Electoral. Ley Electoral (1980). La Paz: Senado Nacional. Modificación de la Ley Electoral (del 20 de mayo de 1986), in Gaceta Oficial de Bolivia, 26/1464.

160

Bolivia

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Alcoreza, C. and Albó X. (1979). 1978, el nuevo campesinado ante el fraude. La Paz. Arguedas, A. (1980). Historia general de Bolivia. La Paz. Asamblea Permanente de los Derechos Humanos de Bolivia (ed.) (1979). El fraude electoral. Un atentado contra la voluntad popular. Elecciones nacionales del 9 de julio de 1978. La Paz. Costa A. R. (2001). Desarrollo Electoral en Bolivia. 2 vols. La Paz: Corte Nacional Electoral. Céspedes, M. (1982). ¿Los Bolivianos, estamos maduros para la democracia? Las experiencias electorales de 1978, 1979 y 1980. La Paz. Dunkerley, J. (1984). Rebellion in the Veins. Political Struggle in Bolivia, 1952–1982. London. — (1990). Political Transition and Economic Stabilisation. Bolivia 1982– 1989. London: University of London. Galindo de Ugarte, M. (1991). Constituciones Bolivianas Comparadas 1826– 1967. La Paz: Amigos de Libro. Guzmán, A. (1976). Historia de Bolivia (3rd edn.). La Paz-Cochabamba. Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems (1964). Bolivia. Election Fact Book. Washington, D.C.: ICOPS. Klein, C. (1991). Boliviens Weg zur Demokratie. Ph.D. thesis, Heidelberg. Klein, H. S. (1968). Orígenes de la Revolución Nacional boliviana. La crisis de la generación del Chaco. La Paz. — (1969). Parties and Political Change in Bolivia: 1880–1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazarte, J. (1993). Certezas e incertidumbre de la democracia. 3 vols. Amigos del Libro. La Paz. Lora, G. (ed.) (1970). Documentos políticos de Bolivia. La Paz-Cochabamba: Edit. Los Amigos del Libro. — (1987). Historia de los partidos políticos de Bolivia. La Paz: La Colmena. McDonald, R. H. and Ruhl, J. M. (1989). Party Politics and Elections in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Malloy, J. M. (1970). Bolivia. The Uncompleted Revolution. Pittsburgh. Mayorga, R. and D. Nohlen (1992). ‘Bolivien’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt. Vol. 2: Südamerika. Bonn: Dietz. Mesa Gisbert, C. D. (2003). Presidentes de Bolivia: Entre urnas y fusiles. La Paz. Nohlen, D. et al. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. IIDH: San José, Costa Rica. Nohlen, D. (2004). Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos. Mexico: UNAM.

Bolivia

161

Pinrive, S. (1987). ‘Les elections de 1985 en Bolivie: un tournant pour la jeune démocratie (1982–1987)’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 85. Rivadeneira Prada, R. (1980). La guerra de los insultos. La propaganda política en Bolivia 1979. La Paz. — (1984). El laberinto político de Bolivia. La Paz. Rolón Anaya, M. (1966). Política y partidos en Bolivia. La Paz: Edit. Juventud. Romero Ballivián, S. (1998). Geografía Electoral de Bolivia. H. SeidelFoundation. Ruddle, K. and P. Gillette (eds.) (1972). Latin American Political Statistics. Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles. Vaca Díez, H. (ed.) (1998). Derecho Electoral Boliviano. La Paz: Fondo Editorial de los Diputados. Whitehead, L. (1988). ‘La democratización frustrada en Bolivia, 1977–1980’, in G. O’Donnell et al. (eds.), Transiciones desde un gobierno autoritario. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

This page intentionally left blank

BRAZIL by Bolívar Lamounier and Octavio Amorim Neto*

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Brazil has been holding elections since its colonial period. Their fairness, inclusiveness, and role in the country’s policy process have changed substantially over time. Elections in Brazil during Getulio Vargas’s authoritarian regime in 1937–1945 were completely suppressed. Even under the 1964–1985 military regime electoral competition for legislative offices and some executive posts was not abolished. However, the competition was not wholly free and fair owing to direct and indirect political manipulation designed to favor the regime’s supporters. With the beginning of democratization in the early 1980s, elections became the main way to determine the distribution of power and were the government’s key instrument. However, owing to deep-seated socioeconomic differences, the quality of the electoral process varies across Brazil’s five regions. The following is a summary of the evolution of electoral legislation and practices throughout Brazil’s history as an independent country. Brazil gained independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. Unlike the majority of the South American republics, the former Portuguese colony won its independence without an armed conflict, and was thus able to keep the administrative structure set up by its colonial masters. Such a feat was key to the country maintaining the unity of its immense territory despite its sharp economic and social heterogeneity. Brazil’s first national constitution, enacted in 1824, adopted a parliamentary monarchy as its system of government. The emperor, as the head of state, played a key role in the policy process. Based on his constitutional prerogatives, the emperor repeatedly dissolved parliament, which allowed him to heavily influence the selection of the prime mini* The authors thank Judith Muszynski for her collaboration in an earlier version of this chapter. Ana F. B. Coelho, Juliana Estrella, Rodrigo R. A. Pinto, Marina Vivas, and César Zucco Júnior provided invaluable research assistance.

164

Brazil

ster. This significantly reduced the importance of the elections regularly held under the monarchy. From a politico-institutional point of view, therefore, the main issue of the monarchical period boiled down to the relatively independent role of the monarch, together with a centralization versus decentralization conflict. From the 1870s onwards, the monarchy began to be contested by proponents of a republican regime. In 1889, the monarchy was toppled and such a regime was founded. In 1891, a new constitution was enacted. It provided for a presidential system of government. This system was markedly federal, and granted extensive prerogatives to each state of the federation. It is therefore no wonder that the national government fell under the control of state-based parties representing agrarian oligarchies. Patriarchal structures of domination, such as coronelismo (a pattern of control exerted by landlords, the so-called colonels, over the rural population based on the economic dependence of the latter on the former), meant that these oligarchs could stack electoral competition in their favor. The so-called politics of the governors—an arrangement between the state-level political parties and the national executive power—ensured stability for 40 years. Elections held before 1930 were of some importance for this period’s policy process. Even though direct suffrage was established in 1881, the elections contested under the Empire (1822–1889) and the First Republic (1889–1930) were characterized by the de jure and de facto exclusion of a large part of the population, fraud, and the inefficiency of voters’ registration system. Moreover, under the First Republic the organization of opposition parties was systematically hindered. The establishment of courts at the national and state levels with jurisdiction over elections in 1932 was a landmark in Brazil’s electoral history. The institutional mechanisms necessary to control and standardize the electoral processes were finally set up in the form of the Superior Court of Electoral Justice (TSE) and the Regional Electoral Courts (TRE). From this time onwards, electoral courts were in charge of organizing voters’ registration, voting booths, vote counting, and the official announcement of winning candidates. However, this did not mean that fraud and other violations of the electoral law were completely eliminated. During the seven decades under the rule of these courts, limited electoral participation expanded incrementally until universal suffrage was finally achieved under the 1988 Constitution. The elections for constituent assemblies in 1933, 1945, and 1986 illustrate such a process: the participation of voters went up from 5% in 1933, through 15% in 1945,

Brazil

165

to more than 50% of the total population in 1986. Along with the removal of suffrage restrictions related to personal income, the right to vote was extended to women in 1932. This was very important because even in the 19th century the majority of the population was made up of women. In 1988 the right to vote was further extended to illiterates. Note that the percentage of illiterates in the total population has been continually decreasing over the last decades. The expansion of public schooling coupled with the urbanization process beginning in the 1950s also led to an increase in the number of voters. From a socio-economic point of view, however, the country failed to bridge the wide gap separating the rich, industrialized south eastern and southern regions of the country from the poor, underdeveloped northern, north eastern and central western regions. Not surprisingly, such a failure is at the root of the survival of local practices of coronelismo. The isolation of the countryside, which until the early 1960s encompassed the largest share of Brazil’s population also contributed to the success of the coronelismo. Over time, the contrast between the traditional structures of domination found in rural areas and the greater opportunities for political participation available for the urban masses became even more distinct. In the decades following the creation of electoral courts there were many regime changes and great discontinuity in party systems, which were intimately associated with such changes. The next paragraphs take a brief glance at the impact of each of these regimes on electoral legislation and practices. The so-called Revolução de 30 (the 1930 Revolution) led to an unprecedented expansion of rights for political participation, contained in the 1934 Constitution. Furthermore, a multiparty system began to take shape. The enactment of the authoritarian constitution in 1937, however, put an end to this phase. In the dictatorial period of the Estado Novo (New State, 1937–1945) political parties and elections were banned. Only the professional associations and corporatist organizations were allowed to participate in politics. However, the Estado Novo collapsed in 1945. The post-1945 period witnessed the emergence of a new multiparty system. However, as in many democratic transitions, members of the Estado Novo’s ruling elite played a key role in the new regime. Even former dictator Vargas exerted an indirect influence during the post1945 period, especially on the organization of political parties. Two of the largest parties that came to dominate Brazil’s nascent democracy were created on Vargas’ initiative, namely the Partido Social Democrático

166

Brazil

(PSD; Democratic Social Party) and the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (PTB; Brazilian Labor Party). An important opposition party was also founded, the União Democrática Nacional (UDN; National Democratic Union), as well as many small and regional parties. The 1964 military coup d’état, in stark contrast to the democratizing trends described above, paved the way for a new authoritarian phase, which only ended in 1985. In 1965 the military government banned the existing parties, and created an artificial two-party system. The latter was composed of the pro-government Aliança Renovadora Nacional (ARENA; National Renewing Alliance), and the legal opposition Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (MDB; Brazilian Democratic Movement). From 1964 on the president and the mayors of state capitals and ‘national security’ cities (those deemed by the military to be of economic and political security relevance) were elected indirectly. In 1966 the popular election of state governors was also abolished. During the liberalization process initiated by the government of General Ernesto Geisel in 1974, the opposition began to win more and more congressional elections (which were direct as they were before 1964). By reforming electoral laws and party legislation, the military regime tried to keep the MDB’s growth under control. However, manipulations designed to favor the ARENA were enacted mainly at the legal level rather than in terms of openly manipulating electoral results, which remained under the jurisdiction of the electoral courts. So, in 1977 the direct election of senators was eliminated. Furthermore, to face the MDB’s growing electoral strength, an electoral reform was enacted in 1979 to end elections’ ‘plebiscitary character’, which was based on the government (ARENA) versus opposition (MDB) dichotomy. Again, a new multiparty system was allowed to emerge. Five parties contested the 1982 elections: the PDS, the Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (PMDB; Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement)—the respective successors of the ARENA and MDB—the Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT; Labor Democratic Party), PTB, and Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT; Workers’ Party). Yet, the latter three parties were able to gather a bit more than 5% of the votes only in four states, namely, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, and Acre. The following four phases were crucial for the development of the transition process: (1) the 1982 elections; (2) the campaign for direct presidential elections (the so-called Diretas já movement) in 1984; (3) direct elections for mayors of state capitals in 1985 and for all mayoralties in 1988; and (4) the 1986 elections for a constituent assembly. Tho-

Brazil

167

se elections gave rise to new parties, thus solidifying the multiparty system. The constituent assembly was made up of the deputies and senators directly elected in 1986 (two-thirds) plus the senators directly elected in 1982 (one-third). The assembly promulgated a new constitution on 5 October 1988. In 1989, Brazil’s first direct presidential election since 1960 was held. The winner was Fernando Collor de Melo, whose candidacy was supported by the new, tiny Partido da Reconstrução Nacional (PRN; Party of National Reconstruction). Collor’s ambitious economic reforms program failed, to a certain extent, due to his lack of solid legislative support. After two years in office marked by repeated government crises, persistent recession, and frequent peaks of high inflation, Collor was removed from office on charges of corruption on 29 September 1992. He was succeeded by his vice president, Itamar Franco. In April 1993 a plebiscite was held to decide the system of government (presidentialism versus parliamentarism) and form of government (republic versus monarchy). Presidentialism and republicanism won. In June 1997, the congress approved, for the first time in the history of the Republic, a constitutional amendment allowing presidents, governors, and mayors to run for a second consecutive term. In October 1994 former finance minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso, affiliated with the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB; Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy), riding a wave of popularity caused by his successful anti-inflation program, was elected president for the 1995–1998 period. In October 1998 he was the first president to be re-elected in Brazilian history. He was succeeded four years later by Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva, leader of the left-wing Partido dos Trabalhadores. He was the first Brazilian president of lower-class origin. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions In the course of Brazilian history the rules governing electoral legislation and electoral systems were stipulated by the constitutions of 1824, 1891, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967, 1969, and 1988, as well by the electoral laws of 1932, 1945, 1950, 1965, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989, 1993, and 1997. Since the declaration of the republic, presidents and the two chambers of congress have been directly elected. The president’s constitutional term of office has varied from four to six years (four from 1889 to 1930,

168

Brazil

five from 1946 to 1979, six from 1979 to 1985, five from 1985 to 1994, and four since 1995). Re-election was prohibited from 1891 to 1997. Since then, the president has had the right to run for a second term. Since 1891 the term of lower chamber members (federal deputies) has been four years. Under the Empire, senators served for a life term. From 1891 to 1945 their term was reduced to nine years. From 1946 onwards their term has been eight years. Initially, one-third of the senate was renewed every three years. From 1950 on it was established that one-third and two-thirds of the senate seats were renewed alternately every four years. Since the declaration of independence the right to vote has been closely linked to the notion of citizenship in Brazil. Under the empire, however, economic requirements limited suffrage. Moreover, between 1891 and 1988 illiterates were not allowed to vote. Between 1945 and 1950 voters’ registration was partially dependent on voters’ labor situation, giving employers some influence over registration. Suffrage restrictions were also related to social position (household employees were not allowed to vote from 1881 to 1890; beggars from 1891 to 1945; soldiers have always been excluded from suffrage). In 1932 the right to vote was extended to women. Up to 1882, the minimum age required to vote was 25 years, it was reduced to 21 years up to 1932, and from 1932 onwards voting age has been 18 years. Presidential candidates must be over 35 years of age; senate candidates had to be over 40 years under the empire, and have had to be over 35 since the inception of republic. Candidates for lower chamber seats and state assemblies had to be over 25 years of age until 1945; since then they have to be over 21. From 1846, voters had to register at the electoral registrar to vote. The 1932 Electoral Law determined mandatory voting. From 1945 on voters’ registration also became mandatory. Under the empire, the most common voting method was the voice vote, which was taken publicly. The Rosa e Silva Law, enacted in 1904, gave voters the possibility to cast a secret ballot. In 1932 the secret balllot was fully established, being later included in the 1934 Constitution. Since the start of the republic, presidents have been elected by voters, except in 1930–1945 (the Vargas dictatorship) and 1964–1985. Under the latter period the president was selected by an electoral college composed of all senators and deputies, and a delegation of representatives from each state assembly. The elections for deputies were initially indirect. Up to 1881 senators were partly indirectly elected and partly chosen by the monarch. Howe-

Brazil

169

ver, in the same year members of both houses of the legislative branch began to be directly elected. Yet in the 1933 and 1935 elections 40 of the 214 legislative seats were distributed according to a ‘system of professional representation’. In 1977 indirect elections for one-third of senate seats were determined by the so-called Pacote de Abril (April Package). This rule remained in force for only a short period of time. Up to 1988 presidents were elected by plurality. Deputies were elected by majority rule from the early 19th century up to mid-20th century. In 1932 some elements of proportional representation were introduced. Since 1945 Brazil uses full proportional representation. Between 1881 and 1889 Brazil adopted single-member constituencies (SMCs). In 1891 multi-member constituencies (MMCs) of different size were drawn up. In 1892 the national territory was divided into 63 MMCs, which elected 205 deputies. The Rosa e Silva Law enacted in 1904 provided for five-member districts. However, owing to concerns about the final distribution of seats, some four-member, six-member, and seven-member districts were also designed. In 1932, the sizes of the district were changed, but they all remained MMCs. Since 1945 the smallest district size was one, and the highest 60. In the 1880s, when candidates were elected in SMCs, voters cast one vote. From 1892 onwards Brazil used the multiple limited vote. The number of votes cast by each voter was equal to one-third of the number of seats contested in each district. Beginning in 1904 voters had one vote less than the number of seats in their districts. In this same year cumulative voting was allowed for the first time. In the 1933 and 1935 elections voters received two ballots. One ballot was for a SMC. The other ballot had open lists, and voters could cast as many votes as the number of district seats. From 1945 on Brazil began to use open lists with voters being allowed to cast only one vote either for an individual candidate or for a party label. In addition, parties were allowed to form electoral coalitions for chamber of deputies seats. The 1950 Electoral Law stipulated that single-party and coalition lists could field as many candidates as there were seats in each district. In districts with less than 30 seats lists could include as many candidates as there were seats plus one-third. In the 1982 elections, a special rule was applied: voters had to vote for the same party for all the offices (governor, senator, federal deputy, and state deputy). This was the so-called voto vinculado. Between 1881 and 1889, an absolute majority of votes was required for a candidate to be elected deputy. If no candidate gained such a majority in the first round, a runoff was held between the two top candidates. With the creation of MMCs in 1891 seats were allocated to candidates

170

Brazil

according to their rank-order in terms of votes obtained. In the 1933 and 1935 elections some seats were allocated according to Hare quota. The rest was distributed to single-candidate lists winning a plurality of votes. In 1945, the Hare quota was finally applied for all seats. Until 1950 any seats that could not be allocated in this way were given to the parties with the highest number of votes. From this year on those seats were distributed according to the highest average method. In the 1986 and 1990 elections, single-party lists could present as many candidates as the number of district seats multiplied by 1.5. Twoparty lists could present as many candidates as twice the number of district seats. Three- or more-than-three-party lists could triple the number of seats. In the 1994 elections single-party lists could only field as many candidates as there were district seats. Coalition lists could multiply the number of seats by 1.5. From 1982 to 1998, members of the chamber of deputies were entitled to be on the ballot for the same position in the next election (this was the so-called candidato nato rule or birth-right candidate rule). This rule, however, was declared unconstitutional by the supreme electoral court in April 2002. Since the 19th century, plurality system has been applied for senate elections, and since 1891 each state has been represented in the senate by three members. Initially, one-third of senate seats were renewed every three years. From 1945 on, one-third and two-thirds of the senate seats, alternatively, began to be renewed every four years. That is to say, in the beginning senate districts were SMCs. Later on there were SMCs or two-member constituencies. Party lists for senate elections displayed a single candidate. Voters had one or two votes according to the number of seats contested. When two-thirds of senate seats were up for renewal, voters could vote for different parties in two-seat districts. Under the military regime a rule similar to Uruguay’s ley de lemas was put into effect: each party could present three candidates for each senate seat. This rule remained in force from 1966 to 1982. In SMCs (one-third renewal of senate seats) a plurality of votes was required for a candidate to be elected. In two-member districts (two-thirds renewal) seats were allocated to the two top candidates.

Brazil

171

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, 1988; Electoral Law (law no. 9.504, as of 30 September 1997). Suffrage: The 1988 Constitution provides for direct, universal, and secret suffrage. Conscript soldiers, however, are not entitled to vote. For all Brazilian citizens over 18 and under 70 years of age, voting is mandatory. For illiterates and citizens over 16 and below 18 years of age, voting is optional. Elected national institutions: president of the republic and the bicameral congress. The president is directly elected for a four-year term. The national congress is composed of the chamber of deputies (elected for a four-year term) and the federal senate (eight-year term). Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates for president and vice president must be affiliated with a political party and be over 35 years of age. - parliamentary elections: The minimum age required for lower chamber candidates is 21 years. Illiterates are not entitled to run for public office. Senatorial candidates must be affiliated with a political party and be over 35 years of age. Single-party lists may present as many candidates as the number of seats multiplied by 1.5 in districts with more than 20 seats, and as many as twice the number of seats in districts with 20 seats or less. Coalition lists may have as many candidates as twice the number of seats in districts with more than 20 seats, and triple the number in districts with 20 seats or less. If parties run for presidency in coalitions, they are not allowed to form different coalitions at the district level to compete for legislative seats. Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority system. If no candidate obtains the required majority in the first round, a second round is held between the two candidates receiving the largest shares of votes in the first round. - parliamentary elections: Proportional representation in MMCs with non-blocked lists. Voters cast one vote either for a candidate on a party list, or for a party label. The geographical design of electoral districts for the chamber of deputies seats is juxtaposed to that of federal states. The number of seats contested in each district is related to the population si-

172

Brazil

ze. District size ranges from a constitutionally-defined minimum of eight seats for the smallest states to 70 in São Paulo, Brazil’s largest electorate. There are 27 MMCs with the following sizes: eleven districts with eight seats; one with nine; two with ten; one with twelve; one with 16; two with 17; one with 18; one with 22; one with 25; one with 30; one with 31; one with 39; one with 46; one with 53; and one district with 70 seats. Seats are distributed at the constituency level by the Hare quota and largest average. Senators are elected by plurality. Each state elects three senators. However, since senate seats are partially renewed every four years— one-third and two-thirds of the seats alternately—the federal states have SMCs and two-member constituencies respectively. Single-candidate lists are used in senate elections. Voters cast one or two votes depending on whether renewal is for one-third or two-thirds of seats. In SMCs (one-third renewal of the senate) a plurality of votes is required for a candidate to win the seat. In two-member districts (two-thirds renewal) seats are awarded to the two top candidates. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Electoral data before 1945 have been obtained from secondary sources. The establishment of the superior electoral court and the regional courts in each state in 1932 led to regular archiving and organization of electoral data. Therefore, post-1945 electoral data were gathered mostly from official sources. Information on the elections held between 1990 and 2002 was collected from Jairo Nicolau’s Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982–2002 (available at www.iuperj.br/deb). It should be noted, however, that data reliability varies from region to region. Owing to problems of electoral organization, data from Brazil’s poorest regions (Northeast, North, and Center-West) on elections held till 1980 are less reliable than data from the most developed regions (Southeast and South).

Brazil

173

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year 1889 1890 1894 1896 1898 1899 1902 1903 1906 1909 1910 1912 1914 1915 1918 1919 1922 1926 1927 1930 1933 1934 1937 1945a 1947 1950 1954 1955 1958 1960 1962 1963 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982

Presidential elections

01/03

Parliamentary elections Elections Referendums Coups Lower Upper for Constit. d’état Chamber Chamber Assembly 31/08 15/09 01/03 01/03 30/12 30/12

01/03 01/03 18/02 01/03

31/12

31/12

18/02 30/01 30/01

30/01 30/01

30/01

30/01

30/01 01/03

30/01 01/03

24/02 01/03

24/02 01/03

01/03 01/03 01/03 13/04 01/03 01/03 01/03

03/05

03/10

14/10 10/11 02/12 03/10

02/12 19/01 03/10 03/10

02/12 19/01 03/10 03/10

03/10

03/10

07/10

07/10

02/12

03/10 03/10 06/01 31/03 15/11 15/11 15/11 15/11 15/11

15/11 15/11 15/11 15/11 15/11

Brazil

174 Year Presidential (cont.) elections 1986a 1989 1989 1990 1993 1994 1998 2002 2002 a

Parliamentary elections Lower Upper Chamber Chamber 15/11 15/11

Elections Referendums Coups for Constit. d’état Assembly 15/11

15/11 (I) 17/12 (II) 03/10

03/10 21/04

03/10 04/10 06/10 (I) 27/10 (II)

03/10 04/10 06/10

03/10 04/10 06/10

The 1945 and 1986 congresses were also constitutional assemblies.

2.2 Electoral Body 1889–2002 Year Type of Populationb electiona 1889 1890 1894c 1898c 1902c 1906c 1910c 1914c 1918c 1919c 1922c 1926c 1930c 1933 1934 1945 1945 1947 1950 1950 1954 1955 1958 1960 1962

Pa CA Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr CA/Pa Pad Pae Pr Paf Pa Pr Pa Pr Paf Pr Pa

14,333,915 14,333,915 15,583,000 17,145,000 18,782,000 20,427,000 22,216,000 24,161,000 26,277,000 26,835,000 28,542,000 30,953,000 33,568,000 39,939,154 40,462,000 46,200,000 46,200,000 48,000,000 51,944,397 51,944,397 56,998,000 58,383,000 63,101,627 70,191,370 75,246,000

Registered voters Total % Number pop. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,212,882 5.0 — — — — 1,305,826 4.6 — — — — 1,466,700 3.7 1,466,700 — 7,499,670 — 7,459,849 — 6,202,415 — 11,455,149 22.1 11,455,149 22.1 15,104,604 26.5 15,243,246 26.1 13,780,480g 21.8 15,543,332 22.1 18,528,847 24.6

Votes cast Total number — — 345,097 462,188 645,531 294,401 707,651 580,917 390,131 403,315 833,270 702,580 1,892,577 — — 6,122,864 6,200,805 2,635,680 8,240,996 8,254,989 9,890,475 9,097,014 12,678,997 12,586,354 14,747,221

% reg. % Voters pop. — — — — — 2.2 — 2.7 — 3.4 — 1.4 — 3.2 47.9 2.4 — 1.5 — 1.5 63.8 2.9 — 2.3 — 5.6 — — — — 81.6 — 83.1 — 42.5 — 72.0 15.9 72.1 15.9 65.5 17.4 59.7 15.6 92.0 20.1 81.0 17.9 79.6 19.6

Brazil

175

Year Type of Populationb (cont.) electiona 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1989 1990 1993 1994 1994 1998 1998 2002 2002 a

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pae Pr Pah Ref Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr (I)/Pa Pr (II)

85,139,000 93,139,037 102,807,000 113,481,000 126,898,429 138,492,887 147,512,000 150,368,000 151,556,831 153,725,670 153,725,670 161,790,311 161,790,311 174,632,960i 174,632,960i

Registered voters Total % Number pop. 22,387,251 26.3 28,966,114 31.1 35,810,715 34.8 46,985,446 40.6 58,871,378 46.4 69,309,231 50.1 82,074,718 55.6 83,820,556 55.7 90,274,117 59.6 94,743,043 61.6 94,743,043 61.6 106,053,106 65.5 106,053,106 65.5 115,184,176 66.0 115,184,176 66.0

Votes cast Total number 17,285,556 22,435,521 28,981,015 37,627,823 48,746,803 65,823,591 70,260,701 71,940,913 66,965,009 77,949,111 77,660,795 83,274,223 83,280,755 94,741,120 91,620,726

% reg. % Voters pop. 77.2 20.3 77.5 24.1 80.9 28.2 81.7 33.2 82.8 38.4 94.9 47.5 85.6 47.6 85.8 47.8 74.2 44.2 82.3 50.7 82.0 50.5 78.5 51.5 78.5 51.5 82.3 54.3 79.5 52.5

Pr = President; CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pa=Parliament. Since elections for the senate and chamber of deputies are concurrent, the total number of registered voters and votes cast are the same; apart from 1982 were the votes cast for the chamber of deputies is given. b Censuses: 1872: 9,930,478; 1890: 14,333,915; 1900: 17,438,434; 1920: 30,636,605; 1940: 41,236,315; 1950: 51,944,397; 1960: 70,070,457; 1970: 93,139,837; 1980: 119,002,706. c Total votes cast not available. Data correspond to valid votes. d Supplementary election for federal deputies in seven states and three territories. e The 1945 and 1986 congresses were also constitutional assemblies. f Supplementary elections for the third senator of each state and also for vacant federal deputies’ chairs. g The electorate diminished because of the revision of the electoral census by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (superior electoral court). h Figures for total votes cast refer only to elections for the chamber of deputies. i Estimated population using data from IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics).

Brazil

176 2.3 Abbreviationsa ARENA ED LEC MDB MTR PAN (1)b PAN (2) PAP PAS PASART PBM PC PCBc PCDN PC do B PCN PCO PD PDB PDC (1) PDC (2) PDC (3) PDC do B PDI PDN PDS PDT PEB PES PFL PFS PGT PH PHN PJ PL (1) PL (2) PLB PLC PLH

Aliança Renovadora Nacional (National Renewing Alliance) Esquerda Democrática (Democratic Left) Liga Eleitoral Católica (Catholic Electoral League) Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (Brazilian Democratic Movement) Movimento Trabalhista Renovador (Renewing Labor Movement) Partido Agrário Nacional (National Agrarian Party) Partido dos Aposentados da Nação (Party of the Nation’s Pensioners) Partido de Ação Progressista (Progressive Action Party) Partido da Ação Social (Social Action Party) Partido Socialista Agrário e Renovador Trabalhista (Labor Agrarian and Renewing Socialist Party) Partido Brasileiro das Mulheres (Women’s Brazilian Party) Partido Comunista (Communist Party) Partido Comunista Brasileiro (Brazilian Communist Party) Partido Cívico de Desenvolvimento Nacional (National Development Civic Party) Partido Comunista do Brasil (Brazil’s Communist Party) Partido Comunitário Nacional (National Community Party) Partido da Causa Operária (Workmen’s Cause Party) Partido Democrata (Democratic Party) Partido Democrático Brasileiro (Brazilian Democratic Party) Partido Democrata Cristão (Christian Democrat Party) Partido Democrático Cristão (Christian Democratic Party) Partido Democrata Cristão (Christian Democrat Party) Partido Democrata Cristão do Brasil (Brazil’s Christian Democrat Party) Partido Democrático Independente (Independent Democratic Party) Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) Partido Democrático Social (Social Democratic Party) Partido Democrático Trabalhista (Labor Democratic Party) Partido Estudantil Brasileiro (Brazilian Student Party) Partido Ecológico Social (Social Ecological Party) Partido da Frente Liberal (Party of the Liberal Front) Partido da Frente Socialista (Party of the Socialist Front) Partido Geral dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ General Party) Partido Humanista (Humanist Party) Partido Humanista Nacional (National Humanist Party) Partido da Juventude (Youth’s Party) Partido Libertador (Liberator Party) Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Brasileiro (Brazilian Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Cristão (Christian Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Humanista (Humanist Liberal Party)

Brazil PLP PLT PMB PMC PMDB PMN PMSD PN PNA PNAB PND PNR PNT PNTB POC POR POT PP (1) PP (2) PP (3)b PPB (1) PPB (2) PPB (3) PPN PPR PPS (1)b PPS (2)c PR PRB PRD PRNd PRONA PR. POP (PRP (1))e PRP (2) PRP (3) PRP (4)b

177 Partido Liberal Progressista (Progressive Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Trabalhista (Labor Liberal Party) Partido Municipalista Brasileiro (Brazilian Municipalist Party) Partido Municipalista Comunitário (Communitarian Municipalist Party) Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement) Partido da Mobilização Nacional (National Mobilization Party) Partido Municipalista Social Democrático (Social-Democratic Nationalist Party) Partido Nacionalista (Nationalist Party) Partido Nacional dos Aposentados (National Party of the Pensioners) Partido Nacional dos Aposentados do Brasil (National Party of Brazil’s Pensioners) Partido Nacionalista Democrático (Democratic Nationalist Party) Partido da Nova República (Party of the New Republic) Partido Nacionalista dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Nationalist Party) Partido Nacionalista dos Trabalhadores Brasileiros (Brazilian Workers’ National Party) Partido Operário Comunista (Communist Labor Party) Partido Operário Revolucionário (Revolutionary Labor Party) Partido Orientador Trabalhista (Labor-Guiding Party) Partido do Povo (People’s Party) Partido Popular (Popular Party) Partido Progressista (Progressive Party) Partido do Povo Brasileiro (Brazilian People’s Party) Partido Progressista Brasileiro (Brazilian Progressive Party) Partido Proletário do Brasil (Brazil’s Proletarian Party) Partido Parlamentarista Nacional (National Parliamentarist Party) Partido Progressista Reformador (Reforming Progressive Party) Partido Popular Sindicalista (Unionist Popular Party) Partido Popular Socialista (Socialist Popular Party) Partido Republicano (Republican Party) Partido Ruralista Brasileiro (Brazilian Ruralist Party) Partido Republicano Democrático (Democratic Republican Party) Partido da Reconstrução Nacional (Party of National Reconstruction) Partido de Reedificação da Ordem Nacional (National Order Reedification Party) Partido de Representação Popular (Popular Representation Party) [1945–1965] Partido Renovador Progressista (Progressive Renewal Party) [1985– 1986] Partido Republicano Progressista (Progressive Republican Party) [1988–1995] Partido Republicano Progressista (Progressive Republican Party) [1945–1946]

178 PRS PRT (1) PRT (2) PRT (3) PRTB PS PSB PSC PSD (1) PSD (2) PSDB PSDC PS do B PSL (1) PSL (2) PSN PSP (1) PSP (2) PST (1) PST (2) PSTU PSU PT PTB (1) PTB (2) PTC PT do B PTN (1) PTN (2) PTR PTRB PV UDN a

Brazil Partido das Reformas Sociais (Party of Social Reforms) Partido Reformador Trabalhista (Labor Reforming Party) Partido Republicano Trabalhista (Labor Republican Party) [1948– 1958] Partido Rural Trabalhista (Rural Labor Party) Partido Renovador Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Renewal Party) [1962] Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Brasileiro (Brazilian Socialist Party) Partido Social Cristão (Christian Social Party) Partido Social Democrático (Democratic Social Party) Partido Social Democrático (Democratic Social Party) Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy) Partido Social Democrata Cristão (Christian Democrat Social Party) Partido Socialista do Brasil (Brazil’s Socialist Party) Partido do Solidarismo Libertador (Party of Liberating Solidarity) Partido Social Liberal (Liberal Social Party) Partido Solidarista Nacional (National Solidarity Party) Partido Social Progressista (Progressive Social Party) [1946–1965] Partido Social Progressista (Progressive Social Party) [1987–1990] Partido Social Trabalhista (Social Labor Party) [1947–1965] Partido Social Trabalhista (Social Labor Party) [1989–1993] Partido Socialista dos Trabalhadores Unificado (Unified Workers’ Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Unido (United Socialist Party) Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Party) [1945–1965] Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Party) [1980–2002] Partido Trabalhista Comunitário (Communitarian Labor Party) Partido Trabalhista do Brasil (Labor Party of Brazil) Partido Tancredista Nacional (National Tancredista Party) Partido Trabalhista Nacional (National Labor Party) Partido Trabalhista Renovador (Renewing Labor Party) Partido Trabalhista Renovador Brasileiro (Brazilian Renewing Labor Party) Partido Verde (Green Party) União Democrática Nacional (National Democratic Union)

The abbreviations refer to parties that have competed since 1945. After the 1945 elections, the PRP (4), PAN (1), and PPS (1) merged and built the PSP (1). c January 1992 the PCB changed its name into PPS (2). d Formerly known as PJ. e After the 1945 elections, the PR Pop changed its name into PRP (1).

b

Brazil

179

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1837–2002 Empire Period (1837–1889) Party Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) Partido Conservador (Conservative Party) Partido Progressista (Progressive Party) PR (Republican Party) PR Paulista (Paulista Republican Party) Partido Católico (Catholic Party) PR do Rio Grande (Republican Party of Rio Grande) Partido Nacional (National Party) PR Mineiro (Miner’s Republican Party) PR de Pernambuco (Republican Party of Pernambuco) Partido Liberal Radical (Radical Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Progressista (Progressive Liberal Party) a

Legal recognition perioda 1837–1889 1837–1889 1864–1868 1870–1889 1873–1889 1880–1889 1882–1889 1888–1889 1888–1889 1888–1889 1868–1889 —

Due to the enormous amount of parties and the regular practice of forming electoral alliances, it is not possible to gather reliable data on the number of contested elections.

First Republic (1889–1930)a Party / Allianceb

Legal recognition periodc PR Paulista (Paulista Republican Party) 1888–1930 PR Rio Grandense (Rio Grandense Republican Party) 1889–1930 PR Federal (Federal Republican Party) 1889–1930 PR Fluminense (Fluminense Republican Party) 1890–1930 Partido Operário de São Paulo (Labor Party of São Paulo) 1890– — Partido Operário do Brasil (Brazil’s Labor Party) 1890– — PR Histórico do Rio Grande do Norte (Historic Republican 1890– — Party of Rio Grande do Norte) Partido Federalista Brasileiro (Brazilian Federalist Party) 1892– — PR Mineiro (Republican Party of Minas Gerais) 1897–1930 d PR Fluminense (Fluminense Republican Party) 1890–1930 PRD (full name unknown) 1908– — Partido Republicano Democrata da Bahia (Democrat 1910–1930 Republican Party of Bahia) Partido Republicano Conservador (Conservative 1910– — Republican Party) Partido Republicano Liberal (Liberal Republican Party) 1913– — Liga Nacionalista (Nationalist League) 1917– — Partido da Mocidade (Youth’s Party) 1919– — Paraíba’s Republican Party — e PCB (Brazilian Communist Party) 1922; 1927–1930 Partido Democrata de Alagoas (Democratic Party of Alagoas) 1926–1930

180

Brazil

Legal recognition Party / Allianceb (continued) periodc Partido Democrático de São Paulo (Democratic Party of 1926–1930 São Paulo) Partido Democrático (Democratic Party) 1926– — Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) 1927–1929 Partido Democrático do Distrito Federal (Democratic Party 1927–1930 of the Federal District) Partido Liberal Catarinense (Catarinense Liberal Party) 1927–1930 PR Baiano (Baiano Republican Party) 1927–1930 Partido Libertador (Liberator Party) 1928–1930 Partido Trabalhista do Brasil (Brazil’s Labor Party) 1928–1930 f PR do Amazonas (Republican Party of Amazonas) 1930–1930 f PR do Paraná (Republican Party of Paraná) 1930–1930 f PR Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (Federal Republican 1930–1930 Party of Rio Grande do Norte) 1930–1930 PR de Santa Catarinaf (Republican Party of Santa Catarina) Partido Católico (Catholic Party) — Partido Monarquista Brasileiro (Brazilian Monarchist Party) — a

Throughout the First Republic, ‘republican’ parties dominated in each state, a situation which is equivalent to a one party system. In 1929 an important national opposition coalition—the Liberal Alliance—was formed to support the Getulio Vargas presidential candidacy. b Includes only legal parties. Therefore, illegal parties, party fronts and political movements are not cited. c Due to the enormous amount of parties and the regular practice of forming electoral alliances, it is not possible to gather reliable data on the number of contested elections before 1945. d The Rio de Janeiro’s Republican Party was also known as the PR Fluminense. e PCB, though founded in 1922, was only legally recognized during short periods. During periods of illegality its members participated in elections through other parties. f The party was founded a little before 1930, but precise information on its foundation date is unavailable.

Second Republic (1930–1937)a Party / Alliance

Legal recognition periodb Partido Nacionalista Regenerador (National Renewing Party) 1930– — Partido Republicano Federal do Rio Grande do Norte 1930– — (Federal Republican Party of Rio Grande do Norte) Partido Republicano Baiano (Republican Party of Baiano) 1930–1932 Partido Democrático do Distrito Federal (Democratic Party 1930–1933 of the Federal District) Partido Democrático do Rio de Janeiro (Democratic Party 1930–1933 of Rio de Janeiro) Partido Democrático de São Paulo (Democratic Party of 1930–1934 São Paulo) Partido Liberal Catarinense (Catarinense Liberal Party) 1930–1937 Partido Libertador (Liberator Party) 1930–1937

Brazil

181

Party / Alliance Legal recognition (continued) periodb Partido Republicano Democrata da Bahia (Democratic 1930–1935 Republican Party of Bahia) Partido Republicano Mineiro (Miner’s Republican Party) 1930–1937 Partido Republicano Paulista (Paulista Republican Party) 1930–1937 Partido Republicano Fluminense (Fluminense Republican 1930–1937 Party) Partido Republicano Rio-Grandense (Republican Party of 1930–1937 Rio Grande) Partido Trabalhista do Brasil (Labor Party of Brazil) 1930–1937 Partido Progressista Piauiense (Piauiense Progressive Party) 1930–1937 Partido União Liberal de Mato Grosso (Liberal Union 1931–1933 Party of Mato Grosso) Partido Liberal do Pará (Liberal Party of Pará) 1931–1937 Partido Evolucionista da Bahia (Evolutionist Party of Bahia) 1931– — c Partido Nacionalista Brasileiro (Brazilian Nationalist Party) 1931– — Partido Nacionalista Radical (Radical Nationalist Party) 1931– — Partido Regenerador Paulista (Paulista Renewing Party) 1931– — d Partido Popular Paulista (Paulista Popular Party ) 1932–1932 Partido Social Nacionalista do Piauí (Nationalist Social 1932–1932 Party of Piauí) Partido Social Nacionalista (Nationalist Social Party) 1932–1932 Partido Constitucionalista do Pará (Constitutionalist Party 1932–1933 of Pará) Partido Constitucionalista de Mato Grosso 1932–1933 (Constitutionalist Party of Mato Grosso) Partido Economista do Brasil ou Econômico Nacional 1932–1933 (Economist Party of Brazil or National Economic Party) Liga de Ação Social e Política da Bahia (Political and 1932–1935 Social Action League of Bahia) 1932–1937 Aliança Integralista Brasileira (Brazilian Integralist Alliance)e Partido Economista Democrático de Alagoas (Democratic 1932–1937 Economist Party of Alagoas) Partido Economista de Pernambuco (Economist Party of 1932–1937 Pernambuco) Partido Republicano do Paraná (Republican Party of Paraná) 1932–1937 Partido Republicano Liberal Rio Grandense (Republican 1932–1937 Party of Rio Grande) Partido Social Democrático de Pernambuco 1932–1937 (Social-Democratic Party of Pernambuco) Partido Socialista Brasileiro (Brazilian Socialist Party) 1932–1937 1932–1937 Partido Socialista Brasileiro de São Paul/ Partido Socialista de São Paulo (Brazilian Socialist Party of São Paulo or Socialist Party of São Paulo)

182

Brazil

Party / Alliance Legal recognition (continued) periodb Partido Social Democrático do Ceará (Social-Democratic 1932–1937 Party of Ceará) Partido Socialista Fluminense (Fluminense Socialist Party) 1932–1937 Partido Socialista do Distrito Federal (Socialist Party of 1932– — the Federal District) Partido Liberal do Amazonas (Liberal Party of Amazonas) 1932– — Partido Republicano Nacionalista do Ceará (Nationalist 1932– — Republican Party of Ceará) Partido Socialista Radical do Maranhão (Radical Socialist 1932– — f Party of Maranhão) Partido Social Liberal do Distrito Federal (Liberal Social 1932– — Party of the Federal District) Partido Liberal Social Fluminense (Fluminense Social 1932– — Liberal Party) Partido Nacionalista de São Paulo (Nationalist Party of São 1932– — Paulo) Partido Renovador do Distrito Federal (Federal District’s 1932– — Renewing Party) Partido Social Progressista do Distrito Federal 1932– — (Progressive Social Party of the Federal District) Partido Unionista dos Empregados do Comércio 1932– — (Commerce Employees’ Unionist Party) Liga Eleitoral Católica do Ceará (Catholic Electoral 1932– — League of Ceará) Partido Social Nacionalista do Paraná (Nationalist Social 1934–1937 Party of Paraná) Partido Economista do Rio de Janeiro (Economist Party of 1933–1934 Rio de Janeiro) Partido 25 de Janeiro (Party of 25 January) 1933–1935 Partido Liberal Mato Grossense (Liberal Party of Mato 1933–1936 Grosso) Partido Acreano Anti-Autonomista (Anti-Autonomist 1933–1937 Acrean Party) Partido Aliancista Renovador do Rio de Janeiro (Renewing 1933–1937 Alliancist Party of Rio de Janeiro) 1933–1937 Partido Autonomista do Distrito Federal (Federal District Autonomist Party) Partido da Lavoura de São Paulo (Farming Party of São 1933–1937 Paulo) Partido Democrático Socialista do Distrito Federal 1933–1937 (Democratic Party of the Federal District) Partido Economista Democrático do Distrito Federal 1933–1937 (Democratic Economist Party of the Federal District)

Brazil

183

Party / Alliance Legal recognition (continued) periodb Partido da Lavoura do Espirito Santo (Farming Party of 1933–1937 Espírito Santo) Partido Liberal Paraense (Paraense Liberal Party) 1933–1937 Partido Socialista do Piauí (Socialist Party of Piauí) 1933–1937 Partido Popular do Acre (Popular Party of Acre) 1933–1937 Partido Popular do Rio Grande do Norte (Popular Party of 1933–1937 Rio Grande do Norte) Partido Popular Radical do Rio de Janeiro (Radical 1933–1937 Popular Party of Rio de Janeiro) Partido Progressista do Paraíba (Progressive Party of 1933–1937 Paraíba) Partido Republicano de Alagoas (Republican Party of 1933–1937 Alagoas) Partido Progressista de Minas Gerais (Progressive Party of 1933–1937 Minas Gerais) Partido Republicano de Santa Catarina (Republican Party 1933–1937 of Santa Catarina) Partido Republicano do Sergipe (Republican Party of 1933–1937 Sergipe) Partido Republicano do Amazonas (Republican Party of 1933–1937 Amazonas) Partido Republicano do Maranhão (Republican Party of 1933–1937 Maranhão) Partido Republicano Social de Pernambuco (Social 1933–1937 Republican Party of Pernambuco) Partido Social Democrático do Espirito Santo 1933–1937 (Social-Democratic Party of Espírito Santo) Partido Social Democrático do Maranhão 1933–1937 (Social-Democratic Party of Maranhão) Partido Social Democrático do Paraná (Social-Democratic 1933–1937 Party of Paraná) Partido Socialista do Amazonas (Socialist Party of 1933–1937 Amazonas) Partido Social Democrático da Bahia (Social-Democratic 1933–1937 Party of Bahia) Partido Socialista do Maranhão (Socialist Party of 1933–1937 Maranhão) Partido Social Republicano de Goiás (Republican Social 1933–1937 Party of Goiás) União Progressista Fluminense (Fluminense Progressive 1933–1937 Union) União Republicana Maranhense (Republican Union of 1933–1937 Maranhão)

184

Brazil

Party / Alliance Legal recognition (continued) periodb Ação Social Política Proletária da Bahia (Proletarian 1933– — Political Social Action of Bahia) Partido dos Empregados do Comércio da Bahia (Party of 1933– — Commerce Employees of Bahia) Partido Independente 9 de Julho (9th of July Independent 1933– — Party) Partido Liberal Carioca (Carioca Liberal Party) 1933– — Partido Liberal de Pernambuco (Liberal Party of Pernambuco) 1933– — 1933– — Partido Liberal Independente (Independent Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Paulista (Paulista Liberal Party) 1933– — Partido Libertador Popular Carioca (Carioca Popular 1933– — Liberator Party) Partido Monarquista Brasileiro (Brazilian Monarchist Party) 1933– — Partido Nacional de Alagoas (National Party of Alagoas) 1933– — Partido Nacional do Trabalho (National Party of Work) 1933– — Partido Nacional Fluminense (Fluminense National Party) 1933– — Partido Nacional Socialista do Rio Grande do Norte 1933– — (Socialist National Party of Rio Grande do Norte) Partido Operário Camponês do Rio de Janeiro (Peasant 1933– — Workers’ Party of Rio de Janeiro) Partido Popular do Distrito Federal (Popular Party of the 1933– — Federal District) Partido Proletário do Rio de Janeiro (Proletarian Party of 1933– — Rio de Janeiro) Partido Republicano Liberal da Bahia (Liberal Republican 1933– — Party of Bahia) Partido Republicano Libertador da Paraíba (Republican 1933– — Party of Paraíba) Partido Social Evolucionista de Santa Catarina 1933– — (Social-Evolutionist Party of Santa Catarina) Partido Socialista Brasileiro do Ceará (Brazilian Socialist 1933– — Party of Ceará) Partido Socialista de Pernambuco (Socialist Party of 1933– — Pernambuco) Partido Social Nacionalista do Rio Grande do Norte 1933– — (Nationalist Social Party of Rio Grande do Norte) Partido Trabalhista Amazonense (Amazonense Labor Party) 1933– — Partido Trabalhista Mineiro (Miner´s Labor Party) 1933– — Partido União Sindical do Brasil (Labor Union Party of 1933– — Brazil) União Liberal Regeneradora do Piauí (Regenerating 1933– — Liberal Union of Piauí) União Republicana de Sergipe (Republican Union of 1933– — Sergipe)

Brazil

185

Party / Alliance Legal recognition (continued) periodb Aliança Trabalhista Liberal do Amazonas (Liberal Labor 1933– — Alliance of Amazonas) Liga Baiana Pró-Constituinte (Baiana Pro-Constitutional 1933– — Assembly League) Partido Evolucionista de Mato Grosso (Evolutionist Party 1934–1936 of Mato Grosso) Partido Evolucionista do Rio de Janeiro (Evolutionist Party 1934–1937 of Rio de Janeiro) Partido Constitucionalista de São Paulo (Constitutionalist 1934–1937 Party of São Paulo) Partido Popular do Amazonas (Popular Party of Amazonas) 1934–1937 Partido Social Democrático de Sergipe (Social-Democratic 1934–1937 Party of Segipe) Partido Liberdade e Trabalho (Work and Liberty Party) 1934– — Partido Popular da Bahia (Popular Party of Bahia) 1934– — Partido Republicano Regenerador do Distrito Federal 1934– — (Regenerating Republican Party of the Federal District) Partido Social Democrático do Rio Grande do Norte 1934– — (Social-Democratic Party of Rio Grande do Norte) Partido Trabalhista do Pará (Labor Party of Pará) 1934– — União Republicana de Santa Catarina (Republican Union 1934– — of Santa Catarina) Partido Popular do Pará (Popular Party of Pará) 1935–1935 União Popular do Pará (Popular Union of Pará) 1935–1937 Aliança Mato-Grossense (Mato-Grossense Alliance) 1936–1937 Partido Nacional de Mocidade (Youth’s National Party) 1936–1937 Partido Republicano Mato Grossense (Mato Grossense 1936–1937 Republican Party) Ação Libertadora (Liberating Action) 1937–1937 Partido Liberal Autonomista do Distrito Federal (Federal 1937–1937 District’s Autonomist Liberal Party) Partido Libertador Carioca (Carioca Liberator Party) 1937–1937 Partido Nacionalista de Minas Gerais (Nationalist Party of 1937–1937 Minas Gerais) Partido Progressista Democrático (Democratic Progressive 1937–1937 Party) Partido Progressista Radical do Rio de Janeiro (Radical 1937–1937 Progressive Party of Rio de Janeiro) Partido Radical Democrático de São Paulo (Radical 1937–1937 Democratic Party of São Paulo) Partido Republicano Castilhista (Castilhistic Republican 1937–1937 Party) Partido Social Democrata do Pará (Social Democrat Party 1937–1937 of Pará)

186

Brazil

Party / Alliance Legal recognition (continued) periodb Partido Socialista Revolucionário (Revolutionary Socialist 1937–1937 Party) Partido Social Republicano do Rio de Janeiro (Republican 1937–1937 Social Party of Rio de Janeiro) União Democrática Brasileira (Brazilian Democratic Union) 1937–1937 União Democrática Nacional (National Democratic Union) 1937–1937 Partido Progressista de Alagoas (Progressive Party of — –1937 Alagoas) Partido Proletário de Espirito Santo (Proletarian Party of — –1937 Espírito Santo) Partido Republicano Progressista do Ceará (Progressive — –1937 Republican Party of Ceará) Partido Social Progressista de Sergipe (Progressive Social — –1937 Party of Sergipe) União Republicana do Paraná (Republican Union of — –1937 Paraná) Partido Social Agrário do Rio de Janeiro (Social-Agrarian — Party of Rio de Janeiro) a

The period from the ‘1930 Revolution’ to the 1937 coup is characterized by a incipient multiparty system and the ideological polarization between communists and ‘integralists’. A vast number of parties existed. Many of them were created to participate in the 1933 elections and disappeared soon after. All political parties were suppressed by the decree no. 37 of 2 December 1937. b Due to the enormous amount of parties and the regular practice of forming electoral alliances, it is not possible to gather reliable data on the number of contested elections before 1945. c Also called Partido Nacionalista Associassionista Cooperativista (Cooperativist Associational Nationalist Party). d Also called Partido Popular Progressista (Progressive Popular Party). e Originally AIB was a fascist movement which soon became a party type association. It obtained a very substantive support and prepared itself to present it’s leader, Plinio Salgado, as presidential candidate in the 1938 elections. f Also called Partido Socialista Radical dos Trabalhadores do Brasil (Brazilian Workers’ Radical Socialist Party).

Brazil 1945–2002a

187

Party / Alliance

Yearsb

PSD (1) PTB (1) PTN (2) UDN PRP (1) PDC (1) PL (1) PR POT PRD PCB PRP (4) PAN (1) PPS (1) PSP (1) PPB (3) ED PST (1) PSB PRT (2) PRB PRT (3) MTR ARENAc MDBc PMDB PDS PT PDT PP (2) PTB (2) PMB PASART PC do B PCN PDC (3) PL (2) PH

1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1965 1945–1951 1945–1948 1945–1947, 1985–1992 1945–1946 1945–1946 1945–1946 1946–1965 1946–1947 1946–1947 1947–1965 1947–1965, 1985–2002 1948–1958 1950–1952 1958–1965 1960–1965 1966–1979 1966–1979 1980–2002 1980–1993 1980–2002 1980–2002 1980–1982 1980–2002 1985–1990 1985–1992 1985–2002 1985–1992 1985–1993 1985–2002 1985–1988

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 4 6 4 6 1 6 4 6 3 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 0 3 0 2 2 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 5 0 1 0 1 1 5 6 10 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 4 2 6 1 1 4 6 4 6 0 1 4 6 0 2 0 2 4 5 1 3 1 3 2 5 0 1

Brazil

188 Party / Alliance (continued) PFL PJ PMC PN PND PPB (1) PRP (2) PRT (1) PS PSC PTN (1) PTR PSD (2) PSP (2) PNAB PHN PNA PRP (3) PSDB PRNd PDN PMN PV PP (1) PDC do B PMUT PLP PRONA PST (2) PAS PPS (2) a

Yearsb 1985–2002 1985–1989 1985–1988 1985–1990 1985–1986 1985–1990 1985–1986 1985–1986 1985–1990 1985–2002 1985–2002 1985–1993 1987–2002 1987–1990 1988–1988 1988–1990 1988–1988 1988–1995 1988–2002 1989–2002 1989–1990 1985–2002 1989–2002 1989–1990 1989– — — 1989–1990 1989–2002 1989–1993 1990–1991 1992–2002

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 3 5 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 5 1 5 0 2 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 4 3 4 1 1 3 5 3 4 1 1

— —

— —

1 3 1 0 3

1 4 1 1 3

All parties were suppressed in 1956 by ‘Institutional Act N. 2’. Though the redemocratization period (1979–1985) witnessed a markedly multi-party system, restrictions to the legalization of marxist parties still existed. c Abolished by Law No. 6.767, enacted on 20 December 1979. d After the 1998 elections the PRN was renamed as PTC (Partido Trabalhista Cristão or Christian Labor Party).

b

Brazil

189

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Presidential system Parliamentary System a

1963a Total number 18,565,277 12,296,175 284,444 480,701 11,531,030 9,457,448 2,073,582

% – 66.2 2.3 3.9 93.8 82.0 18.0

The referendum was held on the system of government, that is, a presidential versus a parliamentarian system.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1993a Total number 90,274,117 Question Ib 66,965,009 7,023,713 6,838,361 53,102,935 44,235,550 8,867,385

%

Total number –

74.2 10.5 10.2 84.4 83.3 16.7

Question IIc 66,965,009 3,464,417 9,865,052 53,635,540 37,130,018 16,505,522

% 74.2 5.2 14.7 80.1 69.2 30.8

The 1993 referendum posed two independent questions on the same ballot, so the numbers of votes cast are the same for both themes. b Question I asked for the preference for a republic (‘yes’) or a monarchy (‘no’). c Question II asked for the preference for a presidential system (‘yes’) or a parliamentary system (‘no’).

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Data on the elections for the 1891 and 1933 constitutional assemblies are not available. The members of the 1946 constitutional assembly were the deputies and senators elected in the 1945 parliamentary election. The members of the 1987–1988 constitutional assembly were all the deputies elected in the 1986 parliamentary election and the senators elected in the 1982 and 1986 parliamentary elections.

Brazil

190 2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1945–2002

Electoral data for elections held between 1834 and before 1945 are not available. Note that in all the tables below invalid votes are the sum of blank and null votes. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) PCB PR PPS (1) PDC (1) PR. POP (PRP (1)) PR Prog. PL (1) PRD PSP (1) ED PRP (1) Coalitions Othersb

a

b

1945 Total number 7,418,930 6,192,158 198,209 5,924,616 2,531,944 1,575,375 603,500 511,302 219,562 107,321 101,636 94,447 70,675 57,341 33,647 — — — — 17,866

Data are not completely available. Others include PAN (1).

% – 83.5 3.2 96.8 42.7 26.6 10.2 8.6 3.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.6 — — — — 0.3b

1947a Total number 6,202,415 2,365,680 — 2,634,855 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

% – 42.5 — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Brazil Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) PSP PSD/PRP (1)/PST (1) UDN/PR/PSP (1)/ PDC (1)/PSB PR PTN (2) UDN/PR/PRP (1)/ PDC (1)/PTB (1)/PL (1) PST (1) PSD (1)/PL (1) UDN/PST (1) UDN/PR PSD (1)/PR/PSP (1) PTB (1)/PSP (1) UDN/PSP (1)/PL (1)/ PST (1) UDN/PR/PST (1)/ PRP (1)/PL (1) PRT (2) PRP (1) UDN/PSD (1)/PR/ PL (1)/PSP (1)/PTB (1) PDC (1) PL (1) PSB PSD (1)/PTB (1) PSD (1)/PRP (1)/PL (1) UDN/PTB (1)/PR UDN/PR/PL (1) PSD (1)/PDC (1)/ PSP (1)/PL (1)/PRP (1) PTB (1)/PST (1) PR/PDC (1) PSD (1)/PL (1) UDN/PSP (1) PSD (1)/UDN

191 1950 Total number 11,445,149 8,240,996 578,783 7,662,213 2,068,405 1,301,489 1,262,000 558,792 245,543 240,537

% – 72.0 7.0 93.0 27.0 17.0 16.5 7.3 3.2 3.1

1954 Total number 15,104,604 9,890,475 654,692 9,235,783 2,136,220 1,318,101 1,447,784 863,401 – –

% – 65.5 6.6 93.4 23.1 14.3 15.7 9.3 – –

216,207 211,090 176,432

2.8 2.8 2.3

246,487 190,839 –

2.7 2.1 –

163,341 144,024 103,368 110,733 94,630 84,467 86,326

2.1 1.9 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1

32,440 – – – – – –

0.4 – – – – – –

83,530

1.1

–

73,501 72,397 67,983

1.0 0.9 0.9

65,325 70,346 –

0.7 0.8 –

56,965 55,338 36,638 – – – – –

0.7 0.7 0.5 – – – – –

117,345 114,665 136,329 411,521 257,247 251,891 218,503 221,259

1.3 1.2 1.5 4.5 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.4

– – – – –

207,757 151,003 123,839 97,604 85,937

2.2 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9

– – – – –

–

Brazil

192 Year (continued) PTB (1)/PR/ PRP (1)/PSP (1) PSD (1)/PRP (1) PSP (1)/UDN/PL (1) PSD (1)/PTB (1)/ PDC (1)/PSB/PS/PR UDN/PST (1)/PSP (1) PSD (1)/PSB/PR PSP (1)/PST (1) Others a

1950 Total number – – – – – – – 148,477

% –

1954 Total number 81,756

% 0.9

– – –

78,129 67,515 53,123

0.8 0.7 0.6

– – – 1.9a

50,099 48,968 44,720 45,630

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5b

Others include: PSP (1)/PR/PRT (2)/PRP (1) POT; PSP (1)/PR; PSD (1)/PDC (1); PSP (1)/PTB (1)/ PSB; UDN/PRP (1); POT/PSP (1); PRB and PSD (1)/PST (1)/PTB (1)/PRP (1)/UDN. b Others include: PSD (1)/UDN/PDC (1)/PTN (2); PST (1)/PTN (2); Unidos pelo Maranhão (members not known) and PTN (2)/PR.

Year

1958 Total number Registered voters 13,780,480 Votes cast 12,678,997 Invalid votes 1,159,939 Valid votes 11,519,058 PSD (1) 2,296,640 PTB (1) 1,830,621 UDN 1,644,314 PSP (1)/PSD (1)/PRT (2) 897,271 PR 583,220 PTB (1)/PSB – PSD (1)/UDN – PDC (1)/PRT (2)/UDN – PSD (1)/PSP (1) – PSB/PTN (2) 549,302 PSD (1)/PTB (1)/PRP (1) 320,022 PDC (1) 313,635 PSD (1)/PDC (1)/PL (1)/ 307,079 PRP (1)/PST (1) PSP (1) 291,761 PSD (1)/PRP (1) 275,247 UDN/PSP (1)/PRT (2)/ 266,173 PR/PTN (2) PTB (1)/PSB/PDC (1)/PR 213,015 UDN/PTB (1)/PSP (1)/ 205,916 PTN (2)/PSB PRP (1) 179,589

% – 92.0 9.1 90.9 19.9 15.9 14.3 7.8 5.1 – – – – 4.8 2.8 2.7

1962 Total number 18,528,847 14,747,221 2,615,038 12,132,183 2,225,693 1,722,546 1,604,743 – 269,155 778,457 701,892 699,211 654,835 – – 54,031 –

2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3

124,337 – –

1.8 1.8

– –

1.6

70,435

% – 79.6 17.7 82.3 18.3 14.2 13.2 – 2.2 6.4 5.8 5.8 5.4 – – 0.4 – 1.0 – – – – 0.6

Brazil 1958 Total number PSD (1)/PSB/PRT (2)/PR/ 131,324 PTN (2)/ PL (1) PL (1) 120,956 PST (1) 115,365 UDN/PTB (1) 99,983 PSD (1)/PR/PSP (1)/ 97,215 PRP (1) UDN/ PL (1) 89,707 UDN/ PST (1)/PTN (2) 87,864 UDN/PDC (1)/PR 90,104 UDN/PR/PSP (1) 85,569 UDN/ PSP (1) 76,331 PSD (1)/PTB (1) 77,454 UDN/ PST (1) 58,434 UDN/PRP (1) 55,529 PTN (2)/MTR – PL (1)/ PRP (1)/PDC (1)/UDN – PSD (1)/ PSP (1)/PDC (1)/ – PTN (2)/PSB PTB (1)/PSP (1)/PL (1) – UDN/PDC (1)/PTN (2) – PTB (1)/PR/ PRP (1) – PSD (1)/UDN/PDC (1) – PSD (1)/PDC (1) – PSD (1)/ PST (1) – PTB (1)/UDN/PSP (1)/ – PRP (1) PSD (1)/PTN (2) – MTR/PSB/ PST (1) – UDN/PSP (1)/PDC (1) – PTB (1)/PSD (1) – PSP (1)/PTN (2)/PRT (2)/ – PR/ MTR/PSB/UDN/PL (1) UDN/PST (1) – MTR – UDN/PTB (1)/ PST (1) – PSB/ PST (1) – PSD (1)/PR – Coalitions – Others 159,418

193

Year (continued)

a

% 1.1

1962 Total number % – –

1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8

26,379 83,421 – –

0.2 0.7 – –

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 – – –

– – – – – – – – 366,951 286,155 294,458

– – – – – – – – 3.0 2.4 2.4

– – – – – – –

273,972 241,194 236,333 135,070 141,116 119,841 111,371

2.3 2.0 1.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9

– – – – –

102,959 96,308 83,779 83,516 83,151

0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

– – – – – – 1.4a

81,751 71,657 66,311 61,849 59,259 – 120,047

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 – 1.0b

Others include: PSD (1)/PR/ PSP (1); PDC (1)/PSP (1)/ PST (1)/PSB; PSP (1)/PSB/PR/PSD (1)/ PSP (1)/PDC (1)/PRP (1)/UDN, and PSD (1)/PTB (1)/UDN/PSP (1); PTN (2). Parties and alliances that gained under 5% together achieved 28.6% of the valid votes.

Brazil

194 b

Others include: PTB (1)/ PSP (1); PDC (1)/UDN/PR/PTN (2); PSB; PSP (1)/PDC (1); PRT (2)/ PSP (1)/PSD (1), and UDN/PSB/PSP (1). Parties and alliances that gained under 5% together achieved 39.2% of the valid votes.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARENA MDB Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARENA MDB Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PDS PMDB PDT PTB (2) PT PFL PL (2) PDC (3) PSB PCB PC do B Others a

1966 Total number 22,387,251 17,285,556 3,638,448 13,647,108 8,731,638 4,915,470 1974 Total number 35,810,715 28,981,015 6,160,057 22,820,958 11,866,599 10,954,359 1982 Total number 58,871,378 48,455,879 7,330,871 41,125,008 17,775,738 17,666,773 2,394,723 1,829,055 1,458,719 – – – – – – –

% – 77.2 21.0 79.0 64.0 36.0 a

%

– 80.9 21.3 78.7 52.0 48.0

% – 82.3 15.1 84.9 43.2 43.0 5.8 4.4 3.5 – – – – – – –

1970 Total number 28,966,114 22,435,521 6,789,780 15,645,741 10,867,814 4,777,927 1978 Total number 46,985,466 37,627,823 7,770,910 29,856,913 15,053,387 14,803,526 1986 Total number 69,309,231 65,823,591 18,512,433 47,311,158 3,731,735 22,633,805 3,075,429 2,110,467 3,253,999 8,374,709 1,335,139 565,021 450,948 427,618 297,237 1,055,051

% – 77.5 30.3 69.7 69.5 30.5 %a – 80.1 20.7 79.3 50.4 49.6

% – 95.0 28.1 71.9 7.9 47.8 6.5 4.5 6.9 17.7 2.8 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.6 2.2a

Others include: PSC; PMB; PH; PMC; PASART; PPB (1); PS; PTR; PND; PMN; PRT (1); PNR; PCN; PTN (1); PN; PJ; PDI; and PRP (2).

Brazil Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PMDB PFL PT PDT PDS PSDB PRN PTB (2) PL (2) PDC (3) PSB PTR PCB/PPS (2) PST PcdoB PSC PMN PRS PSD PRP (3) PTdoB PRONA PPR PP (3) Others a

b

195 1990 Total number 83,820,558 71,940,913 31,442,144 40,498,769 7,798,653 5,026,474 4,128,052 4,068,078 3,609,196 3,515,809 3,357,091 2,277,882 1,721,929 1,205,506 756,034 426,848 388,564 373,986 352,049 342,079 249,606 243,231 215,226 94,069 78,358 12,464 – – 257,585

% – 85.8 43.7 56.3 19.3 12.4 10.2 10.0 8.9 8.7 8.3 5.6 4.3 3.0 1.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 – – 0.9a

1994 Total number 94,743,043 77,660,795 31,966,623 45,694,172 9,287,049 5,873,370 5,859,347 3,303,434 – 6,350,941 184,727 2,379,773 1,603,330 – 995,298 – 256,485 – 567,186 213,734 257,018 – 414,933 207,307 39 308,031 4,307,878 3,169,626 154,666

% – 82.0 41.2 58.8 20.3 12.9 12.8 7.2 – 13.9 0.4 5.2 3.5 – 2.2 – 0.6 – 1.2 0.5 0.6 – 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.7 9.4 6.9 0.4b

Others include: PCN; PAS; PSL (1); PD; PLH; PNT; PSU; PAP; PS; PEB; and PBM. Others include: PV, PSTU, PCB; and PTRB.

Brazil

196 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSDB PFL PMDB PT PPB (2) PDT PTB (2) PSB PL (2) PPS (2) PCdoB PRONA PSD (2) PSC PMN Others a

1998 Total number 106,053,106 83,280,755 16,668,707 66,612,048 11,684,900 11,526,193 10,105,609 8,786,499 7,558,601 3,776,541 3,768,260 2,273,751 1,643,881 872,348 869,270 592,632 503,713 446,256 360,298 1,843,296

% – 78.5 20.0 80.0 17.5 17.3 15.2 13.2 11.3 5.7 5.7 3.4 2.5 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 2.8b

2002a Total number 115,184,176 94,741,120 7,204,996 87,532,485 12,533,893 11,702,029 11,689,110 16,092,411 6,839,436 4,480,385 4,051,278 4,616,349 3,778,625 2,682,135 1,967,135 1,804,104 451,872 504,571 282,865 4,056,287

% – 82.1 7.5 92.5 14.3 13.4 13.4 18.4 7.8 5.1 4.6 5.3 4.3 3.1 2.2 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 4.6c

Valid votes and invalid votes do not sum up to votes cast. Others include: PV; PRP (3); PTdoB; PST (2); PSTU; PSL (1); PSN; PTN (1); PAN (2); PSDC; PRN; PRTB; PCB; PGT and PCO. c Others include: PV; PSL (1); PST (2); PRTB; PSN; PRP (3); PGT; PSDC; PTDOB; PSTU; PAN (2); PTN (1); PRN; PCB; and PCO. b

2.7.1 a) House of Representatives: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1945 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

198,238 1,859,814 3,978,428 1,300,990 162,200 7,499,670

153,089 1,504,941 3,316,141 1,023,157 124,688 6,192,158

Invalid votes Valid votes 18,440 46,862 96,488 31,497 4,113 197,400

134,649 1,458,079 3,219,653 991,660 120,575 5,924,616

Brazil

197

1945 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

UDN

72,692 585,976 1,229,128 585,090 59,058 2,531,944

34,814 585,015 729,629 174,217 51,700 1,575,375

1947a Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

37,488 579,687 2,877,569 261,182 74,417 3,830,343

— — — — — —

a

PTB (1) 5,198 37,138 473,940 87,224 – 603,500

Others 21,945 249,950 786,956 145,129 9,857 1,213,797

Invalid votes Valid votes

— — — — — —

— — — — — —

By-elections to fill the deputy seats of seven states. Data on the party results are not available.

1950 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

380,767 3,368,368 5,628,438 1,727,727 349,849 11,455,149

260,337 2,467,352 4,007,840 1,273,625 232,202 8,240,996

1950 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

1954 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Invalid votes Valid votes 12,364 152,665 318,711 75,952 19,091 578,783

247,973 2,314,687 3,688,769 1,197,673 232,111 7,662,213

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

99,931 479,072 970,361 429,471 89,570 2,068,405

10,734 98,597 789,724 332,749 30,196 1,262,000

278 303,297 774,125 155,847 67,942 1,301,489

137,030 1,433,721 1,154,559 279,606 25,403 3,030,319

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

514,035 4,484,643 7,262,446 2,297,009 546,471 15,104,604

284,806 2,773,893 4,912,009 1,583,970 335,797 9,890,475

26,761 176,940 338,530 84,309 28,152 654,692

258,045 2,596,953 4,573,479 1,499,661 307,645 9,235,783

Brazil

198 1954 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

PTB (1)

UDN

11,537 373,062 1,410,614 341,007 – 2,136,220

58,740 133,358 810,007 445,679 – 1,447,784

1958 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

397,069 3,502,869 6,893,228 2,483,334 503,980 13,780,480

344,581 3,086,709 6,468,447 2,334,000 445,260 12,678,997

1958 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

101,568 326,474 1,080,944 644,007 143,647 2,296,640

63,111 75,965 775,893 879,538 36,114 1,830,621

58,834 270,231 1,010,355 244,693 60,201 1,644,314

92,650 2,203,828 2,886,012 411,208 153,785 5,747,483

1962 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

610,904 4,835,967 9,008,513 3,300,326 773,137 18,528,847

418,984 3,525,610 7,545,565 2,723,844 533,218 14,747,221

1962 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

129,467 330,762 943,805 675,169 146,490 2,225,693

84,987 462,171 256,632 870,415 48,341 1,722,546

– 392,716 930,027 206,465 75,535 1,604,743

133,859 1,935,723 3,742,392 604,199 163,028 6,579,201

17,081 349,349 663,894 240,956 46,821 1,318,101

Others 170,687 1,741,184 1,688,964 472,019 260,824 4,333,678

Invalid votes Valid votes 28,418 210,211 715,243 154,554 51,513 1,159,939

70,671 404,238 1,672,709 367,596 99,824 2,615,038

316,163 2,876,498 5,753,204 2,179,446 393,747 11,519,058

348,313 3,121,372 5,872,856 2,356,248 433,394 12,132,183

Brazil

199

1966 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

705,872 5,353,929 11,168,031 4,191,658 967,761 22,387,251

431,682 3,819,040 8,977,985 3,381,755 675,094 17,285,556

1966 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

258,964 2,591,180 3,656,948 1,859,983 364,563 8,731,638

80,980 776,990 2,850,100 1,020,789 186,611 4,915,470

1970 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

947,168 7,038,467 14,193,048 5,526,566 1,260,865 28,966,114

551,525 5,037,414 11,389,252 4,543,489 913,841 22,435,521

1970 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA 250,359 2,791,451 5,050,268 2,319,685 456,051 10,867,814

121,030 828,672 2,442,102 1,181,652 204,471 4,777,927

1974 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

1,163,881 8,719,062 17,294,603 6,918,656 1,714,513 35,810,715

826,632 6,370,642 14,638,221 5,861,066 1,284,454 28,981,015

Invalid votes Valid votes 91,738 450,870 2,470,937 500,983 123,920 3,638,448

339,944 3,368,170 6,507,048 2,880,772 551,174 13,647,108

Invalid votes Valid votes 180,136 1,417,291 3,896,882 1,042,152 253,319 6,789,780

371,389 3,620,123 7,492,370 3,501,337 660,522 15,645,741

MDB

Invalid votes Valid votes 198,027 1,295,908 3,338,720 1,047,708 279,694 6,160,057

628,605 5,074,734 11,299,501 4,813,358 1,004,760 22,820,958

Brazil

200 1974 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

374,859 3,774,083 4,802,982 2,268,244 646,431 11,866,599

253,746 1,300,651 6,496,519 2,545,114 358,329 10,954,359

1978 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

1,686,319 11,632,041 21,512,695 9,686,817 2,467,594 46,985,466

1,271,716 8,677,047 18,662,465 7,196,772 1,819,823 37,627,823

1978 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

561,273 5,012,430 5,541,652 3,096,480 841,552 15,053,387

386,907 1,919,024 8,938,885 2,936,861 621,849 14,803,526

1982 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

2,521,647 15,155,149 27,175,397 10,640,037 3,379,148 58,871,378

1,842,361 11,553,425 23,688,126 8,827,767 2,544,200 48,455,879

1982 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PDS

PMDB

768,752 6,332,405 6,608,661 3,195,810 870,110 17,775,738

751,774 3,375,693 8,691,565 3,547,394 1,300,347 17,666,773

Invalid votes Valid votes 322,953 1,749,073 338,530 84,309 28,152 2,523,017

948,180 6,931454 14,480,537 6,033,341 1,463,401 29,856,913

Invalid votes Valid votes 278,770 1,765,908 3,644,653 1,288,371 353,169 7,330,871 PDT 348 13,327 1,670,606 703,978 6,464 2,394,723

1,563,591 9,787,517 20,043,473 7,539,396 2,191,031 41,125,008 PTB (2) 13,360 8,012 1,776,987 30,696 – 1,829,055

Brazil 1982 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total 1986 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

201 PT 29,357 58,080 1,295,654 61,518 14,110 1,458,719 Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

3,108,153 17,772,954 32,280,218 11,606,405 4,541,501 69,309,231

2,742,772 16,683,258 31,015,447 11,156,898 4,225,216 65,823,591

936,309 5,776,144 8,041,733 2,645,326 1,112,921 18,512,433

1,806,463 10,907,114 22,973,714 8,511,572 3,112,295 47,311,158

PFL

PDS

PT

1986 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

1986 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PDT

PTB (2)

Others

85,921 362,288 1,810,260 736,566 80,394 3,075,429

57,191 130,432 1,732,984 59,459 130,401 2,110,467

109,750 438,081 2,915,827 218,816 448,540 4,131,014

1990 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

964,324 5,029,202 10,205,308 4,809,424 1,625,527 22,633,805

314,174 3,925,508 2,494,832 1,067,868 572,327 8,374,709

149,368 774,606 1,576,274 1,118,964 112,523 3,731,735

125,735 246,997 2,238,229 500,475 142,563 3,253,999

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

4,702,321 22,312,935 37,920,076 13,632,356 5,252,868 83,820,558

3,505,142 18,013,037 33,979,230 12,108,491 4,335,013 71,940,913

1,441,375 8,335,314 14,470,906 5,432,441 1,762,108 31,442,144

2,063,767 9,677,723 19,508,324 6,676,050 2,572,905 40,498,769

Brazil

202 1990 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

PFL

PDS

PT

470,313 1,666,664 3,316,149 1,717,598 627,929 7,798,653

212,980 2,745,948 1,121,535 707,459 238,552 5,026,474

145,195 522,109 1,871,119 977,506 93,267 3,609,196

158,330 413,519 2,612,138 657,108 286,957 4,128,052

1990 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PDT

PSDB

PRN

Others

69,628 721,811 2,294,755 850,570 131,314 4,068,078

120,192 910,673 1,979,709 412,020 93,215 3,515,809

139,392 698,328 1,652,015 691,919 175,437 3,357,091

747,737 1,998,671 4,660,904 661,870 926,234 8,995,416

1994 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

5,809,498 25,434,565 42,174,832 15,199,708 6,124,440 94,743,043

4,059,017 19,524,203 36,123,167 13,033,535 4,920,873 77,660,795

1,526,679 8,270,165 15,129,471 5,146,014 1,894,294 31,966,623

2,532,338 11,254,038 20,993,696 7,887,521 3,026,579 45,694,172

1994 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

PFL

PSDB

PT

751,308 2,130,278 3,836,157 1,800,570 768,736 9,287,049

214,196 3,209,400 1,389,927 777,344 282,503 5,873,370

198,233 1,621,263 3,813,663 454,031 263,751 6,350,941

209,223 783,746 3,293,133 1,180,592 392,653 5,859,347

1994 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PPR

PDT

PP (3)

PTB (2)

528,796 522,784 1,859,014 1,188,150 209,134 4,307,878

87,087 562,958 1,454,222 1,064,146 135,021 3,303,434

217,308 561,794 1,434,390 502,943 453,191 3,169,626

110,460 260,823 1,166,020 636,811 205,659 2,379,773

Brazil

203

1994 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Others

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

6,752,249 28,538,613 47,024,931 16,747,098 6,990,215 106,053,106

4,759,767 20,840,617 38,389,544 13,803,269 5,487,558 83,280,755

799,263 4,985,329 7,241,520 2,635,363 1,014,840 16,668,707a

3,963,822 15,859,515 31,148,024 11,167,960 4,472,727 66,612,048

a

215,727 1,600,992 2,747,170 282,934 315,931 5,162,754

The regional results sum up to 16,682,399.

1998 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PFL

PSDB

PMDB

PT

1,020,364 4,249,525 4,243,226 1,476,879 536,199 11,526,193

666,921 2,565,425 6,519,755 1,168,039 764,760 11,684,900

634,703 2,997,114 2,994,141 2,142,108 1,337,543 10,105,609

345,899 1,458,478 4,572,800 1,890,487 518,835 8,786,499

1998 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PPB

PDT

PTB (2)

Others

384,823 816,210 4,056,104 1,948,677 352,787 7,558,601

219,257 484,024 2,049,313 951,309 72,638 3,776,541

2002 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

7,630,413 30,998,109 50,696,080 17,833,494 8,026,080 115,184,176

5,999,760 24,337,993 42,553,628 15,283,253 6,566,486 94,741,120

215,572 372,640 1,941,168 1,034,656 204,224 3,768,260

476,283 2,916,099 4,771,517 555,805 685,741 9,405,445

Invalid votes Valid votes 251,978 1,823,985 3,622,230 1,126,803 380,000 7,204,996

5,747,567 22,512,594 38,931,397 14,156,450 6,184,477 87,532,485

Brazil

204 2002 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSDB

PFL

PMDB

PT

795,991 3,264,680 6,095,016 1,272,000 1,106,206 12,533,893

792,499 5,491,436 3,425,310 1,013,029 979,755 11,702,029

1,071,166 3,331,016 3,301,809 2,687,035 1,298,084 11,689,110

681,082 2,965,298 8,304,875 3,110,423 1,030,733 16,092,411

2002 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PPB (2)

PDT

PTB (2)

PSB

2002 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PL (2)

2002 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (2)

410,418 1,136,392 2,636,229 2,036,815 619,582 6,839,436

458,469 797,879 1,948,985 357,140 216,152 3,778,625

66,492 133,437 210,906 6,784 34,253 451,872

286,132 799,591 1,892,697 1,354,083 147,882 4,480,385 PPS (2) 119,153 623,431 1,257,815 544,401 137,335 2,682,135 PSC 30,273 34,300 327,287 52,273 60,438 504,571

376,907 918,754 1,611,205 1,008,106 136,306 4,051,278 PCdoB 282,424 770,518 640,145 104,247 169,801 1,967,135 PMN 17,528 119,102 98,881 19,282 28,072 282,865

115,071 1,359,066 2,794,214 314,157 33,841 4,616,349 PRONA 4,613 37,651 1,739,889 20,340 1,611 1,804,104 Others 239,349 730,043 2,646,134 256,335 184,426 4,056,287

Brazil

205

2.7.1 b) House of Representatives: Regional Level (% of Valid Votes) 1945 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Totala

4.0 2.5 14.6 8.6 0.0 10.1

12.8 18.3 25.1 16.4 11.2 21.4

2.2 24.7 54.2 16.9 2.1 100.0

PSD (1) 40.3 20.7 26.3 35.9 42.0 27.0

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

Totala

4.3 4.3 21.4 27.8 14.2 16.5

0.1 13.1 21.0 13.0 31.9 17.0

55.3 61.9 31.3 23.3 11.9 39.5

3.2 30.2 48.1 15.6 2.8 100.0

PSD (1) 4.5 14.4 30.8 22.7 0.0 23.1

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

Totala

22.8 5.1 17.7 29.7 0.0 15.7

6.6 13.5 14.5 16.1 15.2 14.3

66.1 67.0 36.9 31.5 84.8 46.9

2.8 28.1 49.5 16.2 3.3 100.0

UDN

Others

Totala

18.6 9.4 17.6 11.2 15.3 14.3

29.3 76.6 50.2 18.9 39.1 49.9

2.7 25.0 49.9 18.9 3.4 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1958 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

26.9 39.6 22.5 17.2 41.4 26.3

Others

PTB (1)

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1954 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

56.2 39.6 37.8 57.8 47.3 42.2

UDN

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1950 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

PSD (1)

PSD (1) 32.1 11.3 18.8 29.5 36.5 19.9

PTB (1) 20.0 2.6 13.5 40.4 9.2 15.9

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil

206 1962 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Others

Totala

– 12.6 15.8 8.8 17.4 13.2

38.4 62.0 63.7 25.6 37.6 54.2

2.9 25.7 48.4 19.4 3.6 100.0

ARENA 76.2 76.9 56.2 64.6 66.1 64.0

MDB

Totala

23.8 23.1 43.8 35.4 33.9 36.0

2.5 24.7 47.7 21.1 4.0 100.0

ARENA 67.4 77.1 67.4 66.3 69.0 69.5

MDB

Totala

32.6 22.9 32.6 33.7 31.0 30.5

2.4 23.1 47.9 22.4 4.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1974 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

24.4 14.8 4.4 36.9 11.2 14.2

UDN

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1970 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

37.2 10.6 16.1 28.7 33.8 18.3

PTB (1)

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1966 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

PSD (1)

ARENA 59.6 74.4 42.5 47.1 64.3 52.0

MDB

Totala

40.4 25.6 57.5 52.9 35.7 48.0

2.8 22.2 49.5 21.1 4.4 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil

207

1978 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Totala

40.8 27.7 61.7 48.7 42.5 49.6

3.2 23.2 48.5 20.2 4.9 100.0

59.2 72.3 38.3 51.3 57.5 50.4

PDS

PMDB PDT

PTB (2) PT

Totala

49.2 64.7 33.0 42.4 39.7 43.2

48.1 34.5 43.4 47.1 59.3 43.0

0.9 0.1 8.9 0.4 – 4.4

3.8 23.8 48.7 18.3 5.3 100.0

0.0 0.1 8.3 9.3 0.3 5.8

1.9 0.6 6.5 0.8 0.6 3.5

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1986 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

MDB

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1982 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

ARENA

PMDB PFL 53.4 46.1 44.4 56.5 52.2 47.8

17.4 36.6 10.9 12.5 18.4 17.7

PDS 8.3 7.1 6.9 13.1 3.6 7.9

PT 7.0 2.3 9.7 5.9 4.6 6.9

PDT 4.8 3.3 7.9 8.7 2.6 6.5

PTB (2) 3.2 1.2 7.5 0.7 4.2 4.5

Others

Totala

6.1 4.0 12.7 2.6 14.4 8.7

3.8 23.1 48.6 18.0 6.6 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1990 PMDB PFL PDS PT PDT PSDB PRN Others Totala Region North 22.8 10.3 7.0 7.7 3.4 5.8 6.8 36.2 5.1 Northeast 17.2 28.4 5.4 4.3 7.5 9.4 7.2 20.7 23.9 Southeast 17.0 5.7 9.6 13.4 11.8 10.1 8.5 23.9 48.2 South 25.7 10.6 14.6 9.8 12.7 6.2 10.4 9.9 16.5 Center-West 24.4 9.3 3.6 11.2 5.1 3.6 6.8 36.0 6.4 Nationwide 19.3 12.4 8.9 10.2 10.0 8.7 8.3 22.2 100.0 a

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil

208 1994 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

PMDB 29.7 18.9 18.3 22.8 25.4 20.3

1994 PDT Region North 3.4 Northeast 5.0 Southeast 6.9 South 13.5 Center-West 4.5 Nationwide 7.2

a

PSDB

PT

PPR

8.5 28.5 6.6 9.9 9.3 12.9

7.8 14.4 18.2 5.8 8.7 13.9

8.3 7.0 15.7 15.0 13.0 12.8

20.9 4.6 8.9 15.1 6.9 9.4

PP (3)

PTB (2)

Others

Totala

8.6 5.0 6.8 6.4 15.0 6.9

4.4 2.3 5.6 8.1 6.8 5.2

8.5 14.2 13.1 3.6 10.4 11.3

5.5 24.6 45.9 17.3 6.6 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

PFL

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

PDT

a

PFL

25.7 26.8 13.6 13.2 12.0 17.3

5.5 3.1 6.6 8.5 1.6 5.7

PSDB

PMDB

16.8 16.2 20.9 10.5 17.1 17.5

16.0 18.9 9.6 19.2 29.9 15.2

PT 8.7 9.2 14.7 16.9 11.6 13.2

PPB 9.7 5.1 13.0 17.4 7.9 11.3

PTB (2)

Others

Totala

5.4 2.3 6.2 9.3 4.6 5.7

12.0 18.4 15.3 5.0 15.3 40.1

6.0 23.8 46.8 16.8 6.7 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Brazil

209

2002 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

PSDB

2002 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

PDT

13.8 14.5 15.7 9.0 17.9 14.3

5.0 3.6 4.9 9.6 2.4 5.1

2002 PCdoB Region North 4.9 Northeast 3.4 Southeast 1.6 South 0.7 Center-West 2.7 Nationwide 2.2 a

PFL

PMDB

13.8 24.4 8.8 7.2 15.8 13.4

18.6 14.8 8.5 19.0 21.0 13.4

PTB (2)

PSB

6.6 4.1 4.1 7.1 2.2 4.6

2.0 6.0 7.2 2.2 0.5 5.3

PRONA PSD (2) PSC 0.1 0.2 4.5 0.1 0.0 2.1

1.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.5

0.5 0.2 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.6

PT

PPB (2)

11.8 13.2 21.3 22.0 16.7 18.4

7.1 5.0 6.8 14.4 10.0 7.8

PL (2)

PPS (2)

8.0 3.5 5.0 2.5 3.5 4.3

2.1 2.8 3.2 3.8 2.2 3.1

PMN 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3

Others

Totala

4.2 3.2 6.8 1.8 3.0 4.6

6.6 25.7 44.4 16.2 7.1 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1945–2002 Note that for the elections held in 1945–1998 the total numbers of voters in senate elections are not necessarily identical with the total presented in Table 2.2 above. Voters received different ballots for each office being contested.

Brazil

210 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSD (1) UDN PCB PTB (1) PR PPS (1) PRP (1) PSP (1) PPB (3) ED PDC (1) Independents Othersc a

1945a Total number 7,418,930 11,403,782 293,097 11,110,685 4,225,389 2,699,493 1,095,834 1,084,553 443,654 175,452 60,820 – – – – 716,715 608,775

% – 76.7 2.6 97.4 38.0 24.3 9.9 9.8 4.0 1.6 0.5 – – – – 6.5 5.5

1947b Total number 7,710,504 6,607,972 614,184 5,993,788 1,964,779 1,040,902 151,182 776,866 35,106 – 65,395 678,958 72,031 58,901 20,840 144,751 984,077

% – 85.7 9.3 90.7 32.8 17.4 2.5 13.0 0.6 – 1.1 11.3 1.2 1.0 0.3 2.4 16.4

Election with three senators elected by state. Each citizen can vote for two senators. Total turnout reached 5,424,062 voters. b Supplementary elections of one senator, except in the state of Santa Catarina, where two senators were elected. c Others include for 1945: PRD: 11,125 votes (0.1%); PL (1): 7,326 (0.1%); PSP (1): 3,584 (0.0%); PAN (1): 3,533 (0.0%), and coalitions of unknown composition; for 1947: mainly coalitions of unknown composition.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN PR PSP (1) PRP (1) PST (1) PL (1) POT PRT (2) PSB PTN (2) PDC (1)

1950 Total number 11,427,441 8,880,449 1,084,313 7,796,136 1,204,349 814,796 749,989 566,520 524,261 244,769 126,437 88,614 56,180 46,325 15,458 – –

% – 77.7 12.2 87.8 15.4 10.5 9.6 7.3 6.7 3.1 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.2 – –

1954a Total number 15,057,722 9,890,475 3,809,054 15,765,366 2,102,000 1,333,345 1,758,872 134,110 1,843,230 60,814 475 44,342 – – 70,015 551,549 107,050

% – — 19.5 80.5 13.3 8.5 11.2 0.9 11.7 0.4 0.0 0.3 – – 0.4 3.5 0.7

Brazil Year (continued) Others a

b

b

1950 Total number 3,358,438

% 43.1

1954a Total number 7,759,564

% 49.2

In 1954 two senators were elected in each state. Turnout reached 9,862,892 voters. Others include mainly coalitions of unknown composition.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) PTN (2) PSP (1) PST (1) PSB PR PDC (1) PL (1) MTR PRT (3) Coalitions Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARENA MDB a

211

1958 Total number 13,743,677 12,644,667 2,063,614 10,581,053 1,123,574 856,846 688,880 245,872 244,863 236,451 59,201 21,237 – – – – 7,104,129 1966 Total number 22,335,242 17,259,598 3,628,855 13,630,743 7,719,382 5,911,361

% – 92.0 16.3 83.7 10.6 8.1 6.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 0.6 0.2 – – – – 67.1

% – 77.3 21.0 79.0 56.6 43.4

1962 Total number 18,496,335 29,470,851 8,887,860 20,582,991 2,222,547 2,182,647 2,694,308 431,284 157,029 642,801 318,369 408,524 269,560 191,685 538,789 185,909 10,339,539 1970a Total number 28,921,169 46,986,492 13,021,147 33,965,345 20,524,470 13,440,875

% – — 30.2 69.8 9.8 9.7 11.9 1.9 0.7 2.8 1.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 2.4 0.8 45.8

% – — 27.7 72.3 60.4 39.6

The figures for ‘Total number of votes’ were duplicated in 1970 due to the renewal of twothirds of the senate. Total turnout was of 22,435,521 voters. The same procedure should be repeated in 1978, but one-third of the senate was indirectly elected, according to the institutional modifications implemented through the ‘April Package’, in 1977.

Brazil

212 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MDB ARENA Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PMDB PDS PDT PTB (2) PT a

1974 Total number 35,736,074 28,925,792 4,371,744 24,554,048 14,486,252 10,067,796 1982a Total number 58,871,378 48,746,803 6,592,970 42,153,833 18,410,338 17,799,069 2,496,188 1,909,452 1,538,786

% – 80.9 15.1 84.9 59.0 41.0

1978 Total number 45,864,901 37,501,281 6,952,139 30,549,142 17,432,948 13,116,194

% – 81.8 18.5 81.5 57.1 42.9

% – 83.4 13.6 86.5 43.7 42.2 5.9 4.5 3.6

Election of one senator per state, except in the State of Rondonia, where three senators were elected.

Note that there is no complete official publication of senate elections in 1986 and 1990. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSDB PMDB PT PFL PDT PL (2) PPR PP (3) PTB (2) PPS (2) PSB PRN PRONA

1994a Total number 94,743,043 77,949,111 60,075,174 95,813,507 15,652,182 14,870,466 13,350,294 13,014,066 7,299,932 7,138,405 4,473,291 4,208,013 4,015,701 2,447,931 2,336,549 1,628,491 1,150,157

% – 82.3 77.1 — 16.3 15.5 13.9 13.6 7.6 7.5 4.7 4.4 4.2 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.2

Brazil Year (continued) PSC PcdoB PSD (2) PSTU PRP (3) PMN a

213 1994a Total number 963,615 751,428 737,939 674,856 613,761 486,430

% 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Given that every voter was allowed to vote for two candidates, the total percentage of valid votes is greater than 100 and the number of invalid votes is very high.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PMDB PT PPB (2) PFL PSDB PSB PDT PTB (2) PPS (2) PCdoB PSC PRONA PSTU PST PV PL PSD Others a

1998a Total number 106,053,106 83,274,223 21,435,568 61,840,361 13,414,074 11,392,662 9,246,089 7,047,853 6,366,681 3,949,025 3,195,863 2,449,479 1,846,897 559,218 371,873 376,043 371,618 213,643 163,425 71,974 18,647 785,297c

% – 78.5 25.7 74.3 21.7 18.4 15.0 11.4 10.3 6.4 5.2 4.0 3.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.3

2002b Total number 115,184,176 189,483,166 35,861,926 153,621,240 25,199,444 33,852,312 6,903,581 28,407,651 21,359,929 3,389,030 7,932,605 5,189,825 4,720,408 6,199,237 293,463 145,016 490,251 1,129,186 962,719 4,857,302 1,151,901 1,437,380d

% – — 18.9 81.1 16.4 22.0 4.5 18.5 13.9 2.2 5.2 3.4 3.1 4.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 3.2 0.7 0.9

Each citizen could vote for two senators. Election of two senators per state. Therefore the total votes cast exceeds the number of registered voters. c Others include: PMN: 144,541 votes (0.2%); PSDC: 114,573 (0.2%); PSN: 110,080 (0.2%); PRN: 99,077 (0.2%); PRP: 76,969 (0.1); PTdoB: 62,086 (0.1); PAN (2): 43,389 (0.1); PTN (1): 42,042: (0.1%); PTRB: 35,328: (0.1%); PRTB: 32,258 (0.1%); PSL (1): 12,870 (0.0%); PGT: 11,810 (0.0%); PCO: 274 (0.0%). d Others include: PMN: 358,062 votes (0.2%); PSDC: 295,807 (0.2%); PCO: 194,112 (0.1%); PTN (1): 107,122 (0.1%); PRP: 90,502 (0.1%); PAN (2): 76,798 (0.1%); PtdoB: 19,175 (0.0%),and 295,802 votes for other parties. b

Brazil

214 2.7.2 a) Senate: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1945 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

191,343 1,859,814 3,974,583 1,230,990 162,200 7,418,930

283,351 2,913,472 5,163,698 1,195,485 1,160,553 10,716,559

1945 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

UDN

PTB (1)

Othersa

140,997 939,227 2,191,328 828,237 125,600 4,225,389

51,307 837,137 1,367,132 345,057 98,860 2,699,493

12,912 159,304 822,142 90,195 – 1,084,553

56,582 902,058 1,540,592 742,735 224,584 3,253,233

a

21,554 75,747 135,459 28,459 31,873 293,092

261,797 2,837,726 5,921,194 2,006,224 449,044 11,475,985

The figures for the regions do not sum up to the results given as ‘Total’.

1947a Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total a

Invalid votes Valid votes

Reg. voters

Votes cast

215,089 2,016,101 3,998,598 1,289,642 191,074 7,710,504

103,602 1,463,800 2,390,859 887,618 5,096,209 9,942,088

Invalid votes Valid votes 4,179 32,290 85,659 27,672 158,758 308,558

99,423 1,431,510 2,305,200 859,946 4,937,451 9,633,530

Party results are not available.

1950 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

353,059 3,368,368 5,628,438 1,727,727 349,849 11,427,441

240,072 2,459,042 3,422,093 1,273,625 1,448,971 8,843,803

17,266 193,515 438,766 112,991 325,775 1,088,313

222,806 2,265,527 2,983,327 1,160,634 1,123,196 7,755,490

Brazil

215

1950 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

UDN

PTB (1)

Others

89,070 513,750 390,840 191,214 19,475 1,204,349

– 400,704 292,888 – 56,397 749,989

17,897 – 282,874 488,274 25,751 814,796

115,839 1,351,073 2,016,725 481,146 1,021,573 4,986,356

1954 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

1954 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

UDN

PTB (1)

Others

176,601 659,374 761,006 298,018 207,001 2,102,000

42,468 156,734 1,193,448 272,445 93,777 1,758,872

32,000 22,444 510,864 768,037 – 1,333,345

160,579 3,882,094 4,896,608 1,323,574 308,284 10,571,139

1958 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

360,086 3,502,869 6,893,408 2,483,334 503,980 13,743,677

311,071 3,086,709 6,468,447 2,334,000 445,260 12,645,487

37,653 450,640 1,307,986 199,698 67,637 2,063,614

273,418 2,636,069 5,160,461 2,134,302 377,623 10,581,873

1958 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

467,153 4,484,643 7,262,446 2,297,009 546,471 15,057,722

– 530,463 87,921 375,372 129,818 1,123,574

257,223 2,773,893 4,912,009 1,583,970 335,797 9,862,892

37,065 – 192,033 346,756 113,026 688,880

102,799 804,733 2,462,093 376,897 62,532 3,809,054

– 106,163 397,466 279,416 73,801 856,846

411,648 4,720,646 7,361,926 2,662,074 609,062 15,765,356

236,353 1,999,443 4,483,041 1,132,758 60,978 7,912,573

Brazil

216 1962 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

578,392 4,835,967 9,008,513 3,300,326 773,137 18,496,335

788,230 7,051,220 15,091,130 5,447,688 1,066,436 29,444,704

194,047 1,883,449 5,292,022 1,259,491 258,851 8,887,860

593,766 5,181,428 9,799,108 4,188,198 807,586 20,570,086

1962 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PSD (1)

PTB (1)

UDN

Others

243,019 898,906 454,842 259,923 365,857 2,222,547

54,610 609,060 474,578 1,556,060 – 2,694,308

1966 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid Votes

666,739 5,353,581 11,174,985 4,193,239 946,698 22,335,242

405,724 3,819,040 8,977,985 3,381,755 675,094 17,259,598

63,925 638,375 2,322,633 488,908 115,014 3,628,855

1966 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

255,729 1,817,620 3,616,617 1,713,254 316,162 7,719,382

86,070 1,363,045 3,038,735 1,179,593 243,918 5,911,361

1970 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. Voters

Votes cast

902,223 7,038,467 14,193,048 5,526,566 1,260,865 28,921,169

– 90,146 1,359,128 602,063 131,310 2,182,647

296,137 3,583,316 7,510,560 1,770,152 310,419 13,470,584

341,799 3,180,665 6,655,352 2,892,847 560,080 13,630,743

Invalid votes Valid votes

1,045,256 309,357 10,074,828 2,792,695 22,778,504 7,251,394 9,086,978 2,184,185 1,827,682 483,516 44,813,248 13,021,147

735,899 7,282,133 17,058,348 6,902,793 1,986,172 33,965,345

Brazil

217

1970 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

474,298 5,259,092 9,171,664 4,458,173 1,161,243 20,524,470

261,601 2,023,041 7,886,684 2,444,620 824,929 13,440,875

1974 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

1,089,240 8,719,062 17,294,603 6,918,656 1,714,513 35,736,074

771,314 6,370,642 14,638,316 5,861,066 1,284,454 28,925,792

136,065 1,003,410 2,265,890 776,467 189,912 4,371,744

1974 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

368,231 3,034,295 4,081,008 2,074,630 509,632 10,067,796

267,018 2,332,937 8,291,418 3,009,969 584,910 14,486,252

1978 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

1,519,219 11,601,743 21,511,567 8,762,263 2,470,109 45,864,901

1,144,427 8,677,800 18,662,465 7,196,772 1,819,817 37,501,281

257,488 1,253,464 4,243,031 888,452 309,704 6,952,139

1978 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

ARENA

MDB

478,551 4,563,946 4,460,672 2,781,133 831,892 13,116,194

408,388 2,860,390 9,958,762 3,527,187 678,221 17,432,948

635,249 5,367,232 12,372,426 5,084,599 1,094,542 24,554,048

886,939 7,424,336 14,419,434 6,308,320 1,510,113 30,549,142

Brazil

218 1982 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

2,521,647 15,155,149 27,175,397 10,640,037 3,379,148 58,871,378

2,133,285 11,553,425 23,688,126 8,827,767 2,544,200 48,746,803

253,868 1,783,072 3,167,934 1,097,369 290,727 6,592,970

1,879,417 9,770,353 20,520,192 7,730,398 2,253,473 42,153,833

1982 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PDS

PDT

PT

PTB (2)

925,116 6,130,959 6,646,610 3,205,536 890,848 17,799,069

0 13,608 1,734,554 741,529 6,497 2,496,188

38,039 60,000 1,360,625 65,674 14,448 1,538,786

13,110 8,005 1,856,616 31,721 0 1,909,452

1982 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

Invalid votes

Valid votes

903,152 3,557,781 8,921,787 3,685,938 1,341,680 18,410,338

1994 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

1994 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

5,809,498 25,434,565 42,174,832 15,199,708 6,124,440 94,743,043

1,218,803 2,936,927 2,413,868 6,025,521 2,275,347 14,870,466

Votes cast 4,059,017 19,524,203 36,411,483 13,033,535 4,920,873 77,949,111 PFL 473,068 6,540,513 4,645,963 914,799 439,723 13,014,066

2,908,946 16,575,714 28,772,531 8,761,765 3,056,218 60,075,174 PSDB 462,934 5,058,867 8,772,943 457,367 900,071 15,652,182

5,209,724 22,466,702 44,047,225 17,304,706 6,785,150 95,813,507 PPR 652,903 559,781 954,150 1,513,741 792,716 4,473,291

Brazil

219

1994 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PTB (2)

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

1998 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

1998 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PTB (2)

2002 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Reg. voters

73,179 99,706 1,714,810 1,860,876 267,130 4,015,701

6,752,249 28,538,613 47,024,931 16,747,098 6,990,215 106,053,106

819,831 3,033,322 4,112,915 3,065,548 2,382,458 13,414,074

134,508 14,426 2,300,545 – – 2,449,479

PT 719,936 1,638,173 8,209,329 2,154,975 627,881 13,350,294 Votes cast 4,758,931 20,837,162 38,388,933 13,802,347 5,486,850 83,274,223 PFL 749,084 4,869,199 239,498 1,087,512 102,560 7,047,853 PT 1,109,624 2,170,382 6,718,463 977,279 416,914 11,392,662 Votes cast

7,630,413 11,999,644 30,998,109 48,676,086 50,696,080 85,107,268 17,833,494 30,566,538 8,026,080 13,133,630 115,184,176 189,483,166

PDT 439,177 2,438,629 3,194,798 896,643 330,685 7,299,932

Others 1,169,724 3,194,106 14,141,364 3,480,784 1,151,597 23,137,575

Invalid votes Valid votes 971,816 6,831,295 9,452,818 3,065,238 1,089,589 21,410,756 PSDB 48,153 2,087,752 780,395 2,532,010 918,371 6,366,681 PDT 6,119 74,135 2,516,965 526,395 72,249 3,195,863

3,787,344 14,004,941 28,913,789 10,737,026 4,397,261 61,840,361 PPB (2) 689,124 562,528 7,994,437 – – 9,246,089 Others 230,901 1,193,197 4,250,571 2,548,282 504,709 8,727,660

Invalid votes Valid votes 1,798,855 11,297,605 15,948,207 4,701,629 2,115,670 35,861,966

10,803,355 37,375,653 69,180,049 25,866,183 11,040,510 154,265,750

Brazil

220 2002 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB

PT

PFL

PSDB

1,695,534 4,129,903 14,194,191 2,524,562 2,655,254 25,199,444

1,565,228 5,067,941 16,150,173 9,011,362 2,057,608 33,852,312

1,289,286 12,688,439 10,232,188 1,792,478 2,405,260 28,407,651

1,627,526 5,818,670 10,847,745 2,172,194 1,496,794 21,962,929

2002 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PDT

Others

814,152 2,035,868 1,967,035 2,971,086 144,464 7,932,605

3,811,629 7,634,832 15,788,717 7,394,501 2,281,130 36,910,809

2.7.2 b) Senate: Regional Level (% of Valid Votes) 1945 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

53.9 33.1 37.0 41.3 28.0 36.8

UDN 19.6 29.5 23.1 17.2 22.0 23.5

PTB (1)

Totala

4.9 5.6 13.9 4.5 0.0 9.5

2.3 24.7 51.6 17.5 3.9 100.0

PTB (1)

Totala

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1947 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

PSD (1)

PSD (1) 50.2 31.7 31.3 35.2 47.9 32.8

UDN 0.0 26.9 11.4 24.2 52.1 17.4

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

7.1 9.4 12.9 20.2 0.0 13.0

2.3 21.5 58.1 16.2 2.0 100.0

Brazil 1950 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

– 17.7 9.8 – 5.0 9.7

PTB (1)

Totala

8.0 – 9.5 42.1 2.3 10.5

2.9 29.2 38.5 15.0 14.5 100.0

PSD (1) 42.9 14.0 10.3 11.2 34.0 13.3

UDN

PTB (1)

Totala

10.3 3.3 16.2 10.2 15.4 11.2

7.8 0.5 6.9 28.9 0.0 8.5

2.6 29.9 46.7 16.9 3.9 100.0

PSD (1) 0.0 20.1 1.7 17.6 34.4 10.6

PTB (1)

UDN

Totala

13.6 0.0 3.7 16.2 29.9 6.5

0.0 4.0 7.7 13.1 19.5 8.1

2.6 24.9 48.8 20.2 3.6 100.0

UDN

Totala

0.0 1.7 13.9 14.4 16.3 10.6

2.9 25.2 47.6 20.4 3.9 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1962 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

40.0 22.7 13.1 16.5 1.7 15.5

UDN

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1958 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

PSD (1)

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1954 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

221

PSD (1) 40.9 17.3 4.6 6.2 45.3 10.8

PTB (1) 9.2 11.8 4.8 37.2 0.0 13.1

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

Brazil

222 1966 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

25.2 42.9 45.7 40.8 43.6 43.4

2.5 23.3 48.8 21.2 4.1 100.0

ARENA 64.5 72.2 53.8 64.6 58.5 60.4

MDB

Totala

35.5 27.8 46.2 35.4 41.5 39.6

2.2 21.4 50.2 20.3 5.8 100.0

ARENA 58.0 56.5 33.0 40.8 46.6 41.0

MDB

Totala

42.0 43.5 67.0 59.2 53.4 59.0

2.6 21.9 50.4 20.7 4.5 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1978 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Totala

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1974 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

74.8 57.1 54.3 59.2 56.4 56.6

MDB

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1970 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

ARENA

ARENA 54.0 61.5 30.9 44.1 55.1 42.9

MDB

Totala

46.0 38.5 69.1 55.9 44.9 57.1

2.9 24.3 47.2 20.6 4.9 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

Brazil 1982 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

PDT

49.2 62.8 32.4 41.5 39.5 42.2

PT

0.0 0.1 8.5 9.6 0.3 5.9

2.0 0.6 6.6 0.8 0.6 3.7

PTB (2)

PMDB

Totala

0.7 0.1 9.0 0.4 0.0 4.5

48.1 36.4 43.5 47.7 59.5 43.7

4.5 23.2 48.7 18.3 5.3 100.0

PMDB PFL 23.4 13.1 5.5 34.8 33.5 15.5

9.1 29.1 10.5 5.3 6.5 13.6

PSDB 8.9 22.5 19.9 2.6 13.3 16.3

PPR 12.5 2.5 2.2 8.7 11.7 4.7

PTB (2)

PT

1.4 0.4 3.9 10.8 3.9 4.2

13.8 7.3 18.6 12.5 9.3 13.9

PDT

Totala

8.4 10.9 7.3 5.2 4.9 7.6

5.4 23.4 46.0 18.1 7.1 100.0

PDT

Totala

0.2 0.5 8.7 4.9 1.6 5.2

6.1 22.6 46.8 17.4 7.1 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

PDS

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

1994

a

223

PMDB PFL 21.6 21.7 14.2 28.6 54.2 21.7

19.8 34.8 0.8 10.1 2.3 11.4

PSDB 1.3 14.9 2.7 23.6 20.9 10.3

PPB (2) 18.2 4.0 27.6 – – 15.0

PTB (2)

PT

3.6 0.1 8.0 – – 4.0

29.3 15.5 23.2 9.1 9.5 18.4

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

2002 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

PMDB 15.7 11.0 20.5 9.8 24.1 16.3

PT 14.5 13.6 23.3 34.8 18.6 21.9

PFL 11.9 33.9 14.8 6.9 21.8 18.4

PSDB 15.1 15.6 15.7 8.4 13.6 14.2

Brazil

224 2002 (continued) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total a

PDT

Others

Totala

35.3 20.4 22.8 28.6 20.7 23.9

7.0 24.2 44.8 16.8 7.2 100.0

7.5 5.4 2.8 11.5 1.3 5.1

Percentages of valid votes cast per region.

2.8 Composition of Parliament 1945–2002 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1945–2002 Year PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) PCB PR UDN/PR PPS (1) PDC (1) PSP (1) PL (1) PST (1) PTN (2) PRP (1) PRT (2) PSB Othersa a

1945 1947 Seats % Seats % 286 100.0 151 52.8 7 36.8 77 26.9 – – 22 7.7 1 5.3 14 4.9 – – 7 2.4 – – 6 2.1 – – 4 1.4 – – 2 0.7 – – 2 0.7 – – 1 0.3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 11 57.9

1950 Seats % 304 100.0 112 36.8 81 26.6 51 16.8 – – 11 3.6 – – – – 2 0.6 24 7.9 5 1.6 9 3.0 5 1.6 2 0.6 1 0.3 1 0.3 – –

1954 Seats % 326 100.0 114 35.0 74 22.7 56 17.2 – – 19 5.8 – – – – 2 0.6 32 9.8 8 2.4 2 0.6 6 1.8 3 0.9 1 0.3 3 0.9 6 1.8

1958 Seats % 326 100.0 69 21.2 43 13.2 46 14.1 – – 14 4.3 – – – – 6 1.8 7 2.1 2 0.6 2 0.6 – – 2 0.6 – – – – 135 41.4

Including coalitions.

Year PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) PSP (1) PR PSB

1962 Seats 409 79 55 63 6 6 –

% 100.0 19.3 13.4 15.4 1.5 1.5 –

1966 Seats 409 – – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – – – –

1970 Seats 310 – – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – – – –

1974 Seats 364 – – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – – – –

Brazil Year (continued) PDC (1) PTN (2) PL (1) PRP (1) PRT (2) PST (1) MTR ARENA MDB Othersa a

225 1962 Seats 1 – 2 1 – 2 1 – – 193

0.2 – 0.5 0.2 – 0.5 0.2 – – 47.2

1966 Seats – – – – – – – 277 132 –

% 100.0 55.0 45.0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1982 Seats 479 – – 235 200 23 8 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 13

%

– – – – – – – 67.7 32.3 –

1970 Seats – – – – – – – 223 87 –

% 100.0 – – 49.1 41.7 4.8 1.7 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.7

1986 Seats 487 – – 33 260 24 16 118 17 6 3 5 3 1 – – 1 – – – – – – –

%

– – – – – – – 71.9 28.1 –

1974 Seats – – – – – – – 203 161 –

% 100.0 – – 6.8 53.4 4.9 3.3 24.2 3.5 1.2 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.2 – – 0.2 – – – – – – –

1990 Seats 502 – – 42 109 46 35 83 34 15 5 22 3 11 41 37 5 5 4 2 1 1 1 –

%

% – – – – – – – 55.8 44.2 –

Including coalitions.

Year ARENA MDB PDS PMDB PDT PT PFL PTB (2) PL (2) PCdoB PDC (3) PCB PSB PRN PSDB PSC PTR PRS PST (2) PMN PRB PRT (1) Others

1978 Seats 420 231 191 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 – – 8.4 21.7 9.2 7.0 16.5 6.8 3.0 1.0 4.4 0.6 2.2 8.2 7.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 –

Brazil

226 Year PMDB PFL PSDB PPR PT PP (3) PDT PTB (2) PSB PL (2) PCdoB PMN PSD (2) PSC PPS (2) PRN PV PRP (3) PPB (2) PST PSL (1) PRONA PSB Others

1994 Seats 513 107 89 62 52 49 36 34 31 15 13 10 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 – – – – – –

% 100.0 20.9 17.3 12.1 10.1 9.6 7.0 6.6 6.0 2.9 2.5 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 – – – – – –

1998 Seats 513 83 105 99 – 58 – 25 31 19 12 7 2 3 2 3 – 1 – 60 1 1 1 – –

% 100.0 16.2 20.5 19.3 – 11.3 – 4.9 6.0 3.7 2.3 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 – 0.2 – 11.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 – –

2002 Seats 513 74 84 71 – 91 – 21 26 – 26 12 1 4 1 15 – 5 – 49 3 1 6 22 1

% 100.0 14.4 16.4 13.8 – 17.7 – 4.1 5.1 – 5.1 2.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 2.9 – 1.0 – 9.6 0.6 0.2 1.2 4.3 0.2

Brazil

227

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1945–2002 Year PSD (1) UDN PTB (1) UDN/PR PPS (1) PSB PPB (3) PSP (1) PR PSB PST (1) UDN/PTB (1) PSD (1)/UDN PSD (1)/UDN/ PL (1)/PDC (1) PR/PTB (1)/UDN PSD (1)/PDC (1)/ PTB (1)/PPRB/ PR/PTN (2) PTN (2) PL (1) a

1945 1947 a Seats % Seatsa % 42 100.0 22 100.0 26 61.9 10 45.5 10 23.8 4 18.2 2 4.8 1 4.5 – – 2 4.8 1 2.4 – – 1 2.4 – – – – 1 4.5 – – 1 4.5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 4.5 – – 1 4.5 – – 1 4.5

1950 Seatsa % 22 100.0 6 27.3 4 18.2 5 22.7 – – – – – – – – 3 13.6 2 9.0 1 4.5 1 4.5 – – – – – –

1954 Seatsa % 42 100.0 16 28.1 10 23.8 10 23.8 – – – – – – – – 2 4.8 1 2.4 – – – – – – – – – –

– –

– –

1 1

4.5 4.5

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

1 2

2.4 4.8

Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Year PSD (1) PTB (1) UDN PL (1) PSP (1) PR PTN (2) PSB MTR PDC (1) Independents ARENA MDB

1958 Seatsa % 21 100.0 6 28.6 6 28.6 8 38.1 – – – – – – – – 1 4.8 – – – – – – – – – –

1962 Seatsa % 45 100.0 16 35.6 12 26.7 8 17.8 1 2.2 1 2.2 1 2.2 2 4.4 1 2.2 1 2.2 1 2.2 1 2.2 – – – –

1966 Seatsa % 23 100.0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 19 82.6 4 17.4

1970 Seatsa % 46 100.0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 40 87.0 6 13.0

Brazil

228 a

Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Year ARENA MDB PDS PDT PMDB PFL PMB a

1974 Seatsa % 22 100.0 6 27.3 16 72.7 – – – – – – – – – –

1978 Seatsa % 23 100.0 15 65.2 8 34.8 – – – – – – – – – –

1982 Seatsa % 25 100.0 – – – – 15 60.0 1 4.0 9 36.0 – – – –

1986 Seatsa % 49 100.0 – – – – 2 4.1 1 2.0 38 77.6 7 14.3 1 2.0

Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Year PMDB PFL PSDB PTB (2) PDT PRN PDS/PPR PDC (2) PMN PSB PST (2) PT PP (3) PL (2) PPS (2) Independents a

1990 Seatsa % 31 100.0 8 25.8 8 25.8 1 3.2 4 12.9 1 3.2 2 6.5 2 6.5 2 6.5 1 3.2 – – 1 3.2 1 3.2 – – – – – – 1 1.2

1994 Seatsa % 54 100.0 14 25.9 11 20.4 9 16.7 3 5.6 4 7.4 – – 2 3.7 – – – – 1 1.9 – – 4 7.4 4 7.4 1 1.9 1 1.9 – –

1998 Seatsa % 27 100.0 12 44.4 5 18.5 4 14.8 – – – – – – 2 7.4 – – – – 1 3.7 – – 3 11.1 – – – – – – – –

2002 Seatsa % 54 100.0 9 16.7 14 25.9 8 14.8 2 3.7 4 7.4 – – 1 1.9 – – – – 3 5.6 – – 10 18.5 – – 2 3.7 1 1.9 – –

Figures under ‘Seats’ refer to the number of seats contested, not the total number of seats of the senate.

Brazil

229

2.9 Presidential Elections 1894–2002 Note that in Tables 2.9, 2.9a, and 2.9b, votes cast by Brazilians living abroad were not included in the totals of the 1989, 1994, and 1998 presidential elections. 1894a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Prudente de Moraes (PR Paulista) Afonso Pena (PR Mineiro) Cesário Alvim (PR Mineiro) Rui Barbosab (PR Baiano) José Luiz de A. Couto Lauro Sodré (PR do Paraná) Others a

Total number — — — 345,097 276,583 38,291 3,719 3,718 3,437 1,983 17,366

% – — — — 80.1 11.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.6 5.0

Throughout the First Republic (1889–1930), there was no requirement for candidates to be affiliated with or officially endorsed by parties. b Rui Barbosa did not have any effective link with the Bahia’s Republican Party.

1898 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Campos Salles (PR Paulista) Lauro Sodré (PR do Paraná) Others

Total number — — — 462,361 420,286 38,929 3,146

% – — — — 90.9 8.4 0.7

1902 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rodrigues Alves (PR Paulista) Quintino Bocaiuva (PR Fluminense) Ubldino Fontoura (PR Fluminense) Others

Total number — — — 645,531 592,039 42,542 5,371 5,579

% – — — — 91.7 6.6 0.8 0.9

Brazil

230 1906 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Afonso Pena (PR Mineiro) Lauro Sodré (PR do Paraná) Others

Total number — — — 294,401 288,285 4,865 1,251

% – — — — 97.9 1.7 0.4

1910 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Hermes da Fonsecaa Rui Barbosa (Civilist Campaign)b Others

Total number — — — 707,651 403,867 222,822 80,962

% – — — — 57.1 31.5 11.4

a

Supported by several of the most important republican parties. Received support from the Conservative Republican Party after his election. b Political movement which opposed Hermes da Fonseca's candidature.

1914 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Wenceslau Braz (PR Mineiro) Rui Barbosa (Partido Republicano Liberal) Others

Total number 1,212,882 — — 580,917 532,107 47,782

1918 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rodrigues Alves (PR Paulista) Nilo Peçanha (PR Fluminense) Rui Barbosa (Independent) Others

Total number — — — 390,131 386,467 1,258 1,014 1,392

1,028

% – — — — 91.6 8.2 0.2 % – — — — 99.1 0.3 0.2 0.4

Brazil 1919 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Epitácio Pessoa (Paraíba’s Republican Party)a Rui Barbosa (Independent) Others

231 Total number — — — 403,315 286,373

% – — — — 71.0

116,414 528

28.9 0.1

1922 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Arthur Bernardes (PR Mineiro) Nilo Peçanha (Republican Reaction) Others

Total number 1,305,826 — — 833,270 466,877 317,714 48,679

% – — — — 56.0 38.1 5.8

1926 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Washington Luís (PR Paulista) Assis Brasil (Partido Federalista Brasileiro) Others

Total number — — — 702,580 688,528 1,116

% – — — — 98.0 0.2

1930 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Júlio Prestes (PR Paulista) Getúlio D. Vargas (Liberal Alliance)a Others

Total number — — — 1,892,577 1,091,709 742,794 58,074

a

a

Supported by PR Paulista and PR Mineiro.

12,936

Movement opposed to São Paulo's political hegemony.

1.8 % – — — — 57.7 39.2 3.1

Brazil

232 1945a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Eurico Gaspar Dutra (PSD (1)) Eduardo Gomes (UDN) Yeddo Fiúza (PC do B) Rolim Teles PAN (1) a

Total number 7,459,849 6,200,805 330,138 5,870,667 3,251,507 2,039,341 569,818 10,001

% – 83.1 5.3 97.7 55.4 34.7 9.7 0.2

Since 1945 candidates have to be officially linked to parties.

1950 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Getúlio D. Vargas (PTB (1)) Eduardo Gomes (UDN) Cristiano Machado (PSD (1)) João Mangabeira (PSB)

Total number 11,455,149 8,254,989 356,906 7,898,083 3,849,040 2,342,384 1,697,193 9,466

% – 72.1 4.3 95.7 48.7 29.7 21.5 0.1

1955 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Juscelino Kubitschek (PSD (1)) Juarez Távora (UDN) Adhemar de Barros (PSP (1)) Plínio Salgado (PRP (1))

Total number 15,243,246 9,097,014 471,085 8,625,366 3,077,582 2,610,534 2,222,897 714,353

% – 59.7 5.2 94.8 35.7 30.3 25.8 8.3

1960 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Jânio da Silva Quadros (UDN/PDC (1)) Henrique de Texeira Lott (PSD (1)/ PTB (1)) Adhemar de Barros (PSP (1))

Total number 15,543,332 12,586,354 907,197 11,678,857 5,636,323 3,846,825

% – 81.0 7.2 92.8 48.3 32.9

2,195,709

18.8

Brazil 1989 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Fernando Collor de Mello (PRN) Luís Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) Leonel Brizola (PDT) Mário Covas (PSDB) Paulo Salim Maluf (PDS) Guilherme Afif Domingues (PL (2)) Ulysses Guimarães (PMDB) Roberto Freire (PCB) Aureliano Chaves (PFL) Ronaldo Caiado (PSD (2)) Afonso Camargo (PTB (2)) Othersb a

233 Total number 82,056,226 72,277,408 4,664,071 67,613,337 20,607,936 11,619,816 11,166,016 7,786,939 5,986,012 3,271,986 3,204,853 768,803 600,730 488,872 379,262 1,732,112

% – 88.1 6.5 93.5 30.5 17.2 16.5 11.5 8.9 4.8 4.7 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 2.6

Includes 4,363 votes cast for Correa whose candidature was annuled by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (electoral superior court). b Enéas Carneiro, Marronzinho, Paulo Gontijo, Zamir, Lívia Maria, Eudes Mattar, Fernando Gabeira, Celso Brandt, Antônio Pedreira, Manoel Horta.

1989 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Fernando Collor de Mello (PRN) Luís Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT)

Total number 82,056,226 70,250,194 4,094,003 66,156,191 35,085,457 31,070,734

% – 85.6 5.8 94.2 53.0 47.0

1994 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votesa Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB)b Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva – PT (PSB/PcdoB/PPS (2)/PV/PSTU) Enéas Carneiro (PRONA) Orestes Quércia (PMDB)c Leonel Brizola (PDT) Espiridião Amin (PPR) Carlos Antônio Gomes (PRN) Hernani Fortuna (PSC (2))

Total number 94,743,043 77,949,111 14,638,118 63,305,971 34,362,726 17,116,579

% – 82.3 18.8 81.2 54.3 27.0

4,671,474 2,773,497 2,015,843 1,739,780 387,815 238,257

7.4 4.4 3.2 2.7 0.6 0.4

a

According to the official data published by the superior electoral tribunal there is a difference of 5,022 votes in the total number of valid votes presented in Table 2.9 relative to the same number

Brazil

234 in Table 2.9a. F.H. Cardoso was also supported by the PFL and PTB (2). c O. Quércia was also supported by the PSD (2).

b

1998 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB) Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) Ciro Ferreira Gomes (PPS (2)) Enéas Ferreira Carneiro (PRONA) Ivan Moacyr da Frota (PMN) Alfredo Hélio Syrkis (PV) José Maria de Almeida (PSTU) João de Deus (PtdoB) José Maria Eymael (PSDC) Thereza Tinajero Ruiz (PTN (1)) Sérgio Bueno (PSC) Vasco Azevedo Neto (PSN)

a

Total numbera 106,053,106 83,274,223 15,971,978 67,701,559 35,922,692 21,470,333 7,424,783 1,446,783 251,276 212,866 202,614 198,830 171,814 166,053 124,546 108,969

% – 78.5 17.7 82.3 53.1 31.7 11.0 2.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

The figures published by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral as valid votes and invalid votes do not sum up to the number of votes cast.

2002 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) José Serra (PSDB) Anthony Garotinho (PSB) Ciro Gomes (PPS (2)) José Maria de Almeida (PSTU) Rui Costa (PCO)

a

Total numbera 115,184,176 94,741,120 9,846,847 84,891,284 39,425,283 19,690,252 15,172,101 10,163,308 401,834 38,506

% – 82.3 10.4 89.6 46.4 23.2 17.9 12.0 0.5 0.0

The figures published by the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral as valid votes and invalid votes do not sum up to votes cast.

2002 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva (PT) José Serra (PSDB)

Total number 115,184,176 91,620,726 5,498,011 86,122,715 52,769,723 33,352,992

% – 79.5 6.0 94.0 61.3 38.7

Brazil

235

2.9 a) Presidential Elections: Regional Results (Absolute Numbers) Data for presidential elections before 1945 are not available. 1945 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 205,178 1,859,814 3,974,583 1,230,990 189,284 7,459,849

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

158,300 1,515,599 3,338,383 1,038,425 150,098 6,200,805

16,254 45,593 235,044 26,882 6,365 330,138

142,046 1,470,006 3,103,339 1,011,543 143,733 5,870,667

1945 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Eurico Dutra

Eduardo Gomes 53,928 669,336 1,027,437 230,781 57,859 2,039,341

Yeddo Fiúza

Rolim Teles

1950 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 380,767 3,368,368 5,628,438 1,727,727 349,849 11,455,149

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

263,882 2,457,793 4,021,507 1,273,541 238,266 8,254,989

11,043 110,495 186,433 34,405 14,530 356,906

252,839 2,347,298 3,835,074 1,239,136 223,736 7,898,083

1950 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Getúlio Vargas 91,797 977,343 2,056,626 626,232 97,042 3,849,040

Eduardo Gomes 66,132 781,693 1,121,406 290,310 82,843 2,342,384

Cristiano Machado 94,789 587,446 649,426 32,1749 43,783 1,697,193

81,262 697,423 1,676,033 720,921 75,868 3,251,507

6,601 103,141 391,281 58,812 9,983 569,818

255 106 8,588 1,029 23 10,001

João Mangabeira 121 816 7,616 845 68 9,466

Brazil

236 1955 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 532,079 4,339,826 7,327,719 2,485,743 557,879 15,243,246

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

271,694 2,235,848 4,613,633 1,708,991 266,848 9,097,014

25,093 163,310 198,128 66,302 18,252 471,085

247,313 2,071,014 3,739,361 1,643,014 924,664 8,625,366

1955 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Jucelino Kubitschek 117,096 853,551 1,425,675 570,332 110,928 3,077,582

1960 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 453,291 3,852,962 7,725,778 2,876,086 635,215 15,543,332

1960 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Jânio Quadros Henrique Lott Adhemar de Barros 137,474 134,690 23,563 1,117,230 1,021,848 253,119 3,034,005 1,719,054 1,466,999 1,137,138 775,670 420,479 210,476 195,563 31,549 5,636,323 3,846,825 2,195,709

1989 (1st round) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 4,424,718 21,529,617 37,538,389 13,476,003 5,087,499 82,056,226

Juarez Távora Adhemar de Barros 32,720 89,167 818,619 256,602 1,215,905 1,443,937 483,412 360,743 59,878 72,448 2,610,534 2,222,897

Plínio Salgado 8,330 142,242 329,952 228,527 5,302 714,353

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

324,626 2,603,532 6,650,890 2,511,107 496,199 12,586,354

28,899 211,335 430,832 177,520 58,611 907,197

295,727 2,392,197 6,220,058 2,333,287 437,588 11,678,857

Votes cast

Invalid votes Valid votes

3,278,265 17,502,296 34,755,121 12,405,481 4,336,245 72,277,408

212,258 2,023,179 1,671,812 510,006 246,816 4,664,071

3,066,007 15,479,117 33,083,309 11,895,475 4,089,429 67,613,337

Brazil 1989 (cont.) North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total a

237 Fernando Luiz Inácio. Othersa Collor de Mello ‘Lula’ da Silva 1,549,050 573,204 943,753 5,970,369 3,534,285 5,974,463 8,544,940 5,883,965 18,654,404 2,786,048 958,984 8,150,443 1,757,529 669,378 1,662,522 20,607,936 11,619,816 35,385,585

PDT, PSDB, PDS, PL, PMDB, PCB, PFL, PSD, PTB, PRONA, PSP, PP, PCN, PN, PLP, PV, PMN, PPB, and PDC do B.

1989 (2nd round) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total a

Registered voters 4,424,718 21,529,617 37,538,389 13,476,003 5,087,499 82,056,226

Votes cast

Invalid votesa Valid votes

3,173,801 17,033,369 33,854,465 12,070,695 4,117,864 70,250,194

128,998 1,105,332 1,969,366 699,228 191,079 4,094,003

3,044,803 15,928,037 31,885,099 11,371,467 3,926,785 66,156,191

Including blank votes.

1989 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Fernando Collor de Mello 2,147,032 8,872,228 16,088,738 5,493,941 2,483,518 35,085,457

Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva 897,771 7,055,809 15,796,361 5,877,526 1,443,267 31,070,734

1994 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 5,809,498 25,434,565 42,174,832 15,199,708 6,124,440 94,743,043

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

4,059,017 19,524,203 36,411,483 13,033,535 4,920,873 77,949,111

723,824 5,149,962 6,073,581 1,898,094 792,657 14,638,118

3,335,561 14,371,244 30,336,297 11,135,423 4,127,446 63,305,971

Brazil

238 1994 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total a

F. Henrique Cardoso 1,964,126 8,276,545 17,033,689 4,593,484 2,494,882 34,362,726

Luiz Inácio Othersa ‘Lula’ da Silva 850,429 521,006 4,352,818 1,741,881 7,759,837 5,542,771 3,139,609 3,402,330 1,013,886 618,678 17,116,579 11,826,666

PRONA, PMDB, PDT, PPR, PRN, and PSC

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Registered voters 6,752,249 28,538,613 47,024,931 16,747,098 6,990,215 106,053,106

1998 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

F. Henrique Cardoso 2,292,488 7,397,880 17,624,780 5,784,589 2,822,955 35,922,692

1998 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Ivan Moacyr

1998 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

4,758,931 20,837,162 38,388,933 13,802,347 5,486,850 83,274,223

779,601 5,336,946 6,545,985 2,038,862 870,584 15,571,978

3,979,196 15,500,216 31,842,948 11,763,485 4,616,266 67,702,111

Luiz Inácio Ciro Ferreira ‘Lula’ da Silva Gomes 1,055,448 453,841 4,904,760 2,485,094 9,932,687 2,935,049 4,559,102 931,491 1,018,336 619,308 21,470,333 7,424,783

Enéas Carneiro 76,932 221,152 799,175 278,217 71,307 1,446,783

19,820 99,428 81,178 33,968 16,882 251,276

J. Maria de Almeida 15,801 74,301 75,741 24,820 11,951 202,614

Alfredo Hélio João de Deus Syrkis Gomes 12,923 12,621 64,869 70,576 88,070 72,298 33,377 33,143 13,627 10,192 212,866 198,830

Thereza Tanajero 12,217 37,300 76,238 27,693 12,605 166,053

José Maria Eymael 10,979 55,673 72,382 25,047 7,733 171,814

Sérgio Bueno 10,227 46,802 44,618 16,722 6,177 124,546

Vasco Azevedo 6,195 41,546 40,798 15,237 5,193 108,969

Brazil

239

2002 (1st round) Registered Region voters North 7,630,413 Northeast 30,998,109 Southeast 50,696,080 South 17,833,494 Center-West 8,026,080 Total 115,184,176

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

5,999,762 24,337,993 42,553,626 15,283,253 6,566,486 94,741,120

546,605 3,911,782 3,612,939 1,274,420 501,101 9,846,847

5,453,000 20,424,847 38,940,695 14,008,849 6,063,893 84,891,284

2002 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Luiz Inácio José Serra ‘Lula’ da Silva 2,421,690 1,235,162 9,370,565 4,039,108 18,098,903 8,840,740 6,927,518 3,987,809 2,617,423 1,592,024 39,436,099 19,694,843

Anthony Garotinho 1,133,036 3,816,215 8,025,814 1,806,025 1,072,364 15,853,454

Ciro Gomes

2002 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

J. Maria de Almeida 18,659 52,299 242,246 6,6508 22,316 402,028

Invalid votes

Valid votes

2002 (2nd round) Registered Region voters North 7,630,413 Northeast 30,998,109 Southeast 50,696,080 South 17,833,494 Center-West 8,026,080 Total 115,184,176 2002 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

643,109 3,138,965 3,721,881 1,215,390 769,729 9,489,074

Rui Pimenta Costa 1,344 7,695 20,951 6,196 2,331 38,517 Votes cast 5,507,310 23,029,728 41,852,270 14,945,503 6,285,915 91,620,726

Luiz Inácio José Serra ‘Lula’ da Silva 3,075,829 2,208,856 13,196,421 8,253,943 24,911,031 14,626,016 8,141,465 5,695,809 3,444,977 2,568,368 52,769,723 33,352,992

222,625 1,579,364 2,315,223 1,108,229 272,570 5,498,011 Total 5,284,685 21,450,364 39,537,047 13,837,274 6,063,345 86,122,715

5,284,685 21,450,364 39,537,047 13,837,274 6,063,345 86,122,715

Brazil

240 2.9. b) Presidential Elections: Regional Results (% of Valid Votes) 1945 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

2.4 25.0 52.9 17.2 2.4 100.0

Getúlio Vargas 36.3 41.6 53.6 50.5 43.4 48.7

Eduardo Gomes 26.2 33.3 29.2 23.4 37.0 29.7

Cristiano Machado 37.5 25.0 16.9 26.0 19.6 21.5

João Mangabeira 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

Totala

Adhemar de Barros 36.1 12.4 32.7 22.0 29.1 25.8

Plínio Salgado 3.4 6.9 7.5 13.9 2.1 8.3

Totala

Adhemar de Barros 8.0 10.6 23.6 18.0 7.2 18.8

Totala

3.2 29.7 48.6 15.7 2.8 100.0

Jucelino Juarez Kubitschek Távora 47.3 13.2 41.2 39.5 32.3 27.5 34.7 29.4 44.6 24.1 35.7 30.3

2.9 24.0 51.2 19.0 2.9 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1960 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

57.2 47.4 54.0 71.3 52.8 55.4

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1955 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Totala

Eduardo Gomes 38.0 45.5 33.1 22.8 40.3 34.7

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1950 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Eurico Dutra

Jânio Quadros 46.5 46.7 48.8 48.7 48.1 48.3

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

Henrique Lott 45.5 42.7 27.6 33.2 44.7 32.9

2.5 20.5 53.3 20.0 3.7 100.0

Brazil 1989 (1st round) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

241 Fernando Collor Luiz Inácio Others de Mello ‘Lula’ da Silva 50.5 18.7 30.8 38.6 22.8 38.6 25.8 17.8 56.4 23.4 8.1 68.5 43.0 16.4 40.7 30.5 17.2 52.3

Totala 4.6 24.1 48.2 17.2 5.9 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1994 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

4.5 22.9 48.9 17.6 6.0 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1989 (2nd round) Regi- Fernando Collor Luiz Inácio on de Mello ‘Lula’ da Silva North 70.5 29.5 Northeast 55.7 44.3 Southeast 50.5 49.5 South 48.3 51.7 Center-West 63.2 36.8 Nationwide 53.0 47.0 a

Totala

F. Henrique Cardoso 58.9 57.6 56.1 41.3 60.4 54.3

Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva 25.5 30.3 25.6 28.2 24.6 27.0

Totala 5.3 22.7 47.9 17.6 6.5 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

1998 Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

F. Henrique Cardoso 57.6 47.7 55.3 49.2 61.1 53.1

Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva 26.5 31.6 31.2 38.7 22.1 31.7

Ciro Ferreira Gomes 11.4 16.0 9.2 7.9 13.4 11.0

Brazil

242 1998 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

Enéas Carneiro 1.9 1.4 2.5 2.4 1.5 2.1

Ivan Moacyr 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

Alfredo Hélio Syrkis Gomes 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

1998 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide

José Maria de Almeida 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

João de Deus

José Maria Eymael 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3

0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Vasco Azevedo 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Totala

2002 (1st round) Luiz Inácio José Serra Region ‘Lula’ da Silva North 44.4 22.7 Northeast 45.9 19.8 Southeast 46.5 22.7 South 49.5 28.5 Center-West 43.2 26.2 Total 46.4 23.2

Anthony Garotinho 20.8 18.7 20.6 12.9 17.7 17.9

Ciro Gomes

2002 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Total

Totala

1998 (cont.) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

Thereza Tanajero 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2

Sérgio Bueno 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

5.9 22.9 47.0 17.4 6.8 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

José Maria De Almeida 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5

Rui Pimenta Costa 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.4 24.1 45.9 16.5 7.1 100.0

11.8 15.4 9.6 8.7 12.7 12.0

Brazil a

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

2002 (2nd round) Region North Northeast Southeast South Center-West Nationwide a

243

Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva 58.2 61.5 63.0 58.8 57.3 61.3

Percentages of valid votes cast nationwide.

José Serra 41.8 38.5 37.0 41.2 42.7 38.7

Totala 6.1 24.9 45.9 16.1 7.0 100.0

244

Brazil

2.10 List of Power Holders 1822–2004 Head of State Dom Pedro I

Years Remarks 1822–1831 Monarch. Declared Brazil independent from Portugal on 07/09/1822, and became the country’s first emperor. Abdicated on 07/04/1831 to his five-year-old son, who was not able to assume office. Provisional Trinal 1831–1831 Marquis José Joaquim Carneiro Campos, SenaRegency tor Niclolau de Campos Vergueiro, and Brigadier Francisco de Lima e Silva were appointed provisional regents, and held office from 07/04/1831 to 17/06/1831. Permanent Trinal 1831–1835 Brigadier Francisco de Lima e Silva, Deputy Regency José da Costa Carvalho, and Deputy João Bráulio Muniz were elected permanent regents by parliament, and held office from 17/06/1831 to 12/10/1835. Diogo Antônio Feijó 1835–1837 Elected regent in April 1835. He began to hold the office on 12/10/1835, and resigned on 18/09/1837. Araújo Lima 1837–1840 He became head of the state as interim regent after the resignation of Diogo Antônio Feijó on 22/04/1838. Elected regent in 1938. He held office until 22/07/1840. Dom Pedro II 1840–1889 Monarch. He became Brazil’s second emperor on 23/07/1840, and was removed from office by Deodoro da Fonseca on 15/11/1890. Deodoro da Fonseca 1889–1891 Military. He became head of the provisional government on 15/11/1889. Was elected president of the Republic by the constitutional assembly on 25/02/1891. Renounced on 23/11/1891. Floriano Peixoto 1891–1894 Military. Originally elected vice president under Deodoro da Fonseca. Sworn in as his substitute on 23/11/1891. Prudente José de 1894–1898 Constitutional president from 15/11/1894 to Moraes Barros 15/11/1898. Manoel Ferraz de 1898–1902 Constitutional president from 15/11/1898 to Campos Salles 15/11/1902. Francisco de Paula 1902–1906 Constitutional president from 15/11/1902 to Rodrigues 15/11/1906. Afonso Augusto 1906–1909 Constitutional president from 15/11/1906 to Moreira Pena 14/06/1909.

Brazil

245

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Nilo Peçanha 1909–1910 Elected as Afonso Pena’s vice president. Sworn in as his legal substitute on 14/06/1909. Left office on 15/11/1910. Hermes da Fonseca 1910–1914 Military. Constitutional president from 15/11/1910 through 15/11/1914. Wenceslau Braz 1914–1918 Military. Constitutional president from Pereira de Gomes 15/11/1914 through 15/11/1918. Delfim Moreira 1918–1919 Elected as Rodriges Alves’ vice president, who was not able to take office due to fatal illness. Sworn in on 15/11/1918. Left office on 28/07/1919. Epitácio Lindolfo da 1919–1922 Constitutional president elected in substitution Silva Pessoa to Rodrigues Alves, who died in January 1919. Sworn in on 28/07/1919. Left office on 15/11/1922. Arthur da Silva 1922–1926 Constitutional president from 15/11/1922 to Bernardes 15/11/1926. Washington Luiz 1926–1930 Constitutional president. Sworn in on Pereira de Sousa 15/11/1926. Overthrown by the 1930 Revolution on 10/10/1930. Military Junta 1930 Composed of Augusto Tasso Fragoso, João de Deus Mena Barreto and José Isaias Noronha. Getulio Dornelles 1930–1945 He took office as chief of the provisional govVargas ernment on 03/11/1930, after the 1930 Revolution. Was elected constitutional president on 17/07/1934. Staged a coup d'état on 10/11/1937. Remained president until 29/10/1945, when he was overthrown by the military. José Linhares 1945–1946 President of the constitutional court. Took office on 10/10/1945. Remained president until the election of a new president. Left office on 31/01/1946. Eurico Gaspar Dutra 1946–1951 Military. Constitutional president from 31/01/1946 through 31/01/1951. Getulio Dornelles 1951–1954 Constitutional president. Sworn in on Vargas 31/01/1951. Committed suicide on 24/08/1951. João Café Filho 1954–1955 Elected as Getúlio Vargas’ vice president, assumed office on 24/08/1951 and resigned on 03/11/1955 due to illness.

Brazil

246 Head of State (cont.) Years Carlos Coimbra da 1955 Luz

Nereu de Oliveira Ramos Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Jânio da Silva Quadros João Belchior Marques Goulart

1955–1956

Ranieri Mazzilli

1964

Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco Artur da Costa e Silva

1964–1967

Military Junta

1969

Emílio Garrastazu Medici

1969–1974

Ernesto Geisel

1974–1979

João Batista de Oliveira Figueiredo

1979–1985

José Sarney

1985–1990

1956–1961 1961 1962–1964

1967–1969

Remarks President of the chamber of deputies. Sworn in as Café Filhos’ temporary substitute on 03/11/1955, and officially declared president on 09/11/1955. Was overthrown by a military coup on 11/11/1955. President of the senate. Sworn in as Carlos Luz’s legal substitute on 11/11/1955. Constitutional president from 31/01/1956 to 31/01/1961. Constitutional president. Sworn in on 31/01/1961. Resigned on 25/08/1961. Elected as Jânio Quadros’ vice president. Sworn in as his legal substitute on 07/09/1961 under a parliamentary system established by congress. On 06/01/1963 a plebiscite decided for a return to the presidential system. Overthrown by a military coup on 31/03/1964. President of the chamber of deputies. Declared chief of government when the presidency became vacant. Military president chosen by the high military commanders and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 14/04/1964 and left office on 15/03/1967. Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 15/03/1967. Left office on 08/08/1969 due to illness. Composed of Aurelio de Lira Tavares, Augusto Rademaker and Marcio de Sousa e Melo. They replaced Costa e Silva on 31/08/1969 and transferred power to the next president on 30/10/1969. Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Took office on 30/10/1969. Left office on 15/03/1974. Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 15/03/1974. Left office on 15/03/1979. Military. Chosen by the military and ratified by congress. Sworn in on 15/03/1979. Left office on 15/03/1985. Elected indirectly as Tancredo Neves’s vice president, who died without taking office. Sworn in on 15/03/1985. Left office on 15/03/1990.

Brazil

247

Head of State (cont.) Years Remarks Fernando Collor de 1990–1992 Constitutional president. Sworn in on Mello 15/03/1990. Was suspended by congress on 29/09/1992 on corruption charges. Resigned on 28/12/1992 a few moments before the senate voted his impeachment. Itamar Franco 1992–1995 Elected as Collor de Mello’s vice president. Sworn in as the previous incumbent's legal substitute on 28/12/1992. Left office on 01/01/1995. Fernando Henrique 1995–2002 Constitutional president. Elected on Cardoso 03/10/1994. Sworn in on 01/01/1995. Reelected in 03/10/1998. Initiated his second term on 01/01/1999. Left office on 01/01/2002 Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da 2002– Elected on 27/10/2002. Sworn in on Silva 01/01/2002.

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Almeida, F. H. M. (ed.) (1961). Constituições do Brasil. São Paulo: Ed. Saraiva. Anais do Congresso Nacional. Rio de Janeiro (Sittings of 18 June 1894, 25 June 1898, and 25 September 1898). Anais do Senado Federal. Rio de Janeiro (Sittings from 22 June to 30 June 1914). Annuaire Statistique du Brésil 1908–1912. (Publisher unknown). Brazil. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil 1969. Brasília: Câmara dos Deputados. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil 1988. Brasília: Câmara dos Deputados. Diário do Congresso Nacional. Rio de Janeiro (de 12. a 14/06/1919 e de 06/06/1926). Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística 1940. Censo demográfico, Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1950). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1960). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1960). O Brasil em números. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1970). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. — (1980). Censo demográfico. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (1936). Anuário estatístico do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro.

248

Brazil

— (1937). Anuário estatístico do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro. Senado Federal (1978). Legislação eleitoral e partidária. Brasília. — (1980). Legislação eleitoral e partidária do Brasil (1822–1980). Brasília: Centro de Informática e Processamento de Dados do Senado Federal. — (1982). Legislação eleitoral e partidária. Instruções do TSE para las eleições de 1982. Brasília. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (without year). Dados estatísticos. Eleições federais, estaduais e municipais realizadas no Brasil em 1952, 1954 e 1955, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional. — (1961). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e estaduais realizadas no Brasil em 1958, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional. — (1963). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e estaduais realizadas no Brasil em 1960, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional. — (1964). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federal. estadual e municipal realizadas no Brasil a partir de 1945. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional. — (1964). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e estaduais realizadas no Brasil em 1950, Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional. — (1964). Dados estatísticos: Eleições federais e municipais realizadas no Brasil em 1962, e em confronto com anteriores. Rio de Janeiro: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional. — (2003). Eleições 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 e 2002. Website of the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. .

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Abranches, D. (1918). Governos e congressos da República dos Estados Unidos do Brasil (1809–1819), 2 vols. São Paulo: M. Abranches. Abreu, A., Beloch, I., Lattman-Weltman, F., and Lamarão, S. (eds). (2001). Dicionário histórico-biográfico brasileiro, 5 vols. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora. Alves, M. H. M. (1984). Estado e oposição no Brasil 1964–1984. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes. Ames, B. (1994). ‘The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election’. American Political Science Review, 88/1: 95–111. — (1995a). ‘Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress’. Journal of Politics, 75/2: 324–343.

Brazil —

249

(1995b). ‘Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation’. American Journal of Political Science, 39/2: 406–433. — (2001). The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan University Press. Anglade, C. (1987). ‘The Brazilian Elections of November 1986’. Electoral Studies, 6/2: 164–169. Ansaldi, W. (1990). ‘Las elecciones de 1989 en Brasil: La fiesta de la democracia entre las perplejidades del presente y las angustias del futuro’. Cuadernos del CLAEH, segunda serie, 15/53: 23–37. Britto, L. N. (1980). ‘As eleições nacionais de 1978’. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos, 51: 7–36. Cardoso, F. H. and Lamounier, B. (eds.) (1978). Os partidos e as eleições no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Carone, E. (1971). A República Velha: Evolução política (1899–1930). São Paulo: DIFEL. Carvalho, N. R. (2003). E no início eram as bases: Geografia política do voto e comportamento legislativo no Brasil. Ph.D. thesis, Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro. Fleischer, D. V. (ed.) (1981). Os partidos políticos no Brasil, 2 vols. Brasília: Ed. Universidade de Brasília. — (1984). ‘Constitutional and Electoral Engineering in Brazil: A DoubleEdged Sword (1964–1982)’, in D. Nohlen (ed.), Wahlen und Wahlpolitik in Lateinamerika. Heidelberg: Esprint, 189–214. Franco, A. A. M. (1980). História e teoria dos partidos políticos do Brasil. São Paulo: Ed. Alfa-Ômega. Fundação Milton Campos (1979). As eleições nacionais de 1978, 2 vols. Brasília: Ed. Fundação Milton Campos. German, C. (1983). Brasilien – Autoritarismus und Wahlen. Munich/ Cologne/London: Weltforum. Jobim, N. and Porto, W. C. (1996). Legislação eleitoral no Brasil: Do século XVI a nossos dias. Vol. I, II, and III. Brasília: Senado Federal. Jornal do Comércio. Rio de Janeiro (08/06/1922). Kinzo, M. D. (1980). Representação política e sistema eleitoral no Brasil. São Paulo: Ed. Símbolo. — (1985). An Opposition Party in an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of the MDB (Movimento Democrático Brasileiro) in Brazil, 1966–1979. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford: Oxford University. Lamounier, B. (ed.) (1980). Voto de desconfiança. Eleições e mudança política no Brasil 1970–1979. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes. — (ed.) (1986). 1985: O voto em São Paulo. São Paulo: Vértice. — (ed.) (1990). De Geisel a Collor: O balanço da transição. São Paulo: Ed. Sumaré.

250

Brazil

Lamounier, B. and Kinzo, M. D. (1978). ‘Partidos políticos, representação e processo eleitoral no Brasil’. Revista Dados, 19: 11–32. Lamounier, B. and Marques, A. H. (1993). ‘Tendances électorales des années 1980 aux années 1990’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine, 9, Avril-Juin: 15–26. Lamounier, B. and Menguello, R. (1987). Partidos políticos e consolidação democrática. São Paulo: Ed. Brasiliense. Lamounier, B. and Muszynski, J. (1983). São Paulo 1982: A vitória do (P)MDB. São Paulo: IDESP. — (1987). ‘Estatísticas eleitorais’. IBGE: Estatísticas históricas do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro. — (1989). O processo eleitoral brasileiro: Da Velha á Nova República. São Paulo: IDESP. — (1990). De Geisel a Collor: O balanço da transição. São Paulo: Editora Sumaré. Lamounier, B. and Nohlen, D. (1993). Presidencialismo ou parlamentarismo (2nd edn.). São Paulo: IDESP. Lavareda, A. (1991). A democracia nas urnas: O processo partidárioeleitoral brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Rio Fundo Editora. Lima Júnior, O. B. (1983). Os partidos políticos no Brasil: A experiência federal e regional: 1945-1964. Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal. — (ed.) (1991). Sistema eleitoral brasileiro: Teoria e prática. Rio de Janeiro: Iuperj/Rio Fundo. — (1993). Democracia e instituições políticas no Brasil dos anos 80. São Paulo: Edições Loyola. Love, J. L. (1970). ‘Political Participation in Brazil 1881–1969’. Luso– Brazilian Review, 7/2: 3–24. Löwenstein, K. (1944). Brazil under Vargas. New York: Macmillan. Lyra, C. T. (1976). Instituições políticas do Império. Brasília. Mainwaring, S. (1986). The Transition to Democracy in Brazil. Notre Dame, Ind.: Kellog Institute Working Paper 66. — (1991). ‘Politicians, Parties and Electoral Systems: Brazil in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Politics, 24/1: 21–43. — (1999). Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Demoratization: the Case of Brazil. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Malheiros, A. and Manso, G. C. (1955). Legislação eleitoral e organização partidária. São Paulo: Ed. Revista dos Tribunais. Moisés, J. A. and Albuquerque, J. A. G. (1989). Dilemas da consolidação da democracia. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Nicolau, J. M. (1996). Multipartidarismo e democracia. Rio de Janeiro: FGV. — (1998). Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982-1996. Rio de Janeiro: REVAN. — (2000). Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982-1998. Rio de Janeiro: REVAN. — (2002). História do voto no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.

Brazil

251

— (2003). Dados eleitorais do Brasil 1982–2002. (as of 15/08/2003). Nohlen, D., Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Parahyba, M. A. (1970). ‘Abertura social e participação política no Brasil (1870–1920)’. Revista Dados, 7: 89–102. Pereira, C. and Rennó, L. (2001). ‘O que é que o reeleito tem? Dinâmicas político-institucionais e nacionais nas eleições de 1988 para a Câmara dos Deputados’. Revista Dados, 44/2: 323–362. Pinto, M. A. P. (1985). Direito político do sufrágio no Brasil (1822–1982). Brasília: Ed. Thesaurus. Porto, W. C. (1989). O voto no Brasil. Brasília: Senado Federal. — (2000). Dicionário do voto. Brasília: Editora UnB. Ramos, A. G. (1961). A crise do poder no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro. Reis, F. W. (ed.) (1978). Os partidos e o regime: a lógica do processo eleitoral brasileiro. São Paulo: Ed. Símbolo. Sadek, M. T. (ed.) (1989). Eleições 1986. São Paulo: Vértice. Samuels, D. (1999). ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Party Vote in CandidateCentric Electoral Systems: Evidence from Brazil’. Comparative Political Studies, 32/4: 487–518. — (2000a). ‘The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil’. Journal of Politics, 62/1: 240–253. — (2000b). ‘Concurrent Elections, Discordant Results: Presidentialism, Federalism, and Governance in Brazil’. Comparative Politics, 33/1: 1– 20. — (2001a). ‘When Does Every Penny Count: Intra-Party Competition and Campaign Finance in Brazil’. Party Politics, 7/1: 89–102. — (2001b). ‘Money, Elections, and Democracy in Brazil’. Latin American Politics and Society, 43/2: 27–48. — (2001c). ‘Incumbents and Challengers on a Level Playing Field: Assessing the Impact of Campaign Finance in Brazil’. Journal of Politics, 63/2: 569–584. — (2001d). ‘Does Money Matter? Credible Commitments and Campaign Finance in New Democracies: Theory and Evidence from Brazil’. Comparative Politics, 34/1: 23-42. — (2002). ‘Pork Barreling is not Credit Claiming or Advertising: Campaign Finance and the Sources of the Personal Vote in Brazil’. Journal of Politics 64/3: 845–863. — (2003). Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press. Santos, W. G. (1977). ‘As eleições de 1976 e a dinâmica do processo político brasileiro’. Revista Dados 14: 211–239.

252

Brazil

— (1986). Sessenta e quatro: Anatomia da crise. São Paulo: Vértice. — (1987). Crise e castigo: Partidos e generais na política brasileira. São Paulo: Vértice. — (2002). Votos e partidos: Almanaque de dados eleitorais: Brasil e outros países. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora. Santos, W. G., Monteiro, V. M., and Caillaux, A. M. L. (1990). Que Brasil é este? Manual de indicadores políticos e sociais. São Paulo: Edições Vértice. Schmitt, R. (1999). Coligações eleitorais e sistema partidário no Brasil. Ph. D. thesis, Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro. — (2000). Partidos políticos no Brasil (1945–2000). Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor. Silva, L. V. A. (1999). Sistemas eleitorais: Tipos, efeitos jurídico-políticos e aplicação ao caso brasileiro. São Paulo: Malheiros Editores. Skidmore, T. (1967). Politics in Brazil: An Experiment in Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (1988). Brasil: De Castelo a Tancredo. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Soares, F. B. S. (1979). O sistema eleitoral de 1872. Brasília: Senado Federal. Soares, G. A. D. (1973). Sociedade e política no Brasil. São Paulo: DIFEL. — (1984). Colégio eleitoral, conversões partidárias e eleições diretas. Petrópolis: Vozes. — (2001). A democracia interrompida. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV. Souza, M. C. C. (1976). Estado e partidos políticos no Brasil (1930–1964). São Paulo: Ed. Alfa-Ômega. — (1979). Instituições políticas do Império. Brasília: Senado Federal. Stepan, A. (ed.) (1973). Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Taunay, A. E. (1978). O Senado do Império. Brasília: Senado Federal. Trinidade, H. (ed.) (1992). Reforma eleitoral e representação política. Porto Alegre: Editora da Universidade.

CHILE by Dieter Nohlen

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Chile declared independence for the first time in 1810 under an assembly called Cabildo Abierto. The Chilean congress was created in 1811, and its members were appointed by the Junta de Gobierno. This period, known as Patria Vieja, ended in 1814 when Spain regained control over the country. In 1818 Spain was defeated by the Creoles and independence was proclaimed; this was the beginning of the second period or Patria Nueva. Several constitutional texts (1811, 1812, 1814, 1818, 1823, 1826, 1828) were written in an attempt to create a political framework for the country, but the fact that they only survived for a brief period reflects the intense disputes between the caudillos and the factions that dominated political life at the time. A long period of conservative rule began when the military defeated the liberal faction. 1831 witnessed the beginning of a long period of political stability, characterized by four consecutive ten-year governments. In 1833, a constitution was promulgated that remained in force, with small modifications, until 1925. A strong executive was established, which effectively dominated the political scene and implemented numerous reforms (elaboration of a modern legal system, road infrastructure, urbanization of the main cities, etc.). However, when immediate re-election of the president was prohibited in 1871, parliament’s importance increased. This development culminated in the 1891 civil war, in which the forces loyal to the Chilean congress, formed mainly by the navy, defeated the army, which supported the president. Without modifying the constitution, a de facto pre-eminence of the parliament over the executive was established, a fact that hampered the effectiveness of the government during this period. The 1925 Constitution put an end to this situation, and reestablished the power of the president. The Chilean political parties developed slowly throughout the 19th century. Initially, there were two main movements: conservative and li-

254

Chile

beral. In the second half of the century, Radicals and Democrats entered the political arena. The latter split in 1912 and one of its factions created the Partido Obrero Socialista (POS; Workers’ Socialist Party), which in 1922 came to be known as the Partido Comunista de Chile (PCCh; Chilean Communist Party). Two other significant forces stand out amidst the very varied Chilean party system: Socialists (1933) and Christian Democrats (1935 and 1957). In the 1960s the right wing organized, and Liberals, Conservatives and Nationalists merged into one single party, the Partido Nacional (PN; National Party). The period between 1924 and 1932, during which the military intervened on several occasions, broke the traditional stability. During the authoritarian government of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1927– 1931) the state was reorganized, and the road, port and education infrastructures were developed. In 1932 a new period of government began, originating in competitive elections. An estado de compromiso was established, which guaranteed the stability of the political system despite severe political disputes. This period, which ended in 1973, was characterized by very different governments, parties and movements from all over the ideological spectrum, from Conservatives to Communists. The presidents reflected this plurality: Arturo Alessandri (1938–1952), liberal; Pedro Aguirre Cerda, Juan Antonio Ríos and Gabriel González Videla (1938–1952), radicals; Carlos Ibáñez del Campo and Jorge Alessandri (1952–1964), independents, the former a center-left populist and the latter a right-wing populist; Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964– 1970), christian democrat; and Salvador Allende (1970–1973), socialist. The Communist Party was prohibited from 1948 to 1958. Women obtained full civil rights in 1949; in 1958, the electoral system underwent substantial reform. The growing political polarization perceived during the 1960s culminated in the coup d’état of 1973 led by General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, who established an authoritarian government that lasted until 1990. Between 1973 and 1990, several constitutional acts were passed, which gradually eroded the 1925 Constitution. In 1980, a referendum was held and a new, clearly authoritarian constitution was ratified and put into effect at the start of the following year. With regard to electoral provisions, the main innovations were a) the introduction of a runoff if no candidate obtained an absolute majority in the first round, and b) the introduction of the binominal system for parliamentary elections; that is the establishment of constituencies where the two candidates who gain the most votes are elected.

Chile

255

The transition to democracy began with the referendum of 1988 in which the democratic opposition overcame its fragmentation and managed to defeat Pinochet with 54% of the vote. Pinochet had intended to continue in government until 1998. During the transition, the constitutional text underwent numerous reforms, which were negotiated between Pinochet’s government and the democratic opposition, as a way to prepare for the establishment of democracy. Among other modifications, the restrictions applied to political pluralism were abolished. Yet, not every authoritarian element disappeared: With regard to political representation the electoral system imposed by the military regime, the binominal system, remained unaltered. This system, which requires the formation of electoral alliances in order to compete efficiently, favors the second party in terms of the percentage of the vote and not the strongest. This effect was primarily intended and interpreted as a measure in favor of right-wing parties as they supposedly achieved fewer votes than the parties of the democratic opposition, the Christian Democrats and the socialist groups; that is, the center-left block. In addition, some senators were appointed, not elected. The 1989 constitutional reforms were ratified in a referendum by an overwhelming majority of the population. In the elections held on 14 December 1989, the Christian Democratic candidate, Patricio Aylwin Azócar, was elected president, with 55.2% of the valid vote. He headed the Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia (Coalition of Parties for Democracy), formed by Partido Demócrata Cristiano (PDC; Christian-Democratic Party), Partido Socialista de Chile (Socialist Party), and Partido por la Democracia (PPD; Party for Democracy), as well as 13 minor political groups. The Concertación maintained its position in the following presidential elections of 1993 and 1999. The 1993 election was won by the christian democrat Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle with 58% of the valid vote, the 1999 election by the socialist and PPD member Ricardo Lagos. When the Concertación candidate only won 48% of the vote, failing to gain the majority for the first time in Chilean history, the decision was taken by the electorate in a runoff, where Lagos gained 51.3% of the vote. The vote shares for the governing coalition and the main opposition parties tended to be very close to each other in parliamentary elections. The Concertación never gained a majority in both chambers, the house of deputies and the senate. The main opposition is formed by two parties on the right, the Partido de Renovación Nacional (RN; National Renewal) and Unión Democrática Independiente (UDI; Independent Democratic Union). Together with some independents and minor groups they

256

Chile

have formed an electoral alliance at each of the elections since 1989. The alliance was called Democracy and Progress in 1989, then Union for the Progress of Chile in 1993, and Union for Chile in 1999. Since then it has been called Alliance for Chile. On the left, the Communist Party of Chile also tried to bring about an electoral alliance in 1989, called Partido Amplio de la Izquierda Socialista (PAIS; Broad Party of the Socialist Left), but it did not obtain parliamentary representation in 1989 or 1993, nor in 1999 when the party competed alone again. Although the electoral competition tends to be bipolar between the two main electoral alliances as a consequence of the electoral system, the Chilean party system of the new democracy continues to be a multiparty system with six main parties, three standing for the center and center-left, two for the center-right and right, one for the left and radicalleft. Traditionally, the Christian Democratic Party is the strongest party in Chile, but its vote share has declined since 1989. In 1999, the PDC’s two socialist partners in the Concertación together won more votes. On the right, RN, a center-right party, initially outstripped the UDI, regarded as the party closest to the earlier military regime. But the balance of electoral power changed. While the popularity of the RN diminished, the UDI developed as the leading opposition party and in 1999, its share of vote came near to that of the PDC. The bipolar system, therefore, seems to enhance centrifugal tendencies within the alliances. On the other hand, compared with pre-authoritarian political practices, the coalition government received a lot of support from the legislative, a fact that was very much related to the depolarization of the postauthoritarian party system; the parties’ recovered organizational ability and the relevant political actors decided not to repeat the experiment that had led to the breakdown of democracy in 1973. A major role in the restructuring of the party system can be attributed to the electoral system. In order to understand this relationship, we have to trace its main mechanisms. The binominal system combines personal voting with a list element to structure the vote along party or party alliance lines. Each electoral district has two seats. Candidacy is organized in closed, non-blocked party or party alliance lists. The decision rule is plurality. The party or party alliance that receives the most votes gets the first seat, the party or party alliance coming in second wins the second seat. Only if the party that receives the most votes wins double the amount that the second-strongest party wins, does the strongest party get both seats in the constituency. When voting for a party or party-alliance list, voters have the option of choosing between two candidates. The candidate within one list who wins the most votes is elected. Usually,

Chile

257

the strongest and the second-strongest list each gain one seat. In this way the binominal system protects—as was the initial intention—the second strongest party or alliance. At the aggregate level the theoretical effect is similar to that of proportional representation in small constituencies with an even number of seats, which also favors the second strongest party. Hence, it is misleading to call the binominal system a majority system. As the parties are allowed to form electoral alliances, the binominal system tends to restructure party competition in such a way that parties compete in two main alliances for strategic electoral reasons. A number of effects result from the binominal system: first, the binominal system reduces the number of parties that can enter parliament. It locks out smaller parties that are unable to form or enter an electoral alliance. Second, the binominal system can distribute the seats proportionally among the parties forming an electoral alliance. Small parties are able to enter parliament if they are part of an alliance. Therefore, we have to distinguish between the number of parties with parliamentary representation, which can be high, and the number of alliances, which will usually be only two. Hence, the composition of parliament might be fragmented while at the same time competition at the alliance level is bipolar. That means that even a fragmented party system does not prevent the formation of parliamentary majorities and a strong opposition. However, a very elitist process for nominating candidates and a preelectoral distribution of seats by the parties forming an alliance are somewhat problematic. Party leaders decide who runs in the different constituencies. The process of selecting candidates needs to be more democratic. Voters may not find a candidate from their preferred party on the ballot and may be forced to vote for a candidate of another party within the electoral alliance. These effects of the binominal system may, in the long run, widen the gap between voters and their political representatives. The representative function of congress must be strengthened in terms of ideological party alignment and representation of interests. Another problem may occur when the main alliances win a similar share of votes, especially if their voters are distributed evenly over the whole country. In this case, the binominal system tends to produce a parliamentary stalemate.

258

Chile

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Chilean suffrage is based on the constitutions of 1833, 1925 and 1980 as well as on the electoral laws and Decretos Leyes from 1874, 1925, 1948, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1970, and 1980. With regard to active suffrage, the electoral history of Chile can be divided into five periods. In the first period (1833–1874), elections were indirect and suffrage was limited to literate men and people with certain amounts of real estate and income. In the second period (1874–1925), elections continued to be indirect, but suffrage was extended regardless of economic qualifications. During the third period (1925–1973), direct and secret suffrage was extended to an even greater electorate. Women can vote since 1949 and illiterates since 1970. Registration was still not automatic, however, so not all entitled citizens were actually inscribed. This effect continued to be significant. The fourth period (1973–1988) began with the suspension of suffrage and the register of voters was destroyed. Elections were not held, and some referenda on the basis of adhoc regulations were of dubious quality and legitimacy. In the fifth period, beginning with redemocratization in 1989, universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage was re-established. According to Chilean tradition, the president and the two houses of parliament, the chamber of deputies and the senate, are elected. Under the Pinochet regime (1973–1990) no elections were held except the one in 1989, which can be seen as the first election under the new democracy. Under the Pinochet regime, four referenda (1978, 1980, 1988, and 1989) were held, marked by enormous differences in quality and relevance. With regard to presidential elections, the term of the president originally lasted five years. Immediate re-election was allowed between 1831 and 1871. The term was changed to six years in 1925, immediate reelection continued to be prohibited. The constitution of 1980 established a term of eight years. The authoritarian regime and the political opposition agreed to shorten the first presidential term after redemocratization to four years. Immediate re-election remained prohibited. According to the constitutional reform of 3 March 1994, the term was lowered to six years. This final norm had one drawback, however: it separated the presidential elections from the parliamentary elections. The chamber of deputies is traditionally elected for four years, so that parliamentary elections are traditionally held separately from the presidential elections. The senate was elected for an eight-year term, with half of the members being renewed every four years. The constitution of 1980 contains the

Chile

259

same terms. Elections of the chamber of deputies and the senate were held on the same day. Under the constitution of 1925, the presidential elections used the absolute majority system. If no candidate won an absolute majority of the valid votes, the congress (both the senate and the chamber of deputies) had to decide between the two candidates who received the most votes. This system lasted until 1973. One of the most striking electoral reforms implemented by the military regime was the introduction of a runoff if no candidate was able to obtain an absolute majority of votes. The traditional electoral system for both houses of parliament since 1925 has been proportional representation. The constituencies for the chamber of deputies corresponded to the province boundaries. For the senate, the other constituencies consisted at least of two provinces with the exception of Santiago. Originally, 132 deputies were elected in 28 constituencies of different sizes. The number of seats varied between one and 18. In 1932, the number of deputies was increased to 142, in 1947 to 147, and in 1969 to 150. The senate had 45 members. As the number of representatives for the constituencies did not change according to demographic developments, the urban sections of the country became more and more underrepresented. Between 1932 and 1958, parties could form alliances for nomination and determine the type of party lists individually: closed or semi-closed. Furthermore, alliances could be formed either on constituency level or national level. In 1958, party alliances were prohibited at constituency level, and in 1961 at national level. From this year onwards, party lists were exclusively semi-closed. Voters had only one vote. From 1925 to 1973, the d’Hondt formula was applied for the distribution of seats in both chambers of congress. 1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Electoral provisions are fixed in the 1980 Constitution and the Leyes Orgánicas Constitucionales (Constitutional Organic Laws), enacted between 1985 and 1989, which regulate diverse issues such as the Tribunal Calificador de Elecciones (15/10/1985; Qualifying Tribunal of Elections), the Servicio Electoral (10/10/1986; Electoral Service), the Partidos Políticos (23/03/1987; Political Parties) as well as Votaciones and Escrutinios (06/05/1988; Voting and Count of the votes). Afterwards, a few ad hoc norms were introduced.

260

Chile

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, direct and secret. Every Chilean citizen of at least 18 years of age is entitled to be registered to vote. Foreigners may obtain voting rights if they have lived in Chile for more than five years. Voting is compulsory for all registered citizens. Elected national institutions: The 1980 Constitution establishes a president as head of state, elected for a six-year term. The immediate reelection of the president is prohibited. The congress consists of the chamber of deputies and the senate. The chamber of deputies has 60 seats and is elected for four years. The senate has 38 members who are elected for eight years. There is a partial renewal of the senate members every four years. Furthermore, there are nine appointed senators. Former presidents become lifetime senators if they complete their term in office. Nomination of candidates: Candidacy is organized in closed, nonblocked lists. Electoral system - presidential elections: absolute majority. If none of the candidates reach an absolute majority of the valid votes, a runoff is held between the top two candidates. - parliamentary elections: chamber of deputies: binominal system. All 30 electoral districts have two seats. The decision rule is plurality and it is applied twice: first with regard to the decision between parties or party alliances, second within a list with regard to the decision between the individual candidates. The party or alliance with the most votes gets the first seat, the party or alliance with the second highest number of votes wins the second seat. As candidacy is organized in closed, non-blocked lists, voters have the option of choosing between the two candidates within one list, and the candidate who gets the most votes is elected. Senate: binominal system. All 19 electoral districts have two seats. The distribution of seats is the same as that for the chamber of deputies. Organizational context of elections The constitution of 1980 establishes two main electoral bodies, independent of the government and with full responsibility for the elections. The most important are the Tribunal Calificador de Elecciones (Qualifying Tribunal of Elections) and the Servicio Electoral. (Electoral Service). The tribunal consists of five members: three members or ex-members of the supreme court, elected by its members in secret elections by absolute

Chile

261

majority; a lawyer, elected by the supreme court in the same way; and an ex-president of the senate or the chamber of deputies who had exercised this function for at least three years, elected by lot. Its main functions are to supervise the electoral process, deal with and decide on complaints and announce the result of the election or announce the winning candidates. The electoral service is a legal, independent body. Its director is appointed by the president in agreement with the senate and it is responsible for organizing and managing the electoral process, from the registration of voters in the Padrón Electoral; that is, the register of voters, to counting the ballots. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Chile has a long tradition of free and fair elections. The independence of its electoral authorities played a crucial role in the re-establishment of democracy, starting with the referendum in 1988. There is no reliable data for elections earlier than 1915. The electoral data presented in the following tables come from the Dirección del Registro Electoral (Direction of Register of Voters) until 1973 and have been collected during the early 1970s; that is, before the destruction of this electoral body and of the register of voters by the Pinochet regime. The data covering elections since 1988/1989 come from the electoral service. Percentages have been calculated by the author. Population data are taken from the UN and from the Chilean national statistical office (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE).

Chile

262 2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year 1925 1927 1930 1931 1932 1937 1938 1941 1942 1945 1946 1949 1952 1953 1957 1958 1961 1964 1965 1969 1973 1978 1980 1988 1989 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 a

Presidential Parliamentary elections elections Lower cham- Upper chamber ber 22/10 22/11 22/11 22/05 xx/xx 04/10 30/10 30/10 30/10 07/03 07/03 25/10 02/03 02/03 01/02 04/03 04/03 04/09 06/03 06/03 04/09 01/03 01/03 03/03 03/03 04/09 05/03 05/03 04/09 07/03 02/03 04/03

14/12 11/12

14/12 11/12 11/12

14/12 11/12 11/12

16/12

16/12

Referendums

Coups d’état

1925

a

11/09

04/01 11/09 05/10 30/06

12/12 (I) 16/01 (II)

It was not officially called ‘referendum’ but ‘national consultation’. It was not legally binding and had only political significance.

Chile

263

2.2 Electoral Body 1915–2001 Year 1915 1918 1920 1921 1925 1925 1927 1931 1932 1932 1937 1938 1941 1942 1945 1946 1949 1952 1953 1957 1958 1961 1964 1965 1969 1970 1973 1980 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1993 1993 1993 1997 1997 1999

Type of Population electiona Pa Pa Pr Pa Pa Pr Pr Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pa Pr Pa Ref Ref Pr Pa S Ref Pr Pa Sd Pa Sd Pr (1st)

3,550,000 3,690,000 3,790,000 3,850,000 4,070,000 4,070,000 4,190,000 4,430,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,840,000 4,910,000 5,150,000 5,240,000 5,540,000 5,640,000 5,960,000 6,300,000 6,460,000 7,140,000 7,320,000 7,760,000 8,330,000 8,510,000 9,200,000 9,370,000 9,860,000 11,147,000 12,667,000 12,961,000 12,961,000 12,961,000 12,961,000 13,771,000 13,771,000 13,771,000 14,622,354 14,622,354 15,017,760

Registered voters Total % number pop. 184,807 5.2 341,872 9.3 370,314 9.8 370,314 9.6 302,307 7.4 302,142 7.4 328,700 7.8 388,959 8.8 429,772 9.6 464,879 10.3 495,648 10.2 503,871 10.3 575,625 11.2 581,486 11.1 624,495 11.3 631,257 11.2 591,994 9.9 1,105,029 17.5 1,100,027 17.0 1,284,159 17.9 1,497,493 20.5 1,858,980 24.0 2,915,121 35.0 2,920,615 34.3 3,244,892 35.3 3,539,747 37.8 4,510,060 45.7 —c — —c — 7,556,613 58.3 7,556,613 58.3 7,556,613 58.3 7,556,641 58.3 8,085,493 58.7 8,085,493 58.7 — — 8,077,743 55.2 — — 8,084,476 53.8

Votes cast Total number 150,297b 181,550b 166,917 196,537b 261,779b 260,895b 231,372b 285,810b 328,207b 345,892 412,230b 445,411 457,489b 466,507 449,916b 479,310 470,376 957,102 779,621b 878,229b 1,250,350 1,385,676 2,530,697 2,353,123 2,406,129 2,954,799 3,687,105 6,271,368 7,251,943 7,157,727 7,158,646 7,158,442 7,082,084 7,376,691 7,385,016 2,045,681 7,046,351 5,102,906 7,271,584

% reg. voters 81.3 53.1 45.1 53.1 86.6 86.3 70.4 73.5 76.4 74.4 83.1 88.4 82.6 80.2 72.0 75.9 79.5 86.6 70.9 68.5 83.5 74.5 86.8 80.6 74.2 83.5 81.8 — — 94.7 94.7 94.7 93.7 91.2 91.3 — 87.2 — 89.9

% pop. 4.2 4.9 4.4 5.1 6.4 6.4 5.5 6.5 7.3 7.7 8.5 9.4 8.9 8.9 8.1 8.8 7.9 15.2 12.1 12.3 17.1 17.9 30.4 27.7 26.2 31.5 37.4 56.3 57.3 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 53.6 53.6 14.9 48.2 34.9 48.4

Chile

264 Year Type of Population (cont.) electiona 2000 2001 2001 a

Registered voters Total % number pop. Pr (2nd) 15,211,308 8,084,476 53.1 Pa 15,401,952 8,075,446 52.4 d S 15,401,952 — —

Votes cast Total number 7,316,310 7,034,293 1,975,017

% reg. voters 90.5 87.1 —

% pop. 48.1 45.7 12.8

Pa = Parliament; Pr = President, S = Senate, Ref = Referendum. Given that most elections to the senate were mid-term elections, they have not been included in this table. b Valid votes; the total number of registered voters is not available. c No official data on registered voters available. d Partial renovation only. Information on registered voters is omitted.

2.3 Abbreviations AH-V ALP AN ANI

Alianza Humanista-Verde (Humanist-Green Alliance) Alianza de Liberación Popular (People’s Liberation Alliance) Avanzada Nacional (National Vanguard) Alianza Nacional de los Independientes (National Alliance of Independents) API Acción Popular Independiente (Independent Popular Action) AR Acción Republicana (Republican Action) a CD Confederación Democrática (Democratic Confederation) a CODE Confederación Democrática (Democratic Confederation) Concertación Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia (Concertation of Parties for Democracy) CP Comandos Populares (Popular Commands) DAL Democracia Agrario Laboral (Agrarian and Labor Democracy) DN Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) DR Partido Democracia Radical (Radical Democracy Party) FN Falange Nacional (National Falange) IC Izquierda Cristiana (Christian Left) MAPU Movimiento de Acción Popular Unitaria (Popular Unitarian Action Movement) ME Movimiento Ecologista (Ecological Movement) MNDP Movimiento Nacional del Pueblo (National People’s Movement) MNI Movimiento Nacional Ibañista (National Ibañista Movement) MR Movimiento Republicano (Republican Movement) MSC Movimiento Social Cristiano (Social Christian Movement) NAN Nueva Acción Napista (New Napista Action) NAP Nueva Alianza Popular (Popular New Alliance) PA Partido Agrario (Agrarian Party) PAC Partido Acción de Centro (Center Action Party) PADENA Partido Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Party) PAIS Partido Amplio de la Izquierda Socialista (Ample Party of the Socialist Left)

Chile PAL PAN PC PCCh (PPN) PCT PCU PD PDC PDD PDdP PDP PDT PH PIR PL PLD PN PNC PND PNP PPD PPN PR PRD PRS PRSD PRSDem PRSP PS Almeyda PSA PSCh PSD PSDC PSDCh PSN PSP PSR PSUR PV

265 Partido Agrario Laborista (Agrarian and Labor Party) Acción Nacional (National Action) Partido Conservador (Conservative Party) Partido Comunista de Chile (Comunist Party of Chile) (Partido Progresista Nacional) Partido Conservador Tradicionalista (Traditionalist Conservative Party) Partido Conservador Unido (United Conservative Party) Partido Demócrata (Democratic Party) Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) Partido Democrático Doctrinario (Doctrinaire Democratic Party) Partido Democrático del Pueblo (Democratic People’s Party) Partido Democrático Popular (Popular Democratic Party) Partido del Trabajo (Labor Party) Partido Humanista (Humanist Party) Partido de Izquierda Radical (Radical Left Party) Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) Partido Liberal Democrático (Liberal Democratic Party) Partido Nacional (National Party) Partido Nacional Cristiano (Christian National Party) Partido Nacional Demócrata (National Democratic Party) Partido Nacional Popular (National Popular Party) Partido por la Democracia (Party for Democracy) Partido Progresista Nacional (National Progressive Party) Partido Radical (Radical Party) Partido Radical Doctrinario (Radical Doctrinaire Party) Partido Radical Socialista (Radical Socialist Party) Partido Radical Socialdemócrata (Radical Social-democratic Party) Partido Radical Socialista Democrático (Radical Socialist Democratic Party) Partido Radical Socialista Popular (Popular Radical Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Almeyda (Socialist Party Almeyda) Partido Socialista Auténtico (Authentic Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Chileno (Chilean Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Demócrata (Socialist Democratic Party) Partido Social Demócrata de Chile (Social Democratic Party of Chile) Partido Socialdemocracia Chilena (Chilean Social-democratic Party) Partido Socialista Nacional (National Socialist Party) Partido Socialista Popular (Popular Socialist Party) Partido Social Republicano (Republican Social Party) Partido del Sur (Southern Party) Partido Verde (Green Party)

Chile

266 RN UCC UCCP UDI UN UNI UP USOPO USP USRACH VN VNP

a

Renovación Nacional (National Renovation) Unión de Centro-Centro (Center-Center Union) Unión de Centro-Centro Progresista (Progressive Center-Center Union) Unión Democrática Independiente (Independent Democratic Union) Unión Nacional (National Union) Unión Nacional de Independientes (National Union of Independents) Unidad Popular (Popular Unity) Unión Socialista Popular (Popular Socialist Union) Unión Socialista del Pueblo (People’s Socialist Union) Unión Social-Republicana de Asalariados de Chile (SocialRepublican Union of Wage Earners of Chile) Vanguardia Nacional (National Vanguard) Vanguardia Nacional del Pueblo (National Vanguard of the People)

CD is the name of the party, while CODE is the name of the alliance.

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1915–2001 Party / Alliance PC PD PL PLD PN PR PSC PLD (Aliancistas) Partido Nacionalista PL (Aliancistas) PL (Unionistas) PA PCCh (PPN) Partido Democrático PRS AR Partido Nacista ALP FN PSA DR MSC PAL PCT PDdP

Years Elections contesteda 1915–1957; 1965; 1973 13 1915–1965 13 1915–1918; 1925–1965 1973–1989; 2001 15 1915–1921 3 1915–1921 3 1915–1993 17 1915–1921; 1932–1989 15 1918–1921 2 1918 1 1921 1 1921 1 1932–1945 4 1932–1945; 1961–2001 12 1932–1949 5 1932; 1941 2 1937 1 1937 1 1941–1945 2 1941–1957 5 1945–1949; 1989 3 1949; 1973–1989 3 1949 1 1949–1957 3 1949–1961 4 1949–1953 2

Chile Party / Alliance (cont.) PSP MNDP MNI PA Partido Laborista PNC PRD UNI UP MR PDD PDT CP PADENA PDC UN AN DAL VNP PN PSD API CODE IC UP USOPO AN Los Verdes PAIS PH PPD PRSDem PSUR RN UDI MAPU Movimiento Ecologista Nueva Alianza Popular PSDCh UCC/UCCP PRSD a

267 Years 1949–1957; 1969 1953–1957 1953 1953 1953–1957 1953–1957 1953–1957 1953–1957 1953 1957 1957 1957 1961–1965 1961–1969; 1989 1961–2001 1961 1965; 1989 1965 1965 1969–1993 1969 1973 1973 1973–1989 1973 1973 1989 1989–1993b 1989 1989–2001c 1989–2001 1989 1989–1997 1989–2001 1989–2001 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993–1997 1997–2001

Elections contesteda 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2

Only the number of elections for the lower house is indicated. Total number of parliamentary elections is 19. b Formed an alliance with the PH in 1993. c Formed an alliance with the Greens (Los Verdes) in 1993.

Chile

268 2.5 Referendums Yeara Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Yes No a

1980b Total number —d 6,271,368 83,312 173,569 6,014,487 4,121,067 1,893,420

% – — 1.3 2.8 95.9 68.5 31.5

1988c Total number % — – 7,251,943 — 70,660 1.0 94,594 1.3 7,086,689 97.7 3,967,579 56.0 3,119,110 44.0

Due to the lack of reliable information, both the 1925 referendum and the officially called ‘National Consultation’ held on 04/01/1978 are excluded from this table. The latter appealed for support in favor of General Pinochet’s government. It was meant as a response to the UN General Assembly’s condemnation of the human rights violations after the coup d’état. It had no legal effects. b A draft of the 1980 Constitution was subjected to approval. c A popular consultation was held to decide whether Augusto Pinochet should continue in office for another eight-year term. The term would have started on 11/03/1989. d There was no electoral roll.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Yes No a

1989a Total number 7,556,641 7,082,084 106,747 324,283 6,651,054 6,069,449 581,605

% – 93.7 1.5 4.6 93.9 91.3 8.7

The amendments to the 1980 Constitution were subject to approval.

Chile

269

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1915–2001 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PC PR PLD PL PN PD PSC PLD (Aliancistas) Partido Nacionalista Others Independents a

1915 Total number 184,807 — — 150,297a 32,264 31,755 26,022 23,428 14,530 11,882 509 – – 629 9,787

% – — — 81.3b 21.5 21.1 17.3 15.6 9.7 7.9 0.3 – – 0.4 6.5

1918 Total number 341,872 — — 181,550a 35,066 44,915 23,833 35,901 19,911 11,828 548 2,751 1,758 153 4,886

% – — — 53.1b 19.3 24.7 13.1 19.8 11.0 6.5 0.3 1.5 1.0 0.4 2.7

Total sum corresponding to the votes received by each party. It cannot be assured that the information is complete. b Percentage of registered voters.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PC PR PD PLD PN PSC PLD (Aliancistas) PL (Aliancistas) PL (Unionistas) PL Others Independents a

1921 Total number 370,314 — — 196,537a 37,722 60,095 24,469 16,750 8,361 2,084 3,146 24,104 17,378 – 344 2,084

% – — — 53.1b 19.1 30.5 12.4 8.5 4.2 1.4 1.6 12.2 8.8 – 0.2 1.1

1925 Total number 302,307 — — 261,779 51,902 56,001 58,658c – – – – – – 84,895 – 10,323

% – — — 86.6b 19.8 21.4 22.3 – – – – – – 32.4 – 4.1

Total sum corresponding to the votes received by each party. It cannot be assured that the information is complete. b Percentage of registered voters. c Together with the Asalariado-Comunista group.

Chile

270 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL PD PR PC Partido Democrático PSC PRS PA PCCh (PPN)d Partido Nacista AR Others Independents a

1932 Total number 429,772 — — 328,207 59,859b 19,819 59,413 55,260 25,221 18,642c 18,174 6,580 3,350 – – 28,773e 33,116f

% – — — 76.4a 18.2 6.0 18.1 16.8 7.7 5.7 5.5 2.0 1.0 – – 8.8 10.1

1937 Total number 495,648 — — 412,230 85,515 20,026 76,941 87,845 18,676 46,050 – 9,721 17,162 14,235 9,802 9,217 17,040

% – — — 83.1a 20.7 4.9 18.7 21.3 4.5 11.2 – 2.4 4.2 3.5 2.4 2.2 4.1

Percentage of registered voters. Union of different liberal groups: Liberal (32,645 votes); Liberal Unificado (18,885); Liberal Doctrinario (5,643); PLD (1,686). c Several socialist groups participated, among them Nueva Acción Pública (9,760 votes) and Socialistas de Chile (5,352). d The Communists participated as PPN in 1937. e Includes Partido Social Republicano: (7,009 votes); Partido Democracia Social: (3,029) and others. f Three of the four independent candidates joined the Communist parliamentary group after the elections. b

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PR PSC PC PCCh PL Partido Democrático FN PA PD PRS ALP

1941a Total number 575,625 — — 457,489 98,296 86,675c 77,243 65,671 63,118d 19,202 15,553 7,723 6,389 5,076 2,268

% – — — 82.6b 21.5 18.9 16.9 14.4 13.8 4.2 3.4 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.5

1945 Total number 624,495 — — 449,916 89,922 32,314 106,264 46,133 80,579 21,463 11,565 8,750 2,565 – 6,297

% – — — 72.0b 20.0 7.2 23.6 10.3 17.9 4.8 2.6 1.9 0.6 – 1.4

Chile Year (cont.) PSA Others Independents a

271 1941a Total number – 9,217 1,058

% – 2.0 0.2

1945 Total number 25,104 14,931e 4,029

% 5.6 3.3 0.9

These numbers have not been verified. Percentage of registered votes. c Agrupación de Socialistas de Chile (75,500 votes) and Vanguardia Popular Socialista (11,175). d Several liberal groups. e Includes the Liberal Progresista (9,849 votes) and other parties. b

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PR PC PL PAL DR PSP Partido Democrático FN PSC PDdP PCT PSA PD UNI MNI PNC MNDP PRD Partido Laborista PA UP Others a

1949 Total number 591,994 470,376 5,504 464,872 100,869 98,118 83,582 38,742 23,248 22,631 20,682 18,221 15,676 8,536 7,485 5,125 1,994 – – – – – – – – 19,963b

% – 79.5 1.0 1.0 21.7 21.1 18.0 8.3 5.0 4.9 4.5 3.9 3.4 1.8 1.6 1.1 0.4 – – – – – – – – 4.3

1953 Total number 1,100,027 — — 779,621 103,650 78,833 84,924 118,483 – 68,218 – 22,353 41,676 31,961 33,332 – 11,570 39,877 28,976 21,381 19,238 17,882 8,171 8,125 2,344 40,971c

% – — — 70.9a 13.3 10.1 10.9 15.2 – 8.8 – 2.9 5.3 4.1 4.3 – 1.5 5.1 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 5.2

Percentage of registered voters. Includes: Partido Liberal Progresista (6,431 votes), PRD (4,424), MSC (2,018), Acción Renovadora de Chile (1,985), and others. c Includes UP (2,344 votes) and others. b

Chile

272 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PR PL PC FN PAL PSP PD PSC UNI PCT PDT MR PNC Partido Laborista PRD PDC PCCh PADENA Others Independents a

1957 Total number 1,284,159 — — 878,229 188,526 134,741 121,223 82,710 68,602 55,004 44,213 38,783 37,975 33,654 17,785 10,393 9,085 8,010 5,577 – – – 4,644 17,304

% – — — 68.5a 21.5 15.3 13.8 9.4 7.8 6.2 5.0 4.4 4.3 3.8 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.6 – – – 0.6c 2.0

1961 Total number 1,858,980 1,385,676 45,780 1,339,896b 296,828 222,485 – – – – 772 149,122 – 198,260 – – – – – 213,468 157,572 95,179 6,980d 2,720

% – 74.5 3.3 96.7 22.2 16.6 – – – – 0.1 11.1 – 14.8 – – – – – 15.9 11.8 7.1 0.2

Percentage of registered voters. The sum of all votes exceeds the official total by 3,490 votes. c PDD (3,302 votes) and MNDP (1,342). d Includes UN (3,394 votes), CP (96) and others. b

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PDC PR PCCh PSC PL PC PADENA DAL PD

1965 Total number 2,920,615 2,353,123 70,680 2,282,443 995,187 312,912 290,635 241,593 171,979 121,882 74,585 22,552 21,518

% – 80.6 3.0 97.0 43.6 13.7 12.7 10.6 7.5 5.3 3.3 1.0 0.9

1969 Total number 3,244,892 2,406,129 98,617 2,307,512 716,547 313,559 383,049 294,448 – – 44,818 – –

% – 74.2 4.1 95.9 31.1 13.6 16.6 12.8 – – 1.9 – –

Chile Year (cont.) AN PN PSP PSD Others Independents a

1965 Total number 15,173 – – – 8,758 5,669

% 0.7 – – – 0.4a 0.3

1969 Total number – 480,523 51,904 20,560 – 2,104

% – 20.8 2.3 1.0 – 0.1

Others include VNP: 5,637 votes (0.3%) and CP: 3,121 (0.1%).

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes CODE PDC PN DR PIR DN CODE list UP PSCh PCCh PR MAPU IC API Partido UP list Non-pact parties USOPOa a

273

1973 Total number 4,510,060 — — 3,575,115 2,001,549 1,043,815 776,190 72,027 64,977 12,776 31,764 1,562,677 663,259 578,695 129,615 93,965 37,767 27,108 32,268 10,889 10,889

% – — — — 56.0 29.2 21.7 2.0 1.8 0.4 0.9 43.7 18.6 16.2 3.6 2.6 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.3

USOPO did not formally belong to the alliance UP, but supported the government coalition.

Chile

274 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Concertation PDC PPD PR PH PSDCh PSCh Independents Democracy and Progress RN UDI UCC PSUR PN Independents Unity for Democracy PAIS PRSDem Independents Center Alliance AN DR Independents Chilean LiberalSocialist PL PSCh Independents Left Democratic Alternative PCCh MAPU NAP Independents The New Left AH-V ME Independents

1989 Total number 7,556,613 7,158,646 361,524 6,797,122

% – 94.7 5.1 94.9

1993 Total number 8,085,493 7,385,016 646,157 6,738,859

% – 91.3 8.7 91.3

1,766,347 778,501 268,103 52,225 –

26,0 11.5 3.9 0.8 –

1,827,373 798,206 200,837

27.1 11.8 3.0

53,377 803,719 49,764 Union for the Progress of Chile 1,098,852 816,104 216,639 13,422 2,688 324,084

0.8 11.9 0.7

619,595

9.1

1,242,432 667,369 –

18.3 9.8 –

413,780

6.1

297,897 1,330 61,374

4.4 0.0 0.9

– – –

– – –

57,574 28,575 91,793

0.9 0.4 1.4

– – –

– – –

47,237 10,398 148,503

0.7 0.2 2.2

–

–

–

–

a

a

16.3 12.1 3.2 0.2 0.0 4.8

– – – –

– – – –

336,034 6,644 – 87,817

5.0 0.1 – 1.3

– – –

– – –

67,733 2,215 26,247

1.0 0.0 0.4

Chile Year (cont.) Chile 2000 UCCP Independents Non-pact parties PN PSUR PV Independents a

275 1989 Total number – 53,819 47,387 14,942 127,941

1993 Total number

%

– –

– 0.8 0.7 0.2 1.9

% – –

b

7,104

0.1

Ran in an alliance with the PV, see below under AH-V. b Ran in an alliance with the PH, see above under AH-V.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Concertación PDC PPD PSCh PRSD Independents Union for Chile RN UDI PSUR Independents Left Democratic Alternative PCCh NAP Independents Non-pact parties PH PCCh PL Independents

1997 Total number 8,077,743 7,046,351 1,250,578 5,795,773

% – 87.2 17.7 82.3

1,331,745 727,293 640,397 181,538 46,719

23.0 12.6 11.0 3.1 0.8

971,903 837,736 20,813 270,940

16.8 14.5 0.4 4.7

398,588 8,971 26,589

6.9 0.2 0.5

168,597

2.9

– 40,022

– 0.7

2001 Total number 8,075,446 7,034,293 890,290 6,144,003 1,162,210 782,333 614,434 248,821 135,191 Alliance for Chile 845,865 1,547,209 – 327,121

– – 69,692 320,688 3,475 86,964

% – 87.1 12.7 87.3 18.9 12.7 10.0 4.0 2.2 13.8 25.2 – 5.3

– – 1.1 5.2 0.1 1.4

Chile

276 2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1937–2001 Yeara Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL PC PR PCCh (PPN) PD PSC Partido Liberal Demócrata Partido Nacista PA Partido Democrático Partido Laborista FN AP Libertadora Independents a

1937 Total number 495,648 191,706 — 148,920b 46,223 41,473 26,193 7,543 7,004 6,103 5,758

% – 38.7 — 30.0 31.0 27.8 17.6 5.1 4.7 4.1 3.9

3,858 2,187 – – – – 2,578

2.6 1.5 – – – – 1.7

1941 Total number 575,625 238,485 — 233,575b 37,965 52,540 49,719 28,449 2,399 37,857 –

% – 41.4 — 40.6 15.8 21.9 20.7 11.8 1.0 15.8 –

– 3,855 12,924 5,877 1,228 762 –

– 3.4 3.3 2.4 1.6 0.3 –

Only partial information was available. Not all of the registered voters listed here were actually eligible to vote at a given election as renovation was only partial. b The sum is based on the available data. It cannot be assured that the information is complete.

Yeara Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL PC PR PCCh (PPN) PL (Progresistas) PSC Partido Democrático FN Partido Demócrata Nacionalista AP Libertadora PA PAL

1945 Total number 624,495 216,329 — 208,109b 35,730 48,941 43,819 25,708 16,854 12,625 8,105 7,959 2,120 1,531 688 –

% – 34.6 — 33.3 17.9 24.5 21.9 12.8 8.4 6.3 4.0 3.8 1.1 0.8 0.3 –

1949 Total number 316,186 252,903 2,351 250,552 42,930 55,825 42,125 – – 6,818 9,252 2,222 – – – 42,230

% – 80.0 0.9 99.1 17.1 22.3 16.8 – – 2.7 3.7 0.8 – – – 16.9

Chile Yeara (cont.) PSA PR Democrático PSP PRD Partido Liberal Progresista Independents a

277 1945 Total number – – – – –

% – – – – –

4,029

2.0

1949 Total number 15,318 10,445 8,772 8,613 6,002

% 6.1 4.2 3.5 3.4 2.4

–

–

Not all of the registered voters listed here were actually eligible to vote at a given election as renovation was only partial. b The sum is based on the available data. It cannot be assured that the information is complete.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PR PAL PL PCT PSP MNI PC PDdP UNI MNDP ARCh Partido Democrático FN PNC PDC PSC PCCh PADENA VNP Others a

1953 Total number 484,064 — — 336,359 59,270 55,775 42,993 41,278 31,608 29,861 19,123 17,138 11,342 10,556 6,915 3,840 3,276 1,931 – – – – – 1,453

% – — — 69.5a 17.6 16.6 12.8 12.3 9.4 8.9 5.7 5.1 3.4 3.1 2.1 1.1 1.0 0.6 – – – – – 0.4b

1961 Total number 847,505 639,707 24,335 615,372 146,373 – 103,688 – – – 79,303 – – – – – – – 90,211 83,456 75,123 17,325 17,299 2,594c

% – 75.5 2.9 97.1 23.8 – 16.8 – – – 12.9 – – – – – – – 14.7 13.6 12.2 2.8 2.8 0.4

Percentage of registered voters. Others include PRD: 1,230 votes (0.4%); Partido Laborista: 205 (0.1%) and Movimiento Nacional de Jubilados: 18 (0.0%). c PD. b

Chile

278 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes PDC PCCh Partido Liberal Demócrata PN PSC USOPO CODEb UPb a

b

1969 Total number 3,223,892 — — 1,006,049 345,248 181,488 173,386 160,875 120,629 24,423 – –

– — — 31.2a 34.3 18.0 17.2

1973 Total number 2,740,703 2,240,019 38,164 2,201,855 — — —

16.0 12.0 2.4 – –

— — – 1,259,343 942,512

%

% – 81.8 1.6 98.4 — — — — — – 57.2 42.8

Percentage of registered voters. The shares of the parties within these alliances were not available.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Concertation PDC PPD PR PH PSCh Independents Democracia y Progreso RN UDI PSUR UCC Independents Liberal-Socialista Chileno PSCh PL Independents Alianza de Centro DR AN

1989 Total number 7,556,613 7,158,442 358,032 6,800,410

% – 94.7 5.0 95.0

1993a Total number 8,085,493 2,045,681 171,554 1,874,127 378,987 275,727 119,459 –b 238,405 27,253 Unión por el Progreso de Chile 279,580 190,283 52,509 46,455 130,587

% – 25.3 8.4 91.6

2,188,329 820,393 147,364 35,534

32.2 12.1 2.2 0.5

20.2 14.7 6.4 – 12.7 1.5

523,369

7.7

731,678 347,445

10.8 5.1

1,290,886

19.0

4,254 10,129 199,618

0.1 0.2 2.9

– –

– –

28,695 697

0.4 0.0

– –

– –

14.9 10.2 2.8 2.5 7.0

Chile

279

Year 1989 (cont.) Total number Independents 62,015 Alternativa Democrática de Izquierda MAPU – PCCh Independents – Non-pact parties PAIS 288,397 PSUR 45,584 PN 43,741 PCCh UCC – Alianza Humanista– Verde Independents 32,282

% 0.9 – – 4.2 0.7 0.6 – – 0.5

a

1993a Total number –

% –

3,030 65,073 13,278

0.2 3.5 0.7

–

–

– 65,073

– 3.5

8,528

0.5

41,233

2.2

Partial renovation only. b Ran in an alliance with the Greens. See Alianza Humanista-Verde under ‘others’.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Concertation PDC PSCh PPD PRSD Unión por Chile UDI RN Independents La Izquierda PCCh Independents Chile 2000 UCCP Independents Non-pact parties PH PCCh Others

1997a Total number 8,077,743 5,102,906 863,540 4,239,366

% – – 16.9 83.1

2001a Total number 8,075,446 1,975,017 242,602 1,732,415

% – – 12.3 87.7

1,238,540 617,947 182,076 76,091

29.2 14.6 4.3 1.8

728,680 629,394 195,118

17.2 14.9 4.6

395,728 254,905 219,335 19,025 Alianza por Chile 263,035 342,045 157,639

357,825 8,406

8.4 0.2

–

–

18,023 93,150

0.4 2.2

– –

– –

94,116

2.2

–

–

45,735 7,872 b

22.8 14.7 12.7 1.1 15.2 19.7 9.1

2.6 0.5

Chile

280 a b

Partial renovation only. Others include PH: 6,465 votes (0.4%) and PL: 1,407 (0.1%).

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1925–2001 Year PL PR PC PD Partido Democrático PRS PSC PA PCCh (PPN) Partido Nacista AR FN Others Independents a

1925 Seats 132 43 39 28 22 –

% 100.0 32.6 29.5 21.2 16.7 –

1932 Seats 142 27a 34 34 7 13

– – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – –

8 5b 4 1 – – – 5c 4d

% 100.0 19.0 23.9 23.9 4.9 9.2 5.6 3.5 2.8 0.7 – – – 3.5 2.8

1937 Seats 146 35 29 35 7 5 – 19 2 6 3 2 – – 3

% 100.0 20.8 18.7 21.3 4.9 4.5

1941 Seats 147 22 44 32 2 6

% 100.0 15.0 29.9 21.8 1.4 4.1

– 11.2 1.4 4.2 4.0 2.3 – – 4.0

1 17 3 17 – – 3 – –

0.7 11.6 2.0 11.6 – – 2.0 – –

The seats were allocated in the following way: Liberales 18, Liberal Unificado 6, Liberal Doctrinario 2, Liberal Demócrata 1. b The seats were distributed among the different socialist groups. c Social Republicanos: 4 seats; Social Demócratas: 1 seat. d Three of the four independent candidates joined the communist parliamentary group after the elections.

Year PR PC PL PCCh PSC Partido Democrático PA FN PSA

1945 Seats 147 39 36 31 15 6 6 3 3 3

% 100.0 26.5 24.5 21.1 10.2 4.1 4.1 2.0 2.0 2.0

1949 Seats 147 34 31 33 – 5 6 – 3 1

% 100.0 23.1 21.1 22.4 – 3.4 4.1 – 2.0 0.7

1953 Seats 147 18 2 23 – 9 – 2 3 –

% 100.0 12.2 1.4 15.6 – 6.1 – 1.4 2.0 –

1957 Seats 147 36 2 30 – 7 –

% 100.0 24.5 1.4 20.4 – 4.8 –

– 17 –

– 11.6 –

Chile Year (cont.) PD PAL DR PSP PCT PDdP MNI UNI PNC PRD MNDP UP Partido Laborista PDT MR Others Independents a

b

281 1945 Seats 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 4a –

% 0.7 – – – – – – – – – – – –

1949 Seats – 14 8 6 2 1 – – – – – – –

– – 2.7 –

– – 3b –

% – 9.5 5.4 4.1 1.3 0.7 – – – – – – –

1953 Seats 1 26 – 20 16 5 6 5 4 3 1 1 1

– – 2.0 –

– – 1 –

% 0.7 17.7 – 13.6 10.9 3.4 4.1 3.4 2.7 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7

1957 Seats 5 10 – 5 21 – – 7 – – – – –

% 3.4 6.8 – 3.4 14.3 – – 4.8 – – – – –

– – 0.7 –

4 1 – 2

2.7 0.7 – 1.4

Includes three seats for the Partido Liberal Progresista. Includes two seats for the Partido Liberal Progresista.

Year PR PL PDC PCT PCCh PSC PADENA PS PC PN API DR IC MAPU PIR

1961 Seats 147 39 28 23 17 16 12 12 – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 26.5 19.0 15.6 11.6 10.9 8.2 8.2 – – – – – – – –

1965 Seats 147 20 6 82 – 18 – 3 15 3 – – –

– – –

% 100.0 13.6 4.1 55.8 – 12.2 – 2.0 10.2 2.0 – – – – – –

1969 Seats 150 24 – 56 – 22 – – 15 – 33 – – – – –

% 100.0 16.0 – 37.3 – 14.7 – – 10.0 – 22.0 – – – – –

1973 Seats 150 5 – 50 – 24 – – 28 – 34 2 2 2 2 1

% 100.0 3.3 – 29.1 – 16.2 – – 18.7 – 21.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.8

Chile

282 Year Concertation PDC PPD PR PH PSCh PRSD Independents Democracia y Progreso

RN UDI UCC PSUR Independents Non-pact parties PAIS UCCP Independents

1989 Seats 120

% 100.0

38 16 5 1 0 – 9

31.7 13.3 4.2 0.8 0.0 – 7.5

29 11 –

24.2 9.2 –

8 2 – 1

1993 Seats 120

% 100.0 30.8 12.5 1.7 – 12.5 – 0.8

1997 Seats 120 38 16 – – 11 4 – Unión por Chile

% 100,0 31.7 13.3 – – 9.2 3.3 –

2001 Seats 120 23 20 – – 10 6 3 Alianza por Chile

% 100.0

6.7

37 15 2 – 15 – 1 Unión por el Progreso de Chile 29 15 2 0 4

19.2 16.7 – – 8.3 5.0 2.5

24.2 12.5 1.7 0.0 3.3

23 17 – 1 6

19.2 14.2 – 0.8 5.0

18 31 – – 8

15.0 25.8 – – 6.7

1.7 – 0.8

– – 0

– – 0.0

– 2 2

– 1.7 1.7

– – 1

– – 0.8

Chile

283

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1932–2001 Year

PR PC PL PRS Partido Democrático PD NAN PL (Doctrinarios) PL (Unido) PSR PCCh (PPN) PSC PA PL (Progresistas) Others Year

PR PL PC PCCh (PPN) PSC PDC PAL DR FN PSP MNI MNDP NAN PDdP Others Independents

1932 Total seats 45 13 10 5 5 4

% 100.0 28.9 22.2 11.1 11.1 8.9

1937 Elect. seats 20 3 6 6 – –

100.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 – –

1941 Elect. seats 20 6 5 3 – –

%

100.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 – –

1945 Elect. seats 25 7 5 6 – 1

100.0 28.0 20.0 24.0 – 4.0

%

%

3 2 1

6.7 4.4 2.2

2 – 1

10.0 – 5.0

– – –

– – –

– – –

– – –

1 1 – – – –

2.2 2.2 – – – –

– – 1 – – –

– – 5.0 – – –

– – 3 2 1 –

– – 15.0 10.0 5.0 –

– – 3 2 – 1

– – 12.0 8.0 – 4.0

–

–

1

5.0

–

–

–

–

1961 Total seats 45 12 9 5 3 8 4 – – – – – – – – 4 –

Elect. seats 24 7 6 2 3 4 1 – – – – – – – – 3 –

%

1949 Elect. seats 20 5 6 3 – – – 3 1 1 1 – – – – – –

% 100.0 25.0 30.0 15.0 – – – 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 – – – – – –

1953 Elect. seats 25 4 5 4 – – – 3 – – 3 2 1 1 1 – 1

% 100.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 – – – 12.0 – – 12.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 – 4.0

100.0 29.2 5.0 8.3 12.5 16.7 4.2 – – – – – – – – 12.5 –

Chile

284 Year

PDC PR PSC PCCh PL PC PN Others Year

Concertation PDC PPD PR PSCh Independents Democracia y Progreso RN UDI Independents a

1965 Total seats 45 13 9 7 5 4 3 – 4

%

1969 Total seats 50 12 5 4 3 – – 5 1

Elect. seats 30 22 9 4 6 – – 5 4

Elect. seats 21 12 2 3 2 – 1 – 1

100.0 57.1 9.5 14.3 9.5 – 4.8 – 4.8

%

1997 Seats

100.0 40.0 16.6 13.3 10.0 – – 16.6 1.5

1973 Elect. seats 25 10 1 5 5 – – 4 –

100.0 40.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 – – 16.0 –

%

2001 Seats

%

%

%

1989 Total seats 38a

%

1993 Seats

100.0

18

100.0

20

100.0

18

100.0

13 4 2 – 3

34.2 10.5 5.3 – 7.9

4 2 0 3 0

22.2 11.1 0.0 16.7 0.0

10 0 – 1 –

50.0 0.0 – 5.0 –

2 3 – 4 –

11.1 16.7 – 22.2 –

5 2 9

13.2 5.3 23.7

5 2 2

27.8 11.1 11.1

2 3 4

10.0 15.0 20.0

4 3 2

22.2 16.7 11.1

Plus nine appointed senators.

Chile

285

2.9 Presidential Elections 1920–2000 1920 Total number Registered Voters 370,314 Votes cast 166,917 Invalid Votes 802 Valid Votes 166,115 Luis Barros Borgoño (UN) 83,100 Arturo Alessandri (Alianza Liberal) 82,083 Others 932a a

% – 45.1 0.5 99.5 50.0 49.4 0.6

Others includes Emilio Recabarren (PCCh): 681 votes (0.4%) and others.

1925 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Emiliano Figueroa Larraín (independent) José Santos Salas (USRACH) Others

Total number 302,142 — — 260,895 186,187

1927 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) Others

Total number 328,700 — — 231,372 223,741 7,631

% – — — 70.4a 96.7 3.3

Total number 388,959 — — 285,810 182,177

% – — — 73.5a 63.7

a

b

28.4 0.2

Percentage of registered voters.

1931 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Juan Esteban Montero Rodríguez (PR) Arturo Alessandri Palma (PL) Elías Lafferte Gaviño (PCCh) Manuel Hidalgo Plaza (PSC) Othersb a

74,091 617

% – — — — 71.4

Percentage of registered voters. Includes blank votes.

99,075 2,434 1,263 861

34.7 0.9 0.4 0.3

Chile

286 1932 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Arturo Alessandri Palma (PL) Marmaduque Grove V. (PS) Héctor Rodríguez de la Cotta (PC) Enrique Zañartu Prieto (PLU) Elías Lafferte Gaviño (PCCh)

Total number 464,879 345,892 902 344,990 189,914 60,856 47,207 42,885 4,128

% – 74.4 0.3 99.7 55.1 17.6 13.7 12.4 1.2

1938 Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Pedro Aguirre Cerda (PR) Gustavo Ross Santa María (PL) Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.)

Total number 503,871 445,411 1,523 2,447 441,441 222,720 218,609 112

% – 88.4 0.3 0.6 99.1 50.5 49.5 0.0

1942 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Juan A. Ríos Morales (PR) Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) Others

Total number 581,486 466,507 1,714 464,793 260,034 204,635 124

% – 80.2 0.4 99.6 56.0 44.0 0.0

1946 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Gabriel González Videla (PR) Eduardo Cruz-Coke L. (PC) Fernando A. Rodríguez (PL) Bernardo Ibáñez Aguila (PSC) Others

Total number 631,257 479,310 1,509 477,801 192,207 142,441 131,023 12,114 16

% – 75.9 0.3 99.7 40.2 29.8 27.4 2.5 0.0

Chile 1952 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (indep.) Arturo Matte Larraín (PL) Pedro Enrique Alfonso (PR) Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC)

287 Total number 1,105,029 957,102 2,971 954,131 446,439 265,357 190,360 51,975

% – 86.6 0.3 99.7 46.8 27.8 20.0 5.5

1958 Total number Registered Voters 1,497,493 Votes cast 1,250,350 Invalid Votes 14,798 Valid Votes 1,235,552 Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez 389,909 (independent) Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) 356,493 Eduardo Frei Montalva (PDC) 255,769 Luis Bossay Leiva (PR) 192,077 Antonio Zamorano Herrera (indep.) 41,304

% – 83.5 1.2 98.8 31.6 28.9 20.7 15.6 3.3

1964 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Eduardo Frei Montalva (PDC) Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) Julio Durán Neumann (PR)

Total number 2,915,121 2,530,697 18,550 2,512,147 1,409,012 977,902 125,233

% – 86.8 0.7 99.3 56.1 38.9 5.0

1970 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Salvador Allende Gossens (PSC) Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez (independent) Radomiro Tomic Romero (PDC)

Total number 3,539,747 2,954,799 31,505 2,923,294 1,070,334 1,031,159

% – 83.5 1.1 98.9 36.6 35.3

821,801

28.1

Chile

288 1989 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Patricio Aylwin Azócar (Concertación) Hernán Büchi Buc (Democracia y Progreso) Francisco J. Errázuriz Talavera (UCC)

Total number 7,556,613 7,157,725 178,833 6,978,892 3,850,023

1993 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle (Concertación) Arturo Alessandri Besa (Unión para el Progreso) José Piñera Echeñique (indep.) Manfred Max-Neef (indep.) Eugenio Pizarro Poblete (PCCh) Cristián Reitze Campos (PH)

2,051,975

29.4

1,076,894

15.5

Total number 8,085,493 7,376,691 407,741 6,968,950 4,040,497

% – 91.2 5.5 94.5 58.0

1,701,324

24.4

430,950 387,102 327,402 81,675

6.2 5.6 4.7 1.2

1999 (1st) Total number Registered Voters 8,084,476 Votes cast 7,271,584 Invalid Votes 216,456 Valid Votes 7,055,128 Ricardo Lagos Escobar 3,383,339 (Concertación) Joaquín Lavín Infante (Alianza por 3,352,199 Chile) Gladys Marín Millie (PCCh) 225,224 Tomás Hirsch Goldschmidt (indep.) 36,235 a Others 58,131 a

% – 94.7 2.6 97.5 55.2

% – 89.9 3.0 97.0 48.0 47.5 3.2 0.5 0.8

Others include Sara M. Larraín Ruiz-Tagle: 31,319 votes (0.4%) and Arturo Frei Bolívar: 26,812 (0.4%).

Chile

289

2000 (2nd) Total number Registered Voters 8,084,476 Votes cast 7,316,310 Invalid Votes 147,781 Valid Votes 7,168,529 Ricardo Lagos Escobar 3,677,968 (Concertación) Joaquín Lavín Infante (Alianza por 3,490,561 Chile)

% – 90.5 2.0 98.0 51.3 48.7

2.10 List of Power Holders 1920–2004 Head of State Arturo Alessandri Palma Luis Altamirano Emilio Bello Codesido Arturo Alessandri Palma Luis Barros Borgaño Emiliano Figueroa Larraín Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Pedro Opazo Letelier

Years Remarks 1920–1925 Assumed office on 23/12/1920. Military coup on 08/09/1924. 1924–1925 Assumed office on 08/09/1924. 1925 Presided the Junta de Gobierno; assumed office on 23/01/1925. 1925 Summoned by the military to complete his term of office; re-assumed office on 20/03/1925. 1925 Vice president. 1925–1927 Assumed office on 23/12/1925. 1927–1931 Army officer; assumed office on 04/05/1927. 1931

Chairman of the senate. Vice president since 26/07/1931. Vice president since 27/07/1931. Vice president since 22/10/1931.

Juan Esteban Montero 1931 Manuel Trucco 1931 Franzini Juan Esteban Montero 1931–1932 Assumed presidency on 04/12/1931. Constitutionally elected. Junta de Gobierno 1932 Military coup on 04/06/1932. The junta was formed by Arturo Puga, Eugenio Matte and Carlos Dávila. Junta de Gobierno 1932 Military coup on 16/06/1932. The junta was formed by Carlos Dávila, Alberto Cabero and Nolasco Cárdenas. Carlos Dávila 1932 Assumed office on 25/06/1932. Governed as ‘interim president’. Bartolomé Blanche 1932 Military coup on 13/09/1932. Abraham Oyanedel 1932 Assumed office on 02/10/1932 as vice president.

Chile

290 Head of State (cont.) Arturo Alessandri Pedro Aguirre Cerda Jerónimo Méndez Arancibia

Years 1932–1938 1938–1941 1941–1942

Juan Antonio Ríos Alfredo Duhalde

1942–1946 1946

Gabriel González Videla Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez Eduardo Frei Montalva

1946–1952 1952–1958 1958–1964 1964–1970

Salvador Allende Gos- 1970–1973 sens Augusto Pinochet Ugarte

1973–1990

Patricio Aylwin 1990–1993 Azócar Eduardo Frei Ruiz1993–2000 Tagle Ricardo Lagos Escobar 2000–

Remarks Assumed office on 24/12/1932. Assumed office on 24/12/1938. Vice president under Aguirre Cerda. Assumed office on 25/11/1941 after Aguirre’s death. Elected president. Died in office. Vice president under Ríos. Assumed office after Ríos’ death. Elected president, assumed office on 04/11/1946. Elected president, assumed office on 04/11/1952. Elected president, assumed office on 04/11/1958. Elected president, assumed office on 04/11/1964. Elected president. Assumed office on 04/11/1970. Overthrown by a coup d’état on 11/09/1973. Committed suicide on 11/09/1973. Commander in chief of the armed forces, Jefe de la Junta de Gobierno, later appointed president. Elected president. Assumed office on 11/03/1990. Elected president. Assumed office on 11/03/1994. Elected president. Assumed office on 11/03/2000.

Chile

291

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources 100 Primeros Decretos Leyes dictados por la Junta de Gobierno de la República de Chile 1973. Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile. 101 al 200 Decretos Leyes dictados por la Junta de Gobierno de la República de Chile 1979. Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile. Dirección del Registro Electoral (1969). Diputados elegidos en la elección ordinaria de parlamentarios, Domingo, 2 de marzo 1969. Santiago de Chile. — (1969). Senadores elegidos en la elección ordinaria de parlamentarios, Domingo, 2 de marzo 1969. Santiago de Chile. — (1969). Variación porcentual de partidos políticos 1957–1969. Santiago de Chile. — (1970). Elección ordinaria del Presidente de la República, Viernes, 4 de septiembre de 1970. Santiago de Chile. (1906) Ley de Elecciones. Edición Oficial. Santiago de Chile. (1988). ‘Ley No. 18.700, Ley Orgánica Constitucional sobre votaciones populares y escrutinios’, in Diario Oficial de la República de Chile, 06.05.1988. Ley No. 18.733, Modificación de Ley Orgánica Constitucional sobre votaciones populares y escrutinios (1988), in Diario Oficial de la República de Chile, 13.08.1988. República de Chile, Junta de Gobierno de las Fuerzas Armadas y Carabineros de Chile (1973). Decreto Ley No. 1, Acta de Constitución de la Junta de Gobierno. Santiago de Chile. Servicio Electoral Chile (without year). Resultados. Plebiscitos y elecciones, 1988–1989. Santiago de Chile.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Aldunate, A. et al. (1985). Estudios sobre el sistema de partidos en Chile. Santiago de Chile. Angell, A. and Pollack, B. (2000). ‘The Chilean Presidential Elections of 1999–2000 and Democratic Consolidation’. Bulletin of Latin American Research 19 (3): 357–378. Bernaschina, G. M. (1958). Cartilla electoral. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica. Browning, D. Lea et al. (1989). Chile. The Plebiscite and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: International Human Rights Law Group.

292

Chile

Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Contemporánea (CERC) (1987). La campaña electoral de General Pinochet. Las giras a regiones. Informe Nr. 1, Santiago de Chile: CERC. Cortés, L. and Fuentes, J. (1967). Diccionario político de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Orbe. Donoso, R. (1967). Las ideas políticas en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Andrés Bello. Encina, F. A. (1952). Historia de Chile. (10 volumes). Santiago de Chile: Nacimineto. Fernández Baeza, M. (1981). ‘Presidencialismo, principio de gobierno de la mayoría y sistema electoral. Relaciones conceptuales y aplicación al caso de Chile 1972–1973’. Estudios Sociales (Santiago de Chile) 30: 53– 67. — (1986). ‘Sistemas electorales. Sus problemas y opciones para la democracia chilena’. Cuadernos de CAPEL (San José), 8. — (1989). ‘Elecciones generales. Chile, 14 de diciembre de 1989’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano (San José) 2: 56–65. — (2000). ‘El sistema electoral chileno. Dilucidando equívocos y adaptando fórmulas’, in A. Squella and O. Sunkel (eds.), Democratizar la democracia. Reformas pendientes. Santiago de Chile, 105–119. Fortín Bajardo, C. (ed.) (1967). Historia general de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Pedro Medeiro y Cía. Froehling, H. (1969). Las elecciones parlamentarias chilenas del 2 de marzo de 1969. Santiago de Chile: ILDIS. Garces, J. E. (1971). 1970. La pugna política por la presidencia en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Universitaria. Garretón, M. A. (2000). ‘Chile’s Elections: Change and Continuity’. Journal of Democracy 11 (2): 78–84. Gil, F. (1967). The Political System of Chile. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Godoy, H. (ed.) (1971). Estructura social de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Universitaria. Heise González, J. (1954). Historia constitucional de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Universitaria. Huneeus, C. (1985). ‘La política de la apertura y sus implicancias para la inauguración de la democracia en Chile’. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago de Chile) 7 (1): 25–84. Lagos, R. (1985). Democracia para Chile. Santiago de Chile: Pehuén. Lechner, N. (1970). La democracia en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Signos. León Echaíz, R. (1971). Evolución histórica de los partidos políticos chilenos. Buenos Aires/Santiago de Chile: Francisco de Aguirre. López Pintor, R. (1969). Algunos aspectos de la participación política en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Administración.

Chile

293

Miranda, H. M. T. (1982). ‘El sistema electoral y el multipartidismo en Chile 1949–1969’. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago de Chile) 4 (1): 59– 69. Morodo, R. (1968). Política y partidos en Chile. Madrid: Taurus. Moulián, T. and Torres Dujisin, I. (1986). Las candidaturas presidenciales de la derecha. Ross e Ibañez. Santiago de Chile: FLACSO. Noguiera Alcalá, H. (1989). Manual del ciudadano elector. (without place). Nohlen, D. (1973). Chile. Das sozialistische Experiment. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe. — (1973). ‘Warum scheiterte Allende?’. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 42: 3–21. — (1974). Feuer unter der Asche. Chiles gescheiterte Revolution. BadenBaden: Signal. — (1985). ‘Sistemas electorales comparados. El caso chileno’. Estudios Públicos (Santiago de Chile) 18: 69–86. — (2001). ‘Tendencias recientes en el desarrollo de los sistemas electorales y el caso chileno’. Política (Santiago de Chile) 41: 9–25. — (2003). Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos (3rd edn.). Mexico City: F.C.E. Nohlen, D., Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico City: F.C.E. Siavelis, P. M. (1997). ‘Continuity and Change in the Chilean Party System. On the Transformation Effects of Electoral Reform’. Comparative Political Studies 30 (6): 651–674. — (2002). ‘Coalitions, Voters and Party System Transformation in PostAuthoritarian Chile’. Government and Opposition 37 (1), 76–105. Urzúa Valenzuela, G. (1968). Los partidos políticos chilenos. Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile. — (1986). Historia política electoral de Chile (1931–1973). Santiago de Chile: Jurídica de Chile. Valdés Larraín, L. (1940). El sufragio. Santiago: Ercilla. Valenzuela, A. and Siavelis, P. (1991). ‘Ley electoral y estabilidad democrática’. Estudios Públicos 43: 27–88. Valenzuela, J. S. and Scully, T. R. (1997). ‘Electoral Choices and the Party System in Chile. Continuities and Changes at the Recovery of Democracy’. Comparative Politics 29 (4): 511–527.

This page intentionally left blank

COLOMBIA by Juan Jaramillo and Beatriz Franco-Cuervo

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Colombia, the former Vice Royalty of New-Grenada, gained its independence from Spain in 1819. The unification with Venezuela, Great Colombia, joined by Panama (1821) and Ecuador (1822), already failed in 1830 due to conflicts with regard to the political organization of the state and to the differences among the departamentos. The new Colombian state was founded as a republic, based on the principle of representative and centralized government. In the process of national organization, which was accompanied by instability and political conflict, the Liberal and Conservative parties took an hegemonic position in Colombia‘s nineteenth-century political life, which they have retained ever since. After the Liberal Party assumed power in 1849, it pursued a reform process that transformed the economic and social structure of the country, which had been a product of colonial legacy up to this point. These reforms included the extension of civil rights and the introduction of universal, direct, and secret suffrage, as provided by the 1853 Constitution. In 1858, universal suffrage brought a Conservative-Church alliance to government, which enacted a new constitution. This government was toppled by a liberal-led insurrection, which led to a period of liberal domination up to 1885, known as the Olimpo Radical. In 1863 the Liberals passed a clearly federalinspired constitution in the line of the two previous constitutions: it recognized the extreme regionalization of political power and the absence of a national ruling elite. However, unlike the 1853 Constitution, the new document left the regulation of suffrage to the sovereign states. In the light of past experiences, many states reintroduced restricted suffrage. During the 1880s, in view of the regional armed struggles and the effects of the economic crisis, a section of the Liberals formed an alliance with the Conservatives to overthrow the ruling Liberals. This episode

296

Colombia

introduced the next period, known as Regeneración. Conservativedominated, in 1886 it saw the passing of a centralist and authoritarian constitution establishing restricted suffrage and the indirect election of both president and senators. Political violence continued during this period: the Liberals started two civil wars (1895 and 1899–1902), and were defeated in both. In 1905 and 1910 two new constitutional reforms were introduced; intended to prevent new armed struggles, they made provisions for minority representation in parliament. The domination of the Conservative Party ended in 1930, brought about by the consequences of the international Great Depression, the social dissatisfaction and the divisions among the Conservatives. One important constitutional reform was introduced in 1936, within the framework of the República Liberal, a period that lasted until 1946. This reform established universal and direct suffrage for presidential and house of representatives elections (direct election to the senate was introduced in 1945). This and other measures enabled new social sectors to integrate into the political system. The Conservative Party won the 1946 elections, bringing about an alternation in presidency that was accompanied by a worsening of the traditional political violence. In fact, since 1948, after the assassination of the Liberal leader Jorge E. Gaitán, the country was racked with violence, hence the name of this period, La Violencia, a non-declared civil war whose effects stretched well into the 1970s. In 1953, General Rojas Pinilla led a coup against the conservative president Laureano Gómez, but his government soon came up against general opposition. Faced with the dictatorship, the two traditional parties agreed to form the so-called Frente Nacional (National Front), a political agreement established constitutionally by a plebiscite in 1957. After 1958, the Frente Nacional provided for a system of parity in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It also established a majority quorum of two-thirds of Congress votes to pass laws, in an attempt to promote inter-party consensus. The Frente Nacional succeeded in guaranteeing the peaceful alternation in the executice between the two traditional groups every four years, at the same time as it ensured their political hegemony and continuance. Yet, the lack of competitiveness of the system led to an alarming increase in electoral abstention. Moreover, the system encouraged clientelism and factionalism within the traditional parties. The Frente Nacional was meant to be in force from 1958 to 1974. Therefore, in 1974 both the system of parity in Congress and the alternation in the presidency were abolished. However, the 1968 constitutional reform established that the parity system be maintained in governmental

Colombia

297

offices until 1978. From that year, the major party would allocate an ‘adequate and equitable’ number of offices to the second party. This system of distribution of political power remained in force until the 1991 Constitution was introduced, bar the period 1986–1990, when the Conservative Party declared itself opposed to this process. The Frente Nacional was based on a tradition of joint liberal-conservative governments, parallel to the constant inter-party wars. The system brought peace to the liberal-conservative relations and neutralized the Church’s power in politics, thereby depriving it of its leading role. This role was taken on by the military, which since La Violencia had seen its influence increase at a regular pace. On the one hand, the Frente Nacional guaranteed peace between the two political parties and their joint political supremacy; on the other, the State and the parties lost control over, and moved further away from, society and its different forms of organization. Electoral abstention increased alarmingly and clientelism and factionalism plagued the parties. Furthermore, the government needed to resort to the state of emergency with increasing frequency. To add to the problems, the marked two-party domination thwarted the attempts of many new parties that were appearing at this time to consolidate; the clearest example was the performance of ANAPO, the party created around former dictator Rojas Pinilla: In the 1970 elections, when only an extremely narrow margin separated its candidate from the winner Misael Pastrana, the candidate of the Frente Nacional, many thought that ANAPO would succeed in breaking the political supremacy of the Liberals and Conservatives. However, it steadily lost electoral support in the following elections. In this context, several guerrilla groups were created and consolidated in the 1960s. During the early 1980s, paramilitary groups were established to counteract them, and these groups also consolidated. The 1980s were also witness to the emergence of powerful drug cartels. The formation of and confrontation among all these forces plunged the country into a climate of acute violence, characterized by the common violation of human rights and humanitarian international law and the forced displacement of over two million people. Of course, violence translated into electoral politics, as proved by the assassination of three presidential candidates in the run-up to the 1990 elections, the assassination of more than 100 mayors since 1992 and the increasing number of threats, kidnaps, murders, and acts of terror in electoral campaigns. Aimed at putting an end to political violence, peace talks with the guerrilla started in the 1980s. They began during Belisario Betancur’s government (1982–1986), but failed after a promising start. The subse-

298

Colombia

quent government of Virgilio Barco (1986–1990) signed a peace agreement with the guerrilla group M-19. At this time, in accordance with the old perception of the need to reach a new fundamental political agreement in order to achieve peace and institutional stability, a Constituent Assembly was formed. It enacted the 1991 Constitution, which is still in force to date. The assembly included delegates of other demobilized guerrilla groups; however, the two most important organizations—the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, Colombian Armed Revolutionary Forces) and the ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional, Popular Liberation Army)—have refused to participate. The Constitution of 1991 introduced important institutional reforms, some relating to the electoral and party systems. However, despite the expectations it awoke, the political system did not change substantially: to a large extent, the Liberal and Conservative parties have kept their hold on Colombia’s political life, and abstention, clientelism and factionalism are the order of the day. However, since the introduction of the new constitution, parties and political movements have adopted an electoral tactic called ‘operation wasp’—an atomization of electoral lists. This strategy has substantially increased the number of lists, as can be seen in the tables. The traditional parties (Liberals and Conservatives) have become the patrons of a large majority of these lists, for example in the 1991 parliamentary elections, when the Liberal Party vouched for 237 lists and the Conservative Party for 64 lists out of a total of 486 lists. This tactic caused a distortion in the form of candidature, so that candidatures became virtually individual. Not only had this fact repercussions in the practical distortion of the electoral system as such, but also in the effectiveness, the transparency of the vote count, and the publication of results, as can be seen in the data delivered and partially published by the Registry. In view of the increasing fragmentation and disintegration of parties and the party system and of the loss of governability, a discussion of an electoral reform began in 1995. Several reform proposal had failed before the new electoral provisions were adopted in 2003. Restoring the peace has been one of the main targets of recent governments. President Samper’s government (1994–1998) achieved little in this respect, because charges of illicit campaign financing undermined much of its political strength. Surrounded by warfare, Pastrana’s government began peace talks with the FARC and ELN, in a process marked by the distrust of both parties and by national and international pressure to humanize war and achieve peace. The situation was not the most suitable for a peace process, due to the serious economic crisis it was facing—the worst in the 20th century—as well as the involvement

Colombia

299

of the FARC in drug trafficking, the uncertainty about the best way to deal with paramilitary groups, and the constant acts of violence. Benefiting from the failure of the peace process, Alvaro Uribe Vélez, who had promised to restore civil order and security, won the presidential elections of 2002. Uribe decided to fight the guerilla until they were forced to negotiate. At the same time, Uribe began peace talks with the rightist paramilitary forces. Nevertheless, these talks suffered serious set backs due to the internal division of these groups and to their close ties to drug trafficking. Uribe enjoyed high popularity which led him to propose the constitutional reform permitting his direct re-election. At that point, the end of the armed conflict was not in sight. Despite Colombia’s long electoral tradition, the competitiveness of elections was limited. Almost all presidents were elected, but electoral freedom and fairness were limited due to the conflicts of the civil wars, fraud, electoral boycotts, the suspension of party competition, and the Frente Nacional agreement. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since 1821, all constitutions and most of its reforms have dealt with electoral issues. The constitution of 1853 introduced universal, direct, and secret suffrage. In 1886 the constitution was reformed to allow universal suffrage for municipal councils and departmental assemblies only. For presidential elections the indirect census suffrage was reintroduced, while Chamber of Deputies elections remained direct but were again based on census. The senate was elected indirectly by the departmental assemblies. The electoral provisions of the 1886 Constitution were reformed slowly and progressively. In 1910 the direct vote was re-established for presidential elections and in 1936 universal suffrage was introduced for presidential elections and for elections to the Chamber of Deputies. In 1945 senatorial elections were made direct and universal. Female suffrage was introduced in 1957, and in 1975 the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 years. Suffrage has never been compulsory. Since law No. 72 of 1930 and the constitutional reform of 1945, members of the armed forces and the national police have not been allowed to vote during active service. Until 1853, with the exception of the 1821 Constitution, the president and the vice president were elected separately by absolute majority. The 1821 Constitution established a quorum of two-thirds of the vote. If

300

Colombia

neither candidate obtained the necessary majority, Congress chose the president from the top three candidates. The constitution of 1853 introduced the plurality system and the 1858 Constitution replaced the elected vice president with an appointee chosen by Congress. The 1863 Constitution substantially changed the rules and stated that each state would have one vote determined by the relative majority of its voters. Absolute majority of these state votes was required and Congress decided if the quorum was not met. The 1886 Constitution reintroduced the post of vice president and established the joint election of president and vice president on one ticket with plurality through departmental electoral assemblies. From 1910 on, Congress again chose the appointee, the president being directly elected by relative majority. This regulation remained until 1991. During the liberal-conservative Frente Nacional the presidency alternated between the parties for the four terms from 1958 to 1974 without considering the number of votes for each party. For the parliamentary elections the majoritarian system was replaced by a proportional system in 1932. For senatorial elections up to 1908 the constituencies corresponded to the territorial entities prescribed by the different constitutions. Between 1908 and 1930 a political electoral criterion was applied for the formation of these constituencies, in which three or more senators were elected. In 1930 the political-administrative division of the departments was re-enacted for this election and it was determined that the vote of intendancies and commissaries should be added to those of certain departments. The different constitutions and its corresponding reforms determined the size of the senatorial constituencies, ranging from small (1–5) to medium (6–9). In some cases a minimum and a maximum of seats per constituency were determined. From 1968 to 1991, each department had a basic representation of two senators in addition to its share according to the size of the population. Between 1821 and 1863 the constituencies for the elections to the house of representatives corresponded to the territorial entities prescribed by the different constitutions and magnitudes varied between one and several members according to population size. In 1863, when legislation on this issue was transferred to the states, some states chose political electoral criteria for the internal establishment of their constituencies. In 1886 the constitution established plurality vote in singlemember constituencies and stated that each territorial entity (department) was to be divided into as many constituencies as corresponded to the number of representatives according to the population. In 1910, after two reforms relating to the issues in 1905 and 1908, plurality was defi-

Colombia

301

nitely abolished for this type of election and it was determined that the law would determine the division of the constituencies and that they should have at least three seats. In 1930, the political administrative criterion of the departments was re-established for the elections to the House of Representatives. In 1986 it was determined that the intendancies and commissaries should not be added to the departmental constituencies anymore but would instead be additional constituencies, some joint and some on their own. The basis on which the number of representatives of each constituency was calculated had always been the size of the population. In 1968 it was determined that the departmental constituencies should have a minimum of two representatives plus their share according to the size of the population. In compliance with the 1991 Constitution, five special constituencies were established. They are reserved for the representation of blacks, natives, other political minorities, and Colombians living abroad. From 1853, the year in which voting was made secret, to 1932 lists were open; that is, each citizen could vote for whom he wanted and could set up his own list with printed or hand-written ballots. Nevertheless, political practice led to the situation that voters generally accepted the lists of candidates presented by the parties. During this period different methods of multiple vote were in use. In 1905 the limited multiple vote was established, according to the constitutional reform of 1905, which declared the right of ‘representation of minorities’ for the first time at the national level. According to this system, the party that gained the majority of the votes obtained two-thirds of the seats while the remaining third was reserved for the party with the second highest number of votes. During the period of ‘incomplete votes’ the voter had a number of votes corresponding approximately to two-thirds of the number of seats. Since 1932 lists were closed and blocked. They could contain as many names as the number of seats. Voters only had one vote. Until 1990 parties produced and distributed the ballots. From then on the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil was charged with this task. Seats were distributed according to majority rule from 1821 until 1932, when the Hare quota formula was introduced for all elections to public entities. One exception was the period from 1951 to 1953, when the system of majoritarian representation was re-established, determining that in each constituency the party with the most votes obtained the absolute majority of seats and the rest were distributed among the remaining parties according to the Hare quota. Another notable exception was the Frente Nacional from 1958 to 1970/74 when it was agreed that the senate and the house were to be composed of the same numbers of

302

Colombia

seats of the Liberal and the Conservative parties, ignoring the share of votes each party received. The electoral coefficient was used to distribute seats among the different factions of each party. This amount was obtained from the votes of the lists of the corresponding party. Nevertheless, in the constituencies with no more than two seats the plurality system was applied. The Legislative Act no. 1 of 1968 first reduced the period of the Frente Nacional from 1974 to 1970, and secondly determined that for all elections to public entities the method of the Hare quota formula would be applied and that the Hagenbach-Bischoff formula must be used in all constituencies with no more than two seats. Since 1986, blank votes are taken into consideration to calculate the electoral quota. 1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Republic of Colombia; Electoral law (decreto 2241/86); Political Parties Law 130/94). In 2003, some of the regulations of the constitution concerning the electoral system and the parties were changed (Legislative Act No. 001 of July 2003). Suffrage: Universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage is applied. The members of the armed forces and the police are not entitled to vote. Voting is not compulsory; instead, Laws 403 of 1997 and 815 of 2003 state that people who cast a vote shall be granted material benefits. Elected national institutions: The 1991 Constitution provides for the simultaneous election of the president and the vice president for a fouryear term. The re-election of the president is not allowed. The bicameral National Congress, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, is elected for a four-year term, but not on the same day as the president. The House of Representatives is composed of 166 members and the senate of 102. Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates must be Colombian by birth, citizens, and over 30 years old. For all elected posts candidates who are not presented by a recognized party or political movement, have to pay a deposit at registration. The amount is determined by the Consejo Nacional Electoral. A number of signatures is also required: it must not be

Colombia

303

higher than 50,000 for presidential candidates or candidates for the senate. - parliamentary elections: Candidates running for senate must be Colombians by birth, citizens and over 30 years old on election day. For the House of Representatives, candidates must be citizens and over 25 years old on election day. Independent candidates need an insurance police and a number of signatures corresponding to the number of voters in the given constituency divided by the number of seats in that constituency, divided by five, but no more than 50,000. Electoral system - presidential elections: The president and the vice president are elected by an absolute majority of the valid vote. If no one candidate reaches this majority, a second round is held between the top two candidates. - parliamentary elections: Proportional Representation in multi-member constituencies of different size is applied for the election to the House of Representatives. The constitution distinguishes two kinds of constituencies: territorial and special. The departments and the Distrito Capital are territorial constituencies; each one has two deputies, and one more every 250,000 additional inhabitants or section of 125,000 over the initial 250,000. Thus, among the 33 territorial constituencies there are three large constituencies (more than ten seats), six medium-sized (from six to ten seats), twelve small (from three to five seats) and twelve twomember constituencies. The special constituencies may be established by law in order to ensure the representation in the House of Representatives of ethnic groups, political minorities or Colombian citizens residing abroad. No more than five deputies may be elected in these constituencies (in 2002: one for Colombians living abroad, two for blacks, one for the natives, and one for other political minorities, reaching a total of 166 seats). The senate is composed of 102 members. From these, 100 are elected in a nationwide constituency and the other two in a special national constituency reserved for indigenous communities. Candidates are presented on closed lists. The parties decide whether their lists shall be blocked or if the voter may cast a preferential vote. There can be as many candidates on one list as there are seats in the constituency. In constituencies with more than two seats, seat allocation follows the d’Hondt formula. For the election of the house of representatives a legal threshold of 50% of the quotient obtained by dividing the total number of valid votes

304

Colombia

by the number of contested seats is applied. The legal threshold for the senate is two percent of the votes cast in the nationwide constituency. In two-member constituencies seats are allocated according to Hare quota, with a legal threshold of 30% of the quotient obtained from dividing the total number of valid votes by the number of seats contested. Elections have to be repeated once if an absolute majority of votes are cast as blank votes. Organizational Context of Elections: The Consejo Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Council) and the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil (National Registry) are responsible for organizing the elections. The council is made up of nine members elected by the Congress for a four-year term. The presidents of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Justice and the State Council choose the national registrar (registrador nacional), who carries out the actual organization of elections during a four-year term. 1.4. Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The electoral data presented in the following tables are essentially taken from statistics presented by the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil—created in 1948—and the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas (DANE). Before the creation of the Registraduría the task of broadcasting electoral data had not been assigned to a specific entity and therefore data before 1948 are incomplete and there are substantial deviations between some of the different publications. It is also necessary to indicate that the statistics used and delivered by the Registraduría since 1948 do not always explain its criteria of classification, which vary ostensibly from one administration to another, as well as from publication to publication. This makes it impossible to present the data in a consistent form and to verify its exactness. From 1998 onwards the Registraduría only delivers the results electronically— Internet and CD—which further hinders its analysis and verification. Since 1985, official publications of electoral data have listed blank votes under valid votes, because the quota is calculated on the basis of blank and party votes. In the following tables, however, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed separetely, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes.

Colombia

305

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1931 1933 1934 1935 1937 1938 1939 1941 1942 1943 1945 1946 1947 1949 1949 1951 1953 1957 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1974 1978 1978 1982 1986

Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections for Referenelections Lower Upper Constitutional dums a b Chamber Chamber Assembly c 10/02 10/02 xx/02 14/02 09/02 10/05 10/05 14/05 14/05 11/02 26/05 26/05 04/04 04/04 01/05 xx/02 xx/02 16/03 16/03 03/05 xx/02 xx/02 xx/02 xx/02 05/05 16/03 16/03b 05/06 05/06 27/11 16/09 16/09 15/03 15/03 01/12 d d d 04/05 16/03 16/03 20/03 20/03 06/05 18/03 18/03 15/03 15/03 01/05 20/03 20/03 17/03 17/03 d d 19/04 19/04 19/04d 21/04 21/04 21/04 26/02 26/02 04/06 30/05 14/03 14/03 25/05 09/03 09/03

Coups d’état

13/07

Colombia

306 Year Presidential Parliamentary elections (cont.) elections Lower Upper a Chamber Chamberb 1990 27/05 11/03 11/03 1990 1991 27/10 27/10 1994 29/05 (1st) 13/03 13/03 1994 19/06 (2nd) 1998 31/05 (1st) 08/03 08/03 1998 21/06 (2nd) 2002 26/05 10/03 10/03 2003

Elections for ReferenConstitutional dums Assembly 09/12 27/05 09/12

a

Coups d’état

25/10

The available data for the elections to the House of Representatives start in 1931. The 1945 constitutional reform extended direct suffrage to the election of senators. This was put into practice for the first time in 1947. c First direct election of the president. d The Frente Nacional agreement remained in force in the elections held from 1958 to 1970. b

2.2 Electoral Body 1914–2003 Year Type of Populationb Electiona 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1931 1933 1934 1935 1937 1938 1939 1941 1942 1943 1945 1946 1947 1947 1949 1949

Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr R R Pr R R Pr R R Pr R R Pr R S R Pr

— 5,855,000 — — 7,425,000 — — — 8,199,000 — 8,641,801 — 9,315,000 9,540,000 9,774,000 10,152,000 10,528,000 10,800,000 10,800,000 11,373,000 11,373,000

Registered voters Total % number pop. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,288,441 15.9 — — 1,700,171 19.7 1,812,636 — — — 2,056,366 21.6 — — 2,279,510 22.5 2,450,596 23.3 2,613,586 24.2 2,613,586 24.2 2,773,804 24.4 2,866,339 25.2

Votes cast Total % reg. % number voters pop. c 337,597 — — c 401,175 — 6.9 c 670,053 — — c 370,926 — — c 824,530 — 11.1 c 787,157 — — c 967,866 — — c 942,009 — — c 430,728 33.4 5.3 c 550,726 — — 513,520 30.2 5.9 c 919,569 50.7 — c 885,525 — 9.5 1,147,806 55.8 12.0 c 882,647 — 9.0 875,856 38.4 8.6 1,366,272 55.8 13.0 c 1,472,686 56.0 13.6 c 1,466,012 56.0 13.6 c 1,751,804 63.1 15.4 1,140,646 39.8 10.0

Colombia

307

Year Type of Populationb (cont.) Electiona 1951 1951 1953 1957 1958 1958 1958 1960 1962 1962 1962 1964 1966 1966 1966 1968 1970 1970 1970 1974 1974 1974 1978 1978 1978 1982 1982 1983 1986 1986 1986 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1994 1994

R S R Ref R S Pr R R S Pr R R S Pr R R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr CP Ref f CA R S R S

11,962,360 11,962,360 12,693,000 14,223,000 14,627,000 14,627,000 14,627,000 15,538,000 16,956,000 16,956,000 16,956,000 17,484,509 19,333,000 19,333,000 19,333,000 20,662,000 20,803,000 20,803,000 20,803,000 22,692,000 22,692,000 22,692,000 24,714,000 24,714,000 24,714,000 26,931,000 26,931,000 26,931,000 29,323,000 29,323,000 29,323,000 30,062,000 30,062,000 30,062,000 30,062,000 30,062,000 30,062,000 30,063,000 30,063,000 33,109,840b 33,109,840

Registered voters Total % number pop. — — — — — — — — 5,365,191d 36.7 5,365,191 36.7 5,386,981 36.8 4,397,541 28.3 5,338,868 31.5 5,338,868 31.5 5,404,765 31.8 6,135,628 35.1 6,609,639 34.2 6,609,639 34.2 6,611,352 34.2 6,696,723 32.4 7,666,716 36.8 7,666,716 36.8 7,683,785 36.9 8,925,330 39.3 8,925,330 39.3 8,964,472 39.5 12,519,719e 50.7 12,519,719e 50.7 12,580,851 50.9 13,721,607 51.0 13,721,607 51.0 13,734,093e 50.9 15,839,754 54.0 15,839,754 54.0 15,839,754e 54.0 13,793,566 45.9 13,793,566 45.9 13,903,324 46.2 13,903,324 46.2 13,903,324 46.2 14,237,110 47.4 15,037,526 50.0 15,037,526 50.0 17,028,961 51.4 17,028,961 51.4

Votes cast Total % reg. % number voters pop. 934,580 — 7.8 935,138 — 7.8 1,028,323 — 8.1 d 4,397,090 — — 3,693,939 69.0 25.2 3,655,474 68.1 25.7 3,108,567 57.7 21.2 2,542,651 57.8 16.4 3,090,203 57.9 18.2 3,080,055 58.0 18.2 2,634,840 48.8 15.5 2,261,190 36.9 12.9 2,939,222 44.5 15.2 2,917,863 44.1 15.0 2,649,258 40.1 13.7 2,496,455 37.3 12.1 3,980,201 51.9 19.1 3,967,006 51.7 19.1 4,036,458 52.5 19.4 5,100,099 57.1 22.5 5,106,775 51.0 22.5 5,212,133 58.1 23.0 4,180,121 33.4 16.9 4,169,834 33.3 16.9 5,075,719 40.3 20.5 5,584,037 40.7 20.7 5,579,357 40.7 20.7 6,840,392 49.8 25.4 6,909,838 43.6 23.6 6,869,435 43.4 23.4 7,229,937 45.6 24.7 7,631,694 54.6 25.0 7,654,150 55.5 25.5 6,047,576 43.5 20.1 5,891,117 42.4 19.6 3,063,018 21.5 10.2 3,710,557 26.1 12.3 g 4,794,340 31.9 15.9 h 5,486,422 36.5 18.2 5,576,174 32.7 16.8 5,516,574 32.4 16.7

Colombia

308 Year Type of Populationb (cont.) Electiona 1994 1994 1998 1998 1998 1998 2002 2002 2002 2003 a

Pr (1st) Pr (2nd) R S Pr (1st) Pr (2nd) R S Pr Ref

33,109,840 33,109,840 40,773,000 40,773,000 40,773,000 40,773,000 43,776,000 43,776,000 43,776,000 44,000,000

Registered voters Total % number pop. 17,146,597 51.8 17,147,023 51.8 20,729,473 50.8 20,767,388 50.9 20,856,150 51.2 20,857,801 51.2 23,998,685 54.8 23,998,685 54.8 24,208,311 55.3 25,069,773 57.0

Votes cast Total number 5,821,331 7,427,742 9,471,113 9,478,377 10,751,465 12,310,107 10,407,737 10,297,403 11,249,734 6,673,050

% reg. % voters pop. 33.9 17.6 43.3 22.4 45.7 23.2 45.6 23.2 51.5 26.4 59.0 30.2 43.4 23.8 42.9 23.5 46.5 25.7 26.6 15.2

CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pr = President; R = House of Representatives (Lower House), Ref = Referendum; S = Senate (Upper House). b The 1918, 1938, 1951, and 1964 data correspond to census results; other censuses: 1912: 5,473,000, 1928: 7,380,000, 1973: 22,915,229, 1985: 27,867,326, 1993: 33,109,840. The other data are based on official estimates and projections. c This figure corresponds to the valid vote. The total number of votes is not available. d Since 1957 women have been entitled to vote. e Since the new citizenship documents (cédula de ciudadanía) were introduced in 1952 all the citizens whose certificates were approved by the Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil were considered registered (the so called ‘potential electorate’). Nevertheless, the automatic inscription of the certificates brought about problems: in 1982, the national registrar himself declared that between 1949 and 1982 the registry had canceled only 600,000 certificates due to the death of their bearer, whereas the actual number of deaths was estimated at three million. In recent years, the registry has taken on the task of correcting the figures of the potential electorate by calculating the number of certificates that should have been canceled after their bearer’s death. After this calculation, the national registrar declared that the actual potential electorate for the parliamentary elections had been 11,220,529, rather than 12,519,719. As a result, the electoral turnout rose from 33% to 37%. Likewise, the potential electorate estimated for the 1982 presidential elections (15,295,511) sank to 13,734,093. For the 1986 elections, the registry calculated, on the basis of the 1985 census, a potential electorate of 15,839,754, a figure lower than the estimated one, which was 16,126,665. In order to clean up the register, it was agreed that the 1990 electoral census would be made up of the 1986 voters and the registered certificates. After the 1990 elections, the old system of automatic registration was reintroduced. f See below 2.5, Iniciativa ciudadana (IC) - 1990 g This figure corresponds exclusively to the valid votes; blank votes are excluded. h This figure does not include the blank and invalid votes cast in the Special Indian Constituency.

2.3 Abbreviations AD/M-19 AICO ALAS

Alianza Democrática M-19 (Democratic Alliance M-19) Autoridades Indígenas de Colombia (Indigenous Authorities of Colombia) Movimiento Alternativa de Avanzada Social (Alternative Movement of Social Vanguard)

Colombia ANAPO ANP ANUPAC AP APEN ASI C4 CC CCN CDPR CI CN CPC Crea FD FE FM FP FSP FUP IR JEGA LFD LIDER LPC M-19 MAC MACN MAD MAL MB

309 Alianza Nacional Popular (Popular National Alliance) Acción Nacional Popular (Popular National Action) Movimiento Politico ANUPAC Colombia (Political Movement ANUPAC Colombia) Andrés Presidente / Coalición 1998 (Andrés for President/ Coalition 1998) Acción Patronal Económica Nacional (National Economic Patronal Action) Movimiento Alianza Social Indígena (Indigenous Social Alliance) Movimiento Compromiso Cívico Cristiano con la Comunidad (Movement of Christian Civic Commitment to the Community) Compromiso Colombia (Commitment Colombia) Movimiento Político Concertación Cívica Nacional (Political Movement National Civic Concertation) Comités Democráticos Populares Revolucionarios (Revolutionary Popular Democratic Committees) Movimiento Conservatismo Independiente (Movement Independent Conservatism) Convergencia Nacional (National Convergence) Movimiento Convergencia Popular Cívica (Movement Civic Popular Convergence) Crea - No a la Guerra (Believe - No to the War) Frente Democrático (Democratic Front) Movimiento Independiente Frente de Esperanza (Independent Movement Front of Hope) Frente Moral (Moral Front) Frente Popular (Popular Front) Frente Social y Político (Social and Political Front) Frente por la Unidad del Pueblo (Front for the People’s Unity) Movimiento de Integración Regional (Movement for Regional Integration) Movimiento Jorge Eliecer Gaitan (Movement Jorge Eliecer Gaitan) Liberal Frente Democrático (Liberal Democratic Front) Movimiento Liberalismo Independiente de Restauración (Movement Independent Restauration Liberalism) Movimiento Político Laicos por Colombia (Political Movement Laicists for Colombia) Movimiento 19 de abril (Movement of 19th April) Movimiento Amplio Colombiano (Colombian Broad Movement) Movimiento de Acción Cívica Nacional (Movement of National Civic Action) Movimiento Alternativa Democrática (Movement Democratic Alternative) Movimiento Apertura Liberal (Movement of Liberal Opening) Movimiento Bolivariano por la Nueva Colombia (Bolivarian Movement for the New Colombia)

310 MCCN MDC MID MIL MIPOL MIRA MN MNC MNDP MNP MOE MOIR MPC MPD MPN MPP MRC MRD MRL MRLdP MRN MSN MUC MUM

Colombia Movimineto Concertación Cívica Nacional (Movement of National Civic Concertation) Movimiento de Defensa Ciudadana (Movement of Civic Defense) Movimiento de Izquierda Democrática (Movement of the Democratic Left) Movimiento Independiente Liberal (Liberal Independent Movement) Movimiento Integración Popular (Movement Popular Integration) Movimiento Independiente de Renovación Absoluta (Independent Movement of Total Renovation) Movimiento Nacional (National Movement) Movimiento Nacional Conservador (Conservative National Movement) Movimiento Nacional Democrático Popular (Popular National Democratic Movement) Movimiento Nacional Progresista (Progressive National Movement) Movimiento Orientación Ecologica (Movement Ecological Orientation) Movimiento Obrero - Independiente y Revolucionario (Labor Movement – Independent and Revolutionary) Movimiento de Participación Comunitaria (Movement of Participation of the Community) Movimiento Progresismo Democrático (Movement Democratic Progress) Movimiento de Participación Nacional (Movement of National Participation) Movimiento de Participación Popular (Movement of Popular Participation) Movimiento de Reintegración Conservadora (Movement of Conservative Reintegration) Movimiento de Renovación Democrática (Movement of Democratic Renovation) Movimiento Revolucionario Liberal (Liberal Revolutionary Movement) Movimiento Revolucionario Liberal del Pueblo (People’s Liberal Revolutionary Movement) Movimiento de Renovación Nacional (Movement of National Renovation) Movimiento de Salvación Nacional (Movement of National Salvation) Movimiento Unión Cristiana (Movement Christian Union) Movimiento Unitario Metapolítico (Metapolitical Unitary Movement)

Colombia MURCO NC NFD NL OCR ONIC OPN P PCa PCC PDCb PH PIC PL PLC PNC PPC PRT PSCa PSD PSOC PSR PST RALM RDN RP SL UCR UD UNAMONOS UNIOS UNIR UNO UNV

311 Movimiento Único de Renovación Conservadora (Sole Movement of Conservative Renovation) Movimiento Nueva Colombia (Movement New Colombia) Nueva Fuerza Democrática (New Democratic Force) Nuevo Liberalismo (New Liberalism) Organización Comunista Ruptura (Communist Organization Rupture) Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia (National Indigenous Organization of Colombia) Organización para la Paz Nacional (Organization for National Peace) Protestemos (Let’s Protest) Partido Conservador Colombiano (Colombian Conservative Party) Partido Comunista de Colombia (Communist Party of Colombia) Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) Partido Humanista (Humanist Party) Partido Indígena Colombiano (Colombian Indigenous Party) Partido Liberal Colombiano (Colombian Liberal Party) Partido Laborista Colombiano (Colombian Labor Party) Partido Nacional Cristiano (Christian National Party) Partido Popular Colombiano (Colombian Popular Party) Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Revolutionary Party) Partido Social Conservador Colombiano (Colombian Conservative Social Party) Partido Social Democrático (Social Democratic Party) Partido Socialdemócrata de Colombia (Social Democratic Party of Colombia) Partido Socialista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Socialist Party) Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (Socialist Workers’ Party) Renovación Acción Laboral Moral (Renovation Moral Labor Action) Movimiento de Reconstrucción Democrática Nacional (Movement of National Democratic Reconstruction) Reivindicación Popular (Popular Claim) Somos Libres (We are Free) Unión Comunista Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Communist Union) Unidad Democrática (Democratic Unity) Movimiento Unión Nacional por la Seguridad Social (Movement National Union for Social Security) Unión Obrera y Socialista (Labor and Socialist Union) Unión Nacional Izquierdista Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Leftist National Union) Unión Nacional de Oposición (National Opposition Union) Unidad Norte Vallecaucana (Unity North from Vallecauca)

Colombia

312 UP UR URS Vamos Colombia a

Unión Patriótica (Patriotic Union) Unión Republicana (Republican Union) Unión Revolucionaria Socialista (Socialist Revolutionary Union) Vanguardia Moral y Social de Colombia (Moral and Social Vanguard of Colombia)

In 1987, the Partido Conservador Colombiano (PC; Colombian Conservative Party) changed its name to Partido Social Conservador (PSC; Conservative Social Party). b Former PSDC: Partido Social Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Social Democratic Party).

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1914–2003 Party / Alliancea PC (PSC)c

Years

1914–1933; 1939–1953 1958–2002 PL 1914; 1922; 1930–1949 1958–2002 UR 1914 d PCC 1934; 1945–1951; 1974–1991 FP (1) 1947 e ANAPO 1962–1982; 1990 f MRL 1960–1962 MRL línea blanda 1964–1966 MRL línea dura 1964 MRLdPg 1968–1970 h PDC 1974–1982; 1990–1991 i UNO 1974–1982 MUM 1978; 1986–1994 j FUP 1978–1982 k MN 1978–1982; 2002 l PST 1978; 1990–1991 MACN 1978 MRN 1978 PLC 1978 m UNIOS 1978 NL 1982–1986; 2002 n FD 1982; 1990–1991 o LFD 1982 MC 1982 MID 1982 RP 1982 UD 1982 p UP 1986–1994

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentaryb 17 28 17

27

1 5

0 10

0 5 0 0 0 0 4 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 9 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 4

Colombia Party / Alliancea (continued) PH MPN FP(2) AD/M-19q MSN PNC Amor por Colombia MOE Movimiento Encuentro 88 Partido Natural MNC AICO ASI CI Cívico Independiente Cívico por Caldas Conservador Humbertista Mov. Fuerza Progresista Integración Popular IR LIDER MNP Movimiento Departamental Conservador Movimiento Humbertista NC Movimiento Unidos por Colombia MRC MRD MUC MURCO NFD Nueva Colombia ONIC

313 Years 1986 1986 1986–1991 1990–1994 1990–2002 1990–1994 1990

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentaryb 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 0

1990; 1998 1990

1 1

1 0

1990 1990–1994 1991–2002 1991–2002 1991 1991–2002

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 4 4 1 4

1991 1991

0 0

1 1

1991; 1998–2002

0

3

1991

0

1

1991–2002 1991–1994 1994–2002 1991

0 0 0 0

4 2 4 1

1991; 1998–2002

0

3

1991 1991

0 0

1 1

1991 1991–1998 1991–1994 1991–1994 1991; 1998–2002 1991–2002 1991

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 3 2 2 3 4 1

Colombia

314 Party / Alliancea (continued) Quindianos por Colombia Quintín Lame Transformación UNV CI LPC MAD Mov. Nacional de Comunidades Negras C4 Cívico Ecológico Comunista Colombiano Corriente de Renovación Socialista CPC Educación y Cambio Social FE Frente Independiente Cívico Popular M-19 Mov. 98 MAL MB MCCN MDC MOIR Mov. Agropecuario Colombiano Mov. Ciudadano Mov. Ciudadano en Formación Mov. Cívico Seriedad por Colombia Mov. Colombia mi País Mov. El Colectivo

Years 1991

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentaryb 0 1

1991 1991 1991 1994–2002 1994–2002 1994–1998 1998–1998

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 3 3 2 1

1998–2002 1998 1998

0 0 0

2 1 1

1998

0

1

1998–2002 1998

0 0

2 1

1998 1998

0 0

1 1

1998–2002 1998 1998–2002 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

1998–2002 1998

0 0

2 1

1998–2002

0

2

1998–2002

0

2

1998

0

1

Colombia Party / Alliancea (continued) Mov. Fuerza Colombia Mov. Indígena Colombiano Mov. Integración Democratica Mov. Nacional de Pensionados Mov. Político Actitud Renovadora Mov. Político Manos Unidos Mov. Arena Mov. Colombia Misión Colectiva Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana Mov. Opción Solidaridad Mov. Oxigeno Liberal Mov. Participación Ciudadana Mov. Político Comunal Mov. Político Mujeres MPP Por la Recreación y el Deporte PPC RDN Unitario Metropolitano Vamos Colombia MIRA Mov. Cambio Radical Mov. Colombia Siempre FSP MIPOL

315 Years 1998–2002

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentaryb 1 2

1998

0

1

1998

0

1

1998

0

1

1998

0

1

1998

0

1

1998 1998

0 0

1 1

1998–2002

0

2

1998

0

1

1998–2002

1

1

1998

0

1

1998

0

1

1998

0

1

1998–2002 1998

0 0

2 1

1998–2002 1998–2002 1998

0 0 0

2 1 1

1998–2002 2002 2002

0 0 0

2 1 1

2002

0

1

2002 2002

1 0

1 1

Colombia

316 Party / Alliancea (continued) Mov. Equipo Colombia Mov. Huella Ciudadana Mov. Popular Unido Mov. Republicano Mov. Unionista Mov. Voluntad Popular MPC MPD RALM Vía Alterna a

Years 2002

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentaryb 0 1

2002

0

1

2002

0

1

2002 2002 2002

0 0 0

1 1 1

2002 2002 2002 2002

1 0 0 1

1 1 1 1

This table is a summary of Tables 2.7 and 2.9. It only includes the parties that appear in these tables. This means that several political groups that did contest elections do not appear in this chart, while others appear to have contested on fewer occasions than they actually did. There are two possible reasons for this: either their vote has been grouped under the headings ‘others’ or ‘coalitions’ in the official statistics, or the party simply supported candidates of a different group. In addition, those parties which were members of coalitions are only considered if they have also contested elections individually. Otherwise their name only appears in the explanatory footnote of the given alliance. b Only the number of elections to the Lower House is indicated. Total number: 28. c The party changed its name from Partido Conservador Colombiano (PC) to Partido Social Conservador (PSC) in 1987. In 1978 and 1982 it merged with other groups in what came to be known as the MN. In 1986 it founded the MPN. d Contested under the label Partido Socialista Democrático from 1944–1947. The PCC has contested very few elections on its own. In the period 1935–1946 it supported several PL presidential candidates and presented lists to Parliament in conjunction with fractions of that party. The party was prohibited from 1954 to 1957. In 1958 it supported the PL presidential candidacy. In the period 1960–1966 the party formed a coalition with the MRL and in 1968 and 1970 with the MRLdP. Member of the UNO coalition from 1972 to 1978; member of the FD alliance from 1980 to 1984. Finally, from 1986 to 1991 it contested the elections with the UP. e During the Frente Nacional, the ANAPO contested as a fraction of the PC and of the PL. f Initially called Movimiento de Renovación Liberal. g Contested the 1968 and 1970 elections in coalition with the PCC. h Initially called Partido Social Demócrata Cristiano. In 1966 it contested the elections under the conservative banner. In 1970, 1978, and 1982 it supported Belisario Betancur’s candidacy, becoming a member of the MN in the last two years. i Alliance made up of the PCC, the MOIR, the MAC, and the PDC, in 1972. The latter withdrew immediately and the MOIR and the MAC withdrew in 1975. However, the PCC and some organizations attached to it, together with a sector of the ANAPO and one fraction of the MIL, maintained this name. j Electoral front composed of the MOIR, the MAC, the CDPR, the MNDP, the UCR, one fraction of the MIL, and one sector of the ANAPO. k Movement formed by the PC, the largest sector of the ANAPO, the PDC and independent liberals.

Colombia

317

l

Member of the UNIOS coalition in 1978. Supported the FD presidential candidacy in 1982 and the UP’s in 1986. m Electoral alliance formed in 1977 by the PST, the URS, the OCR and the Liga Comunista Revolucionaria. n Electoral front made up of the UNO, the FIRMES movement, other leftist movements, and independent groups. o Coalition with activity in two departments, formed by different PL and FD sectors. p Formed by the FARC guerrilla group and merged immediately with the PCC. Furthermore, in the 1986 and 1990 parliamentary elections the party reached agreements at the regional level with fractions of the PL, the PSC and the A Luchar movement, as well as with the FP (2), the PSR (2), the PST, the FAMM (Frente Amplio del Magdalena Medio) and with other political and social movements. q Political movement formed by the M-19 (party which arose from the M-19 guerrilla group), the FD, the FP (2), splinter groups of the UP, and other political and social movements as Colombia Unida, Socialismo Democrático, the Inconformes movement, etc. Later on the Esperanza, Paz y Libertad movement, created by the demobilized EPL guerrilla group (Ejército Popular de Liberación), and the PRT, another demobilized guerrilla group, joined the movement.

2.5 Referendums Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Yes No a

1957a Total number — 4,397,090 20,738 194 4,376,158 4,169,294 206,864

% – — 0.5 0.0 99.5 95.3 4.7

1990b Total number 13,903,324 5,891,117 363,656 60,518 5,830,599 5,236,863 230,080

% – 42.4 6.2 1.0 98.9 89.8 3.9

The 1957 referendum had provided that only the Congress could tackle the constitutional reform. In the elections of 11 March 1990 the Colombians put a so-called ‘seventh ballot’ in the ballot boxes on the suggestion of a student movement, in order to vote for or against the summoning of a Constitutional Assembly to reform the Constitution. The electoral laws prohibited publishing the result of this vote but according to the press it received considerable support given the short time of two weeks the movement had had to promote its idea. The vote had no legal implications but, politically, the massive support generated demands for an official referendum on the issue. President Vergilio Barco Vargas called a referendum by the decree 927 of 3 May 1990. The referendum on 27 May 1990 authorized an exception by approving the call for a Constitutional Assembly. This referendum responded to the initiative of the millions of voters who, in the presidential elections of that year, had expressed their wish in favor of it (5,236,863 versus 230,080). b

Colombia

318 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Yes No a

1990a Total number 13,903,324 3,063,018 — — 3,063,018 2,988,963 74,055

% – 21.5 — — — 97.6 2.4

The vote from 27 May had made it clear that the citizens wanted a Constitutional Assembly, but it lacked precise details: how it should be convened and when, which attributions it should have and which issues it should deal with. As a consequence, a difficult legal and political debate followed, which culminated in a Supreme Court decision on 10 October. The Court determined that the agenda proposed by the government was impracticable and that an Assembly could be summoned without a predefined set of issues. The problem was solved with the same constitutional theory that had been used for decree 927, but this time not with the aim that the population should vote for an abstract idea but for an assembly with firmly defined characteristics.

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

2003a Total number 25,069,773 6,673,050 Question Ib 6,293,807 379,243 125,266 5,874,193 294,348

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

Question IIId 6,261,078 411,972 125,850 5,839,612 295,616

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

Question Vf 6,056,255 616,795 104,406 5,668,819 283,030

Year Registered voters Votes casta

% – 26.6

Total number

%

25.1 1.5 0.5 95.2 4.8

Question IIc 6,222,688 450,362 119,213 5,871,354 232,121

24.8 1.8 0.5 96.2 3.8

25.0 1.6 0.5 95.2 4.8

Question IVe 6,148,106 524,944 124,915 5,319,557 703,634

24.5 2.1 0.5 88.3 11.7

24.2 2.5 0.4 95.2 4.8

Question VIg 5,729,681 943,369 105,040 5,328,733 295,908

22.9 3.8 0.4 94.7 5.3

Colombia

319

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

2003a Total number Question VIIh 5,705,221 967,829 93,982 5,403,139 208,100

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

Question IXj 6,136,837 536,213 117,946 5,557,950 460,941

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

Question XIIl 6,039,301 633,749 100,384 5,668,878 270,039

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

Question XIVn 6,112,705 560,345 141,545 4,907,283 1,063,877

Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Yes No

Question XVIIIp 5,843,397 23.3 829,653 3.3 97,197 0.4 5,475,951 95.3 270,249 4.7

Year (cont.)

a

% 22.8 3.9 0.4 96.3 3.7

Total number Question VIIIi 6,221,312 451,738 124,926 5,602,823 493,563

%

24.5 2.1 0.5 92.3 7.7

Question XIk 6,107,282 565,768 109,104 5,714,738 283,440

24.4 2.3 0.4 95.3 4.7

24.1 2.5 0.4 95.5 4.5

Question XIIIm 6,187,539 485,511 123,228 5,778,469 285,842

24.7 1.9 0.5 95.3 4.7

24.4 2.2 0.6 82.2 17.8

Question XVo 5,994,025 679,025 115,300 5,457,866 420,859

23.9 2.7 0.5 92.8 7.2

24.8 1.8 0.5 91.9 8.1

Convoked by President Uribe as an ‘anti-corruption initiative’ (‘contra la politiquería y la corrupción’), the referendum initially consisted of 18 questions concerning corruption, public finances, political reform, privatization, and the reform of the public sector. Three questions had been annulled by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the questions are not continously numbered. The constitution establishes the following requirements: a majority of the valid votes is needed and turnout has to be higher than one-fourth of the registered voters in order for the referendum to be adopted (here: 6,267,443 voters). The Constitutional Court decided that this threshold applies for each of the questions independently. This criterion was only met for the first question. b Deny of several political and civil rights to officials guilty of having defrauded the government.

Colombia

320 c

Public voting and voting by name in legislative bodies. Abolition of the substitution of representatives by the following candidates of the respective list. e Public participation in budgetary procedures. f Independence of the parliamentary administration. g Reduction of the number of members of the Congress; modification of the electoral system h Loss of mandate. i Limit on pensions. j Abolition of municipal and regional audit courts. k Prohibition of public funds administered by members of parliament. l Investment of funds economized by the abolition of municipal and regional audit courts into the sectors of health and education. m Reform of the distribution and application of royalties. n Freezing of officials’ wages and pensions, which exceed twice the minimum wage, during two years. o Reform of political parties regime. p Entry into force of the referendum. d

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Year 1990a Registered voters Votes cast Blank votesb Invalid votes Valid votesb PL AD/M-19 MSN PSC UP MUM PST Independents Additional seats a

Votes Total number 14,237,110 3,710,557 37,735 24,467 3,648,355 1,070,193 992,613 574,411 423,775 95,088 20,225 5,153 466,897

%

Seats Total

%

– 26.1 1.0 0.7 98.3 29.0 26.9 15.6 11.5 2.6 0.6 0.1 12.7

75 24 19 11 9 2 0 0 6c 4d

100.0 32.0 25.0 15.0 12.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 8.0 5.3

The elections were held in a nationwide constituency. The lists were closed and blocked. Each voter was entitled to a single vote. The seat allocation followed the method of the simple electoral quota and the largest remainder. The number of seats was fixed at 70. In addition, it was stipulated that the government would allocate additional seats to those guerrilla groups which, within the bounds of peace talks, decided to lay down their arms. b The sum of blank votes has been added to the initial sum of valid votes because since 1985 these are considered valid to obtain the electoral quota. Officially, since 1985 the number of blank votes has been added to the sum of valid votes in order to obtain the electoral quota. Here, the results are reported according to the systematic of the handbook (valid votes = sum of votes cast for parties or candidates).

Colombia

321

c

The following lists gained seats in the Assembly: Movimiento Cristiano Evangélico: 115,201 votes and two seats; Movimiento Unido Estudiantil: 64,711 votes and one seat; ONIC: 31,783 votes and one seat; Movimiento para un Nuevo País para los Niños: 24,625 votes and one seat; Autoridades Indígenas de Colombia: 22,443 votes and one seat. d The guerrilla groups which received these seats were: Ejército Popular de Liberación (EPL): 2; PRT: 1; Movimiento Quintín Lame: 1. The representatives of these groups had only advisory vote.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1931–2002 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC Others a

1931a Total number — — — 787,157 401,993 384,948 216

% – — — — 51.1 48.9 0.0

1933 Total number — — — 967,866 604,372 361,571 1,923

% – — — — 62.4 37.4 0.2

The available information about the electoral results of the elections to the House of Representatives in the present century begins in 1931.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PL Others

1935 Total number 1,288,441 — — 430,728 420,547 10,181

% – — — — 97.6 2.4

1937 Total number — — — 550,726 550,726 –

% – — — — 100.0 –

Colombia

322 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC PCCa Others a

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC PCCb FP Others b

1943 Total number — — — 882,647 568,317 298,644 – 15,686

% – 50.7 — — 64.4 35.1 0.5

% – — — — 64.4 33.8 – 1.8

1941 Total number — — — 885,525 565,237 316,185 4,103 1945 Total number 2,279,510 875,856 177 875,679 551,224 294,237 27,696 2,522

% – — — — 63.8 35.7 0.5

% – 38.4 0.0 99.9 62.9 33.6 3.2 0.3

The PCC changed its name during the interval 1944–1947 to Partido Socialista Democrático.

Year

a

1939 Total number 1,812,636 — — 919,569 592,283 322,825 4,461

1947 Total number 2,613,586 — — 1,472,686 805,732 653,986 11,577 1,391 –

% – — — — 54.7 44.4 0.8 0.1 –

1949a Total number 2,773,804 — — 1,751,804 937,600 806,759 6,747 – 698

President Ospina dissolved Parliament on 09/11/1949. From 1944 to 1947 it contests as Partido Socialista Democrático.

% – — — — 53.5 46.1 0.4 – 0.0

Colombia Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC PCC a

323 1951 Total number — 934,580 3,111 931,469 5,681a 921,370 4,418

% — – 0.3 99.7 0.6 98.9 0.5

1953 Total number — 1,028,323 2,914 1,025,409 –b 1,025,409 –b

% — – 0.3 99.7 –b 100.0 –b

The small share of votes received by the PL is due to the latter’s appeal for abstention. Only a small group of them—the liberales populares—decided to take part in the elections. b Liberals and Communists abstain.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL Oficialistas MRL Others PC Unionistas (Ospinistas) Alzaospinistas Doctrinarios (Laureanistas) Alzatistas ANAPO Leyvistas Others a

1958a Total number 5,365,191 3,693,939 3,710 1,215 3,689,014 2,132,741 – – – 1,556,273 446,894

– 69.0 0.1 0.0 99.8 57.7 – – – 42.2 12.1

1960 Total number 4,397,541 2,542,651 2,372 2,506 2,537,773 1,478,403 1,106,678 354,560 17,165 1,059,370 –

– 925,856

– 25.1

567,087 446,393

22.3 17.6

150,155 – – 33,368

4.1 – – 0.9

– – 37,020 8,870

– – 1.5 0.3

%

% – 57.8 0.1 0.1 99.8 58.3 43.6 14.0 0.7 41.7 –

The Frente Nacional regulations on the election of the members of Congress were binding throughout the period 1958–1970. According to this, only Liberals and Conservatives were allowed to present lists in the elections, and each party was entitled to one half of the seats in Congress. For this reason, the struggle for seats took place at the center of the two parties.

Colombia

324 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL Frentenacionalistas (Oficialistas) MRL (línea blanda) MRL (línea dura) ANAPO MIL Oficialistas MRL Others PC Frentenacionalistasa Alzaospinistas Doctrinarios (Laureanistas) ANAPO Others a

1962 Total number 5,338,868 3,090,203 1,057 829 3,088,317 1,685,531 –

– 57.9 0.0 0.0 99.9 54.6 –

1964 Total number 6,135,628 2,261,190 3,916 3,811 2,253,463 1,157,998 738,437

– – – – 1,081,103 601,926 2,502 1,402,786 – 794,688 487,733

– – – – 35.0 19.4 0.1 45.4 – 25.7 15.8

284,952 96,895 16,495 7,129 – – 14,090 1,095,465 794,000 – –

12.6 4.3 0.7 0.3 – – 0.6 48.6 35.2 – –

115,587 4,778

3.7 0.2

293,183 8,282

13.0 0.4

Unionistas and Doctrinarios together.

%

% – 36.9 0.2 0.2 99.6 51.4 32.8

Colombia Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL Oficialistas Oficialistas disidentes MRL (línea blanda) MRLdP ANAPO Independents Others PC Unionistas ANAPO Lauro–Alzatistas Independents Others a

325 1966 Total number 6,609,639 2,939,222 7,096 2,855 2,929,271 1,630,644 1,120,824 – 369,956 – 100,898 24,026 14,940 1,298,627 474,397 422,204 346,664 40,106 15,256a

% – 44.5 0.2 0.1 99.7 55.7 38.3 – 12.6 – 3.4 0.8 0.5 44.3 16.2 14.4 11.8 1.4 0.3

1968 Total number 6,696,723 2,496,455 4,027 3,354 2,489,074 1,328,626 988,540 196,457 – 55,984 82,294 – 5,351 1,160,448 578,485 319,609 48,087 199,330 14,937

Others include: Leyvistas: 7,485 votes and 7,771 votes for other parties

% – 37.3 0.2 0.1 99.7 53.4 39.7 7.9 – 2.2 3.3 – 0.2 46.6 23.2 12.8 1.9 8.0 0.6

Colombia

326 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL L. Pastranistas L. Rojistas (ANAPO) Sourdistas L. Belisaristas MRLdP Others PC C. Rojistas (ANAPO) C. Pastranistas C. Belisaristas Sourdistas ANAPO UNO Others a

% – 51.9 0.2 0.1 99.7 51.3 26.5 14.2 4.0 3.5 0.9 2.3 48.7 21.4 15.0 7.6 4.7 – – 0.2

1974 Total number 8,925,330 5,100,099 7,761 3,450 5,088,888 2,835,245 — — — — — — 1,631,926 — — — — 458,424 155,855 7,438a

% – 57.1 0.2 0.1 99.7 55.7 — — — — — — 32.0 — — — — 9.0 3.1 0.1

Others include: PDC: 5,674 votes and 1,764 votes for other parties.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC UNO FUP FD MC Others a

1970 Total number 7,666,716 3,980,201 8,519 4,978 3,966,704 2,034,542 1,051,666 563,614 156,877 137,069 34,491 90,825 1,932,162 849,138 589,234 300,223 185,686 – – 7,881 1978 Total number 12,519,719 4,180,121 3,956 5,090 4,171,075 2,302,230 1,645,496 128,516 50,008 – – 44,825

% – 33.4 0.1 0.1 99.7 55.2 39.4 3.0 1.2 – – 1.1

1982 Total number 13,721,607 5,584,037 5,092 5,476 5,573,469 3,141,426a 2,248,796 – 21,081 83,838 25,888b 52,440c

% – 40.7 0.1 0.1 99.8 56.4 40.3 – 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.9

The registry provides one single vote for the PL. Nevertheless, even in the electoral campaign the NL, a sector of the PL, began to break away from the party. The NL split in the presidential elections. The NL won 581,074 votes. b Only in Valle. c Others include: LFD: 17,609 votes; DU: 11,460; MID: 4,169, and 19,202 votes for other parties.

Colombia Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votesa Invalid votes Valid votes PL PSC NL UP MNC Coalitions Others a

327 1986a Total number 15,839,754 6,909,838 13,189 11,657 6,884,992b 3,290,980 2,558,050 455,554 137,134c – – 443,210

% – 43.6 0.2 0.2 99.6 47.7 37.0 6.6 2.0 – – 6.4

1990 Total number 13,793,566 7,631,694 11,220 18,081 7,602,393 4,500,985 2,381,898 – 26,682d 148,046 301,659e 243,123f

% – 55.3 0.1 0.2 99.6 59.2 31.3 – 0.4 1.9 4.0 3.2

Since 1985 blank votes have officially been considered valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Yet, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed seperately, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes. In 1986 the number of votes of non-registered lists (66) were added to the total. b The official electoral results data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) is 6,884,992. However, the total sum of party votes amounts only to 6,884,928. c Number of votes received by the lists of the UP and PCC. However, the UP made several regional alliances at the constituency level with different political forces, among them the PCC, sectors of the PL, the NL, the ANAPO, and other movements. Thanks to these alliances, whose lists obtained in all a higher share of votes than the UP lists, the UP gained several Members of Parliament. d Only in Cundinamarca and Huila. e Coalitions formed in nine departments. No information is provided in the statistics of the registry about the parties which made up the different alliances. Among them are UP, PCC, FD, FP (2) and sectors of PL. f Others include: MUM: 22,571 votes; ANAPO: 601, and 219,951 votes for other parties.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL PSC AD/M-19 MSN MNC UP MUC LIDER

1991a Total number 15,037,526 5,386,736 543,662 153,130 4,689,944b 2,425,304 792,153 483,382 327,845 107,951 94,393 75,977 43,338

% – 35.8 10.1 2.8 87.1 51.6 16.8 10.3 7.0 2.3 2.0 1.6 0.9

1994 Total number 17,028,961 5,576,174 194,968 283,750 5,097,456 2,621,201 1,099,436 153,185 51,446 103,899 39,891 40,324 17,097

% – 32.7 3.5 5.1 91.4 51.4 21.6 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.8 0.8 0.3

Colombia

328 Year (continued) Mov. Unidos por Colombia FP Mov. Nueva Colombia MUM PNC MNP CI LPC C-45 Special Constituency for Black Communities Coalitions Others a

1991a Total number 41,011

0.9

1994 Total number –

40,969 28,354 23,882 22,808 – – – – –

0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 – – – – –

77,767 76,843 35,020 26,881 29,686 39,116 60,968 60,834 131,207

1.5 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.2 2.6

21,742 174,796d

0.5 3.7

43,927 388,728e

0.9 7.6

%

% –

The National Constitutional Assembly decided—through an agreement between its leaders and the President—to call general elections to Congress for 27 October 1991 (Acto Constituyente de Vigencia Inmediata) of 18 June 1991: ‘While the new Congress constitutes on 1 December 1991 the current Congress and its commissions withdraw and will not be able to exercise any of its competences neither on its own initiative nor on the request of the President.’ See: Art. Transitorio Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of 1991. For this election, 486 lists were registered— 237 backed by the Liberal Party, of which 87 got curul, and 64 backed by the Conservative Party, of which 25 got curul. On the general level 15 curules were obtained by coefficient and 146 by residue. b The official electoral results data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) is 4,689,944. However, the total sum of party votes amounts to 4,703,905. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. c 12 lists were inscribed for this special constituency. d AICO: 21,103 votes; Mov. Cívico por Caldas: 16,177; Cívico Independiente: 15,748; UNV: 15,586; MRD: 14,320; Unión Democratica Galanista: 13,936; Quindianos por Colombia: 10,679; Integración Popular: 10,199; Quintín Lame: 8,412; PDC: 7,908; IR: 5,722; PST: 5,487, and 29,519 votes for other small parties. e MURCO: 15,869 votes; ASI: 10,743; MAD: 10,096; ANAPO: 6,721; AICO: 6,048; MRD: 5,761; IR: 4,338; Civico Independientes: 4,294; CCN: 124, and 324,734 votes for other small parties.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votesa Valid votes PL PSC NFD

1998 Total number 20,729,473 9,471,113 436,784 554,382 8,479,947b 4,022,739 1,212,419 140,810

% – 45.7 4.6 5.9 89.5 50.0 15.1 1.8

2002 Total number 23,998,685 10,407,737 526,567 845,785 9,035,385 2,628,490 971,381 25,978

% – 43.4 5.1 8.1 86.8 29.1 10.8 0.3

Colombia Year (continued) CI Mov. Fuerza Progresista CPC Mov. Ciudadano Mov. Cívico Seriedad por Colombia Nueva Colombia IR MAD LPC MSN Mov. Fuerza Colombia PPC Unitario Metropolitano Mov. Colombia mi País MPP Mov. Oxigeno Liberal MAL Vamos Colombia Mov. Humbertista C4 M-19 RDN Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana MIRA Mov. Cambio Radical Mov. Colombia Siempre

329 1998 Total number 116,221 110,648

1.4 1.4

2002 Total number 61,513 88,788

109,573 90,927 80,528

1.4 1.1 1.0

193,214 20,503 42,284

2.1 0.2 0.5

73,348 65,507 64,695 54,177 53,074 46,370 44,322 44,258 43,673 41,059 39,706 39,194 33,598 30,641 20,930 10,722 4,278 1,205

0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

22,552 102,002 4,300 24,884 162,452 1,448 21,063 – 1,180 123,364 – 168,621 67,850 41,106 67,062 43,293 47,587 91,969

0.2 1.1 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.2 – 0.0 1.4 – 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.0

– – –

55,121 352,547 111,742

0.6 3.9 1.2

– – –

%

% 0.7 1.0

Colombia

330 Year (continued) Mov. Equipo Colombia FSP Mov. Huella Ciudadana MIPOL MN NL MPC Mov. Popular Unido MPD RALM Mov. Republicano Mov. Unionista Vía Alterna Mov. Voluntad Popular Coalitions Others a

1998 Total number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 825,166 625,086c

% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 10.3 8.1

2002 Total number 208,514

% 2.3

84,143 50,309

0.9 0.6

106,624 143,592 111,255 66,372 177,622 73,397 122,869 60,539 88,036 85,110 91,192 886,883 1,136,634

1.2 1.6 1.2 0.7 2.0 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 9.8 12.6

With the introduction of electoral cards at the 1990 elections a new type of votes was introduced corresponding to the non-marked cards which in principle were considered invalid, but which later appeared in the statistics as ‘non-marked cards’ (‘tarjetas no marcadas’) given that they did not comply with the specifications for invalid votes. These votes are only counted for electoral participation. Therefore, from that election on ‘tarjetas no marcadas’ appear. Here, invalid votes include 348,215 tarjetas no marcadas (3.7%) cast in 1998 and 441,690 cast in 2002. b The official electoral results published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes is 8,479,947. However, the total sum of party votes amounts only to 8,044,874. This latter figure has been used to calculate party percentages. c Others include: FE: 34,829 votes; MRD, 32,499; Corriente de Renovación Socialista, 29,265; Mov. Político Actitud Renovadora, 28,279; Cívico Independiente, 26,674; Mov. Participación Ciudadana, 23,749; Mov. Arena, 21,043; ASI, 21,294; AICO, 20,377; Mov. Integración Democratica, 19,084; Por la Recreación y el Deporte, 18,565; MCCN, 18,046; MB: 16,474; MDC, 14,628; Mov. Político Comunal, 14,019; Educación y Cambio Social, 13,342; Mov. Nacional de Pensionados, 12,933; Frente Independiente Cívico Popular, 10,923; Mov. 98, 8,840; MOIR, 8,755; Mov. Indígena Colombiano, 7,930; Mov. El Colectivo, 7,582; Nacional Comunidades Negras, 7,402; Cívico Ecológico, 7,431; Mov. Ciudadano en Formación, 7,093; Mov. Colombia Misión Colectiva, 5,294; Mov. Político Mujeres 2000, 3,404; Mov. Opción Solidaridad, 3,271; Mov. Agropecuario Colombiano, 1,503; Mov. Político Manos Unidas, 955; MOE, 858; Comunista Colombiano, 484, and 179,119 votes for parties not distinguished in the publication.

Colombia

331

2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1947–2002 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL PC PCCc a

1947a Total number 2,613,586 — — — 1,466,012 805,874 653,716 6,422

% – — — — — 55.0 44.6 0.4

1951 Total number — 935,138 3,089 — 932,049 5,586b 922,607 3,856

% – — 0.3 — 99.7 0.6 99.0 0.4

The collecting of electoral data begins with the first direct elections to the Senate in the 20th century. The 1947-elected Senate was dissolved by President Ospina on 09.11.1949. b The small share of votes received by the PL is due to the latter’s call for an electoral boycott. Only a small group of them—the liberales populares—decided to take part in the elections. c From 1944–1947 the PCC bore the name Partido Socialista Democrático.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL Oficialistas MRL Others PC Unionistas Doctrinarios ANAPO Others a

1958a Total number 5,365,191 3,655,474 3,823 1,218 3,650,433 2,105,171 — — — 1,545,262 — — — —

% – 68.1 0.1 0.0 99.8 57.7 — — — 42.3 — — — —

1962 Total number 5,338,868 3,080,055 1,208 906 3,077,941 1,679,590 1,076,151 601,063 2,376 1,398,351 797,341 491,731 104,829 4,450

% – 58.0 0.03 0.02 99.9 54.6 35.0 19.5 0.1 45.4 25.9 16.0 3.4 0.1

The Frente Nacional regulations were binding throughout the period 1958–1970 (see Overview).

Colombia

332 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL Oficialistas MRL MRL (línea blanda) ANAPO Pastranistas Rojistas Belisaristas Sourdistas Independientes Others PC Unionistas Lauro–Alzatistas ANAPO Leyvistas Pastranistas Rojistas Belisaristas Sourdistas Independents Others Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL PC ANAPO UNO PDC FUP Others

1966 Total number 6,609,639 2,917,863 3,119 5,550 2,909,194 1,529,490 1,120,394 – 367,457 10,283 – – – – 31,009 347 1,379,704 472,876 339,809 474,489 6,984 – – – – 81,586 3,960 1974 Total number 8,925,330 5,106,775 8,594 3,629 5,094,552 2,840,315 1,631,115 458,745 155,158 7,909 – 1,310

% – 44.1 0.1 0.2 99.7 52.6 38.5 – 12.6 0.4 – – – – 1.1 0.0 47.4 16.2 11.6 16.3 0.2 – – – – 2.8 0.1

% – 57.2 0.2 0.1 99.7 55.8 32.0 9.0 3.0 0.2 – 0.0

1970 Total number 7,666,716 3,967,006 8,939 6,470 3,951,597 1,849,425 – – – – 1,074,059 382,777 131,430 152,506 – 108,653 2,102,172 – – – – 586,131 1,036,650 294,185 185,206 – – 1978 Total number 12,519,719 4,169,834 4,710 5,278 4,159,846 2,297,534 1,650,429 – 126,553 – 49,058 36,272

% – 51.7 0.2 0.2 99.6 46.8 – – – – 27.2 10.0 3.3 3.9 – 2.7 53.1 – – – – 14.8 26.2 7.4 4.7 – –

% – 33.3 0.1 0.1 99.7 55.2 40.0 – 3.0 – 1.2 0.9

Colombia Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL PC NL UP FD Others a

333 1982 Total number 13,721,607 5,579,357 5,183 6,976 5,567,198 3,149,716b 2,252,601 – – 75,615 89,266d

% – 40.7 0.1 0.1 99.7 56.3 40.3 – – 1.3 1.6

1986a Total number 15,839,754 6,869,435 14,801a 11,790 6,842,834a 3,382,406 2,541,094 453,550 103,001c – 362,783

% – 43.4 0.2 0.2 99.6 49.4 37.1 6.6 1.5 – 5.3

Since 1985 blank votes have officially been considered valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Yet, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed seperately, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes. Here, official data are inconsistent: the sum of party votes, blank votes, and invalid votes amounts to 6,869,425, ten votes less than the official number of votes cast. b The Registry provides one single number of votes for the PL. Nevertheless, already in the electoral campaign the NL, a sector of the PL, began to break away gradually from the party. The NL split in the presidential elections. The votes ascribable to NL for the elections to the Senate were 567,600. c Number of votes received by the lists of the UP and PCC. However, the UP made several regional alliances at the constituency level with different political forces, among them the PCC, sectors of the PL, the NL, the ANAPO and other movements. Thanks to these alliances, whose lists obtained in all a higher share of votes than the UP lists, the UP gained several members of Parliament. d Others include: MC: 24,890 votes; FUP: 18,741; LFD: 17,427; UD: 10,978, and 17,230 votes for other small parties.

Year Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes PL PSC UP PCC MUM MNC ANAPO AD/M-19 NFD MSN MUC

1990a Total number 13,793,566 7,654,150 10,242b 17,005 7,626,903b 4,470,853 2,383,363 – 35,274f 23,264 147,953 492g – – – –

% – 55.5 0.1 0.2 99.6 58.6 31.2 – 0.5 0.3 1.9 0.0 – – – –

1991 Total number 15,037,526 5,486,394 461,184c 163,550c 4,861,660c —e —e 79,753 – 31,080 58,012 – 454,467 436,562 234,358 67,885

% – 36.5 8.4d 3.0d 88.6 — — 1.6 – 0.6 1.2 – 9.3 9.0 4.8 1.4

Colombia

334 Year (continued) Fuerza Progresista LPC MNP CI LIDER MRC AICO ONIC PNC Mov. Unidos por Colombia ASI Coalitions Others a

1990a Total number – – – – – – – – – – – 358,246h 207,458

% – – – – – – – – – – – 4.7 2.7

1991 Total number 49,902 49,789 44,693 43,172 40,990 37,027 30,312 30,020 27,276 27,267 26,493 – 3,092,644e, i

% 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 – 63.6

The 1991 Constitution provided for the dissolution of Parliament which had resulted from these elections and called for new elections. b Since 1985 blank votes have officially been considered valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Yet, according to the systematics of this handbook, blank and valid votes are listed seperately, and the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of party votes. c 80,907 votes of the total valid votes were cast in the Special Indian Constituency. Yet, only the blank and invalid votes for the national constituency are included, because there is no information on the number of blank and invalid votes corresponding to the Special Indian Constituency. The great amount of blank and invalid votes derives from the fact that these were the first parliamentary elections where the single and official electoral ballot was used. Furthermore, official data is inconsistent: The number of valid votes cast is (without blank votes) 4,861,660, while the party votes amount to 4,861,702. d These percentages do not consider the amount of blank and invalid votes cast in the Indian Constituency. e Given that the PL and PSC presented numerous lists, as is customary, and that the registry only specified the party affiliation of elected senators, the total share of votes of these parties cannot be provided. The lists of the PL for the Senate received 2,263,398 votes and those of the PSC 346,749. f Only in Cundinamarca. g Only in Antioquia. h Coalitions formed in eleven departments. No information is provided by the statistics of the registry about the parties which made up the different alliances. Among them are UP, PCC, FD, FP(2) and sectors of PL. i This high percentage is due to the inclusion of the PL and PSC votes. The exact number of votes is not available.

Colombia Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PL PSC AD/M-19 MSN Coaliciones Laícos por Colombia Partido Comunista Colombiano Anapo Nueva Colombia LIDER AICO MNP ASI MURCO Cívico Independiente Nacional Conservador Mov. Unitario Metropolítano CI PNC MUC Oxigeno Liberal MDC Mov. Ciudadano CPC NFD Reconstrucción Democrática MB Vamos Colombia Mov. 98 Mov. Compromiso Cívico Independiente Fuerza Colombia

335 1994 Total number 17,028,961 5,566,407 148,307 346,274 5,071,826b 2,648,731 979,097 140,819 100,385 79,553 51,177 51,032

– 32.4 2.7 6.2 91.1 54.0 20.0 2.9 2.0 1.6 1.0 1.0

1998 Total number 20,767,388 9,478,377 362,860 777,538a 8,337,979c 3,897,373 1,000,032 13,166 82,687 609,973 38,412 23,613

49,732 45,783 45,732 40,779 40,085 36,626 31,589 31,455 31,304 27,082

1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

111,531 8,707 36,194 18,224 108,607 95,523 – 25,387 442,767 16,363

1.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.3 1.2 – 0.3 5.6 0.2

26,341 21,325 58 – – – – – –

0.5 0.4 0.0 – – – – – –

43,908 – 53,753 158,184 127,248 107,680 104,836 100,643 83,715

0.6 – 0.7 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1

%

% – 45.6 3.8 8.2 88.0 49.3 12.6 0.2 1.0 7.7 0.5 0.3

– – – –

– – – –

70,581 65,824 46,648 44,859

0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6

–

–

44,587

0.6

Colombia

336 Year (continued) Mov. Educación Trabajo y Cambio Social FE Colombia mi País Participación Ciudadana Mov. Humbertista Mov. Actitud Renovadora Mov. Cívico Seriedad por Colombia Others a

1994 Total number –

% –

1998 Total number 44,347

% 0.6

– – –

– – –

41,608 40,661 39,276

0.5 0.5 0.5

– –

– –

37,782 36,194

0.5 0.5

–

–

7,276

0.1

67,380e

0.9

424,882d

8.7

With the introduction of electoral cards at the 1990 elections a new type of votes was introduced corresponding to the non-marked cards which in principle were considered invalid, but which later appeared in the statistics as ‘non-marked cards’ (‘tarjetas no marcadas’) given that they did not comply with the specifications for invalid votes. These votes are only counted for electoral participation. Therefore, from that election on ‘tarjetas no marcadas’ appear. Here, 524,894 tarjetas no marcadas are included. b The official data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) provided is 5,071,826. However, the total sum of party votes amounts to 4,903,567. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. c The official electoral results data published by the Registraduría are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes (number of valid votes, as officially reported, minus number of blank votes) provided is 8,337,979. However, the total sum of party votes amounts to 7,912,598. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. d Others include: PNC: 21,325 votes (0.4%); MRD: 19,640 (0.4%); MAD: 18,501 (0.4%); Comunidades Indígenas: 14,245 (0.3%); Consertación Cívico Nacional: 4,326 (0.1%); C4: 2,748 (0.1%). e Others include: MOIR: 35,856 (0.4%); El Colectivo: 32,459 (0.4%); Opción Solidaridad: 30,952 (0.4%); Consertación Cívico Nacional: 25,967 (0.3%); Mov. Fuerza Progresista 23,961 (0.3%); MRD: 20,888 (0.3%); Mov. Alianza de Reservas Nacionales: 20,512 (0.2%); Mov. Político Mujers 2.000: 19,791 (0.2%); Partido Comunal y Comunitario: 19,510 (0.2%); Manos Unidas: 17,797 (0.2%); Colombia Misión Colectiva: 17,677 (0.2); Mov. Indígena Colombiano: 17,381 (0.2%); Mov. Convergencia Ciudadana: 15,312 (0.2%); Comunidades Negra Palenque: 13,797 (0.2%); Corriente de Renovación Socialista: 13,254 (0.2%); Mov. Ciudadano en Formación: 12,845 (0.2%); Mov. Por la Recreación y el Deporte: 8,965 (0.1%); Mov. Integración Democrática: 8,472 (0.1%); Mov. Integración Nal.: 7,737 (0.1%); M-19: 5,459 (0.1%); Cívico Ecologíco: 3,915 (0.0%); Mov. Agropecuario Colombiano: 3,381 (0.0%); MPP: 3,241 (0.0); MOE: 1,642 (0.0%), and 17,049 (0.2%) vost cast by citizens living abroad.

Colombia 2002 Total number Registered voters 23,998,685 Votes cast 10,297,403 Blank votes 454,740 a Invalid votes 1,011,228 Valid votes 8,831,435 PL 2,710,599 PSC 885,263 Coalicion 565,222 MN 411,029 Mov. Equipo Colombia 297,538 Mov. Colombia 255,691 Siempre Mipol 254,616 Mov. Cambio Radical 222,484 Mov. Popular Unido 172,717 Mov. Renov. Acc. 152,481 Laboral Moral FSP 128,079 NFD 124,130 ANAPO 119,022 ASI 103,370 101,660 Partido Socialdemócrata Colombiano Mov. Fuerza Progresista 96,787 Mov. Nuevo 93,987 Liberalismo Mov. Convergencia 91,131 Ciudadana CPC 85,764 Mov. Unionista 85,713 MIRA 81,061 MNP 80,300 MSN 78,080 Mov. Alternat. de Ava. 77,916 Soc. ALAS Mov. Dejen Jugar al 71,623 Moreno Mov. Politico por la 70,704 Seguridad Social C4 65,294

337

Year

% – 42.9 4.4 9.8 85.8 30.7 10.0 6.4 4.7 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7

Colombia

338 Year (continued)

2002 Total number Mov. Voluntad Popular 63,533 Mov. Huella Ciudadana 63,165 Mov. Somos Colombia 70,699 Vamos Colombia 66,512 Mov. Pol. Comunal y 56,363 Comuni. Col. Mov. Si Colombia 55,835 Mov. Ciudadano 51,504 UD 48,939 FE 46,298 Mov. Obr. Independ. 45,703 Revol. MOIR Mov. Cívico Indepen43,265 diente 42,954 Movimiento Politico Ciudadanos por Boyaca MPD 41,672 PNC 40,460 b Others 612,272 a

% 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.9

Including 656,158 Tarjetas no Marcadas. Others include: LPC: 37,125 votes (0.4%); MUC: 36,675 (0.4%); AICO: 35,215 (0.4%); MRD: 34,049 (0.4%); UNAMONOS: 29,430 (0.3%); MPC: 28,319 (0.3%); Mov. Colombia mi País: 23,770 (0.3%); MAD: 23,271 (0.3%); MCCN: 21,191 (0.2%); CI: 20,503 (0.2%); Mov. Humbertista: 19,868 (0.2%); ANUPAC: 13,387 (0.2%); RDN: 12,693 (0.1%); MDC: 12,015 (0.1%); PSD: 11,279 (0.1%); PIC: 11,266 (0.1%); Mov. Autonomia Ciudadana: 6,845 (0.1%); MPP: 6,762 b

(0.1%); Mov. Fuerza Colombia: 4,707 (0.1%); Mov. Revolucion Democratica: 3,899 (0.0%); LIDER: 1,442 (0.0%); PPC: 1,400 (0.0%), and 217,161 votes (2.5%) for other small parties.

Colombia

339

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1931–2002 Year PL PC PCC Year PL PC PCC a

1939 Seats 119 — — —

% 100.0 — — —

1933 Seats 118 74 44 –

% 100.0 — — —

1941 Seats 131 — — —

% 100.0 62.7 37.3 –

1935 Seats 119 — — —

% 100.0 — — —

1943 Seats 131 — — 3

% 100.0 — — —

1937 Seats 119 — — 1

% 100.0 — — 0.8

% 100.0 — — 2.3

1945 Seats 131 80 47 4a

% 100.0 61.1 35.9 3.0

From 1944 to 1947 the name of the PCC was Partido Socialista Democrático.

Year PL PC a

1931 Seats 118 — — —

1947 Seats 131 73 58

% 100.0 55.7 44.3

1949 Seats 132 69 63

% 100.0 52.2 47.8

1951 Seats 132a – 71

% 100.0 – –

1953 Seats 132a – 76

% 100.0 – –

As the Partido Liberal did not contest the elections and none of the other contenders reached the required half quota, the seats corresponding to minorities were left vacant.

Colombia

340 Year PL Oficialistas MRL Frentenacionalistas MRL línea blanda MRL línea dura ANAPO MIL PC Unionistas (Ospinistas) Doctrinarios (Laureanistas) Alzatistas Alzaospinistas Leyvistas– Independientes ANAPO Frentenacionalistas Independents a

1958a Seats 148 74 – – –

% 100.0 50.0 – – –

1960 Seats 152 76 58 18 –

% 100.0 50.0 38.1 11.8 –

1962 Seats 184 92 59 33 –

% 100.0 50.0 32.1 18.0 –

1964 Seats 184 92 – – 59

% 100.0 50.0 – – 32.1

–

–

–

–

–

–

23

12.5

– – – 74 19

– – – 50.0 12.8

– – – 76 –

– – – 50.0 –

– – – 92 –

– – – 50.0 –

8 1 1 92 –

4.3 0.5 0.5 50.0 –

49

33.1

38

25.0

36

19.6

–

–

6 – –

4.1 – –

– 37 1

– 24.3 0.7

– 50 –

– 27.2 –

– – –

– – –

– –

– –

– –

– –

6 –

3.3 –

26 65

14.1 35.3

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.5

The Frente Nacional system remained in force from 1958 to 1970.

Colombia Year PL Oficialistas dissident Oficialistas MRL línea blanda MRLdP ANAPO Independents Pastranistas Rojistas (ANAPO) Sourdistas Belisaristas Others PC Unionistas ANAPO Lauro– Alzatistas Leyvistas Independents Pastranistas Rojistas (ANAPO) Belisaristas Sourdistas Others ANAPO UNO a

341 1966 Seats 190 95 69 –

% 100.0 50.0 36.3 –

1968 Seats 204 102 77 17

% 100.0 50.0 37.7 8.3

1970 Seats 210a 105 – –

% 100.0 50.0 – –

1974 Seats 199b 113 – –

% 100.0 56.7 – –

21

11.1

–

–

–

–

–

–

– 4 1 – –

– 2.1 0.5 – –

2 6 – – –

1 2.9 – – –

– – – 57 28

– – – 27.1 13.3

– – – – –

– – – – –

– – – 95 35 33 25

– – – 50.0 18.4 17.4 13.1

– – – 102 49 28 5

– – – 50.0 24.0 13.7 2.5

9 6 5 105a – – –

4.3 2.9 2.4 50.0 – – –

– – – 66 – – –

– – – 33.1 – – –

1 1 – –

0.5 0.5 – –

– 19 – –

– 9.3 – –

– – 30 43

– – 14.3 20.5

– – – –

– – – –

– – – – –

– – – – –

– – 1 – –

– – 0.5 – –

19 13 4 – –

9.0 6.2 2.0 – –

– – – 15 5

– – – 7.5 2.5

Figures are inconsistent. The sum of seats allocated to the parties amounts to 214 (109 for the conservative parties). b The end of the Frente Nacional brought about a reduction in the number of House representatives, in that it eliminated the seats created to allow parity in those constituencies with an odd number of representatives.

Colombia

342 Year PL NL PC/PSC FD Movimiento Cívico UP MNC UNO FUP Coalitions Others a

1978 Seats 199 111 – 83 – –

% 100.0 55.7 – 41.7 – –

– – 4 1 – –

1982 Seats 199 115a – 82 1 1

% 100.0 57.8 – 41.2 0.5 0.5

1986 Seats 199 98 7 80 – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

3b – – – – 11

– – 2.0 0.5 – –

% 100.0 49.2 3.5 40.2 – – 1.5 – – – – 5.5

1990 Seats 199 119 – 62 – – 1 3 – – 10 4

% 100.0 59.8 – 31.2 – – 0.5 1.5 – – 5.0 2.0

Considering the later division of the PL, a difference must be made between PL seats and NL seats. The latter received eleven seats. b The UP received these seats with its own independent lists. It also gained representatives through several coalitions in which it took part.

Year PL PSC UP MNC AD/M-19 MSN Cívico Independiente Conservador Humbertista FP IR LIDER Movimiento Humbertista MURCO Mov. Nueva Colombia MUM MRD Transformación MUC UNV Unidos por Colombia AICO MNP

1991 Seats 161a 87 27b 3 4b 13 11b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 –

% 100.0 54.0 16.7 1.9 2.5 8.1 6.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 –

1994 Seats 163 88 40 – 6 1 1 – – – 1 – – 1 2 1 – – – – – – 1

% 100.0 53.7 24.4 – 0.6 3.7 0.6 – – – 0.6 – – 0.6 1.2 0.6 – – – – – – 0.6

1998 Seats 161 84 28 – 4 – 1 – – – 2 – 1 – 1 – – – – – – – 1

% 100.0 51.5 17.2 – 2.5 – 0.6 – – – 1.2 – 0.6 – 0.6 – – – – – – – 0.6

Colombia Year (continued) PNC Mov. Conservador Independiente MAL Mov. Fuerza Progresista Mov. Cívico Independiente FE CPC Mov. Cuidadano NFD MAD MPP Mov. Cívico deriedad por Colombia Special Constituency for Black Communities ASI Mov. Nacional de Comunidades Negras Coalitions Others (other lists) a

343 1991 Seats – –

– –

1994 Seats 1 1

0.6 0.6

1998 Seats 1 2

– – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – –

– 4 – – – – – – – –

– 2.4 – – – – – – – –

1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

0.6 2.5 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6

–

–

1

0.6

2

1.2

–

–

1 1

0.6 0.6

2 0

1.2 0.0

1 8b

1.0 5.0

1 12

0.6 7.3

16 3

9.8 1.8

%

%

% 0.6 1.2

The decrease in the number of House representatives is due to the provisions of the 1991 Constitution. b For these four cases, the figures correspond to the list of elected members drawn up by the registry. Yet, the registry also offers a table with the number of Chamber representatives for each party. According to the latter, the PSC would have received 25, the MNC 6, the MSN 10 and ‘Others’ would comprise 9 seats.

Colombia

344 Year PL PSC Coalicion Cambio Radical MAL CPC Mov. Equipo Colombia Mov. Colombia Siempre Convergencia Ciudadana Fuerza Progresista FSP IR Mov. Popular Unido Mov. Voluntad Popular MPD MPP MSN RALM MNP MPC NFD Mov. Republicano CI Cívico Seriedad Colombia MN PNC PPC RDN Vía Alterna Others AICO MPU PL Others

2002 Seats 166 54 21 11 7 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 1

% 100.0 32.5 12.7 6.6 4.2 3.0 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 13.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Colombia

345

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1947–2002 Year

1947 Seats 63 PL 34 Oficialistas – MRL – PC 29 Ospinistas – Laureanistas – Independientes – y Alzatistas Unionistas – Doctrinarios – ANAPO – a

% 100.0 53.9 – – 46.1 – – –

1951 Seats 62a – – – 40 – – –

– – –

– – –

– – –

1958b Seats 80 40 – – 40 10 28 2

– – –

– – –

% 100.0 – – –

% 100.0 50.0 – – 50.0 12.5 35.0 2.5

1962 Seats 98 49 37 12 49 – – –

% 100.0 50.0 37.8 12.3 50.0 – – –

– – –

31 16 2

31.6 16.3 2.0

In the elections to the Senate held in 1953, the only party which presented candidates was the Partido Conservador, hence the seats corresponding to minorities were left vacant. b The Frente Nacional system was in force from 1958 to 1970.

Year PL Oficialistas MRL (línea blanda) Pastranistas Rojistas (ANAPO) Sourdistas Belisaristas PC Unionistas Lauro– Alzatistas Independientes ANAPO Rojistas (ANAPO) Pastranistas Belisaristas Sourdistas UNO

1966 Seats 106 53 46 7

% 100.0 50.0 43.3 6.6

1970 Seats 118 59 – –

% 100.0 50.0 – –

1974 Seats 112a 66 – –

% 100.0 58.9 – –

1978 Seats 112 62 – –

% 100.0 55.3 – –

– –

– –

39 12

33.1 10.2

– –

– –

– –

– –

– – 53 20 14

– – 50.0 18.9 13.2

5 3 59 – –

4.2 2.5 50.0 – –

– – 37 – –

– – 33.0 – –

– – 49 – –

– – 43.7 – –

1 18 –

0.9 17.0 –

– – 26

– – 22.0

– 7 –

– 6.3 –

– – –

– – –

– – – –

– – – –

18 9 6 –

15.3 7.7 5.0 –

– – – 2

– – – 1.8

– – – 1

– – – 0.9

Colombia

346 a

The end of the Frente Nacional brought about a reduction in the number of House representatives, in that it eliminated the seats created to allow parity in those constituencies with an odd number of representaties.

Year

1982 Seats 114 PL 63b PCc 49 MC 1 FD 1 NL – MNC – UP – AD/M-19 – NFD – MSN – CI – Fuerza Progre– sista LPC – LIDER – MNP – Mov. Unidos – por Colombia MUM – PNC – Reintegración – Conservadora MUC – AICO – ONIC – ASI – Coalitions – Others – a

% 100.0 55.2 42.9 0.9 0.9 – – – – – – – –

1986 Seats 114 58 43 – – 6 – 2d – – – – –

% 100.0 50.8 37.7 – – 5.2 – 1.8 – – – – –

1990 Seats 114 66 38 – – – 1 – – – – – –

% 100.0 57.9 33.3 – – – 0.9 – – – – – –

1991 Seats 102a 56 9 – – – 1 1 9 8 5 1 1

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

1 1 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

– – –

– – –

– – –

– – –

– – –

1 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0

– – – – – –

– – – – – 5

– – – – – 4.4

– – – – 7 2

– – – – 6.1 1.8

1 1e 1e 1e – –

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 – –

% 100.0 54.9 8.8 – – – 1.0 1.0 8.8 7.8 4.9 1.0 1.0

The 1991 Constitution fixed the number of senators at 102. Considering the PL division, which became definite in the presidential elections, a difference must be made between PL seats and NL seats. The latter received eight seats. c Since 1987: PSC d The UP received these seats with its own independent lists. It also gained representatives through several coalitions in which it took part. e The ONIC and ASI senators were elected for the Special Indian Constituency. AICO’s senator had also registered for this constituency; however the share of votes for each of these three lists surpassed the number required to receive a residual seat in the national constituency. Consequently, the Electoral Nacional Council decided to consider AICO’s list within the national constituency. b

Colombia Year PL PSC Mov. Unitario Metropolitano ANAPO MNC MNP MUC MSN Mov. Nueva Colombia LIDER Mov. Conservador Independiente LPC Comunidad Cívico Cristiana Mov. Civico Independiente MURCO P. Comunista Colombiano ASI C4 Educación Trabajo y Cambio FE MDC CPC Mov. Ciudadano MB NFD PPC Vamos Colombia Mov. 98

347 1994 Seats 102 56 20 1

% 100.0 54.9 19.6 1.0

1 1 1 1 2 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1998 Seats 102 48 15 –

% 100.0 47.1 14.7 –

2002 Seats 102 29 13 –

% 100.0 28.4 12.7 –

1.0

1 7 2 – 1 –

1.0 6.9 2.0 – 1.0 –

1 – 1 – 1 –

1.0 – 1.0 – 1.0 –

1 1

1.0 1.0

– 1

– 1.0

0 –

0.0 –

1 1

1.0 1.0

1 –

1.0 –

0 –

0.0 –

1

1.0

–

–

1

1.0

1 1

1.0 1.0

– –

– –

–

–

– – –

– – –

1 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0

1 1 –

1.0 1.0 –

– – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – –

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

– – 1 1 – 1 0 1 –

– – 1.0 1.0 – 1.0 0.0 1.0 –

Colombia

348 Year 1994 (continued) Seats Mov. Oxigeno – Liberal Mov. Recon– strucción Democrática Mov. Colombia – mi País MN – MIPOL – Mov. Equipo – Colombia Mov. Colombia – Siempre Mov. Cambio – Radical Mov. Popular – Unido RALM – FSP – Partido Social– demócrata Colombiano Mov. Fuerza – Progresista NL – Mov. – Convergencia Ciudadana Mov. Unionista – MIRA – ALAS – Mov. Dejen – Jugar al Moreno Mov. Politico – por la Seguridad Social Mov. Somos Co- – lombia

% –

1998 Seats 2

% 2.0

2002 Seats –

–

1

1.0

0

0.0

–

1

1.0

–

–

– – –

– – –

– – –

6 4 4

6.0 4.0 4.0

–

–

–

2

2.0

–

–

–

2

2.0

–

–

–

2

2.0

– – –

– – –

– – –

1 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0

–

–

–

1

1.0

– –

– –

– –

1 1

1.0 1.0

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

1 1 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

–

–

–

1

1.0

–

–

–

1

1.0

% –

Colombia Year 1994 (continued) Seats Mov. Voluntad – Popular Mov. Huella – Ciudadana Mov. Sí – Colombia UD – FE – MOIR – Mov. Politico – Ciudadanos por Boyaca MPD – PNC – Special 2 Constituency for Indigenous Communities AICO 1 Mov. Indigena 1 Colombiano Coalitions 2 Others 8

349 % –

1998 Seats –

% –

2002 Seats 1

% 1.0

–

–

–

1

1.0

–

–

–

1

1.0

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

1 1 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

– – 2.0

– – 2

– – 2.0

1 1

1.0 1.0

–

–

1.0 1.0

– –

– –

1

1.0

–

–

2.0 7.8

7 –

6.9 –

6 2

– –

2.9 Presidential Elections 1914–2002 1914a, b Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes José Vicente Concha (PC) Nicolás Esguerra (Republicano/Liberal) Others a

Total number — — — 337,597 300,735 36,763 99

% – — — — 89.1 10.9 0.0

The collecting of electoral data begins with the first direct presidential elections held in the 20th century. b Each candidate enjoyed the support of one sector of the PL and the PC.

Colombia

350 1918 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Marco Fidel Suárez (PC) Guillermo León Valencia (PC)a José M. Lombana Others a

b

% – — — — 54.0 40.0 6.0 0.0

Total number — — — 670,053 413,619 256,231 203

% – — — — 61.7 38.2 0.0

The PL supported his candidacy.

1922a Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Pedro Nel Ospina (PC) Benjamín Herrera (PL)b Others a

Total number — — — 401,175 216,594 160,498 24,041 42

The PL reported blatant electoral fraud. The Partido Socialista supported his candidacy.

1926 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Miguel Abadía Méndez (PC) Others

Total number — — — 370,926 370,494 432

% – — — — 99.9 0.1

1930 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Enrique Olaya Herrera (PL) Guillermo León Valencia (PC) Alfredo Vásquez Cobo (PC) Othersa

Total number — — — 824,530 369,934 240,360 213,470 766

% – — — — 44.9 29.2 25.9 0.1

a

Among them Alberto Castrillón, the candidate of the PSR.

Colombia 1934a Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Alfonso López Pumarejo (PL) Eutiquio Timoté (PCC) Others. Blank and invalid votes a

b

Total number 1,700,171 513,520 1,573 511,947 511,947

% – 30.2 0.3 99.7 100.0

Total number 2,056,366 — — 1,147,806 673,169 474,637

% – — — — 58.6 41.4

Total number 2,450,596 1,366,272 177 1,366,095 565,939 441,199 358,957

% – 55.8 0.0 99.9 41.4 32.3 26.3

Received the PCC’s support. Received the PC’s support.

1946 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Mariano Ospina Pérez (PC) Gabriel Turbay (PL)a Jorge Eliécer Gaitán (PL)b a

% – — — — 99.6 0.2 0.2

The PC did not contest the elections.

1942 Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Alfonso López Pumarejo (PL)a Carlos Arango Vélez (PL)b a

Total number — — — 942,009 938,608 1,974 1,427

The PC appealed for abstention.

1938a Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Eduardo Santos (PL) a

351

Received the support of the Partido Socialista Democrático (which is the same as PCC). Assassinated on 09/04/1948. This sparkled the uprising known as ‘El Bogotazo’ which marked the beginning of the so called Violencia period. b

Colombia

352 1949a Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid Votes Valid Votes Laureano Gómez (PC) Others a

Total number 2,866,339 1,140,646 501 1,140,145 1,140,122 23

% – 39.8 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

The PL appealed for abstention. After a failed attempt against its candidate Darío Echandía, the party withdrew his candidacy.

1958 Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Alberto Lleras Camargo (PL)a Jorge Leyva (PC) Others a

Total number 5,386,981 3,108,567 8,303 2,165 3,098,099 2,482,948 614,861 290

% – 57.7 0.3 0.1 99.7 80.1 19.8 0.0

The Acto Legislativo No. 1 of 1959 constitutionalised the liberal-conservative alternation in power. Yet, these two parties had already agreed to this alternation in the 1958 elections. In order to put it into practice they decided to support a liberal candidate. Leyva’s candidacy responded to dissidence within the PC. Lleras’ candidacy received also the PCC’s support.

1962a Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votesb Valid Votes Guillermo León Valencia (PC) Jorge Leyva (PC) Othersc a

Total number 5,404,765 2,634,840 5,822 683,436 1,945,582 1,636,081 308,992 509

% – 48.8 0.2 25.9 73.8 84.1 15.9 0.0

In compliance with the Frente Nacional agreement, only the Conservatives presented candidates. The Electoral Court did not calculate the votes cast in favor of these two candidates. The reason for the first case was that, in compliance with the constitutional provisions, only Conservative candidates could contest the 1962 elections. For the second, after the downfall of the military regime, the Senate of the Republic had punished Rojas by depriving him of political rights. He recovered his rights in 1966. c Alfonso López Michelsen (PL): 625,630; Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (Conservador/ANAPO): 54,562; other invalid votes: 3,244. b

Colombia

353

1966a Total number Registered Voters 6,611,352 Votes cast 2,649,258 Blank Votes 9,824 Invalid Votes 5,529 Valid Votes 2,633,905 Carlos Lleras Restrepo (PL) 1,891,175 José Jaramillo Giraldo (PL/ANAPO) 742,133 Antonio Goyeneche (PL) 597 a

% – 40.1 0.4 0.2 99.4 71.8 28.2 0.0

In accordance with the Frente Nacional agreement, only the Liberals presented candidates.

1970a, b Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Misael Pastrana B. (PC) Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (PC/ANAPO)c Belisario Betancur C. (PC)c Evaristo Sourdís J. (PC) Rafael Corredor a

Total number 7,683,785 4,036,458 36,892 5,426 3,994,140 1,625,025 1,561,468 471,350 336,286 11

% – 52.5 0.9 0.1 99.0 40.7 39.1 11.8 8.4 0.0

In accordance with the Frente Nacional agreement, only the Conservatives presented candidates. Rojas Pinilla’s followers questioned the reliability of the results, they argued that the figures had been altered in favor of candidate Pastrana. c The Partido Social Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Social Democratic Party), later renamed PDC, supported his candidacy. b

1974a Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Alfonso López Michelsen (PL) Alvaro Gómez Hurtado (PC) María Eugenia Rojas de Moreno (ANAPO) Hernando Echeverri Mejía (UNO) Hermes Duarte Arias (PDC) José M. Córdoba (Independent) a

Total number 8,964,472 5,212,133 6,722 5,869 5,199,542 2,929,719 1,634,879 492,166 137,054 5,718 6

% – 58.1 0.1 0.1 99.8 56.3 31.4 9.5 2.6 0.1 0.0

The three top candidates were sons and daughters of former Presidents of the Republic: López was the son of Alfonso López Pumarejo; Gómez was the son of Laureano Gómez and María Eugenia Rojas was the daughter of Moreno de Gustavo Rojas Pinilla.

Colombia

354 1978 Total number Registered Voters 12,580,851 Votes cast 5,075,719 Blank Votes 9,923 Invalid Votes 7,871 Valid Votes 5,057,925 Julio César Turbay Ayala (PL) 2,503,681 Belisario Betancur C. (PC/MN) 2,356,620 Julio César Pernía (UNO) 97,234 Alvaro Valencia Tovar (MRN) 65,961 Jaime Piedrahita Cardona (FUP) 27,059 Luz del Socorro Ramírez (UNIOS) 6,643 Víctor Julio Gómez Hoyos (MACN) 587 a Regina B. de Liska (MUM ) 126 Jesús Arenas Fajardo (P. Laborista) 14 a

% – 40.3 0.2 0.2 99.6 49.5 46.6 1.9 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

At that time under the name MUR.

1982 Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Belisario Betancur C. (PC/MN) Alfonso López Michelsen (PL) Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento (NL) Gerardo Molina Ramírez (FD) Florentino Porras Pardo (RP) Others

Total number 13,734,093 6,840,392 8,996 9,594 6,821,802 3,189,278 2,797,627 745,738 82,858 159 6,142

% – 49.8 0.1 0.1 99.7 46.8 41.0 10.9 1.2 0.0 0.1

1986a Registered Voters Votes cast Blank Votes Invalid Votes Valid Votes Virgilio Barco (PL) Alvaro Gómez (PC/MPN) Jaime Pardo Leal (UP) Regina Betancur de Liska (MUM) Juan David Pérez Gaviria (PH) Others

Total number 15,839,754 7,229,937 42,205 8,119 7,179,613 4,214,510 2,588,050 328,752 46,811 229 1,261

% – 45.6 0.6 0.1 99.3 58.7 36.0 4.6 0.7 0.0 0.0

a

As in parliamentary elections, official numbers of valid votes include blank votes since 1985, because the latter are counted as valid for the purpose of the calculation of the electoral quota. Here, the number of valid votes corresponds to the sum of party votes, which is the basis for the percentages.

Colombia 1990a Total number Registered Voters 13,903,324 Votes cast 6,047,576 Blank Votes 77,727 Invalid Votes 45,302 Valid Votes 5,924,547b 2,891,808 César Gaviria T. (PL)c Alvaro Gómez H. (MSN) 1,433,913 Antonio Navarro Wolf (AD/M-19) 754,740 d Rodrigo Lloreda C. (PSC) 735,374 Regina Betancur de Liska (MUM) 37,537 Claudia Rodríguez (PNC) 33,645 e Others 37,520 a

355 % – 43.5 1.3 0.7 99.3 48.2 23.9 12.6 12.3 0.6 0.6 0.6

Violence tarnished the electoral campaign: Luis Carlos Galán, the Liberal pre-candidate with the highest chance to run as candidate for his party and win the elections, was assassinated on 18 August 1989. On 22 March 1990 Bernardo Jaramillo, the UP candidate, was assassinated. In light of these events, the UP decided not to present a candidate for the presidential elections. Finally, on 26 April 1990 the candidate of AD/M-19, Carlos Pizarro León-Gómez, was assassinated. The AD/M-19 replaced him with the M-19’s second man, Navarro Wolf. b Official data are inconsistent. The sum of party votes (5,924,537) slightly differs from the number of valid votes (5,924,547). c By means of the new 3rd Act of 1989, the PL candidate was elected through a popular vote carried out on the same day as the parliamentary elections. The PL agreed with the registry that the latter should count the votes. d In 1987, the PC changed its name into PSC. e Six candidates: Oscar Loaiza (P. Natural) 9,468 votes; José Agustín Linares (PDC) 9,048 votes; Luis Carlos Valencia (PST) 8,168 votes; Guillermo Alemán (MOE) 7,429 votes; Jesús García P. (Amor por Colombia) 2,411 votes; Jairo H. Rodríguez (Mov. Encuentro 88) 996 votes.

Colombia

356 1994 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Ernesto Samper Pizano (PL) Andres Pastrana Arango/ Andres Presdiente. Coalición. Antonio Navarro Wolf (Compromiso Colombia ) Regina Betancur de Liska (MUM) Miguel Alfredo Maza Marquez (CCN) Alberto Mendoza Morales (CN/ Unión Patriotica) Enrique Parejo Gonzalez (ADN) Votación en el exterior Othersb

a

Total number 17,146,597 5,821,331 65,116 29,999 5,726,216a 2,623,210 2,604,771

% – 34.0 1.1 0.5 98.4 45.3 45.0

219,241

3.8

64,131 55,190

1.1 1.0

34,437

0.6

29,246 27,620 95,990

0.5 1.6

Official data are inconsistent. The sum of party votes (5,753,836) differs from the given number of valid votes. b Eleven candidates: Guillermo Alemán (MOE) 22,923 votes; Gloria Gaitán (JEGA) 17,397 votes; José Antonio Cortes Huertas (C-4) 11,704 votes; Miguel A. Zamora Avila (P) 9,059 votes; José Galat (FM) 9,055 votes; Doris de Castro (Mov. Cristiano Independiente) 6,020 votes; Luis E. Rodríguez Orjuela (MNP) 5,711 votes; Oscar Rojas Masso (SL) 4,368 votes; José Guillermo Barbosa Millan (Organización para la Paz Nacional) 3,797 votes; Mario Díazgranados Llinas (C.G.T. Cristiana) 3,319 votes; Efraín Torres Plazas (Crea) 2,637 votes.

1994 (2nd round) Total number Registered voters 17,146,597 Votes cast 7,427,742 Blank votes 72,536 Invalid votes 45,089 Valid votes 7,310,117 Ernesto Samper Pizano (PL) 3,733,336 Andrés Pastrana Arango (coalición) 3,576,781

% – 43.3 1.0 0.6 98.4 51.1 48.9

Colombia 1998 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votesa Valid votes Horacio Serpa Uribe Andres Pastrana Arango Noemí Sanin Posada Harold Bedoya Othersb

357 Total number 20,856,150 10,751,465 122,431 122,842 10,506,192 3,696,334 3,653,048 2,845,750 193,037 118,023

a

% – 51.6 1.1 1.1 97.7 34.4 34.0 26.4 1.8 1.1

Including 43,446 ‘targetas no marcadas’. Since the implementation of the electoral cards at the presidential elections in 1990 the phenomenon of non-marked cards appeared, which were first added to the invalid votes but are now counted separately, as this phenomenon has increased. b Nine candidates: Beatríz Cuellar: 30,832 votes; Germán Rojas Niño: 16,072; Jorge Hernán Betancur: 13,892; Jesús Antonio Lozano: 11,834; Jorge Pulido: 11,500; Guillermo Alemán: 9,885; Efraín Díaz Valderrama: 9,255; Guillermo Nanneti: 8,862; Francisco Cordoba Zartha: 5,891.

1998 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Andres Pastrana Arango Horacio Serpa Uribe a

Total number 20,857,801 12,310,107a 373,659 108,794 11,773,270 6,114,752 5,658,518

% – 59.0 3.0 0.8 95.6 51.9 48.1

Official data are inconsistent. The provided number of votes cast differs from the sum of invalid, blank, and valid votes (12,255,723).

Colombia

358 2002 Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Alvaro Uribe Velez (Primero Colombia) Horacio Serpa (Partido Liberal Colombiano) Luis Eduardo Garzón (Polo Demócraticob) Noemí Sanín (Mov. Sí Colombia) Ingrid Betancourt (Partido Verde Oxigeno) Othersc

Total number 24,208,311 11,249,734 196,116 198,089a 10,855,529 5,862,655

% – 46.5 1.7 1.8 96.5 54.0

3,514,779

32.4

680,245

6.3

641,884 53,922

5.9 0.5

102,044

0.9

a

Including 48,966 tarjetas no marcadas. Alliance consisting of FSP, Vía Alterna, UD, ANAPO, PSD, ASI, and PSOC. c Six candidates: Harold Bedoya (Mov. Fuerza Colombia) 52,710 votes; Francisco Tovar (MDC) 16,396; Augusto Guillermo Lora (M-19) 12,724; Alvaro Cristancho (MPC) 10,117; Guillermo Antonio Cardona (Mov. Pol. Comunal y Comuni. Col.) 8,464; Rodolfo Rincon (MPC) 6,588. b

2.10 List of Power Holders 1914–2003 Head of State Years José Vicente Concha 1914–1918 Marco Fidel Suárez

1918–1922

Jorge Holguín

1921–1922

Pedro Nel Ospina

1922–1926

Miguel Abadía Méndez Enrique Olaya Herrera Alfonso López Pumarejo Eduardo Santos

1926–1930 1930–1934 1934–1938 1938–1942

Remarks Elected President. Assumed office on 07/08/1914. Elected President. Assumed presidency on 07/08/1918. Left his office on 11/11/1921 after several debates against him in the Congress. As First Designado appointed by the Congress, replaced President Suárez when the latter resigned. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1922. Elected President (only candidate). Took office on 07/08/1926. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1930. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1934. Elected President (only candidate). Took office on 07/08/1938.

Colombia

359

Head of State (cont.) Years Alfonso López 1942–1945 Pumarejo Alberto Lleras Camargo Mariano Ospina Pérez Laureano Gómez Castro Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez Laureano Gómez Castro

1945–1946 1946–1950 1950–1951 1951–1953 1953

Gustavo Rojas Pinilla

1953–1957

Military Junta

1957–1958

Alberto Lleras Camargo Guillermo León Valencia Carlos Lleras Restrepo Misael Pastrana Borrero Alfonso López Michelsen Julio César Turbay Ayala

1958–1962 1962–1966 1966–1970 1970–1974 1974–1978 1978–1982

Remarks Elected President. Assumed Presidency on 07/08/1942. Survived a failed coup d’état on 10/06/1944. Tendered his resignation on 19/07/1945. Assumed Presidency on 07/08/1945 as Designado elected by the Congress. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1946. Elected President (only candidate). Took office on 07/08/1950. Resigned temporarily due to health problems. Took office on 05/11/1951, as first Designado elected by the Congress. Re-assumed the presidential office on 13/06/1953. Deposed that same day by a coup d’état headed by General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. Army officer. Legitimized as President until the end of the term (1954) by the National Constitutional Assembly, called by the Congress following the request of President Gómez. Afterwards elected for the period 1954–1958. In the face of increasing opposition to his government, on 10/05/1957 Rojas handed over power to a military Junta. Formed by Gabriel París, Deogracias Fonseca, Rubén Piedrahita, Rafael Navas Pardo and Luis E. Ordóñez. Called a referendum on 01/12/1957, which approved the Frente Nacional agreement. Survived a coup attempt on 02/05/1958. President elected during the Frente Nacional. Assumed Presidency on 07/08/1958. President elected during the Frente Nacional. Took office on 07/08/1962. President elected during the Frente Nacional. Took office on 07/08/1966. President elected during the Frente Nacional. Took office on 07/08/1970. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1974. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1978.

Colombia

360 Head of State (cont.) Years Belisario Betancur 1982–1986 Virgilio Barco Vargas César Gaviria Trujillo César Gaviria Trujillo Ernesto Samper Pizano Andres Pastrana Arango Alvaro Uribe Velez

1986–1990 1990 1990–1994 1994–1998 1998–2002 2002–

Remarks Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1982. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1986. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1990. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1990. First elected president under the 1991 Constitution. Took office on 07/08/1994. Elected President. Took office on 07/08/1998. Elected President. In office since 07/08/2002.

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Código Electoral de la República de Colombia 1988. Ed. by Jorge Ortega. Bogotá: Ed. Temis. Constitución Política de Colombia 1991. Ed. by Jorge Ortega Torres. Santa Fe de Bogotá: Ed. Temis. DANE (Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística) (1972). Colombia política. Estadísticas 1935–1970. Bogotá. DANE (1995). Proyecciones municipales de población por areas de 1995 a 2002, estudios censales del DANE – banco de datos. Bogotá. — (1986). Colombia. Censo 1985. Vol. 1. Bogotá. ‘Decretos–Leyes 1037 de 1951’, in Decretos extraordinarios y decretos reglamentarios de leyes, expedidos por el Gobierno Nacional del 1 de Enero al 30 de Junio de 1951. Vol 1. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Decreto No. 2830 de 1952’, in Decretos reglamentarios de leyes. Expedidos por el Gobierno Nacional del 1 de julio al 31 de diciembre de 1952. Vol. 2. (1953) Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 7 de 1888’, in Leyes de la República de Colombia. Expedidas por el Consejo Nacional Legislativo en sus sesiones de 1888. Bogotá: Imprenta de Vapor de Zalamea Hermanos. ‘Ley 119 de 1892’, in Leyes de Colombia de 1892. Colección de las que expidió el Congreso en este año. Edición oficial. Hecha bajo la dirección del Consejo de Estado. Bogotá: Imprenta de Vapor de Zalamea Hermanos.

Colombia

361

‘Ley 42 de 1910’, in Actos Legislativos y Leyes de Colombia expedidas por la Asamblea Nacional de 1910. (2nd edn. 1939). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 85 de 1916’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1916. (2nd edn. 1940). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 96 de 1920’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1920 (2nd edn. 1940). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 31 de 1929’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1929 (2nd edn. 1941). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 72 de 1930’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1930 (2nd edn. 1941). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 7 de 1932’, in Leyes expedidas por el Congreso Nacional en su legislatura de 1932 (2nd edn. 1941). Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 39 de 1946’, in Leyes de 1946 y Acto Legislativo, sesiones ordinarias. Edición oficial. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. ‘Ley 89 de 1948’, in Leyes de 1948 y Ley 91 de 1947. Edición revisada y confrontada con sus originales por el Consejo de Estado. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional. Organización Electoral/Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil (1998). 50 años 1948–1998. Bogotá. — (1998). Elecciones presidenciales 1914–1994. Bogotá: Oficina de publicaciones. Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil (1988). Historia electoral colombiana. Bogotá. — (various years). Estadísticas electorales. Bogotá.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Alexander, R. (1957). Communism in Latin America. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Angulo, A. and Santana, P. (1980). ‘La miseria de los partidos. Análisis de las elecciones de 1980’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 84: 1–100. Arizmendi, I. (1983). Gobernantes colombianos: 1819–1983 (2nd edn.). Bogotá: Interprint. Barbosa, F. (1969). Legislación electoral colombiana (1830–1888). Ph.D. thesis, Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Historia (mimeo). — (1977). ‘El sistema mayoritario y la representación proporcional en Colombia’. Revista de la Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá (Bogotá), 28: 9–29. Blanquer, J.-M. (1990). ‘Les élections colombiennes en 1990’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 98/4: 49–72.

362

Colombia

Calle Lombana, H. de la (1982). Comentario introductorio al coloquio “Sistema electoral y régimen de partidos en Colombia”. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 29.11.1982. — (1991). ‘La reforma electoral en Colombia’, in H. de la Calle Lombana et al. (1991), La reforma electoral en Latinoamérica. Memorias del IV Curso Anual Interamericano de Elecciones, Vol. 3, San José: IIDH– CAPEL, 171–191. Castro, J. (1982). Constitución política de Colombia. Concordancias, referencias históricas, índices y compilación. Bogotá: Ed. Oveja Negra. CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina) (1966). Boletín estadístico de América Latina. March 1964, 1/1. Santiago de Chile. — (1975–1987). Anuario estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago. CINEP (Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular) (1976). ‘La izquierda y la participación electoral’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 43: 1–111. — (1977). ‘La izquierda colombiana y las elecciones de 1978’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 57/58: 1–125. Delgado, O. (1986). Colombia elige: Mitaca/84 – Perspectivas/86. Bogotá: Universidad Javeriana. — (1991). ‘Régimen y sistema electoral en la Constitución de 1991’. Revista Javeriana (Santa Fe de Bogotá), 579: 237–275. — (2002). ‘Los sistema electorales para el Congreso en Colombia (1821-2002)’. Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos (Bogotá), 4/2: 67–128. Dix, R. (1967). Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change. New Haven: Yale University Press. — (1987). The Politics of Colombia. N.Y.: Praeger. Eastman, J. M. (1982). Seis reformas estructurales al régimen político. Resultados electorales de 1930 a 1982. Bogotá: Colección Legislación, Doctrina y Jurisprudencia del Ministerio de Gobierno. Equipo CINEP (1978). ‘El abanico político–ideológico en 1978’. Revista Controversia (Bogotá), 64/65: 60–92. Fernández Botero, E. (1964). Las constituciones colombianas comparadas. Medellín: Ed. Univ. de Antioquia. Gallón, G. (ed.) (1989). Entre movimentos y caudillos. Bogotá: CINEP – CEREC. Gilhodes, P. (1983). ‘Les élections colombiennes de mars et mai 1982’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 67/1: 37–68. — (1987). ‘Les élections colombiennes de 1986: Contexte, résultats, perspectives’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 84/2: 29–44. González, F. (1978). ‘Legislación y comportamiento electorales: Evolución histórica’. Revista Controversia (CINEP, Bogotá), 64/65: 1–59.

Colombia

363

Heinz, W. (1989). ‘Guerrillas, Friedensprozeß und politische Gewalt in Kolumbien (1980–1988)’. Lateinamerika. Analysen–Daten–Dokumentation (Hamburg), Beiheft Nr.6. Iberoamerika–Kunde. Henao, J. and Arrubla, G. (1967). Historia de Colombia. Bogotá: Ed. Voluntad. Hernández Becerra, A. (1986). Las elecciones en Colombia (análisis jurídico–político). San José: IIDH/CAPEL. — (1986). Régimen electoral colombiano. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia. Jaramillo, J. (111987). ‘Etapas y sentido en la historia de Colombia’, in M. Arrubla et al. (eds.), Colombia hoy. Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores, 15–52. Jaramillo, J. F. and Franco-Cuervo, B. (1999). ‘Las elecciones presidenciales en Colombia, 1998’, in F. Priess and F. Tuesta (eds.), Campañas electorales y medios de comunicación en América Latina. Konrad-Adenauer Foundation/CIEDLA, Buenos Aires, 197–289. Jaramillo, J. F. and Tickner, A. (1999). ‘Colombia: El largo camino hacia la renovación política’, in F. Tuesta (ed.), Sistemas electorales en la región andina (mecanismos, efectos y reformas). Parlamento Andino, Bogotá, 43–64. Kline, H. (1983). Colombia: Portrait of Unity and Diversity. Boulder, Col.: Westiew Press. Krumwiede, H. W. (1980). Politik und Katholische Kirche im gesellschaftlichen Modernisierungsprozeß. Tradition und Entwicklung in Kolumbien. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe. — (1992). ‘Kolumbien’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 2: Südamerika. Bonn: Dietz, 380–416. Kurtenbach, S. (1992). ‘Die Wahlen und die neue Verfassung in Kolumbien’. Lateinamerika. Analysen–Daten–Dokumentation (Hamburg), Nr.18. Lanzetta, M. et al. (1987). Colombia en las urnas. ¿Qué pasó en 1986?. Bogotá: Carlos Valencia Editores. League of Nations (1928–1939). International Statistical Yearbook. Geneva. Manrique Reyes, A. (1987). Consulta popular y circunscripción nacional: dos intentos de renovación democrática. Bogotá: FESCOL. — (1991). La Constitución de la nueva Colombia. Con comentarios y concordancias. Bogotá: CEREC. Martz, J. (1962). Colombia. A contemporary political survey. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Medina, M. (1980). Historia del Partido Comunista de Colombia. Bogotá: CEIS. — (1989). ‘Los terceros partidos en Colombia 1900–1960’, in (various eds.), Nueva historia de Colombia. Historia política 1946–1986. Bogotá: Edit. Planeta. Melo, J. O. (1987). ‘La república conservadora’, in M. Arruola et al. (eds.), Colombia hoy. Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores, 52–101.

364

Colombia

Meyer, H. (2003). ‘Ein neues politisches Panorama? Kolumbien nach dem Referendum vom 25. Oktober 2003 und nach den Gouverneurs- und Kommunalwahlen vom 26. Oktober 2003’. KAS Auslandsinformationen, 12/03: 83–99. Murillo Castaño, G. (1991). ‘El abanico electoral colombiano de 1990’, in R. Espinal et al. (eds.), Análisis de los procesos electorales en América Latina. Memorias del IV Curso Anual Interamericano de Elecciones, Vol. 4, San José: IIDH–CAPEL, 359–370. Partido Comunista de Colombia (1960). Treinta años de lucha del Partido Comunista de Colombia. Bogotá: Ed. Paz y Socialismo. Payne, J. (1971). Patterns of conflict in Colombia. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Pécaut, D. (1987). ‘Crise, guerre et paix en Colombie’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 84: 3–28. — (1990). ‘La Colombie dans la tempete’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 98/4: 3–30. Pombo, M. A. and Guerra, J. J. (1911). Constituciones de Colombia. Bogotá. Ramírez, S. and Restrepo, L. A. (1988). Actores en conflicto por la paz. El proceso de paz durante el gobierno de Belisario Betancur 1982–1986. Bogotá: CINEP–Siglo XXI Editores. Restrepo Abondano, I. (1980). ‘Cincuenta años de elecciones en Colombia’. Revista Universitas Ciencias Jurídicas y Socioeconómicas, 58: 245–273. Restrepo Piedrahita, C. (1976). 25 años de evolución político–constitucional. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia. Sánchez, G. (ed.) (1987). Colombia: violencia y democracia. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia – Colciencias. — (1990). ‘Guerre et politique dans la société colombienne’. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine (Paris), 98/4: 31–48. Sánchez David, R. (ed.) (1991). Los nuevos retos electorales. Colombia 1990: antesala del cambio. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes. Tirado Mejía, A. (1987). ‘Colombia: siglo y medio de bipartidismo’, in M. Arrubla et al. (eds.), Colombia hoy. Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores, 102– 186. Torres V. J. (1978). Los partidos políticos en Colombia. Bogotá: ANIF. Uribe, H. (1984). ‘La democracia y el sistema electoral colombiano’, in Prensa, radio y TV en mitaca 84. Memoria del Seminario Nacional de Periodismo Político. C.P.B. (Sasaima). Vives Echavarría, J. (1984). Tratado de derecho electoral colombiano. Bogotá: Ed. Temis. Weiss, A. (1967). Tendencias de la participación electoral en Colombia 1936–1966. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Zelinsky, U. (1978). Parteien und politische Entwicklung in Kolumbien unter der Nationalen Front. Meisenheim a.G.

ECUADOR by Dieter Nohlen and Simon Pachano

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview On declaring independence in 1822, Ecuador became a part of Great Colombia. Complete political independence was achieved in 1830, when the country separated from Great Colombia. Political development in the following years was marked by a conflict of interests between the tradeoriented liberal forces of the coastal areas and the conservative landowners of the mountain regions. These regional and political differences, combined with the high profile of the Catholic Church, exerted a remarkable influence on the country’s political life. In fact, politics in the early days of independence were determined by the conflict among the different military and civilian regional caudillos. Differences between these groups were not so much based on conflicting ideologies, but rather each group’s desire to protect and defend its own economic interests. Political parties as such had not really existed before the early 19th century. Political life was dominated by groups and political currents gathered around the caudillos. Therefore, politics was noticeably personalist. Nonetheless, two distinct traditional political currents began to emerge, namely Liberal and Conservative. The most prominent cleavage separating the two was the difference in their stances towards secular and clerical matters. Towards the end of the 19th century, the political arena remained dominated by the conservative tendencies. It was not until the 1895 Liberal Revolution that liberal groups, opposed to the conservative supremacy, burst onto the scene. In the following thirty years the so-called ‘Radical Liberalism’ led by General Eloy Alfaro and Leonidas Plaza played an important role in political life.

We would like to thank María Victoria Juárez and Xiomara Navas for their study of this topic, published in D. Nohlen (ed.) (1993). Handbuch der Wahldaten Lateinamerikas und der Karibik. Opladen. Some parts of this contribution are based on it.

366

Ecuador

In contrast to Ecuador’s long-standing formal democratic tradition, complete suffrage came relatively late. It was not until 1978, when the right to vote was extended to illiterates, that universal suffrage was officially established. However, Ecuador was the first Latin American country to introduce suffrage for women in 1929. During the first years of the republic, elections were held regularly, in accordance with constitutional regulations. However, they cannot be viewed as competitive. In 1945, the Supreme Electoral Court (Tribunal Supremo Electoral, TSE) was created as an institutional base to ensure an effective electoral process. The ‘Julian Revolution’ of 1925 was the first institutionalized military coup d'état, and marked the starting point of a series of military interventions in national politics: The military intervened in the revolutions of 1937, 1963, and 1972. The inauguration as president of José María Velasco Ibarra in 1933, whose leadership strengthened the personalist character of national politics, marked the beginning of a populist period. Backed by several parties and movements, and using both elections and authoritarian mechanisms, Velasco Ibarra secured his power and exerted a central political influence for the next forty years. Political instability characterized the years between 1925 and 1948: During this period, 23 presidents succeeded each other in office. In regard to international relations the situation was hardly better due to the war with Peru, which led to the loss of a considerable amount of territory in 1941. The party system became more complex in the first decades of the 20th century. New parties emerged, and those already in existence gained a more ideological profile and a better organizational structure. The Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) was founded in 1926 and the Partido Comunista (Communist Party) in 1931. More parties were formed in the following decades. Frequently, they were based on dissident factions that had split from the traditional parties. Yet sometimes they were the result of new cleavages. In general, the party system remained in flux. It was characterized by a high degree of personalism and caudillismo, with Velasco Ibarra being archetypal for the latter. The military dictatorship that began in 1972 was the longest in Ecuador’s history, and coincided with the 1970s oil boom. During this period, the good economic situation promoted a process of modernization. Furthermore, it triggered economic and political integration of new social groups. In the beginning, the military’s reform policy enjoyed certain support among the population. Later, however, the desire to return to democratic constitutional life resurfaced. From 1976 onwards, certain dissident military factions promoted a process of re-democratization.

Ecuador

367

In accordance with the ‘Plan for the Constitutional Restructuring of the State’ three commissions were formed. The first one was responsible for reforming the 1945 Constitution, the second for elaborating a new constitution, and the third for preparing a law on political parties and a new electoral law. This process, designed to draw up a constitution without a constituent assembly, faced opposition from political forces on both the left and the right. The final step in this renewal of the constitution was a referendum in January 1978, in which 44% of the voters opted for a new constitution, 31% for the reformed constitution of 1945 and 23% of the votes were invalid, mainly as a political protest. Moreover, a new electoral law and, for the first time in Ecuadorian history, a Law on Political Parties came into effect. The process was concluded with the presidential elections of July 1978 and April 1979, leading to the longest period of fully legitimate democratic institutions in Ecuador’s history. The constitution of 1978 maintained the traditional institutional arrangements, especially the presidential system that had been established after independence. This included the type of presidential elections and the concentration of executive power in the presidential office. Nevertheless, congress was given new functions of control in order to put into practice the division of power and corresponding checks and balances, a system designed to counteract the problems encountered in the past. These functions proved to be very important in governing the country. Among other duties, congress had to approve the state budget, take part in the nomination of various authorities of control (superintendents of banks and companies, general controller), send representatives to various state institutions. Moreover, until the new constitution of 1998, congress could control or even depose ministers of the presidential cabinet. Initially, the presidential and vice presidential term of office was limited to five years. However, during the first legislature (1983) the terms were shortened to four years. The terms of parliamentarians underwent similar cuts. Legislature was limited to four years for the national representatives and to two years for the provincial representatives. This reform went beyond the usual limits of the design of electoral systems. On these terms, Ecuador had a proportional system in MMCs with an additional list at national level. Now, two different categories of deputies were created: national and provincial ones. On the one hand, the cuts in the terms of office were thought to reflect the loss of authority of the president, due to the fact that at this time, presidents never held office for long because of the difficult economic and social situation. On the other hand, the reformers hoped that timely elections would channel social protest, which might otherwise have erupted outside constitutional

368

Ecuador

boundaries. These considerations were also taken into account when the parliamentary term was limited to two years. Since mid-term elections normally result in the removal of the incumbent executive, governability was challenged whereas participation was given a higher priority. The constitution of 1998 abolished these mid-term elections. Instead of a congress consisting of two chambers as was usual during the 20th century, the constitution of 1978 established a unicameral parliament formed by two types of deputies: national and provincial. This provision is considered a special characteristic of Ecuadorian political representation. The twelve national deputies (twenty in 1998) were elected in a national district, while the others were elected in the provinces, one for each province and an additional number according to the changing demographic pattern of the country. The electoral reform of 1996 increased the minimum number of deputies for each province to two. These provisions led to some inequalities of representation of the different regions of Ecuador. In 1990, the Costa had a share of 49.7% of the total electorate but only a share of 33.1% of the parliamentary seats, whereas the Sierra had a share of 46.7% of the electorate and a share of 38.0% of the seats. Amazonia was the most favored province with a share of 3.4% of the electorate and a share of 10.7% of the seats. This bias was increased by the reform of 1996. Originally, the re-election of parliamentarians for the same office, either national or provincial deputy, was not permitted, but they were allowed to stand for election as the other type of deputy (from national to provincial and vice versa). Since 1996, re-election is permitted without any restrictions (see Mejía Acosta 2003). Between 1978 and 2003, the Ecuadorian electorate has voted on five referendums (1978, 1986, 1994, 1995, and 1997) and in seven presidential elections (1978/79, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2002). At the same time, three constitutional reinstatements of presidents (1981, 1997, and 2000) and two coups d’état (1997 and 2000) took place. Constitutional solutions were found for these problems. The electorate also participated in seven parliamentary elections for total renewal of the congress and three for partial renewal (plus eleven elections of local authorities and various elections of partial renewal of these). In total, in 25 years, Ecuadorians have participated in 24 elections, which they had to attend due to compulsory voting. A fragmented party system emerged from these elections. However, at the beginning of the period, there was a clear tendency to focus on four major parties at parliamentary level: the Partido Social Cristiano (PSC; Social Christian Party), the Izquierda Democrática (IID; Democ-

Ecuador

369

ratic Left), the Democracia Popular (DP; Popular Democratic Party), and the Partido Roldosista Ecuatoriano (PRE; Roldosist Ecuadorian Party). This was caused by the significant disproportional effect of the small and medium-sized constituencies. The first three parties were founded before the return to democracy, while the last one can be considered as a product of the new period. The first three have to be distinguished from the traditional parties, the Liberal Party (PL) und the Conservative Party (PC), which can trace their origins back to the beginning of the 20th century. Each of the three parties emerged in the 1950s or 60s as alternatives to the two traditional parties. It was particularly young politicians who split from the traditional parties. At the same time, the Concentración de Fuerzas Populares (CFP; Concentration of Popular Forces) was founded, a party which won the first presidential election of the new period (1979). It was only short-lived but it can be considered as the socio-electoral basis from which the PRE emerged. According to the law on political parties, political parties have to enrol in the corresponding register of the Supreme Electoral Court. In order to do that, they have to fulfill various requirements. The following are the most important ones: a minimum number of members equivalent to 1.5% of the registered voters, an organizational structure in at least ten provinces, declaration of ideological principles, and a governmental program. In order to repress personalism, there had to be a change in party leadership every two years and former party leaders could only be reelected once. Furthermore, a party had to gain at least 5% of the votes to remain on the party register. However, when enforced for the first time, two parties appealed to the Corte Suprema de Justicia, which suspended the provision on the basis of different concepts of thresholds in the constitution and the party law. Because of this unwillingness to apply the threshold, this suspension remained in force until an extremely low hurdle of 0.04% of the valid votes was established in 1992. In 1995, the barrier was raised again to 5% by popular vote. However, its function was completely undermined by a provision that had already been approved by referendum in 1994. This provision allowed for the electoral participation of independents. Until then, party affiliation had been required for those who wanted to stand as a candidate for a popularly elected office. This obligation, established after a long period of personalist populism, was intended to contribute to the consolidation of strong parties, but in practice, it did not have the required effect. The party system presented an average of 16 registered parties recognized by the Supreme Electoral Court. These parties were better structured and

370

Ecuador

modernized to a certain degree, but some personalist and populist traits still remained in Ecuador’s political culture. On the whole, all attempts to solve the structural problems of the party system by institutional means failed: In nine elections between 1979 and 1998, the number of parties in parliament was never lower than ten, and three times amounted to 13. According to Sanchez López (1999), in total, and notwithstanding the strong disproportional effects of the small and mediumsized constituencies, the four parties with the most votes only gained 62.8% and the strongest party only 20.7% of the seats. It is important to notice that despite the simultaneous election of the president and parliament, there was no effect of arrastre (straight voting) to be observed or concentration on the presidential election at the expense of the parliamentary one. In the first election after 1978, the favored parties were no longer the traditional Liberal Party and Conservative Party, but the Democratic Left, and, of course, CFP with Jaime Roldós as its presidential candidate. These two parties with the most votes gained more than 65% of the seats with less than 50% of the votes. This change was interpreted as a sign of the ideological renewal of the political landscape. However later on, the evolution of the party system contradicted this assumption, as other parties of pragmatic (PSC) and clearly populist orientation (PRE) were established among the parties considered typically ideological (social-democratic ID and Christian-democratic DP). This demonstrates that the Ecuadorian electorate did not favor one type of party, but rather a mixture of alternatives. On the other hand, a process of deconcentration of political preferences took place. At its lowest point, in 1986, the two major parties together only received 27.1% of the votes. In particular the party from which the incumbent president had emerged suffered a loss of votes in the following elections, so that there was a continuous change in the two parties that gained the most votes. Finally, electoral support for parties remained based on regional strongholds. This was true for both the larger and smaller parties. For example, between 1979 and 1998, the ID gained 59% of its deputies in the Sierra, the PRE 67% in the Costa. All these conditions, especially the existence of provincial strongholds for minor parties restricted the efficiency of institutional means in order to consolidate the structure of the party system. Jaime Roldós won the presidential elections held in 1978 (first round) and 1979 (second round). He ran for a populist and Christian-democratic coalition that obtained 68.5% of the votes in the second round. In 1984, the victory went to León Febres Cordero, candidate of the centre-right parties (with 51.5% of the votes in the second round versus 48.5% for

Ecuador

371

the other candidate Rodrigo Borja). This change in government introduced a neo-liberal policy of economic stabilization. A combination of internal and external factors led to a recession and social tensions, which culminated in 1988 with the victory of the social-democratic candidate of the ID party, Rodrigo Borja. Backed also by the Christian Democrats, he received 54.0% of the votes in the second round. Borja was committed to introduce a program of far-reaching economic, social and political reforms, but was unable to meet all these expectations. The 1992 elections therefore meant a comprehensive defeat for the ID, and the Conservative candidate Sixto Durán Balién won. The right-wing parties obtained approximately 58% of the votes and the highest percentage of parliamentary seats since 1979. However, Durán’s government had to face difficulties due to the lack of co-operation from the PSC and to a congress dominated by small, disciplined parties. Abdalá Bucaram, defeated in 1988 and 1992, won the 1996 elections leading the PRE, a populist movement that failed to win a majority in Parliament (20 seats out of 82). The PSC, led by Jaime Nebot, became the second-ranking force with 26 deputies. Once in government, Bucaram launched an adjustment plan which faced harsh opposition from parliament and important sectors of society. In the midst of increasing political turmoil and evident corruption in government, congress dismissed the president on grounds of mental incompetence at the beginning of 1997, before he could serve out his first term of office. In order to avoid a power vacuum, parliament appointed its president Fabián Alarcón as interim president of Ecuador; a political solution which was not foreseen in the constitution, which formally requires the vice president to take this position. Alarcón was endorsed by a referendum held on 25 May 1997 to decide on the institutionalization of a constitutional assembly. Parliamentary and presidential elections were held in May 1998, but none of the candidates obtained the majority of vote in the first round of the presidential elections. Alvaro Noboa, of the Ecuadorian Roldosista Party (PRE) and Jamil Mahuad of the Popular Democracy Party, the mayor of Quito, competed in a second round, Mahuad won by a narrow margin. In the same year (June), a new constitution was adopted by the constitutional assembly. With regard to the electoral provisions, the type of electoral system was changed from proportional representation in small and medium-sized constituencies to the plurality system in MMCs with individual voting. The voter was given as many votes as deputies to be elected in a constituency, which was to ensure greater participation, but disregarded fundamental aspects of governability. It was argued that the

372

Ecuador

new electoral system would lead to greater atomization of political representation. During Mahuad’s term of office the economic and fiscal situation deteriorated rapidly, not only because of the devastating effects of El Niño, but also due to the low prices of oil and a massive exodus of capital from the country. On 9 January 2000, the Mahuad administration decided to dollarize the Ecuadorian economy, while the demonstrations against the government continued. On 21 January, the demonstrators—a coalition of indigenous (CONAIE) and members of the organized civil society (in particular Coordinadora de Movimientos Sociales; CMS)— entered parliament and the Supreme Court buildings with the support of junior officers. A three-person junta forced Mahuad to flee the presidential palace. Vice President Gustavo Noboa Bejanaro took charge the same day; he was sworn in as the new president by parliament in an emergency session. In 2002, the former army officer Lucio Gutiérrez, supported by the indigenous movements and the organized social movements (CMS), won the presidential elections against his populist opponent Álvaro Noboa. Gutiérez had played a major role in ousting the former president Mahuad and in the brief junta regime that succeeded Mahuad. Gutiérez surprised the observers of the election by obtaining 54% of the votes in the second round of the presidential elections. As to the parliamentary elections, the expectations of an even more chaotic representation were fully confirmed: 1,505 candidates stood on their own, notwithstanding their party affiliation or were backed by an alliance of parties at constituency level. The votes were dispersed among numerous parties, a lower concentration of votes on the four main parties, which together achieved a share of only 38.4% of the votes, but an astonishing 65% of the seats, which indicates not only a high degree of disproportionality, but that a great number of votes were not successful. In the end, an extreme number of parties entered the national assembly. It is even difficult to get a statistics on the national electoral results: There was no official aggregation of votes. This was due to the nature of the multiplevotes system and the weak relationship between the votes (individual and multiple ones) and the parties’ shares of seats in parliament. The party backing the new president won only 21 out of 100 seats, in general a significant indicator of the problems of governability a president could encounter. Lucio Gutiérrez now has to face up to serious economic and social problems in order to be able to introduce a new era of stability and economic growth.

Ecuador

373

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The most important sources are the constitutions of 1830, 1861, 1884, 1929, 1946, and 1978 as well as the electoral laws of 1830, 1832 (Additional Law), 1861, 1869, 1896, 1900 (with amendments in 1901 and 1909), 1929, 1945, 1947, 1968, 1978, and 1998 plus the Decretos Reglamentarios from 1830 and 1883. All constitutions provided for the election of the president and that of representatives for the unicameral or bicameral legislature. With the exceptions of the constitutions of 1851, 1878, 1906, 1929, 1945, and 1946, the method for electing the vice president was also included in the constitution. The term of the president generally lasted four years. Exceptions are: 1843 with an eight-year term, 1869 with a six-year term, and 1978 with a five-year term until the reform of 1983, in which the presidential term was reduced to four years. Immediate re-election was prohibited, it was only allowed after a full intermediate presidential term had passed (1835–1861; 1878; 1945–1967). The constitutions of 1830, 1884, and 1897 to 1906 demanded an intermediate interval of two terms of office for re-election. Only the constitution of 1869 permitted the direct and repeated re-election. In contrast, only the constitutions of 1929 and 1978 prohibited re-election under any circumstances. In regard to the structure of parliament, bicameralism prevailed. A single chamber was prescribed by the constitutions of 1830 (30 deputies), 1851 (42 deputies), 1945 (two types of deputies: representatives of the provinces and functional deputies). The constitution of 1978 introduced a dual structure to the chamber, as seen by Ecuadorians, on the basis of national and provincial deputies. This was abolished by the constitution of 1998. In fact there were 12 (1998: 20) deputies elected at national level, and the great majority, initially 57 (1979) deputies, were elected in MMCs at provincial level. Until 1884, the term of deputies was four years; later on only two years. The term of office for senators was always four years, the only exception being 1843, when it was extended to twelve years similar to the term of deputies. The majority of constitutions and electoral laws allowed the re-election of representatives. The constitution of 1978 prescribed a term of two years for deputies elected in provincial constituencies, and of four years for those elected at national level. Both types of deputies could not be re-elected immediately after their two or four-year terms, with the exception of an interchange: that is a nomination for the other type of deputy. The reform of 1994, which was approved by referendum, reintroduced immediate re-election.

374

Ecuador

The first constitution of 1830 prescribed ‘the equal right for all to vote and be elected’ (‘opción igual a elegir y ser elegido’). In practice however, suffrage was bound to patrimony or to receiving a pension and was, therefore, restricted. In the constitution of 1861 active suffrage was granted for the first time to all literate and male persons. The proof of a patrimony or pension was abolished for voters, but not for candidates. From 1930 onwards, electoral provisions were made step-by-step, enacted for each particular election, and were an expression of both the low regard for elections during a period of political instability and the unimportance of political institutions within the scope of an oligarchical regime. The first electoral law was enacted in 1861 by the National Convention of Ecuador. The carta negra introduced by President García Moreno in 1869 (valid until 1878), prescribed that the prerequisite for Ecuadorian citizenship and, therefore, for the right to vote was affiliation to the Catholic Church. Women were not excluded explicitly from voting in the constitutions from 1830 to 1906 (except 1884). In 1896, after the Liberal Revolution, the Jefe Supremo of the Republic, Eloy Alfaro, issued a new electoral law and nearly four years later, as constitutional president, promulgated a renewed one. From 1900 this electoral law served as the legal basis for the liberal governments during the first quarter of the 20th century and which were constantly accused of using fraud as a means to keep the Liberal Party in power. Therefore, after the ‘Revolución Juliana’ of 1925, a new constitution and a new electoral law were passed in 1929. Now, citizenship and franchise were extended to women. Suffrage became compulsory, but only for men (for women from 1967). To be entitled to vote, people had to be entered in the register of elections, but were free to do so. As non-voting was not sanctioned, the exercise of franchise was de facto non-compulsory. The constitution of 1978 marked the next step in the process of extending the franchise: for the first time, the non-literate obtained the right to vote. Two considerations have to be taken into account: first the composition of chambers. They were made up of both directly-elected members and those appointed by electoral colleges or functional association; and second, the fact that this second category of representatives was of corporative nature, determined by certain social and economic organizations (public education, private education, media, scientific and cultural associations, agriculture and commerce, industry, workers, military forces, and national policy). As to the electoral system to the office of president, the constitutions of 1830 and 1840 required two-thirds of the members of parliament to

Ecuador

375

be present. In 1861, a new constitution introduced the requirement of an absolute majority, and if none of the candidates reached this quorum, a second round was held, in which the candidate was elected by plurality. The constitution of 1978 established the absolute majority with a runoff between the two most successful candidates, if none of them had gained an absolute majority in the first round. Until 1945, the Ecuadorian parliamentary electoral system (for the chamber of deputies or the unicameral national assembly) was a plurality system. Between 1946 and 1998, a proportional system in MMCs was applied. In 1998, the electoral system changed to plurality in MMCs. Until 1861, the number of the members of parliament for each of the three departments, into which the country was divided, was established by the constitution. In 1835, Pichincha, Guayaquil, and Azuay elected eight deputies, in 1843 and 1845 ten, and in 1852, 14. In 1861, the departments were replaced by constituencies corresponding to a smaller administrative unit, the provinces. For the first time, the number of deputies to be elected was established on the basis of the number of inhabitants. This provision also governed the following electoral laws, changing only the figures. The constitution of 1978 adapted this principle for the provincial deputies, while the national deputies were elected in one national constituency, their number being fixed by the respective constitution. There were 20 mainly small to medium-sized constituencies: In 1979 there were five single-member constituencies (SMCs), three of two members, nine of three, one of five, one of six and one of eight. In 1998 the country was divided into two constituencies of two members, eight of three, four of four, three of five and three constituencies of eight, 14 and 18 members respectively. The number of national deputies, twelve, increased to 20 for the elections of 1998. The constitution of 1998 abolished the national constituency. According to this reform, elections take place at provincial level in MMCs of different size. Before the electoral law of 1945, the form of candidature was individual. The voter had to note the name of the candidate he or she voted for on the ballot paper. Since this time, candidates had to be nominated formally by a party or by a certain number of citizens entitled to vote. Later on, the nomination of candidates was limited to political parties. From 1945 to 1998 party lists were blocked and closed. Until the electoral law of 1929, the voter had as many votes as members were to be elected in the constituency. Since the electoral law of 1945 (with the exception of the Asamblea Constituyente of 1946), voters had one vote. The electoral provision of 1998 returned to the earlier system of as many

376

Ecuador

votes as members to be elected at the provincial, i.e. constituency level. According to this system, seats were distributed among candidates by plurality on the basis of a descending number of votes gained by candidates. Between 1945 and 1998 (with the only exception of the Asamblea Constituyente of 1946), the Hare system was applied, in which an elimination quota (cociente eliminador) was calculated first on the basis of the votes for those parties that had passed the threshold of this elimination quota. Second, a distribution quota (cociente distribuidor) was calculated, which was used to distribute the seats. Remaining seats were distributed by the method of the greatest remainder. Senators were elected by plurality until 1945. Since then (with the only exception of 1946) proportional representation on the basis of the Hare quota was applied. Corresponding to the election of deputies, the number of senators to be elected was constitutionally established until 1861. In each of the three departments, the number of deputies was five in 1835, nine in 1843, six in 1845, and 18 in 1852. In 1862, two senators were to be elected in each province. This provision characterized each subsequent constitution, which provided a bicameral parliament, the only exception being 1929, when one senator was elected for each province. With regard to other aspects (nomination, voting system), the provisions for the election of senators did not differ substantially from those for deputies. Since 1978, parliament has been unicameral. For the 1998 elections, the size of congress was increased from 82 to 121 seats. 20 national deputies had to be elected instead of 12, but had to step down in the following elections. While provincial deputies were elected every two years, since the new constitution, all deputies are elected simultaneously. A common characteristic of the electoral provisions prior to 1945 was the absence of an independent body to organize and supervise the electoral process. These functions were carried out by the governors of the provinces and the municipalities of the cantons, that is from bodies that depended directly on the central government. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that there were constant rumors about electoral fraud. These deficient institutions had to establish the register of voters, in which citizens had to procure to be registered. The electoral law of 1945 founded the Superior Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Electoral), including the hierarchical structure of provincial, cantonal and parochial tribunals. They were charged with the administration, supervision and control of the elections, significant progress in the institutionalization of the electoral process and the guarantee for free and fair elections.

Ecuador

377

Another innovation in 1945 was the inclusion of political parties in the electoral law. This meant that political parties finally received legal recognition. In 1978, a Law on Political Parties was enacted underlining the importance of these political actors. 1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Political Constitution of the Republic, 1998; Electoral Law from 1978, amended in 1983, 1987, and 2000; Law on Political Parties from 1978, amended in 2000. Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, directly, secret, and compulsory for Ecuadorian citizens who are at least 18 years of age. Voting is not compulsory for persons over the age of 65 and is dependent on their faculties. Elected national institutions: The president is directly elected for a fouryear term. Re-election is permitted only once a complete presidential term has passed. The unicameral parliament consists of 100 members, directly elected for a four-year term. Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates for presidency can be nominated by political parties or by independent groups that are supported by at least one percent of the registered voters. The minimum age to run for president is 35. -parliamentary elections: Candidates can be nominated by political parties or groups of independents that are supported by at least one percent of the registered voters in the respective province. The minimum age to run for a parliamentary seat is 25. Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority system with a runoff between the two most successful candidates. This runoff only takes place if none of the candidates wins more than 40% of the valid votes with a difference of ten percent from the next candidate. - parliamentary elections: Deputies are elected in 22 provincial constituencies (corresponding to the provinces of the country), based on individual voting within open lists (panachage). Based on the elections of 2002, constituency size varies between 2 and 18 seats. The allocation of

378

Ecuador

seats is determined by applying the d’Hondt formula, although the vote is given individually. Organizational context of elections: The Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) is an autonomous, party-based institution, responsible for the administration, supervision and judicial review of elections. The constitution and the electoral law stipulate that it is an electoral power (Poder Electoral) and an extra power in addition to the executive, legislative, and judicial one. The TSE is made up of seven members elected by the national assembly. For four members this election takes place on the basis of lists of candidates, proposed by the Executive and the High Court of Justice. For the remaining members, parliament has a free choice. The term of office for members of the TSE is identical to that for members of parliament, which also supervises the activities of the TSE, notwithstanding the rights and obligations transferred via the electoral law to the Constitutional Court to control the way the TSE carries out its functions. Parties and citizens can appeal the decisions and non-decisions of TSE to the High Court of Justice. The final decision lies in the hands of the national assembly. The Court of Justice and the National Assembly may act as first and second instances in the process of judicial reviewing of the elections. In the past, however, there has been much controversy over the specific rights and functions of these two bodies. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The TSE rarely aggregates data or systematizes electoral statistics for all the electoral processes. This leads to a lack of official results even for recent elections. In general, the official information is partial and fragmented. Data are sometimes available in the form of provisional results. As they are published without being aggregated at the provincial or national level, a lot of skill and time is required in order to be able to make use of them. Even with this effort, the information is still not fully reliable. For some earlier elections, it is virtually impossible to find even basic information. Some academic institutions (ILDIS, FLACSO), survey companies or political engineering agencies (MARKET, CEDATOS, Informe Confidencial, INFOELECTOR) gather information themselves and have their own processes of systemization. Despite these efforts there is no coherent picture of the evolution of elections in Ecuador.

Ecuador

379

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year

Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections elections Lower Upper for Constit. Chamber Chamber Assembly 1931 20–21/10 1932 30–31/10 xx/xxa 1933 14–15/12 1937 1938 xx/xx a 1939 xx/xx 1940 10–11/01 1945 xx/xx 1946 xx/xx 1948 06/06 1950 04/06 1952 01/06 01/06 01/06 1954 06/06 1956 03/06 03/06 03/06 1958 01/06 1960 05/06 05/05 05/06 1962 03/06 1963 1966 16/10 1968 02/06 02/06 02/06 1970 07/06 1972 1978 16/07 (1st) 1979 29/04 (2nd) 29/04b 1984 29/01 (1st) 29/01b 06/05 (2nd) 1986 04/06c 1988 31/01 (1st)a 31/01b 08/05 (2nd) 1990 17/06c 1992 17/05 (1st) 17/05 05/07 (2nd) 1994 03/06 03/06 03/06 01/06 1995 1996 19/05 (1st) 19/05 05/06 07/07 (2nd) 1997 30/11

Referendums

Coups d’état

13/10

11/07

15/02 15/01

01/06

28/08 26/11 25/05

05/02

Ecuador

380 Year Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections. Referen(cont.) elections Lower Upper for Constit. dums Chamber Chamber Assembly 1998 31/05 (1st) 31/05 12/07 (2nd) 2002 20/10 (1st) 20/10 24/11 (2nd)

Coups d’état

a

For the elections between 1901 and 1930 (1904, 1905, 1906, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1920, 1914, 1925, 1928, 1929) no precise data are available concerning the electoral day or the type of election. b National and provincial deputies. c Provincial deputies.

2.2 Electoral Body 1901–2002 Year Type of Populationb electiona 1901 1905 1906 1911 1912 1916 1920 1924 1929 1931 1932 1933 1938 1940 1945 1946 1947 1948 1950 1952 1952 1954 1956 1956 1958 1960 1960

Pr Pr CA Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr CA CA Pr Pr CA Pr CA CA C/S Pr C Pr C/S C Pr C/S C Pr C/S

1,270,000 1,206,000 1,206,000 1,206,000 1,206,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,857,000c 2,022,000d 2,022,000d 2,366,686 2,600,116 2,836,000 2,466,000 2,781,000 2,853,000 2,936,000 3,017,000 3,202,757 3,350,403 3,350,403 3,567,000 3,800,074 3,800,074 4,049,000 4,320,100 4,220,100

Registered voters Votes cast Total % Total number pop. number — — 74,074 — — 69,208 — — — — — 109,663 — — 63,83 — — 136,032 — — 128,105 — — 186,538 — — — 155,186 7.7 59,75 — — 80,058 — — 63,929 — — – — — 82,1 — — — — — — 352,55 12.0 199,86 455,524 15.3 281,713 431,794 13.5 276,831 550,997 16.4 357,654 550,997 16.4 — 562,959 15.8 465,187 836,955 22.0 614,423 836,955 22.8 599,227 — — 491,357 1,009,280 23.4 767,105 — — —

% reg. % voters pop. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 38.5 3.0 — 3.4 — 2.5 — – — 3.3 — — — — 56.7 6.8 61.8 9.4 64.1 8.6 65.0 10.5 — — 82.6 13.0 73.4 16.2 69.2 15.8 — 12.1 76.0 17.8 — —

Ecuador Year Type of Populationb (cont.) electiona 1962 1966 1968 1968 1970 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1984 1984 1984 1984 1986 1986 1988 1988 1988 1988 1990 1992 1992 1994 1994 1994 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 2002 2002 2002 a

C 4,476,007 CA 5,199,000 Pr 5,649,800 C/S 5,649,800 C/S 5,909,000 Ref 7,287,495 Pr 7,326,000 Pr 7,542,117 Pa 7,542,117 Pa 7,542,117 Pr 8,462,177 Pa 8,462,177 Pa 8,462,177 Pr 8,462,177 Pa 8,883,637 Ref 8,883,637 Pr 9,326,088 Pa 9,326,088 Pa 9,326,088 Pr 9,326,088 Pa 9,648,189 Pr 10,128,719 Pr 10,128,719 Pa 10,633,181 Pa 10,633,181 Ref 10,633,181 Ref 10,894,757 Pr 11,162,768 Pa 11,162,768 Pa 11,162,768 Pr 11,162,768 Ref 11,437,372 CA 11,437,372 Pr 11,718,732 Pa 11,718,732 Pa 11,718,732 Pr 11,718,732 Pr (1st) 12,090,000 Pa 12,090,000 Pr (2nd) 12,090,000

381 Registered voters Votes cast Total % Total number pop. number — — 699,409 — — 633,284 1,198,987 21.2 928,981 — — — — — — 2,088,874 28.7 1,811,640 2,088,874 28.5 1,521,412 2,088,874 27.7 1,681,286 2,088,874 27.7 1,675,195 2,088,874 27.7 1,678,924 3,734,076 44.1 2,646,844 3,734,076 44.1 2,636,656 3,734,076 44.1 2,656,884 3,794,149 47.9 2,964,298 4,255,346 47.9 3,149,690 4,255,346 47.9 3,130,139 4,673,980 50.1 3,632,615 4,673,980 50.1 3,601,990 4,673,980 50.1 3,610,581 4,673,980 50.1 3,611,074 5,259,114 54.5 3,561,081 5,709,984 56.4 4,060,357 5,709,984 56.4 4,174,097 6,175,991 58.1 4,044,429 6,175,991 58.1 4,044,429 6,214,358 58.4 3,977,374 6,577,974 60.4 3,857,590 6,662,007 59.7 4,525,881 6,662,007 59.7 4,521,207 6,662,007 59.7 4,516,197 6,662,007 59.7 4,777,547 6,890,832 60.3 4,083,106 6,974,623 61.0 4,168,099 7,072,496 60.4 4,537,822 7,072,496 60.4 4,538,918 7,072,496 60.4 6,094,206 7,072,496 60.4 4,960,058 8,154,425 67.4 5,298,581 8,154,425 67.4 —e 8,154,425 67.4 5,807,109

% reg. % voters pop. — 15.6 — 12.2 77.5 16.4 — — — — 86.7 24.9 72.8 20.8 80.5 22.3 80.2 22.2 80.4 22.3 70.9 31.3 70.6 31.2 71.2 31.4 78.1 35.0 74.0 35.5 73.6 35.2 77.7 39.0 77.1 38.6 77.3 38.7 77.3 38.7 67.7 36.9 71.1 40.1 73.1 41.2 65.5 38.0 65.5 38.0 64.0 37.4 58.6 53.4 68.0 40.5 67.9 40.5 67.8 40.5 71.7 42.8 59.3 35.7 59.8 36.4 64.2 38.7 64.2 38.7 86.2 52.0 70.1 42.3 65.0 43.8 — — 71.2 48.0

C = Chamber of Deputies; CA = Constitutional Assembly; Pa = Parliament; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum; S = Senate.

Ecuador

382 b

Censuses were held in: November 1950, November 1962, June 1974 (6,521,710), November 1982 (8,060,712). The other data are mid-year estimates taken from The Statesman’s Yearbook (various editions). c Projection corresponding to 1925. d Projection corresponding to 1930. e Due to the nature of the multiple-votes system and the weak relationship between the votes (individual und multiple ones) and the parties’ shares of seats in parliament, there is no official aggregation of votes.

2.3 Abbreviations ACC ADC ADN AN AP APRE ARNE CFP CID CNR DP DP-UDC FADI FADE FDN FLR FNV FP FPD FRA FVP GN ID LP MCDN M.E.T.A.

Acción Cívico Cristiana (Civic Christian Action) Acción Demócrata Cristiana (Christian Democratic Action) Alianza Democrática Nacional (National Democratic Alliance) Partido Alfarismo Nacional (National Alfarismo Party) Alianza Popular (Popular Alliance) Acción Popular Revolucionaria Ecuatoriana (Ecuadorean Revolutionary Popular Action) Acción Revolucionaria Nacionalista Ecuatoriana (Ecuadorean Nationalist Revolutionary Action) Concentración de Fuerzas Populares (Concentration of Popular Forces) Coalición Institucionalista Demócrata (Democratic Institutionalist Coalition) Coalición Nacional Republicana (Republican National Coalition) Democracia Popular (Popular Democracy) Democracia Popular - Unión Demócrata Cristiana (Popular Democracy - Christian Democratic Union) Frente Amplio de Izquierda (Broad Front of the Left) Movimento Fuerza Activa de Desarrollo Ecuatoriano (Movement Active Force of Ecuadorean Development) Frente Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Front) Fuerzas del Liberalismo Radical (Forces of the Radical Liberalism) Federación Nacional Velasquista (Velasquista National Federation) Federación Pontista (Pontista Federation) Frente Popular Democrático (Democratic Popular Front) Frente Radical Alfarista (Alfarist Radical Front) Federación Velasquista de Pichincha (Velasquist Federation of Pichincha) Gente Nueva (New People) Izquierda Democrática (Democratic Left) Liberación Provincial (Provincial Liberation) Movimiento Cívico Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Civic Movement) Movimiento Esperanza Transformación y Acción (Movement Hope Transformation and Action)

Ecuador MIAJ

383

Movimiento Independiente Amauta Jatari (Independent Movement Amauta Jatari) MIN Movimiento de Integración Nacional (National Integration Movement) MIRA Movimiento Independiente por una República Auténtica (Independent Movement for an Authentic Republic) MJ Movimiento Justicia (Justice Movement) MNA Movimiento Nacional Arosemenista (Arosemenista National Movement) MP Movimiento Pachakutic (Pachakutic Movement) MPD Movimiento Popular Democrático (Democratic Popular Movement) MPS Movimiento Patria Solidaria (Movement Fatherland in Solidarity) MRI Movimiento Republicano Independiente (Independent Republican Movement) MUNR Movimiento Unión Nacional Revolucionario Ecuatoriano (Movement Ecuadorean Revolutionary National Union) MUPP-NP Movimiento Unidad Plurinacional Pachakutic - Nuevo País (Movement Plurinational Pachakutic Unity - New Country) NP Nuevo País (New Country) PAB Partido Asaad Bucaram (Assad Bucaram Party) PC Partido Comunista Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Communist Party) PCD Pueblo, Cambio y Democracia (People, Change and Democracy) PCE Partido Conservador Ecuatoriana (Ecuadorean Conservative Party) PD Partido Demócrata (Democratic Party) PDP Partido del Pueblo (People’s Party) PL Partido Libertad (Liberty Party) PLN Partido Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Party) PLR Partido Liberal Revolucionario (Revolutionary Liberal Party) PLRE Partido Liberal Radical Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Radical Liberal Party) PNR Partido Nacionalista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Nationalist Party) PR Partido Republicano (Republican Party) PRE Partido Roldosista Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Roldosista Party) PRIAN Partido Renovador Institutional Acción Nacional (Institutional Renovation Party National Action) PSAPR Partido Socialista de Acción Popular Revolucionario (Socialist Party of Revolutionary Popular Action) PSC Partido Social Cristiano (Social Christian Party) PSE Partido Socialista Ecuatoriano (Ecuadorean Socialist Party) PS-FA Partido Socialista - Frente Amplio (Socialist Party - Broad Front) PSP Partido Sociedad Patriotica 21 de Enero (Party Patriotic Society 21st January) PUR Partido Unidad Republicana (Republican Unity Party) UCP Unión Cívica de Pichincha (Civic Union of Pichincha) UN-UNO Partido Unión Nacional (National Unity Party)

Ecuador

384 UDP UP UPL

Unión Democrática Popular (Popular Democratic Union) Unión Popular (Popular Union) Unión Popular Latinoamericana (Latin American Popular Union)

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1933–2002 Party / Alliance PCE PSE PLRE MCDN AND ARNE FNV CFP FPD UP AP FDN ADC ACC FLR FVP UCP PSC UDP APRE FADI FRA ID MPD PNR CID PSAPR CNR DP-UDC PCD PD PRE PDP

Years

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 1933–1960; 1962; 1968; 6 12 1978–1994 1933; 1948; 1954–1956; 5 6 1960–1962; 1984–1990 1940–1996; 2002 8 16 1947–1948 1 1 1952 1 1 1952; 1968 2 0 1952; 1960–1968; 1979– 3 2 1984 1954–1962; 1978–2002 7 14 1954 1 1954 1 1956 1 0 1956; 1960–1962 2 1 1960 1 0 1962 0 1 1962 0 1 1962 0 1 1962 0 1 1968–2002 6 10 1968; 1979 1 1 1978–1990 1 5 1978–1990 3 4 1978–1979 3 4 1978–2002 6 10 1978–2002 5 10 1978–1986 0 3 1978 0 1 1978 0 1 1984–1988 1 2 1984–2002 5 9 1984–1990 0 4 1984–1988 1 3 1984–2002 4 9 1988–1990 0 2

Ecuador Party / Alliance (continued) PR PAB AN MUPP-NP FADE M.E.T.A. MIAJ MIN MJ MPS PL PRIAN PS-FA PSP UN-UNO

385 Years

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 1 1 1 2 0 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

1988 1992–1994 1996–2002 1996–2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

% – 86.7 23.0 — 58.1 41.9

1986 Total number 4,255,568 3,130,361 569,255 2,561,106 781,409 1,779,697

% – 73.6 13.4 60.2 18.4 41.8

Constitutional Referendum.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1978a Total number 2,088,874 1,811,640 — — — — 1994a Total number 6,214,358 3,977,374 1,110,065 2,645,130 — —

Voters were asked various questions.

% – 64.0 17.9 42.6 — —

1995a Total number 6,577,974 3,857,590 900,934 3,857,590 — —

% – 58.6 13.7 58.6 — —

Ecuador

386 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1997a Total number 6,890,832 4,083,106 1,396,259 4,083,106 — —

% – 59.3 20.3 59.3 — —

Voters were asked various questions.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1966 Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PCE PLRE FP MRI MNA Others

Total number — 633,284 8,323 48,848 576,113 197,279 118,188 113,205 72,344 26,870 48,227

%

1997 Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes

Total number 6,974,623 4,168,099 158,331 913,259 3,096,509

%

PSE PRE DP NP GN MPD PL/FRA ID MP DP/ID ID/PSE/MP CFP/PSC

768,514 441,165 291,835 196,572 190,083 154,739 141,646 134,853 128,461 34,754 15,690 8,904

– — 1.3 7.7 91.0 34.2 20.5 19.6 12.6 4.7 8.4

Seats

— — — — — — Seats

%

— — — — — — %

– 59.8 3.8 21.9 74.3 24.8 14.2 9.4 6.3 6.1 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.1 1.1 0.5 0.3

70 20 7 10 2 1 3 5 3 7 3 2 1

100.0 28.6 10.0 14.3 2.9 1.4 4.3 7.1 4.3 10.0 4.3 2.9 1.4

Ecuador 1997 (cont.) ALAP/NP MSI PL/FRA/DP ID/PSE/MP/NP FRA/PSE MIPCD

387 Total number 6,312 4,363 1,829 1,248 1,067 557

% 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Seats 1 1 1 1 1 1

% 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1947–2002 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes PCE PLRE MCDN nameless list AND Others a

1947 Total number 352,550 199,860 11,648 188,212 59,199 52,505 34,922 – – 41,586

% – 56.7 6.2 94.2 31.5 27.9 18.5 – – 22.1

1950 Total number 431,794 276,831 19,063 257,768 70,807 29,411 – 26,121 – 131,429

% – 64.1 7.4 93.1 27.5 11.4 – 10.1 – 51.0

Calculated by the authors on the basis of votes cast and valid votes taken from different sources.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PCE PLRE AND CFP FPD PSE UP Others

1952 Total number — — — — 334,737 84,973 47,143 11,334 – – – – 191,287

% – — — — — 25.4 14.1 3.4 – – – – 57.1

1954 Total number 569,959 465,187 8,339 19,569 437,279 101,537 64,601 – 113,947 51,541 29,829 5,149 70,675

% – 82.6 1.9 4.5 94.0 23.2 14.8 – 26.1 11.8 6.8 1.2 16.1

Ecuador

388 Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes 1a 2a 3a Aa Ba Ca Da Ea 2+3a Othersa a

1956 Total number 836,955 599,227 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

% – 69.2

— — — —

— —

— — — — — — —

1958 Total number — 491,357 2,515 7,261 481,581 124,360 66,382 4,156 110,230 74,596 34,530 9,824 22,840 22,980 11,683

% – — 0.5 1.5 98.0 25.8 13.8 0.9 22.9 15.5 7.2 2.0 4.7 4.8 2.4

The official sources do not indicate the parties’ names. Here, the results are listed under the respective list numbers.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes ACC PCE CFP FLR FVP FDN UCP PLRE PSE Others

1960 Total number — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

% – — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1962 Total number — 699,409 36,748 38,609 624,052 144,840 142,612 118,501 102,034 42,001 31,376 18,953 3,164 1,313 19,258

Election results for 1968 and 1970 were not available.

% – — 5.9 6.2 89.2 23.2 22.9 19.0 16.4 6.7 5.0 3.0 0.5 0.2 3.1

Ecuador Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes CFP ID PSC PLRE PCE PNR CID MPD UDP FNV PSAPR APRE a

b

389 1979a Total number 2,088,874 1,675,195 86,674 149,699 1,438,822 445,229 265,068 123,411 115,110 112,909 108,437 90,277 68,982 44,810 37,740 26,849 –

% – 80.2 6.0 10.4 85.9 30.9 18.4 8.6 8.0 7.8 7.4 6.3 4.8 3.1 2.6 1.9 –

1979b Total number 2,088,874 1,678,924 101,996 143,402 1,433,526 454,910 212,091 91,384 138,456 126,942 65,150 85,835 70,590 64,249 42,840 37,596 43,483

% – 80.4 7.1 10.0 85.3 31.7 14.8 6.4 9.7 8.9 4.5 6.0 4.9 4.5 3.0 2.6 3.0

Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales). Election in several provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes ID PSC PD CFP FRA DP/UDC MPD PRE FADI PLRE PCE PCD PNR PSE CNR FNV APRE

1984a Total number 3,734,076 2,636,656 355,908 254,134 2,026,614 394,212 361,755 185,376 176,251 161,643 130,173 123,333 104,848 88,660 75,489 56,785 49,645 37,030 32,048 25,718 14,938 8,710

% – 70.6 17.6 12.5 76.9 19.5 17.9 9.1 8.7 8.0 6.4 6.1 5.2 4.4 3.7 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.7 0.4

1984b Total number 3,734,076 2,656,884 369,101 234,571 2,053,212 410,914 235,117 164,835 184,506 180,896 150,392 134,036 103,827 105,401 122,485 75,523 55,457 46,081 36,084 27,869 18,281 4,508

% – 71.2 18.0 11.4 77.3 20.0 11.5 8.0 9.0 8.8 7.3 6.5 5.1 5.1 6.0 3.5 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.2

Ecuador

390 a b

Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales). Election in several provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes ID PSC CFP DP-UDC PRE PLRE MPD FADI FRA PD PSE APRE PCD PNR PCE CNR a

1986a Total number 4,255,346 3,149,690 385,511 348,787 2,415,392 349,825 304,671 228,126 226,297 218,319 204,336 176,461 146,466 136,531 112,337 106,017 58,421 55,446 44,841 33,677 13,621

% – 74.0 16.0 14.4 76.6 14.5 12.6 9.4 9.4 6.1 8.5 7.3 6.1 5.7 4.7 4.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.4 0.6

Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes ID PRE PSC DP-UDC CFP PCE FADI FRA PSE PLRE PD

1988a Total number 4,649,684 3,601,990 524,452 314,146 2,763,374 601,409 449,653 310,950 294,362 194,723 193,533 189,983 147,071 137,853 97,495 69,763

% – 77.5 14.6 8.7 76.7 21.8 16.3 11.3 10.6 7.0 7.0 6.9 5.3 5.0 3.5 2.5

1988b Total number 4,649,684 3,610,581 486,285 324,835 2,799,461 635,590 456,524 347,446 304,294 226,172 55,986 66,893 110,168 120,458 76,380 55,783

% – 77.7 13.5 9.0 75.5 22.7 16.3 12.4 10.9 8.1 2.0 2.4 3.9 4.3 2.7 2.0

Ecuador Year (cont.) PCD PDP PR MPD APRE a

b

1988a Total number 35,210 22,788 18,671 – –

% 1.3 0.8 0.7 – –

1988b Total number 32,577 11,829 15,354 163,562 120,445

% 1.2 0.4 0.6 5.8 4.3

Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales). Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes PSC PRE ID DP-UDC PSE MPD PCE FRA CFP PLRE APRE FADI PLN PDP PCD a

391

1990a Total number 5,259,114 3,561,081 147,679 454,925 2,958,477 723,428 438,166 385,650 297,186 262,360 146,979 125,308 123,990 122,982 97,933 63,466 63,063 52,545 29,264 26,157

% – 67.7 4.1 12.8 83.0 24.4 14.8 13.0 10.0 8.9 5.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.3 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.0

Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSC PUR PRE ID PCE

1992a Total number 5,710,363 4,057,116 835,752 3,221,364c 753,452 575,801 486,498 313,415 193,654

% – 71.0 20.6 79.4 23.4 17.9 15.4 9.7 6.0

1992b Total number 5,710,363 4,056,337 853,545 3,202,792d 742,165 – 513,248 289,816 271,096

% – 71.0 21.0 79.0 23.5 – 16.3 9.2 8.6

Ecuador

392 Year (cont.) MPD DP-UDC PSE CFP FRA APRE PLRE UDP/FADI LN PCD PAB Others a

1992a Total number 191,870 171,073 130,558 120,607 109,419 48,833 45,982 30,541 28,885 20,773 – –

% 6.0 5.3 4.1 3.7 3.4 1.5 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.6 – –

1992b Total number 152,797 231,163 2,594 78,630 114,849 472,751 60,773 30,675 31,645 14,630 14,509 134,779

% 4.8 7.3 0.1 2.5 3.6 15.0 1.9 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.5 4.3

Election in one national electoral district (diputados nacionales). Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales). c The official data are inconsistent. The reported number of valid votes is 3,221,364, while the total sum of party votes amounts only to 3,221,361 votes. d The official data are inconsistent. The reported number of valid votes is 3,202,792, while the total sum of party votes amounts only to 3,156,120. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of this corrected figure. b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSC PRE ID MPD DP-UDC APRE PCE FRA UR PSE CFP PLRE UDP/FADI PLN UPL PCD PAB a

1994a Total number 6,175,991 4,044,433 968,071 3,076,362 810,846 516,268 306,272 253,760 253,122 183,383 172,725 144,508 120,096 98,248 67,433 61,412 30,103 27,174 17,445 11,044 2,523

% – 65.5 23.9 76.1 26.4 16.8 10.0 8.2 8.2 6.0 5.6 4.7 3.9 3.2 2.2 2.0 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.1

Election in provincial electoral districts (diputados provinciales).

Ecuador Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSC PRE MUPP-NP DP-UDC Alianza PLRE/FRA ID MPD APRE CFP PCE-UN PS-FA UPL AN Lists 21–32 Alianza ID/PSFA UCI Others a

393 1996a Total number 6,662,003 4,521,207 997,237 3,523,970c 1,069,977 718,983 379,056 370,311 243,411 219,536 153,714 105,902 80,245 72,434 43,621 28,988 22,987 – – – 14,771d

% – 67.9 22.1 77.9 30.4 20.4 10.8 10.5 6.9 6.2 4.4 3.0 2.3 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.7 – – – 0.4

1996b Total number 6,662,003 4,516,197 988,067 3,528,130 983,850 752,276 251,488 418,381 148,014 251,505 150,176 123,732 68,070 79,794 46,462 17,612 30,080 183,256 3,501 1,965 23,434e

% – 67.8 21.9 78.1 27.9 21.3 7.1 11.9 4.2 7.1 4.3 3.5 1.9 2.3 1.3 0.5 0.9 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.6

Election of national deputies (diputados nacionales). Election of provincial deputies (diputados provinciales). c Offical data are slightly inconsistent. d Including: ITI: 14,771 votes (0.4%). e Including: FRA: 9,485 votes (0.3%); PLRE: 5,467 (0.2%); Alianza ID/PSFA: 3,501 (0.0%); ITI: 3,016 (0.0%); UCI: 1,965 (0.0%). b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PSC DP-UDC PRE ID MUPP-NP PCE MPD FRA AN (List 11) CFP

1998a Total number 7,072,496 4,537,822 1,009,881 3,527,941 839,567 669,473 628,265 544,088 325,365 184,048 151,096 54,137 51,515 37,507

% – 64.2 22.3 77.7 23.8 19.0 17.8 15.4 9.2 5.2 4.3 1.5 1.5 1.1

1998b Total number 7,072,496 3,478,524c 953,033c 2,525,491c 5,114,369 6,008,940 4,429,114 3,006,737 127,891 – 980,253 559,548 – 241,002

% – 49.2 27.4 72.6 23.5 27.6 20.3 13.8 0.6 – 4.5 2.6 – 1.1

Ecuador

394 Year APRE UPL MPD a

1998a Total number 28,837 14,043 –

% 0.8 0.4 –

1998b Total number 180,399 145,410 980,253

% 0.8 0.7 4.5

Election of national deputies (diputados nacionales). Election of provincial deputies (diputados provinciales). c For the elections of provincial deputies in 1998, voters had as many votes as seats to be filled in one of the MMCs. For this reason, here the numbers of ballots cast, valid ballots, and invalid ballots are documented, while the number of party votes refers to the total of individual votes cast for individual candidates. Percentages are calculated on the basis of the sum of party votes (21,773,916). b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votesb PL MPS PSC PRIAN UN-UNO PRE ID PLRE MIAJ MPD MTSI PS-FA M.E.T.A. PSP DP/UDC-MIN FADE MJ Mujeres al Poder MAER MIAN CFP-PS MIP MIEV AN MUPP-NP Othersb

2002a Total number 8,156,425 — — — 96,416,298 11,056,053 8,931,384 8,588,231 8,372,586 6,161,815 6,120,142 5,852,347 4,976,707 4,723,984 4,662,213 4,658,915 3,527,556 2,717,055 2,455,777 2,235,166 2,076,000 2,011,123 1,986,000 1,199,155 1,059,065 649,035 599,009 476,467 438,313 229,004 653,196

% – — — — — 11.5 9.3 8.9 8.7 6.4 6.3 6.1 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.8 3.7 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 2.7

Ecuador

395

a

Due to the nature of the multiple-votes-system and the weak relationship between the votes (individual und multiple ones) and the parties’ shares of seats in parliament, there was no official aggregation of votes. b The given number refers to the total of individual votes cast for individual candidates. Voters have as many votes as seats to be filled in one of the MMCs of different magnitude.

2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1947–1970 Electoral results for the senate are not available. 2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1979–2002 Year CFP ID CID MPD PCE PLRE PSC FNV PNR UDP FRA DP-UDC PD PRE FADI CNR PSE Year ID PSC CFP PSE DP-UDC FRA

1979 Seats 12 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 – – – – – – – – – – 1986 Seats 59 14 12 6 6 4 3

% 100.0 33.4 16.8 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 – – – – – – – – – –

1979 Seats 57 25 13 2 – 9 3 2 1 1 1 – – – – – – –

% 100.0 23.9 20.4 10.0 10.0 6.8 5.1

1988 Seats 12 3 1 1 1 1 1

% 100.0 43.8 22.8 3.6 – 15.8 5.3 3.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 – – – – – – –

1984 Seats 12 1 3 – 1 – – 2 – – – 1 1 1 1 1 – –

% 100.0 25.1 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3

1988 Seats 59 28 7 4 3 7 1

% 100.0 8.3 25.0 – 8.3 – – 16.9 – – – 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 – –

1984 Seats 59 6 21 – 2 2 4 7 – – – 5 4 2 2 1 1 1

% 100.0 10.0 35.6 – 3.4 3.4 6.8 11.9 – – – 8.5 6.8 3.4 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.7

% 100.0 47.5 11.9 6.0 5.1 11.9 1.7

1990 Seats 60 11 15 3 7 7 1

% 100.0 18.3 25.0 5.0 11.7 11.7 1.7

Ecuador

396 Year (cont.) MPD PLRE PRE FADI PCD PCE PD

1986 Seats 3 3 3 2 1 1 1

5.1 5.1 5.1 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.7

1988 Seats – – 2 1 – 1 –

Year

1992 Seats 77 21 13 12 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 – –

% 100.0 27.3 16.9 15.6 9.1 7.8 6.5 5.2 3.9 2.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 – –

1994 Seats 77 26 11 3 8 6 4 8 2 1 2 1 2 1 – 2

2002 Seats 99 PSC 23 PRE 15 ID 13 PRIAN 10 DP-UDC 4 Pachacutik 4 MPD 3 PSP 3 MUPP-NP 2 PSP/NP/MUPP 2 PS/FA/MUPP 2 ID/DP-UDC 1 MTD (INP) 1 ID/MC/NP 1 MIP 1

% 100.0 23.2 15.2 13.1 10.1 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

PSC PRE PUR ID PCE DP-UDC MPD PSE PLRE APRE CFP FRA PLN MUPP-NP Others/Indep.

%

Year

– – 16.8 8.3 – 8.3 –

1988 Seats 2 1 6 1 – – –

% 100.0 33.8 14.3 3.9 10.4 7.8 5.2 10.4 2.6 1.3 2.6 1.3 2.6 1.3 – 2.6

1996 Seats 82 27 19 2 4 1 11 2 – – 2 1 – – 8 6

%

3.4 1.7 10.0 1.7 – – –

1990 Seats 1 3 9 1 – 2 –

% 100.0 27.0 19.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 11.0 2.0 – – 2.0 1.0 – – 8.0 6.0

1998 Seats 120 26 24 – 15 1 32 2 – – – – 3 – 5 12

%

% 1.7 5.0 15.0 1.7 – 3.3 – % 100.0 21.7 20.0 – 12.5 0.8 26.7 1.7 – – – – 2.5 – 4.2 10.0

Ecuador Year 2002 (cont.) Seats MPD/PS-FA 1 MPD/FS/FA 1 MUPP-NP/MC 1 MIRE 1 MPS 1 PSC/AN 1 UNO/PSC 1 PS-FA 1 PSP/MUPP/UP 1 PSP/MPD 1 PSP/MUPP-NP 1 CFP 1 PL 1 AN/PS-FA/DP 1

397 % 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1947–1970 Data on the composition of senate are not available. 2.9 Presidential Elections 1901–2002 1901 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Leónidas Plaza Lizardo García Othersa a

Total number — — — 74,074 65,781 7,915 378

% – — — — 88.8 10.7 0.5

Others include: Manuel A. Franco (182 votes; 0.2%) and other candidates.

1905 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lizardo García Ignacio Robles Manuel A. Franco Others

Total number — — — 69,208 64,369 2,687 1,383 769

% – — — — 93.0 3.9 2.0 1.1

Ecuador

398 1911 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Emilio Estrada Flavio A. Alfaro Alfredo Baquerizo M. Others

Total number — — — 109,663 103,024 3,708 2,583 348

% – — — — 93.9 3.4 2.4 0.3

1912 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Leónidas Plaza Carlos R. Tobar Gonzalo S. Córdova Others

Total number — — — 63,830 62,374 754 507 195

% – — — — 97.7 1.2 0.8 0.3

1916 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Baquerizo M. Rafael A. Arízaga Federico Intriago Others

Total number — — — 136,032 127,303 7,502 794 433

% – — — — 93.6 5.5 0.6 0.3

1920 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes José Luis Tamayo Gonzalo Córdova Othersa

Total number — — — 128,105 126,945 722 438

% – — — — 99.1 0.5 0.4

a

Others include: Enrique Baquerizo M. (124 votes; 0.1%) and other candidates.

Ecuador

399

1924 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Gonzalo Córdova Juan M. Lasso Federico F. Intriago Others

Total number — — — 186,538 173,773 9,175 3,454 136

% – — — — 93.2 4.9 1.8 0.1

1931 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Neptali Bonifaz Modesto Larrea Jijón Ildefonso Mendoza Others

Total number 155,186 — — 59,750 27,042 19,442 12,565 701

% – — — — 45.3 32.5 21.0 1.2

1932 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Juan de Dios Martínez M. Manuel Sotomayor Pablo H. Vela Others

Total number — — — 80,058 56,872 16,212 6,093 881

% – — — — 71.0 20.3 7.6 1.1

1933 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes José María Velasco Ibarra (PC) Carlos Zambrano O. (PSE) Colón E. Alfaro (Sector Liberal) Others

Total number — — — 63,929 51,248 10,895 943 843

% – — — — 80.2 17.0 1.5 1.3

Ecuador

400 1940 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Carlos Arroyo (PLRE) José María Velasco Ibarra Jacinto Jijón y C. (PCE) Others

Total number — — — 82,100 43,642 22,061 16,376 21

% – — — — 53.2 26.9 19.9 0.0

1948 Total number Registered voters 455,524 Votes cast — Invalid votes — Valid votes 281,713 Galo Plaza (MCDN) 115,708 Manuel E. Flor Torres (PCE) 112,356 Camilo Ponce Enríquez (PLRE/PSE) 53,649

% – — — — 41.1 39.9 19.0

1952 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes José María Velasco Ibarra (FNV/ARNE) Ruperto Alarcón (PCE) José R. Chiriboga (PLRE) José M. Larrea (ADN)

Total number 550,997 357,654 3,629 354,025 152,259

% – 64.9 1.0 99.0 43.0

116,870 66,771 18,125

33.0 18.9 5.1

1956 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Camilo Ponce Enríquez (APa) Raúl Clemente Huerta (FDNb) Carlos Guevara (CFP) José R. Chiribogac

Total number 836,955 — — 614,423 178,424 175,378 149,935 110,686

% – — — — 29.0 28.6 24.4 18.0

a

Alliance of PCE, PSC, and ARNE. Alliance of PLRE, PSE, and PC. c Candidate of dissidents of liberal and Velasquist groups. b

Ecuador

401

1960 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes José María Velasco Ibarra (FNV) Galo Plaza (PLRE/FDN) Gonzalo Cordero (ADC) Antonio Parra (PCE/CFP/PSE)

Total number 1,009,280 — — 767,105 369,461 179,705 172,117 45,822

% – — — — 48.2 23.4 22.4 6.0

1968 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes José María Velasco Ibarra Andrés F. Córdova (PLRE) Camilo Ponce Enríquez (PSC) Jorge Crespo (ARNE) Elías Gallegos (UDP)

Total number 1,198,874 928,981 75,435 853,546 280,370 264,312 259,833 31,991 17,040

% – 77.5 8.1 91.9 32.8 31.0 30.4 3.7 2.0

1978 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Blank votes Invalid votes Valid votes Jaime Roldós Aguilera (CFP) Sixto Durán Ballén (PSC) Raúl Clemente Huerta (PLRE) Rodrigo Borja (ID) Aladón Calderón (FRA) René Mauge (FADI)

Total number 2,088,874 1,521,412a 54,954 144,961 1,376,451 381,215 328,461 311,983 165,258 124,347 65,187

% – 72.8 4.0 6.5 90.5 27.7 23.9 22.7 12.0 9.0 4.7

a

Official data are inconsistent. The reported number of votes cast is 1,521,412, while the sum of blank votes, invalid votes, and valid votes amounts to 1,576,366.

1979 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Jaime Roldós Aguilera (CFP) Sixto Durán Ballén (PSC)

Total number 2,088,874 1,681,286 184,481 1,496,805 1,025,148 471,657

% – 80.5 11.0 89.0 68.5 31.5

Ecuador

402 1984 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rodrigo Borja (ID) León Febres Cordero (PSC) Angel Duarte (CFP) Jaime Hurtado (MPD) Jaime Aspiazu (FRA) Francisco Huerta (PD) Julio César Trujillo (DP) René Mauge (FADI) Manuel Salgado (PSE)

Total number 3,734,076 2,646,844 439,225 2,207,619 634,327 600,563 298,397 161,810 149,733 146,646 103,790 94,070 18,283

% – 70.9 19.9 83.4 28.7 27.2 13.5 7.3 6.8 6.6 4.7 4.3 0.8

1984 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes León Febres Cordero (PSC) Rodrigo Borja (ID)

Total number 3,794,149 2,964,298 283,500 2,680,798 1,381,709 1,299,089

% – 78.1 10.6 90.4 51.5 48.5

1988 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rodrigo Borja (ID) Abdalá Bucaram (PR) Sixto Durán Ballén (PSC/PCE) Frank Vargas (APRE/PSE/others) Jaime Mahuad (DP) Angel Duarte (CFP) Jaime Hurtado (FADI/MPD) Carlos Julio Emanuel (FRA) Miguel A. Albornoz (PLRE) Guillermo Sotomayor (CNR)

Total number 4,679,684 3,632,842 591,865 3,040,977 744,409 535,482 447,672 384,189 351,787 239,056 152,970 102,708 48,970 33,734

% – 77.6 16.3 83.7 24.5 17.6 14.7 12.6 11.6 7.9 5.0 3.4 1.6 1.1

1988 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rodrigo Borja (ID) Abdalá Bucaram (PR)

Total number 4,649,684 3,612,635 463,489 3,149,146 1,700,648 1,448,498

% – 77.7 12.8 87.2 54.0 46.0

Ecuador 1992 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Sixto Durán Ballén (PCE/PUR) Jaime Nebot Saadi (PSC) Abdalá Bucaram (PRE) Raúl Baca Carbo (ID) APRE-candidateb PSE-candidateb MPD-candidateb DP-UCD-candidateb CFP-candidateb PLRE-candidateb FADI-candidateb PAB-candidateb a

403 Total number 5,710,363 4,090,643 673,542 3,417,101a 1,089,154 855,225 750,611 288,640 107,804 88,255 66,507 64,611 45,768 32,816 15,760 11,050

% – 68.7 16.3 83.7 31.9 25.0 22.0 8.5 3.5 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.6 0.5 0.3

Official data are inconsistent. The reported number of valid votes is 3,417,101, while the total sum of party votes amounts to 3,416,201. b The candidate’s name has not been available.

1992 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Sixto Durán Ballén (PCE/PUR) Jaime Nebot Saadi (PSC)

Total number 5,710,363 4,174,097 428,628 3,745,469 2,146,762 1,598,707

% – 70.1 7.2 57.3 42.7

1996 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Jaime Nobot (PSC) Abdalá Bucaram (PRE) Freddy Ehlers (MUPP-NP) Rodrigo Paz (DP-UDC) Vargas (APRE) Ricardo Noboa (Alianza) Juan José Castellano (MPD) José Gallardo (UCI) Jacinto Velásquez (Indep.)

Total number 6,662,003 4,525,881 716,137 3,809,744 1,035,101 1,001,071 785,124 513,464 187,935 115,033 89,472 46,464 36,080

% – 67.9 15.8 84.2 27.2 26.3 20.6 13.5 4.9 3.0 2.3 1.2 0.9

Ecuador

404 1996 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Abdalá Bucaram (PRE) Jaime Nobot (CFP)

Total number 6,662,003 4,777,526 581,478 4,196,048 2,285,397 1,910,651

% – 71.7 12.2 87.8 54.5 45.5

1998 (1st round) Total number Registered voters 7,072,496 Votes cast 4,537,822 Invalid votes 694,021 Valid votes 3,843,801 Jamil Mahuad (DP-UDC) 1,342,114 Alvaro Noboa (PRE/APRE/UPL) 1,022,667 Rodrigo Borja (ID) 619,581 Freddy Ehlers (MCNP) 566,917 Rosalia Arteaga (MIRA) 195,000 Maria Eugenia Lima (MPD) 97,522

% – 64.2 15.3 84.7 34.9 26.6 16.1 14.7 5.1 2.5

1998 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Jamil Mahuad (DP-UDC) Alvaro Noboa (PRE)

Total number 7,072,496 4,960,075 576,594 4,383,481 2,243,000 2,140,481

% – 70.1 11.6 88.4 51.2 48.8

2002 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lucio E. Gutiérrez (PSP/ MUPP-NP) Alvaro F. Noboa (PRIAN) Leon Roldós (RP) Rodrigo Borja (ID) Antonio X. Neira (PSC) Jacobo Bucarám Ortíz (PRE) Jacinto Velazquez (TSI) Ivonne L. Juez (PLRE/META) César A. Alarcon (PL) Osvaldo Hurtado (MPS) Carlos A. Varas (MIAJ)

Total number 8,154,425 5,298,581 729,399 4,569,182 943,123

% – 65.0 13.8 86.2 20.6

794,614 703,593 638,142 553,106 544,688 169,311 79,598 54,793 49,043 39,171

17.4 15.4 14.0 12.1 11.9 3.7 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.9

Ecuador

405

2002 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lucio E. Gutiérrez (PSP/ MUPP-NP) Alvaro F. Noboa (PRIAN)

Total number 8,154,425 5,807,109 691,012 5,116,097 2,803,243 2,312,854

% – 71.2 11.9 88.1 54.8 45.2

2.10 List of Power Holders 1901–2004 Head of State Leónidas Plaza G. Lizardo García Eloy Alfaro Emilio Estrada Leónidas Plaza G.

Years Remarks 1901–1905 Military officer. Constitutional president, elected on 01/09/1901. 1905–1906 President until 16/01/1906. 1906–1911 Jefe Supremo (16/01/1906), Interim president (09/10/1906–01/01/1907), constitutional president (01/01/1907–11/08/1911). 1911–1912 Constitutional president from 01/09/1911 to 21/12/1912. 1912–1916 Military officer. Constitutional president from 01/09/1912 to 31/08/1916. 1916–1920 Constitutional president until 31/08/1920.

Alfredo Baquerizo Moreno José Luis Tamayo 1920–1924 Constitutional president until 31/08/1924. Gonzalo S. Córdova 1924–1925 Constitutional president, deposed by a military coup on 09/06/1925. A. Guerrero 1925 Charged with the exercise of the executive Martínez power. Junta Militar de 1925–1926 10/07/1925–09/01/1926; integrated by Luis N. Gobierno Dillón, José Rafael Bustamante, Modesto Larrea Jijón, Francisco Arizaga Luque, Pedro Pablo Garaicoa, Francisco Boloña, and Gen. Francisco Gómez de la Torre. Junta Militar de 1926 10/01/1926—31/01/1926; integrated by: HumGobierno berto Albornoz, Isidro Ayora, Humberto Viteri, Julio E. Moreno, Pedro Egüez, Adolfo Hidalgo, José Gómez. Isidro Ayora 1926–1931 Provisional president. Constitutional president from 26/03/1929 to 24/08/1931. Luis Larrea Alba 1931 Minister in exercise of the executive power until 15/10/1931. Alfredo Baquerizo 1931–1932 President of the senate in charge of the execuMoreno tive power; until 27/08/1932.

Ecuador

406 Head of State (cont.) Years Carlos Freile Larrea 1932 Alberto Guerrero Martínez Juan de Dios Martínez Mera Abelardo Montalvo José M. Velasco Ibarra Antonio Pons Junta Militar Federico Páez Alberto Enríquez Gallo Manuel M. Borrero Aurelio Mosquera Narváez Andrés F. Córdova Carlos Arroyo del Río José M. Velasco Ibarra

Carlos Mancheno

Mariano Suárez Veintimilla Carlos Julio Arosemena Tola

Remarks Minister of Government; in power for four days. 1932–1933 President of the senate in charge of the executive power from 02/09/1932 to 04/12/1932. 1933 Constitutional president from 05/12/1932 to 19/10/1933. 1933–1934 Minister of Government in charge of the executive power from 23/10/1933 to 31/08/1934. 1934–1935 Resigned on 20/08/1935 after signing a decree to call for elections for a constitutional assembly. 1935 Minister of Government in charge of the executive power for 30 days. Handed over power to a Junta of Officers. 1935 1935–1937 Jefe Supremo, dictator from 26/09/1935 to 10/08/1937. Constitutional interim president, ousted by a military coup on 23/10/1937. 1937–1938 Military officer, Jefe Supremo; ceded power on 10/08/1938. 1938 Provisional president until 01/12/1938. 1938–1939 Constitutional president by designation from the assembly; in power until his death on 10/12/1939. 1939–1940 President of the chamber of deputies, in charge of the executive power until 10/08/1940. 1940–1944 Constitutional president; resigned on 28/05/1944 in view of a movement against his government originating in Guayaquil. 1944–1947 Jefe Supremo from 01/06/1944 to 10/08/1944. Constitutional president, second period from 10/08/1944 to 30/03/1946. Dictator until 23/08/1947. His minister of defense, Coronel Carlos Mancheno, had him arrested and forced him to resign. 1947 Military Chief Commander (Jefe Supremo Militar), until 02/09/1947. He was not backed by the Armed Forces, which permitted a return to constitutional order. 1947 President of the congress in charge of the executive power from 02/09 to 15/09/1947. 1947–1948 Constitutional president. Handed over power on 01/09/1948.

Ecuador Head of State (cont.) Galo Plaza Lasso José M. Velasco Ibarra Camilo Ponce Enríquez José M. Velasco Ibarra

407 Years Remarks 1948–1952 Constitutional president until 31/08/1952. 1952–1956 Constitutional president, third period; in office until 31/08/1956. 1956–1960 Constitutional president until 31/08/1960.

1960–1961 Constitutional president, fourth period. The Academy of War forced his resignation on 07/11/1961. Provisional transfer of power to the president of the High Court of Justice. Carlos Julio 1961–1963 Declared constitutional president by the conArosemena Monroy gress. Deposed by a military coup on 11/07/1963. Junta Militar de 1963–1966 Integrated by Ramón Castro Jijón, Marcos Gobierno Gándara Enríquez, Luis Cabrera Sevilla, Guillermo Freile Posso until 28/03/1966. Clemente Yerovi 1966 Interim president from 29/03/1966 to Indaburu 16/11/1966. Otto Arosemena 1966–1968 Named interim constitutional president by the Gómez constitutional assembly until May 1967. Constitutional president until 31/08/1968. José M. Velasco 1968–1970 Constitutional president, proclaimed himself Ibarra dictator on 22/06/1970. Ousted by a military coup on 15/02/1972. Guillermo 1972–1976 Military officer, de facto president representing Rodríguez Lara the Armed Forces until his resignation on 11/01/1976. Junta Militar 1976–1978 Consejo Superior de Gobierno, integrated by Alfredo Poveda Burbano (presiding), Guillermo Durán Arcentales, and Luis Leoro Franco. Jaime Roldós 1979–1981 Constitutional president, assumed office on Aguilera 10/08/1979. Died on 24/05/1981 in an aircraft accident. Osvaldo Hurtado 1981–1984 Vice president, acceded to presidency after the Larrea death of Roldós. The presidential term is exceptionally, in accordance with the constitution of 1979, five years. León Febres 1984–1988 Constitutional president from 10/08/1984 to Cordero 10/08/1988. Rodrigo Borja 1988–1992 Constitutional president from 10/08/1988 to Cevallos 10/08/1992. Sixto Durán Ballén 1992–1996 In office from 10/08/1992 to 10/08/1996. Abdalá Bucaram 1996–1997 In office from 10/08/1996 to 06/02/1997. Ortiz

Ecuador

408 Head of State (cont.) Years Fabián Alarcón 1997 Rosalía Arteaga Serrano Fabián Alarcón Jamil Mahuad Lucio Gutiérrez Council of State Gustavo Noboa Lucio Gutiérrez

1997

Remarks Interim, first time; from 06/02/1997 to 09/02/1997. Acting; from 09/02/1997 to 11/02/1997.

1997–1998 Interim, second time; from 11/02/1997 to 10/08/1998. 1998–2000 In office from 10/08/1998 to 21/01/2000. 2000 First time; in office on 21/01/2000. 2000 Assumed power from 21/01/2000 to 22/01/2000; integrated by Carlos Mendoza, Antonio Vargas, and Carlos Solórzano. 2000–2003 Assumed office from 22/01/2000 to 15/01/2003. 2003– Second time; in office since 15/01/2003.

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Informes de la Dirección Central de Estadística y Registro Civil al Congreso (1922–1940). Quito: Archivo del Congreso. Informes del Ministerio del Interior al Congreso (1907–1928). Quito: Archivo del Congreso. Informes del Tribunal Supremo Electoral al Congreso (1931–1933, 1948, 1950, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1979, 1987, 1988). Quito. Leyes Electorales del Ecuador (1830–1978). Tribunal Supremo Electoral/Corporación Editora Nacional (eds.) (1989). Elecciones y democracia en el Ecuador. 2 vols. Quito.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Abad Franco, A. (1974). Parteiensystem und Oligarchie in Ecuador. Berlin: Colloquium. Alexander, R. J. (1982). The Greenwood Historical Encyclopedia of the World’s Political Parties. Political Parties of the Americas, Canada, Latin America and the West Indies. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Argones, N. (1985). El juego de poder. De Rodrigo Lara a Febres Cordero. Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional. Ayala, E. (1988). Lucha política y origen de los partidos en Ecuador. Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional.

Ecuador

409

Ayerve, O. (1987). Tu voto es poder. Quito: Taski Editora. Borja y Borja, R. (1951). Las Constituciones del Ecuador. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica. Collin Delavaud, C. (1977). ‘Dix années de politique équatorienne (1966– 1976)’, in Notes et Etudes Documentaires (Paris), 4316–18, 4327. Conaghan, C. M. (1995). ‘Politicians Against Parties. Discord and Disconnection in Ecuador’s Party System’, in S. Mainwaring and T. R. Scully (eds.), Building Democratic Institution. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 434–458. Corkill, D. and Cubitt, D. (eds.) (1988). Ecuador, Fragile Democracy. London: Latin American Bureau. Cueva, A. (1988). El proceso de dominación política en el Ecuador. Quito: Planeta. Hurtado, O. (1989). El poder político en el Ecuador. Quito: Ariel, Planeta, Letraviva. — (1990). Política democrática. Los últimos veinte y cinco años. Quito: FESO-Corporación Editora Nacional. Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems (ICOPS) (1968). Ecuador Election Factbook, June 2, 1968. Washington, D.C.: ICOPS. Maier, G. (1969). The Ecuadorian Presidential Election of June, 2 1968. An Analysis. Election Analyses Series Nr. 6. Washington, D.C.: ICOPS. Mejía Acosta, A. (2003). ‘La reelección legislativa en Ecuador: carreras políticas, relación electoral y disciplina de partido (1979–2003)’, in F. F. Dworak (ed.), El legislador a examen. El debate sobre la reelección legislativa en México. Mexico City: FCE, 206–228. Mena, C. (1986). ‘Legislación electoral ecuatoriana’, in Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana (eds.), Sistemas electorales y representación política en Latinoamérica. Madrid, 75–117. Menéndez-Carrión, A. (1986). La conquista del voto. De Velasco a Roldós. Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional. Pachano, S. (1998). La representación caótica. Análisis del sistema electoral ecuatoriano. Quito: FLACSO. Pareja Diezcanseco, A. (1979). Ecuador, la República de 1830 a nuestros días. Quito: Ed. Universitaria. Reyes, O. E. (without year). Breve historia general del Ecuador. Quito. Rivera, R. (1992). ‘Ecuador. Elecciones y democracia 1978–1990’, in R. Cerdas-Cruz, J. Rial and D. Zovatto (eds.), Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1988–1991. IIDH / CAPEL, San José, Costa Rica, 311– 343. Ruddle, K. and Gillette, P. (eds.) (1972). Latin American Political Statistics. Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles: University of California.

410

Ecuador

Saint-Geours, Y. (1983). ‘Equateur. La démocratie à l'épreuve de la crise (1981–1983)’. Problèmes d'Amérique Latine, 70: 76–92. — (1981). ‘Equateur. Retour à la démocratie décollage économique?’. Problèmes d'Amérique Latine, 59: 9–35. — (1988). ‘Equateur de Léon Febres Cordero à Rodrigo Borja (1984–1988)’. Problèmes d'Amérique Latine, 89. Salgado, H. (1986). El Congreso Nacional del Ecuador 1968/1988. Quito: Ildis. Sanchez López, F. (1999). Introducción al sistema electoral ecuatoriano (Papeles de Trabajo 3, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas). Quito: Pontífica Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Tobar Donoso, J. (1981). Derecho constitucional ecuatoriano. Quito: Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones. Trabucco, F. E. (1960). Síntesis histórica de la República del Ecuador. Quito: Ed. Santo Domingo. United Nations (1966). Boletín estadístico de America Latina, Vol. III. New York. Viekoslav Dalic, M. (1987). Estadísticas electorales del Ecuador (1978– 1987). Quito: Ildis.

PARAGUAY by Marta León-Roesch and Richard Ortiz Ortiz

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The recorded history of Paraguay begins with the first encounters between European explorers and Guarani tribes that populated the upper reaches of what are now the Paraná and Paraguay rivers. The first European settlement, established in 1537, later became the Paraguayan capital Asunción. The territory of Paraguay was then governed as a subsidiary of the vice-royalty of Lima and later of Río de la Plata. Paraguay became independent after citizens in Buenos Aires deposed the viceroy in 1810 and tried to extend their control to Paraguay, where the spirit of localism was strong. Buenos Aires sent troops to force Paraguay to comply. However, Paraguay won and, recognizing that foreign rule was ending, declared its independence from the Spanish Crown in May 1811. The first constitutional document, the Reglamiento de Govierno (Governmental Regulations) of 1813, established an independent republic. However, throughout the 19th century Paraguay had to continually reaffirm its sovereignty against its powerful neighbors Brazil and Argentina. The political history of Paraguay since 1811 can be divided into four main periods. The first period (1811–1870) was characterized by a very rudimentary legal and constitutional system and very restricted political activity. The second period (1870–1954) was marked by the liberal constitution of 1870, extreme political instability, and the constitution of 1940, a turning point that led back to authoritarianism. The third period (1954–1989) was characterized by the authoritarian regime of General Alfredo Stroessner, who presided over the longest dictatorship in the history of Paraguay. The fourth phase (from 1989) is marked by the transition to democracy, the democratic constitution of 1992, and political instability. Soon after it had declared independence, Paraguay’s political history began to be determined by a militarist and authoritarian tradition, which

412

Paraguay

became evident during long periods of dictatorial government. These dictatorships were often legitimized by the national congress or a new constitution, therefore elections were insignificant. The 1928 election was the first and only freely-contested presidential election until 1989. Despite elections in 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2003, the army remains an influential force. In 1993, the first civilian president for nearly 50 years came to power, and the 2000 election (only for vice president) was the first national election won by the opposition in almost 90 years. The 2003 election was won once more by the Partido Colorado. The first dictatorship began with José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia’s rule from 1814 to 1840. Following independence, he was appointed member of the three-man provisional government until June 1811 when the first National Congress invited him to become a member of the Junta Superior Gubernativa. In 1813, the second National Congress elected him as a member of the First Consulate. At the third National Congress in 1814 he was appointed as a one-person executive with the provisional title of Supreme Dictator, and at the fourth National Congress in 1816 he was appointed Perpetual Dictator. Francia’s government was based on economic self-sufficiency and an authoritarian and repressive internal power structure. The early imposition of the state’s influence over both society and economy was facilitated by the lack of a strong national bourgeoisie and the exclusion of the majority of the population from participation in the political process. In the field of international relations, this policy of isolation helped Paraguay to assert its independence. As Francia had named no successor before he died in September 1840, the country was plunged into chaos. After a few days, a junta was formed. The members freed some political prisoners, soon proved incompetent to govern, and the junta was overthrown in January 1841. Another coup followed 16 days later, and chaos continued until March 1841, when congress chose Carlos Antonio López as First Consul. In 1844, another congress named him president of the Republic, a post he held until his death in 1862: Paraguay had appointed its second dictator. The 1844 Congress also approved the law establishing the Administración Política de la República del Paraguay (Political Administration of the Republic of Paraguay), known as the 1844 Constitution. The new constitution established a powerful president with a ten-year term of office and the right to promulgate legislation and convene congress every five years to approve it. When C. A. López assumed office, he liberalized the economy and politics under the state’s monopoly, and modernized the army. His period of rule oversaw a period of rapid economic and social development that was achieved with a self-reliant develop-

Paraguay

413

ment strategy. In marked contrast to Francia, he opened Paraguay to the world, whilst still retaining the extensive nature of state economic intervention inherited from the Franciata. Trade made arms acquisitions easier and increased the state’s income. Foreign experts helped to build an iron factory and a large armory. His administration is regarded by many historians as Paraguay’s ‘Golden Age’. During his administration, C. A. López worked to ensure the succession of his son, Francisco Solano López, and gave him administrative responsibilities and experience. In 1857, congress reformed the constitution, establishing prerequisites that guaranteed this succession. When C. A. López died, congress elected his son as president of Paraguay for a ten-year term. He sought to continue the ambitious economic development plan of his father. At the same time, he also tried to secure a significant role for Paraguay in the maintenance of the balance of power in the River Plate region. His attempt to interfere in the domestic politics of Uruguay led him into the ‘War of the Triple Alliance’ (1865–1870) in which Paraguay fought against Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Paraguay was defeated and, as a result, lost extensive territories, its population was reduced by more than half, and the productive structure was completely destroyed. The internal political vacuum was at first dominated by survivors of the Paraguayan Legion. In 1869, the group set up a provisional government under Brazilian auspices and signed the 1870 peace accords, which guaranteed Paraguay’s independence and free river navigation. A constitution was also drawn up in the same year, but it proved ineffective because of the foreign origin of its liberal, democratic tenets. Although this constitution endured for 70 years, it was repeatedly violated. The 1870 Constituent Assembly elected Facundo Machain as president, but he was ejected by Brazilian troops and replaced by Cirilo Rivarola. Argentina and Brazil were not willing to grant Paraguay a truly free political system. Pro-Argentine militia chief Benigno Ferreira emerged as de facto dictator until he was overthrown with Brazil’s help in 1874. Thus, politics degenerated into factionalism, and cronyism and intrigue prevailed. Presidents still acted like dictators, elections did not stay free. Free elections were a startling, and not altogether welcome, innovation for ordinary Paraguayans, who had always allied themselves with a patrón (benefactor) for security and protection. In 1887, two political parties were founded, the Partido Liberal (PL; Liberal Party) and the nationalist-conservative Asociación Nacional Republicana (ARN; National Republican Association). Commonly, they are known as Partido Azul and Partido Colorado. Rather than having a

414

Paraguay

distinct political profile, both parties represented the interests of extremely heterogeneous oligarchic groups. The Partido Colorado represented great landowners and conservative members of the army and the Partido Liberal represented another group of landowners and middleclass merchants. These parties dominated Paraguayan politics until 1936. However, constant coup d’état attempts and conflicts among the caudillos created permanent instability, which prevented the consolidation of the political system. The Partido Colorado was the dominant political force in the last quarter of the 19th century, from 1878 to 1904. In the late 1890s, growing divisions appeared within the party. The party was ousted from power by the Liberal Revolution of 1904. Although the Partido Liberal retained control of government until 1940 (except for brief interludes), its rule was never particularly stable. From 1904 to 1936, there were 24 different presidential administrations as well as dozens of factional revolts within the ruling party. The political anarchy contributed to the demise of liberalismo. The Chaco War led to a further decline in the party’s fortunes and it was eventually overthrown by the Febrerista Revolution of 1936. In February 1936, a nationalist revolution erupted, at the end of which a civil-military coalition led by Colonel Rafael Franco assumed power. They set out to forge a revolutionary path for the country. To this end they developed a radical doctrine, Febrerismo, which drew inspiration from an odd combination of European ideologies (Italian fascism, German Nazism, Spanish corporatism, and Soviet communism). Representative democracy was rejected as an imperialist sham. A political movement known as the Unión Nacional Revolutionaria (Revolutionary National Union) was founded to support the aims of the Febrerista Government. When Franco’s government was overthrown, the movement continued its work in exile. The members exiled in 1945 reorganized the movement under the name Concentración Revolucionaria Febrerista, a forerunner of the Partido Revolucionario Febrerista (PRF; Febrerista Revolutionary Party). José Félix Estigarribia assumed presidency in 1939, and ruled until 1940. He had been the military leader during the Chaco War (1932– 1935), in which Paraguay defeated Bolivia. With his accession to power, the armed forces became involved in the political arena. Estigarribia abolished the 1870 Constitution and introduced the 1940 Constitution by decree, the latter being markedly authoritarian. The 1940 Constitution facilitated a move toward dictatorship in Paraguay, first under Higínio Morínigo and later under Alfredo Stroessner.

Paraguay

415

Following Estigarribia’s death in September 1940, Morínigo assumed presidency (1940–1948) and transformed the corporatist state of his predecessor into a personal dictatorship. His presidency saw the beginning of direct political control by the armed forces. His administration also promoted the rapid growth in relations with the United States, whose influence in Paraguay increased quickly during World War II. The United States wanted the country to support the Allies. In February 1943, Morínigo was formally elected in a presidential contest in which he was the only candidate. The allied victory in 1945 soon led to the rapid demise of Morínigo’s authoritarian rule. Under pressure from the United States, he opened the political system, relaxed restrictions on free speech, allowed political exiles to return, and formed a coalition government. The sudden liberation set the stage for civil war. In January 1947, a military putsch removed the Febreristas from government and handed over power exclusively to the right-wing faction of the Partido Colorado, led by Juan Natalicio González. This polarized the political spectrum and led to a civil war, known as the Revolution of 1947, which erupted in March 1947. During the civil war, Morínigo retained the presidency, as nominal leader of the victorious Colorados. By the end of the rebellion in August, a single party, the Partido Colorado, had almost total control in Paraguay. The fighting had simplified politics by eliminating all parties and reducing the size of the army. Since nearly four-fifths of the officer’s corps had joined the rebels, fewer individuals were now in a position to compete for power. The institutionalization of one-party rule, the establishment of order at the expense of political liberty, and the acceptance of the army’s role as the ultimate political arbiter created the conditions that produced the Stroessner regime. In May 1954, another revolt broke out, and General Alfredo Stroessner was elected president in July. Stroessner claimed power on the basis of a military-political pact. His power was built on an alliance between the armed forces and the Partido Colorado. The political class, the military, and the state machinery remained subordinate to Stroessner’s control. He used repression, corruption, and electoral fraud to stage a pseudo-democracy that lasted for almost 40 years. Another major factor in Stroessner’s favor was a change in attitude among the domestic opposition. Demoralized by years of fruitless struggle and exile, the major opposition groups began to long for peace. In 1963, a Liberal Party faction, the Grupo Renovación (Renewal Group), returned to Paraguay to become the ‘official’ opposition, leaving the remainder of the Liberal Party, which renamed itself the Partido Liberal

416

Paraguay

Radical (PLR; Radical Liberal Party). The Renovacionistas, now officially recognized as the Partido Liberal, were granted one-third of the seats in congress. Four years later, members of the Partido Liberal Radical also returned to Paraguay and began participating in the electoral process. By this time, the Febreristas posed no threat to Stroessner and were legalized in 1964. The new Partido Demócrata Cristiano (PDC; Christian Democratic Party) also renounced violence as a means of gaining power. The exhaustion of most opposition forces enabled Stroessner to crush the Partido Communista Paraguayo (Paraguayan Communist Party) by mercilessly persecuting its members and their spouses and to isolate the exiled Colorados, who had reorganized themselves as the Movimiento Popular Colorado (Popular Colorado Movement). In August 1967, the fifth constitution of Paraguay was enacted. It was designed to permit Stroessner to rule as president for two more five-year terms. Ten years later, Stroessner pushed through the Constitutional Amendment of 1977 which annulled the two-term limit to enable him to serve indefinitely as president. Opposition to this amendment led a majority of the Partido Liberal Radical to break away and form the Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA; Authentic Radical Liberal Party). The elections that periodically confirmed his control of the presidential office were staged. Stroessner’s control of the Partido Colorado had been unchallenged from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, but the Partido Colorado gradually began to split into two factions. The tradicionalistas were willing to consider opening up the political field, whereas the militantes began to speak openly of Stroessner’s son Gustavo as a possible successor for his father. In February 1989, a coup d’état, led by General Andrés Rodríguez, overthrew Stroessner. The circumstances that prompted this coup were the increasing democratic tendencies in the region, the economic crisis, and the internal disputes regarding Stroessner’s successor. In May 1989, Rodríguez was elected president. For the first time in many years, the democratic opposition was allowed to participate in national elections. This marked the beginning of the transition to democracy, a period characterized by continuing military influence. In February 1990, congress approved a new electoral law, known as Law No. 1. Its main innovations included the introduction of political representation and the provision for a second round in the event that no candidate secured an absolute majority in presidential elections. Negotiations with the opposition led to municipal elections in May 1991 and elections for a constitutional assembly in December 1991. The election

Paraguay

417

for a new 198-seat national assembly saw the Partido Colorado take two-thirds of the vote (122 seats); a vigorous opposition, led by the Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico which won 55 seats, emerged after long years of repression. The new constitution was published in 1992. It reintroduced the office of vice president and the plurality rule for presidential elections. In May 1993, parliamentary and presidential elections were held under the new constitution. The Partido Colorado’s candidate, Juan Carlos Wasmosy, won. The Liberal Party’s candidate, Domingo Laino, came in second. The newly-formed Partido Encuentro Nacional (PEN; National Encounter Party) won 24.1% of the vote and became the third political force. In the legislative elections, the opposition gained a majority of the seats in both chambers. The parties opposed to the president—PLRA, PEN, and a breakaway group from Partido Colorado, the Movimiento de Reconciliación Colorada (MRC; Colored Reconciliation Movement)— secured a majority in both the senate and the chamber of deputies. Wasmosy became Paraguay’s first civilian president in nearly 50 years. The 1993 elections confirmed the transformation of the party system that had begun in the 1991 municipal elections, when the Partido Colorado had lost the political monopoly. Indeed, in 1993 a third and new political force, the PEN emerged, but the remaining traditional and smaller parties, such as the Partido Revolucionario Febrerista and the Partido Demócrata Cristiano, lost some of their political significance. Anti-Wasmosy elements lent their support to an influential and controversial former army commander, General Lino Oviedo, who was chosen as the Colorado candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections in 1998, despite being suspected of organizing a coup against Wasmosy in 1996. The failed coup d’état attempt in April 1996, which resulted in the retirement of the highest army officers, highlighted the breakdown of the alliance between the Partido Colorado and the armed forces. Oviedo was excluded from the presidential candidacy after he was convicted of sedition and other offences by a military tribunal. Raúl Cubas Grau assumed the Colorado candidacy, and won the election in May 1998. For the following twelve months, Paraguayan politics was in a state of near chaos. On taking office, Cubas freed Oviedo from jail amid a storm of protest. This precipitated the final split in the Colorados when Vice President Luis Argaña allied himself with the opposition and deprived the pro-Cubas Colorado faction of its majority in congress. Congress quickly voted for an impeachment of Cubas. At the end of March 1999, Argaña was killed by unknown assassins; five days later, Cubas resigned to avoid the impeachment trial.

418

Paraguay

Senate leader Luis González Macchi was sworn in as the new president and declared his intention to form a broad-based government. The vice president was elected separately on 13 August 2000. The liberal party’s candidate, Julio César Franco, won. González Macchi subsequently faced serious opposition from Oviedo supporters, especially in the army. The continuation of the tensions posed a serious threat to the future of Paraguay’s young democratic regime. These fears were confirmed in May 2000 when supporters of Oviedo launched a coup attempt which was put down by armed forces loyal to the government. On 27 April 2003, presidential and parliamentary elections were held and the Paraguayans voted for Colorado and Nicanor Duarte. At this time, the population in general and the political class in particular had started to value democracy. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The 1870 Constitution was Paraguay’s first democratic constitution. It introduced universal suffrage for all men aged 18 or over. The electoral law of 1911 established secret suffrage. The secret ballot became mandatory in 1927. Law No. 704 of 1961 extended suffrage to women, who were allowed to vote for the first time in 1963. The 1967 Constitution stipulated that suffrage was the right, duty, and public function of the voter. According to the 1992 Constitution, voting is not compulsory but considered a duty for all men and woman who are 18 years of age or older. Direct parliamentary elections have been held since 1870. Until 1940, the only directly elected national institution in Paraguay was the congress. The 1870 Constitution, approved at the time of the allied occupation of Paraguay, provided for the direct election of deputies and the indirect election of the president and vice president. From 1870 to 1940, congress was bicameral with a chamber of deputies and a senate. The 1940 Constitution, which contained some authoritarian features, provided for a weak unicameral legislature and for the direct election of the president. The president was able to dissolve congress at any time. In 1967, the second chamber of congress was re-established. The 1940 and 1967 constitutions did not provide for the office of a vice president. It was reintroduced in 1992. The 1992 Constitution gives the legislative branch a more central role in the government of the country. The 1844 Constitution did not establish how long members of congress should serve, but they were convened every five years to approve

Paraguay

419

the legislation. The 1870 Constitution established a legislative, with a senate serving a six-year term and a chamber of deputies, serving a fouryear term. Elections were held every two years to renew half of the chamber of deputies and one-third of the senate. The 1940 Constitution provided for a unicameral legislature elected for a five-year term. Since 1967, the members of the chamber of deputies and the senate have been elected for a five-year term. The 1870 Constitution established a legislative with a 13-member senate and a 26-member chamber of deputies. The 1940 Constitution provided for a legislature with one representative for each 25,000 inhabitants; it consisted of 40 deputies and 20 substitutes. Since 1993, the chamber of deputies comprises a minimum of 80 members and the senate is made up of at least 45 members. According to the 1967 and 1992 constitutions, members of both houses had to be native-born Paraguayans. The deputies must be at least 25 years of age; senators at least 40 (since 1992 only 35). Members of the clergy and officers of the armed forces on active duty are eligible for election to the national congress. There is no restriction concerning re-election. In accordance with the 1844 Constitution, the president was elected by congress. From 1870 to 1940, the president was chosen by an electoral college. The 1940 Constitution introduced the direct election of the president and the Law of 1947 established the plurality rule for presidential elections. According to the Law of 1990, the president had to be elected by absolute majority. In 1992, the plurality rule was reintroduced. In order to be eligible for presidency and vice presidency, the 1870 Constitution established that an individual must be a native Paraguayan, at least 30 years of age, and Catholic. The 1940 and 1967 constitutions retained the prerequisites of native citizenship and Catholic denomination, but the minimum age to be eligible was increased to 40. Since 1992, Catholicism is no longer a prerequisite. According to the 1844 Constitution, the president was elected for a term of ten years. In 1940, it was reduced to five years with re-election permitted for one additional term. The sole objective of the 1967 Constitution was to enable Stroessner to rule for a further two five-year terms as president, because his period of office was to expire in 1968 due to a two term limit determined in the 1940 Constitution. Thus, although the new 1967 Constitution formally guaranteed human rights, political participation, and the division of powers, it actually contained numerous authoritarian elements that prevented these constitutional norms from coming into effect. The 1967 Constitution did not provide for a vice pre-

420

Paraguay

sident. In 1992, the office of vice president was reintroduced and the reelection of the president was prohibited. During the Liberal Period from 1904 to 1940, the country was divided into electoral constituencies based on departments. Under the 1940 Constitution, this division was replaced by an electoral system based on party lists for a single national constituency. This mechanism was reinforced during Stroessner’s regime by Electoral Laws No. 600 of 1960, No. 1088 of 1965, and No. 886 of 1981. In 1927, Law No. 929 introduced minority representation in congress. The Law of 1947 established proportional representation. Under the Stroessner Regime, Paraguay was the only country in the world to use the ‘majority plus’ electoral system that goes back to the Italian electoral law of 1923 during the regime of Mussolini. Under this arrangement, the party that obtains a majority of votes automatically receives two-thirds of the seats in congress, while the remaining seats are distributed among the other contesting parties in proportion to their respective share of the national vote. This system was used until 1990. After Stroessner was overthrown, congress approved a new electoral law in February 1990, known as Law No. 1. Its most important features were the establishment of a proportional system for the allocation of seats in parliamentary elections, the provision for a second round in the event that no candidate secures an absolute majority in presidential elections, the introduction of independent candidacies and, for the first time in the country’s history, the direct election of intendentes (municipal governors). However, the law maintained the highly centralized system of party lists contesting a single national constituency. Since 1992, the chamber of deputies has been elected in multimember constituencies (MMC). The Cámara de Senadores is elected in one single nationwide constituency with closed and blocked lists. The seats are allocated using the d’Hondt method. The president is directly elected by simple plurality for a non-renewable term. Some of the most important features of the 1992 Constitution were: the prohibition of presidential re-election; the creation of the office of vice president; the adoption of the decentralization principle; the reduction of the power of the executive and the strengthening of the legislative; the creation of additional control organs; and finally, the improvement of the system to protect human rights. The elections of May 1993 were the first free elections with all-civilian candidates since 1928. A new electoral code was promulgated in April 1996 which regulated the 1998 election.

Paraguay

421

The electoral law of 1911 established the Registro Permanente de Electores (Permanent Register of Voters). It was founded in 1918. From 1960 to 1989, the Paraguayan electoral commission, Junta Electoral Central (Central Electoral Board), was dominated by the Partido Colorado. According to the electoral laws of 1960 and 1981, two-thirds of the members of all institutions, from the Junta Electoral Central to the district-level electoral boards and the election officers at the voting tables, consisted of nominees from the party that gained a majority of votes in the previous election. This ensured that the rigging of elections through ballot-stuffing and illegal voter registration could not occur. The 1992 Constitution established an Electoral Justice System. Its responsibilities include the management of the electoral register and the final calculation of the results and the determination of the outcome of the elections. 1.3. Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Constitución de la República del Paraguay of 1992; the Código Electoral (Ley No. 834/96), and Ley No. 1830/2001 to reform the electoral code; Ley No. 635/95 that regulates the electoral justice; and Ley No. 744/95, No. 1.281/98, and No. 1.346/98, which introduced modifications to the law of electoral justice Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, secret, and direct suffrage apply. All Paraguayan citizens 18 years or older who are permanently resident in Paraguay have the right to vote. Some groups are excluded from this right: people that have been declared mentally infirm by a court, members of the armed forces and police, pupils of the police academy, and military cadets. To be allowed to vote, citizens must register in the Registro Cívico Permanente (the Permanent Civil Register). Everybody needs an identity card issued by the police in order to be able to enroll in the register and to vote. Voting is not compulsory but considered a duty. Elected national institutions: President and vice president as well as the legislative comprising the Cámara de Diputados (chamber of deputies) and the Cámara de Senadores (senate) are elected for a period of five years simultaneously but with different ballots. The Cámara de Diputados consists of a minimum of 80 members. Before each election, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral estab-

422

Paraguay

lishes—according to population—the number of representatives to be elected in each department. The Cámara de Senadores consists of at least 45 members. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled by substitutes elected at the same time as regular members. Nomination of candidates: All Paraguayan citizens 35 years or older who are in possession of their full civil and political rights qualify to run for the presidency or vice presidency. The candidates are chosen by recognized parties or movements. All Paraguayan citizens 25 years or older can be elected to the Cámara de Diputados. All Paraguayan citizens 35 years or older can be elected to the Cámara de Senadores. Each recognized party or movement must present a list of candidates with as many names on it as there are seats to be filled. Electoral system - presidential elections: president and vice president are elected on the same ticket according to the plurality system. - parliamentary elections: The Cámara de Diputados is elected in small, medium, and large MMCs that correspond to the departments plus the city of Asunción. There are four SMCs and 14 MMCs. Only two of them are large (17 and 13 seats, respectively). There are also two constituencies of six deputies, one of five, two of four, two of three, and four of two. Due to the size of most constituencies, the system creates a very conspicuous majority effect. The lists are closed and blocked. The voter is entitled to one vote. The seats are allocated using the d’Hondt formula. The Cámara de Senadores is elected in one single nationwide constituency with closed and blocked lists. Every voter has one vote. The seats are distributed using the d’Hondt method. Former presidents are senators for life; they may take part in relevant discussions, but cannot vote. Organizational context of elections: The Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral (High Court of the Electoral Justice System) is the highest court with respect to electoral matters. It consists of three members appointed by congress. It has jurisdiction over the entire country and oversees the other electoral bodies. Its responsibilities include the management and supervision of the electoral register, the administration of resources allocated in the general national budget for electoral purposes, and the appointment and removal of all judicial and administra-

Paraguay

423

tive officials of the electoral bodies. It is also responsible for the final calculation of the results. The Tribunales Electorales (electoral tribunals) and the Juzgados Electorales (electoral courts) are spread throughout ten judicial districts. Their main function is to manage and oversee the elections held in their jurisdiction. The Fiscalias Electorales (electoral supervisory offices) are responsible for ensuring the public control and supervising parties and political movements. They are in charge of prosecuting those who commit electoral offences. The staff of these institutions is appointed by the supreme court. The Registro Electoral (register of voters) has to take care of the Permanent Civic Register. It consists of four representatives, one from each of the four major political parties in parliament, but it has branches all over the country. Its decisions have to be unanimous. The Juntas Cívicas (citizen boards) are auxiliary electoral bodies that start to assist the other institutions 60 days prior to the elections and dissolve 30 days thereafter. The Mesas Receptoras de Votos (polling stations) consist of three members who are proposed by the major political parties and elected by the chambers of congress. A polling station cannot have more than one member of the same party. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics From 1870 to 1960, there are no data for parliamentary elections. The compilation of data from national elections, referendums, and coups d’état starts in 1940 and the table for the electoral body begins in 1943. The official results of national elections published in the Diario ABC on 6 February 1983 are relatively accurate, although incomplete. The tables for senate elections start with the 1993 elections, when deputies and senators where elected on separate ballots for the first time. Since 1940, the president has been elected directly. The results of the elections of 1943, 1948, 1949, and 1950 are not available, so documentation of presidential election results starts with the 1953 elections. For the 1991 election to the constitutional assembly there is no complete set of data and the existing figures are inconsistent. The data for this election were taken from Lingenthal (1992) and Alcantara (1999). The Centro de Información, Documentación y Educación Electoral (CIDEE) of Paraguay was founded on 12 November 1996 and it only provides results for the 1998 elections. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) supplies electoral statistics since 1989, but they are also incomplete. Payne et al. (2002) provide complete informa-

424

Paraguay

tion for all elections since 1993, but their data are not precise. The data for the 2003 elections were taken from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral. Reports on the elections held in 1991 and 1993, written by the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, were also consulted. The population data are based on the data in the UN Statistical Yearbooks.

Paraguay

425

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year 1940 1943 1948 1949 1949 1950 1953 1954 1958 1960c 1963 1967 1968 1973 1977 1978 1983 1988 1989 1991 1993 1998 2000 2003 a

Presidential Parliamentary elections elections Lower Cham- Upper ber Chamber xx/02 15/02 17/04 16/07 15/02 11/07 09/02 10/02

Elections for Constit. Assembly

15/02 17/04

Referendums

Coups d’état

04/08b 03/06 29/01 26/02

16/07 15/02 08/05 09/02 xx/xx 10/02 07/05

11/02 11/02

11/02 11/02 06/02

12/02 06/02 14/02 01/05

12/02 06/02 14/02 01/05

03/02 01/12

09/05 10/05 13/08d 27/04

09/05 10/05 27/04

From 1940 to 1967 the congress was unicameral. Since 1990, deputies and senators have been elected on separate ballots. b The 1940 Constitution was ratified by plebiscite. c The congress was dissolved by Stroessner in 1959. Parliamentary election was held in 1960, but the opposition considered the guarantees of freedom insufficient, and abstained. d Election of vice president only.

Paraguay

426 2.2 Electoral Body 1943–2003 Year 1943 1948 1949 1950 1953 1954 1958 1960 1963 1967b 1968 1973 1977 1978 1983 1988 1989 1989 1991 1993c 1993 1998 1998 2000d 2003 2003

a

Type of Population electiona Pr/Pa Pr/Pa Pr/Pa Pr/Pa Pr/Pa Pr Pr/Pa Pa Pr/Pa CA Pr/Pa Pr/Pa CA Pr/Pa Pr/Pa Pr/Pa Pr Pa CA Pr Pa Pr Pa Vice-Pr Pr Pa

1,194,000 1,335,000 1,397,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,530,000 1,690,000 1,773,000 1,910,000 2,120,000 2,230,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 2,890,000 3,472,000 4,039,000 4,157,000 4,157,000 4,397,000 4,643,000 4,643,000 5,219,000 5,219,000 5,496,000 5,800,000 5,800,000

Registered voters Total % number pop.                 738,472 38.7 897,445 40.2 897,445 40.2 1,052,652 42.1 987,917 35.3 1,175,351 40.7 1,132,582 32.6 1,446,675 35.8 2,226,061 53.5 2,226,061 53.5 1,438,543 32.7 1,698,984 36.6 1,698,984 36.6 2,049,449 39.3 2,049,449 39.3 2,059,164 37.5 2,405,108 41.5 2,405,108 41.5

Votes cast Total number

   

237,049 239,978 303,478 271,452 628,615 656,214 656,214 814,610 817,935 1,010,299 1,048,996 1,333,436 1,202,826 1,157,781 743,546 1,172,883 1,148,408 1,650,725 1,649,419 1,250,266 1,546,192 1,542,172

% reg. % voters pop. 10.0  15.0    15.0  15.8  15.7  18.0  15.3  85.1 32.9 73.1 29.4 73.1 29.4 77.4 32.6 82.8 29.2 86.0 35.0 92.6 30.2 92.2 33.0 54.0 28.9 52.0 27.9 51.7 16.9 69.0 25.3 67.6 24.7 80.5 31.6 80.5 31.6 60.7 22.7 64.3 26.7 64.1 26.5

Pr = President, CA = Constitutional Assembly, Pa = Parliament, Vice-Pr = Vice President. Until 1967 the congress was unicameral, from then on bicameral again. c Since 1990, deputies and senators are elected on separate ballots. d The vice president was elected separately in 2000. b

Paraguay

427

2.3 Abbreviations ADa ARN-PC

Alianza Democrática (Democratic Alliance) Asociación Nacional Republicana-Partido Colorado (National Republican Association – Colored Party) CPT Constitución para Todos (Constitution for All) MFC Movimiento Fuerza Ciudadana (Citizen’s Force Movement) MORENA Movimiento de Renovación Nacional (National Renewal Movement) MPQ Movimiento Patria Querida (Beloved Fatherland Movement) PB Partido Blanco/Unión Nacional Cristiana (White Party/National Christian Union) PDC Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) b PEN Partido Encuentro Nacional (National Encounter Party) PHP Partido Humanista Paraguayo (Paraguayan Humanist Party) PL Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) PLR Partido Liberal Radical (Radical Liberal Party) PLRA Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (Authentic Radical Liberal Party) PLRU Partido Liberal Radical Unificado (Unified Radical Liberal Party) PPL Partido Patria Libre (Free Fatherland Party) PPS Partido País Solidario (Country with Solidarity Party) PRF Partido Revolucionario Febrerista (Febrerista Revolutionary Party) UNACE Unión Nacional de Ciudadanos Éticos (National Union of Ethical Citizens) a

AD was composed of PLRA and PEN. PEN was formed in 1993 as a coalition of the PRF, PDC, Asunción para Todos (APT) and a dissident faction of the ARN-PC to contest the election of May 1993. b

Paraguay

428

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1948–2003 Party / Alliance ARN-PCb, c PLb PLR PRF PLRA PDC PEN PHP AD PB PLRU CTP MORENA MPQ UNACE PPL PPS MFC

a

Elections contesteda Presidential Parliamentary 1948–2003 17 13 1963–1973; 1978–1993 8 9 1967–1989 6 7 1967–1968; 1989; 1991; 4 7 1993; 1998; 2003 1989–2003 5 5 1989; 1991; 1993; 2003 2 5 1993–2003 3 3 1989; 1991; 2000; 2003 3 3 1998 1 1 1998 1 1 1989 1 1 1991 – 1 1998 – 1 2003 1 1 2003 1 1 2003 1 1 2003 – 1 2003 – 1 Years

The compilation of data begins in 1948 for presidential elections, and in 1963 for parliamentary elections. The number of presidential elections is 17 (including the 2000 election for vicepresident), and the number of parliamentarian elections is 13 (including the elections for constitutional assemblies). b The Partido Colorado and Partido Liberal are the oldest parties of Paraguay and have already paticipated in the first elections. However, the Partido Liberal was dissolved in 1942. It began to contest elections again in 1963. c In 1989 ARN-PC participated in election with the abbreviation ANR.

2.5 Referendums The only referendum in Paraguayan history was held on 4 August 1940. It ratified the constitution which had been published on 10 July 1940. There are no data available on this plebiscite.

Paraguay

429

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1967, 1977, and 1991 1967 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLR PL PRF 1977 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC 1991 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLRA CPT PRF PDC Othersa a

Total number 670,010 461,839 6,828 455,011 315,941 97,838 28,321 12,911 Total number 987,917 817,935 130,870 687,065 687,065 Total number 1,438,543 743,546   409,730 201,040 81,860 9,094 6,548 

% – 68.9 1.5 98.5 69.4 21.5 6.2 2.8 %

Seats

%

120 80 29 8 3

100.0 66.7 24.2 6.7 2.5

Seats

%

– 82.8 16.0 84.0 100.0 %

— 

100.0 100.0

Seats

%

198 122 55 19 1 1 –

100.0 61.6 27.8 9.6 0.5 0.5 –

– 52.4 3.3  55.1 27.0 11.0 1.2 0.9 1.2

Others include: PT (0.6%), PHP (0.5%), PNS (0.1%).

Paraguay

430 2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Chamber of Deputies 1963–2003 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PL PLR PRF Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLR PL Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLR PL

1963 Total number 738,472 628,615 11,314 617,301 569,551 47,750 – – 1973 Total number 1,052,652 814,610 10,597 804,013 681,306 98,096 24,611 1983 Total number 1,132,582 1,048,996 11,255 1,037,741 944,637 59,094 34,010

% – 85.1 1.8 98.2 92.3 7.7 – –

1968 Total number 897,445 656,414 6,421 649,993 465,535 27,965 139,622 16,871

% – 73.1 1.0 99.0 71.6 4.3 21.5 2.6

% – 77.4 1.3 98.7 84.7 12.2 3.1

1978 Total number 1,175,351 1,010,299 12,795 997,504 905,461 54,984 37,059

% – 86.0 1.3 98.7 90.7 5.5 3.7

% – 92.6 1.1 98.8 91.0 5.7 3.3

1988 Total number 1,446,675 1,333,436 7,818 1,325,618 1,187,738 95,450 42,430

% – 92.2 0.6 99.4 89.6 7.2 3.2

Paraguay Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLRA PRF PLR PDC PL PEN Othersa a

431 1989 Total number 2,226,061 1,157,781 21,971 1,135,810 845,820 229,329 23,815 15,083 11,674 5,544 – 4,545

% – 52.0 1.9 98.1 74.5 20.2 2.1 1.3 1.0 0.5 – 0.4

1993 Total number 1,698,984 1,172,683 46,805 1,124,878 488,342 414,208 – – – – 199,053 23,275

% – 69.0 4.0 96.0 43.4 36.8 – – – – 17.7 2.1

Others include in 1989: PLRU (3,476 votes) and PHP (1,069). In 1993, Others include candidates from six small parties of the left and right (PT, CDS, PL, MAPN, MPSP, PNS).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC AD PRF MORENA PDC PB PLRA MPQ UNACE PPS PEN PPL MFC Othersa a

1998 Total number 2,049,449 1,649,419 55,005 1,594,414 857,473 681,917 20,121 16,863 9,249 8,791 – – – – – – – –

% – 80.5 3.3 96.7 53.8 42.8 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.6 – – – – – – – –

2003 Total number 2,405,108 1,542,172 65,564 1,476,608 520,761 – 11,542 – – – 379,066 255,811 216,803 49,280 39,372 16,480 6,749 10,744

% – 64.1 4.3 95.7 35.3 – 0.8 – – – 25.7 15.3 14.7 3.3 2.7 1.1 0.5 0.7

Others include: PHP (2,867 votes); PFA (2,670); PIA (1,978); PDC (1,927); MFDI (1,302).

Paraguay

432 2.7.2 Senate 1999–2003 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLRA PEN AD PB MORENA PDC PRF Others a

1993a Total number 1,698,984 1,178,682 46,504 1,132,178 498,586 409,728 203,213 – – – – – 20,411

% – 69.4 3.9 96.1 44.0 36.2 17.9 – – – – – 1.8

1998 Total number 2,049,449 1,648,880 77,003 1,571,877 813,287 – – 661,764 36,424 23,844 19,891 16,667 –

% – 80.5 4.7 95.3 51.7 – – 42.1 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 –

Until 1990, elections to senate and chamber of deputies were held simultaneously and according to identical rules.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes ARN-PC PLRA MPQ UNACE PPS PEN PPL PRF MFC Othersa a

2003 Total number 2,405,108 1,544,222 67,815 1,476,407 508,506 374,854 234,748 211,078 67,462 31,212 16,151 10,202 6,766 15,428

% – 64.2 4.4 95.6 34.4 25.4 15.9 14.3 4.6 2.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.0

Others include: PIA (3,791 votes); PHP (3,515); PDC (3,010); PFA (2,828); MFDI (2,284).

Paraguay

433

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Chamber of Deputies 1963–2003 Year ARN-PC PL PLR PF PLRA a

1963 Seats 60 40 20 – – –

% 100.0 66.6 33.7 – – –

1969 Seats 60 40 3 16 1 –

% 100.0 66.6 5.0 26.6 1.8 –

1973a Seats 60 40 — — — —

% 100.0 66.7 — — — —

1978 Seats 60 40 4 16 – –

% 100.0 66.7 6.7 26.7 – –

No data were available for the period between 1973 and 1988. The indicated shares of seats are deduced from the electoral law (‘majority plus’ system).

Year ARN-PC PLR PL PLRA PF PEN Year ARN-PC ADa PLRA MPQ UNACE PPS a

1983 Seats 60 40 — —

– – – 1998 Seats 80 45 35 – – – –

% 100.0 66.7 — —

1988 Seats 60 40 — —

% 100.0 66.7 — —

– – –

– – –

– – –

% 100.0 56.3 43.8 – – – –

2003 Seats 80 37 – 21 10 10 2

% 100.0 46.3 – 26.3 12.5 12.5 2.5

PLRA 27 seats, PEN 8 seats.

1989 Seats 72 48 1 – 21 2 –

% 100.0 66.7 1.3 – 29.2 2.8 –

1993 Seats 80 38 – – 33 – 9

% 100.0 47.5 – – 41.3 – 11.3

Paraguay

434 2.8.2 Senate 1993–2003 Year ARN-PC PLRA PEN AD PB MPQ UNACE PPS a

1993a Seats 45 20 17 8 – – – – –

% 100.0 44.4 37.8 17.8 – – – – –

1998 Seats 45 24 – – 20b 1 – – –

% 100.0 53.3 – – 44.4 2.2 – – –

2003 Seats 45 16 12 1 – – 7 7 2

% 100.0 35.6 26.7 2.2 – – 15.6 15.6 4.4

Until 1990, elections to senate and chamber of deputies were held simultaneously and according to identical rules. b PLRA 13 seats and PEN 7 seats.

2.9 Presidential Elections 1953–2003 1953 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Federico Chávez (ARN-PC)

Total number — 237,049 12,261 224,788 224,788

% – — 5.2 94.8 100.0

1954 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC)

Total number — 239,978 3,787 236,191 236,191

% – — 1.6 98.4 100.0

1958 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC)

Total number — 303,478 8,064 295,414 295,414

% – — 2.7 97.3 100.0

Paraguay

435

1963 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) Ernesto Gavilan (PL)

Total number 738,472 628,615 11,314 617,301 569,551 47,750

% – 85.1 1.8 98.2 92.3 7.7

1968 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) Gustavo González (PLR) Ruy Rufinelli (PL) PRF

Total number 897,445 656,414 6,421 649,993 465,535 139,622 27,965 16,871

% – 73.1 1.0 99.0 71.6 21.5 4.3 2.6

1973 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) Gustavo Riart (PLR) Carlos Levi Ruffinelli (PL)

Total number 1,052,652 814,610 10,597 804,013 681,306 98,096 24,611

% – 77.4 1.3 98.7 84.7 12.2 3.1

1978 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) Germán Acosta Caballero (PLR) Fulvio Hugo Celauro (PL)

Total number 1,175,351 1,010,299 12,795 997,504 905,461 54,984 37,059

% – 85.9 1.3 98.7 90.8 5.5 3.7

1983 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) Enzo Doldan (PLR) Fulvio Hufo Celauro (PL)

Total number 1,132,582 1,048,996 11,255 1,037,741 944,637 59,094 34,010

% – 92.6 1.1 98.9 91.0 5.7 3.3

Paraguay

436 1988 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfredo Stroessner (ARN-PC) Luis María Vega (PLR) Carlos Ferreira Ybarra (PL)

Total number 1,446,675 1,333,436 7,818 1,325,618 1,187,738 95,450 42,430

% – 92.2 0.6 99.4 89.6 7.2 3.2

1989 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Andrés Rodríguez (ARN-PC) Domingo Laíno (PLRA) Aniano D. Estigarribia (PLR) Fernando Vera (PRF) Secundino Nueñez (PDC) Othersa

Total number 2,226,061 1,202,826 24,222 1,178,604 894,374 240,600 14,849 11,041 8,116 9,624

% – 54.0 2.0 98.0 75.9 20.4 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.8

a

Others include: PL (5,051); PLRU (3,545); PHP (1,028).

1993 Total number Registered voters 1,698,984 Votes cast 1,172,883 Invalid votes 48,220 Valid votes 1,124,663 Juan Carlos Wasmosy (ANR-PC) 468,213 Domingo Latino (PLRA) 376,868 Guillermo Caballero Vargas 271,421 (AEN) Othersa 8,161 a

% – 69.0 4.1 95.9 41.6 33.5 24.1 0.7

Eduardo Arce (PT) 2,025 votes; Ricardo Canese (CDS) 1,998 votes; Abraham Zapag (PL) 1,155 votes; Joel Cazal (APN) 1,091 votes; Leandro Yedros (MPSP) 1,042 votes; Gustavo Bader (PNS) 850 votes.

1998 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Raúl Cubas Grau (ARN-PC) Domingo Laíno Figueredo (AD) Luis Campos (PRF) Gustavo Bader Ibáñez (PB)

Total number 2,049,449 1,650,725 47,819 1,602,906 887,196 703,379 8,139 4,192

% – 80.5 2.9 97.1 55.3 43.9 0.5 0.3

Paraguay

437

2000a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Julio César Franco (PLRA) Felix Agaña (ARN-PC) Ricardo Buman (PHP)

a

Total number 2,059,164 1,250,266 46,841 1,203,425 597,431 587,498 18,496

% – 60.7 3.7 96.3 49.6 48.8 1.5

Elections for the office of vice president only.

2003 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nicanor Duarte Frutos (ARN-PC) Julio César Franco (PLRA) Pedro Fadul (MPQ) Guillermo Sánchez (UNACE) Diego Abente Brun (PEN) Othersa a

Total number 2,405,108 1,546,192 46,992 1,499,200 574,232 370,348 328,916 208,391 8,745 8,568

% – 64.3 3.0 97.0 38.3 24.7 21.9 13.9 0.6 0.6

Tomás Zayas (PPL) 4,559 votes; Pedro Alamada Galeano (PFA) 1,443 votes; Guillermo Hellmers (MFDI) 1,370 votes; Teresa Notario (PHP) 1,196 votes.

2.10 List of Power Holders 1814–2004 Head of State José Rodríguez de Francia

Years 1814a–1840

Carlos Antonio López 1841–1862

Remarks Absolute ruler and founder of Paraguay. In 1811 he was a member of the Junta Superior Gubernativa. The 1813 Congress elected him as member to the First Consulate, together with Fulgencio Yedros. In 1814, the congress gave him full dictatorial powers and appointed him Perpetual Dictator of Paraguay two years later. He saw his brutal rule and diplomacy as a means to consolidate state and economy. Consul from 1841 to 1844. He was elected by congress in March 1844 and re-elected in 1854 und 1957. He promoted rapid economic and social development and opened Paraguay to foreign trade.

Paraguay

438 Head of State (cont.) Years Francisco Solano 1862–1870 López Cirilo Antonio Rivarola

1870–1871

Juan Salvador Jovellanos Juan Bautista Gill

1871–1874 1874–1877

Higinio Uriarte

1877–1878

Cándido Bareiro 1878–1880 Bernardino Caballero 1880–1886

Patricio Escobar

1886–1890

Juan Gualberto González

1890–1894

Marcos A. Morínigo 1894 Juan Bautista Egusquiza

1894–1898

Emilio Aceval

1898–1902

Andrés Héctor 1902 Carvallo Juan Antonio Escurra 1902–1904

Remarks On the death of Carlos Antonio López, he was elected president by the congress. His attempt to interfere with the domestic politics of Uruguay provoked the Triple Alliance War. He became the first president under the 1870 Constitution. Under pressure, he resigned in favor of his vice president, Jovellanos. Former vice president, he assumed presidency in December 1871. A staunch supporter of Brazilian interests, he was one of the most influential politicians in the immediate post-war period. He was assassinated in office. Following the assassination of Gill on 12/04/1877, he served as interim president until November 1878. He died in office on 04/09/1880. Following the death of Bareiro, he took over presidency in order to prevent the vice president from assuming office. The post-war reconstruction took place under his administration. Caballero dominated the political life of Paraguay for 20 years, first as president and later as leader of the Partido Colorado which he founded in 1887. Together with Caballero, he dominated the political life of the country until the Liberal Revolution of 1904. His presidency ended in a severe economic recession. His administration was unable to overcome the economic recession. He was overthrown on 09/06/1894. Provisional president from June to November 1894. His administration is remembered mainly for the splitting of both the Partido Colorado and the Partido Liberal into rival factions. His presidency was marked by political instability and economic recession. He was removed by a military coup on 09/01/1902. Provisional president. He came to power in the wake of the military revolt on 09/01/1902. He was deposed in December 1904 and was forced into exile.

Paraguay

439

Head of State (cont.) Years Juan Bautista Gaona 1904–1905 Cecilio Báez Benigno Ferreira

1905–1906 1906–1908

Emiliano González Navero

1908–1910

Manuel Gondra

1910–1911

Albino Jara

1911

Liberato Marcial Rojas Pedro Pablo Peña

1911–1912

Emiliano González Navero

1912

Eduardo Schaerer

1912–1916

Manuel Franco

1916–1919

1912

José Patricio Montero 1919–1920 Manuel Gondra

1920–1921

Félix Paiva

1921

Eusebio Ayala

1921–1923

Eligio Ayala

1923–1924

Luis Alberto Riart

1924

Remarks He was the first president to belong to the Partido Liberal. He was overthrown on 05/12/1905. Provisional president. Together with Cecilio Báez, he planned the Liberal Revolution of 1904. He was ousted by a revolt on 03/07/1908. He was founder and member of the Partido Liberal and president of the Republic during three non-consecutive terms. He supported the Liberal Revolution of 1904. Nevertheless, he was overthrown by a faction of the Partido Liberal. In January, he deposed Gondra and replaced him briefly as president. He was overthrown on 05/07/1911. His administration was characterized by political anarchy. He was deposed on 28/02/1912. From February to March 1912, his presidency marked the only break in the liberal domination. He was quickly replaced by Navero. Second time. He was provisional president from March to August 1912. In November 1931, he served as provisional president until the reinstatement of Guaggiari. The 1912 revolution brought him to presidency. The country remained neutral during World War I. He introduced the secret ballot. He died in office and was replaced by his vice president Jóse Montero. Following the death of Franco, he served for the rest of the presidential term. Second time. Shortly after assuming the presidency he was ousted by a military coup engineered by Schaerer in October 1921. Provisional president from October to December 1921. He was removed from office during the Civil War from 1922 to 1923. He resigned to be able to stand as candidate in the 1924 election. Provisional president.

Paraguay

440 Head of State (cont.) Years Eligio Ayala 1924–1928 José Patricio Guggiari 1928–1932

Eusebio Ayala

1932–1936

Rafael Franco

1936–1937

Félix Paiva José Félix Estigarribia

1937–1939 1939–1940

Higinio Morínigo

1940–1948

Juan Manuel Frutos

1948

Juan Natalicio González

1948–1949

Raimundo Rolón

1949

Felipe Molas López 1949

Federico Chaves

1949–1954

Tomás Romero Pereira

1954

Remarks His administration was characterized by political peace, hitherto unknown press freedom was established and there were no coup attempts. His presidency was marked by growing social tensions. Under impeachment, he temporarily withdrew from office and was replaced by Emiliano González Navero. He resumed office in January 1932. Second time. He was president during the Chaco War (1932-1935). The Febrerista Revolution removed him from office in 1936. Popular hero of the Chaco War. He was called from exile to head the Febrerista Government but was overthrown in August 1937. Second time. Provisional president. He ran for the Partido Liberal. He promulgated the Constitution of 1940 which heralded a new era under stronger executive powers. He died in office on 05/09/1940. Following the death of Estigarribia, he assumed presidency and ruled as a dictator for the next eight years. A coup d’état deposed him in 1948. Provisional president until August 1948 when González assumed office. Elected in uncontested elections on 15/02/1948. Although an attempted coup involving Stroessner failed on 25/10/1948, he was ousted by a military-civilian movement on 29 January. Provisional president from 29 January to 26 February. He was ousted by a military coup. President from February to September 1949. The coup which brought him to power marked a peak in the ascendancy of the Partido Colorado in regard to the armed forces. He was forced to resign by his own party. Provisional president until he was elected in 1950 and re-elected in 1953 as the only candidate who stood for election. On 08/05/1954 he was overthrown by a military coup led by Stroessner. Following the overthrow of Chaves, he served as provisional president until August 1954, when he promoted a political accord by which the Colorados gave their support to the candidacy of Stroessner.

Paraguay

441

Head of State (cont.) Years Alfredo Stroessner 1954–1989

Andrés Rodríguez

1989–1993

Juan Carlos Wasmosy 1993–1998

Raúl Cubas Grau

1998–1999

Luis González Macchi 1999–2003

Nicanor Duarte Frutos a

2003–

Remarks On 11/07/1954, he was elected president as the sole candidate and assumed office in August. He was re-elected seven times (1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988). On 03/02/1989, he was overthrown by the Movimiento 2 de Febrero, led by his military aide, General Andrés Rodríguez. On 03/02/1989, he seized power, forced Stroessner into exile in Brazil and appointed himself president. On 01/05/1989, he was elected. Liberalizing measures were introduced coupled with strict fiscal and budgetary control. Elected on 09/05/1993. During 1996 disaffection at the deteriorating economic situation grew and revelations of corruption served to undermine the president’s position. These circumstances caused a major split within the Partido Colorado. Elected on 10/05/1998. On 23/03/1999, vicepresident Luis Argaña was killed by unknown assassins. Together with General Lino Oviedo, Cubas was accused of this assassination. He resigned to avoid the impeachment trial. After the resignation of Cubas, he as senate leader was sworn in as the new president and declared his intention to form a broad-based government. Elected on 27/04/2003.

Although Paraguay became independent in 1811, it was governed by a provisional junta until 1814.

442

Paraguay

3. Bibliography 3.1.Official Sources Anuario Estadístico del Paraguay. Asunción, several years. Constitución de la República del Paraguay, sancionada y promulgada el 20 de junio de 1992. Asunción. Ley No. 679/95 de 31 de agosto de 1995 que suspende el ejercicio de los derechos y el cumplimiento de las deberes y obligaciones de los militares y policías en servicio activo afiliados a partidos, movimientos políticos o alianzas electorales. Asunción. Ley No. 635/95 de 27 de noviembre de 1995 que regula la Justicia Electoral. Ley No. 834/96 de 17 de abril de 1996 que establece el Código Electoral Paraguayo. Asunción.

3.2. Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Acevedo, E. (1985). Aproximación a la realidad paraguaya. Algunas ideas básicas para la transición. Toledo: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. Alcántara, M. (1999). Sistemas políticos de América Latina, Vol. 1: América del Sur. Madrid: Tecnos. Arditi, B. (1989). Cuadros de resultados electorales en el Paraguay 1953– 1989. Asunción: Centro de Documentación y Estudios. Bareiro, O. and H. Barrios (1995). ‘Paraguay’, in Nohlen, D. and Nuscheler, F. (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 2: Südamerika (3rd edn.). Bonn: Dietz, 421–440. Blais, A. et al. (1997). ‘Direct Presidential Elections. A Word Summary’. Electoral Studies, 16/4: 441–445. Bonilla P. G. (1989). ‘Elecciones generales. Paraguay, 1° de mayo de 1989’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano (San José: IIDH-CAPEL). 1: 16–24. Britos de Villafañe, M. (1982). Las épocas históricas del Paraguay. Asunción. Chartrain, F. (1973). La République du Paraguay. Paris: Berger-Levrauet. Centro de Información, Documentación y Educación Electoral (CIDEE), (as of 09/09/2002). Diario ABC (1983). Los comicios de los 30 últimos años en cifras. Asunción, 06/02/1983. Gorvin, I. (1989). Elections since nineteen hundred and forty-five. A worldwide reference compendium. Harlow: Longman. Jones, M. (1995). ‘A Guide to the electoral Systems of the Americas’. Electoral Studies, 14/1: 5–21. Juventud Demócrata Cristiana (without date). Geografía electoral. Asunción: Ediciones Revolución.

Paraguay

443

Lewis, P. H. (1986). ‘Paraguay from the War of the Triple Alliance to the Chaco War, 1870–1932’, in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. 5: c. 1870 to 1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 475–96.  (1991). ‘Paraguay since 1930’, in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. 8: Latin America since 1930: Spanish South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 233–66. Lingenthal, M. (1992). ‘Paraguay im Wahljahr 1991’. KASAuslandsinformationen, 2/92: 14–32. López, R. (2002). Voter Turnout since 1995. Stockholm: IDEA. Lüers, W.-R. (1993). ‘Paraguays entscheidender Schritt auf dem Weg in die Demokratie: Die Präsidentschaftswahlen vom 9. Mai 1993’. KASAuslandsinformationen, 8/93: 23–30.  (1998). ‘Paraguay im Mai 1998: Die Parlamentswahlen und ihre Auswirkungen’. KAS-Auslansinforamtionen, 7/98: 73–93. Meissner, J. (1996). ‘Paraguay’, in Werner, H. and Bernecker, W. (eds.), Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, Vol. 3: Lateinamerika im 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1017–48. Mendonca, J. (ed.) (1967). Constitución de la República del Paraguay y sus antecedentes. Constituciones de 1844, 1870 y 1940. Asunción: Editorial Emasa. Mendoza, R. (1968). ‘Desarrollo y evolución de la población paraguaya’. Revista Paraguaya de Sociología, 5/12: 16–27. Nickson, R. A. (1993). Historical Dictionary of Paraguay (2nd edn.). Metuchen, N.J./ London: Scarecrow Press. Nohlen, D. (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.  (1996) Elections and Electoral Systems (2nd edn.). New Delhi: McMillan.  (2004) Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem (4th edn.). Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Nohlen, D. et al. (ed.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Oficina Internacional del Trabajo (1977). Anuário de Estadísticas del Trabajo. Ginebra: OIT. Pastore, C. (1972). La lucha por la tierra en Paraguay. Montevideo: Ed. Antequera. Payne, M. et al. (2002). Democracies in Development. Washington, D.C.: IDB and IDEA. Posado, A. (1911). La República del Paraguay. Impresiones y comentarios. Madrid: Suárez. Prieto, J. J. (1988). El Estatuto Electoral cuestionado. Análisis de la ley paraguaya. Asunción: Editorial Histórica.

444

Paraguay

— (1990). El nuevo Código Electoral paraguayo. IV Curso Anual Interamericano de Elecciones. San José: IIDH-CAPEL. Prieto, J. J. and Arditi, B. (1990). Paraguay: hacia la consolidación democrática. San José: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos and Centro de Asesoria y Promoción Electoral. Rivarola, D. M. et al. (1974). La población del Paraguay. Asunción: Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos. Ruddle, K. and Gillette, P. (eds.) (1972). Latin American Political Statistics. Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles: University of California. Schmelz, F. (1981). Paraguay im 19. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Esprint. Secretariado Internacional de juristas para la amnistía y la democracia en Paraguay (SIJADEP) (1988). Sistema Electoral y Democracia. Asunción: El Lector. Soler, J. J. (1954). Introducción al derecho paraguayo. Madrid: Cultura Hispánica. Sottoli, S. (1997). ‘Paraguay nach Stroessner: Fortschritte und Probleme des Demokratisierungsprozesses’, in Betz, J. and Brüne, S. (eds.), Jarbuch Dritte Welt 1997. München: Beck, 215–234. Tribunal Superior de Justicia Electoral (TSJE), (as of 06/06/2003). Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) (1996). Observaciones Electorales en Paraguay 1991–1993. Washington, D.C.: OAS.  (1998). Electoral Observation Mission in Paraguay 1998. Washington, D.C.: OAS. Wilkie, J. W. and Haber, S. (1983). Statistical Abstract of Latin America, vol. 22. Los Angeles: University of California.

PERU by Fernando Tuesta Soldevilla*

Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Peru has been independent for more than 150 years and its history during this period largely resembles that of the other Latin American countries, in that the country’s civilian governments have been constantly disrupted by coups d’état that have brought several dictators to power. Since independence in 1821, Peru has experienced 108 presidential terms, their lengths ranging from Manuel María Prado’s ephemeral tenure which lasted just three days (25–28 August 1930) to the eleven years of Augusto B. Leguía’s dictatorship who had himself re-elected twice (1919–1930). Most of these governments succeeded each other during the 19th century, but the 20th century has been witness to 30 of them. There are several important turning points in Peruvian political history that are worth mentioning. The first period began in 1821 with national independence and lasted up to the election of 1871. This period was characterized by the absolute presence of the military in politics. A power vacuum followed the war of independence and no leading class was able to develop a national movement together with the other heterogeneous social classes. Therefore, the military, the winner of the war of independence, seized power, supported by select local groups. This meant that there was no chance for democratic elections or political parties. While the power and economic potential of the old aristocracy generally decreased after independence, a part of the bourgeoisie managed to rise politically, economically, and socially by exploiting the economic potential of guano. Between 1869 and 1879 the bourgeois landowners began to shift their economic focus from agricultural production towards new markets, facilitated by the work of semi-enslaved Chinese immigrants. During this time the state started to participate more actively in the economic development of the country and thus helped the bourgeois class stabilize their new position as the economic and political leading *

The author would like to thank Piero Corvetto for his assistance.

446

Peru

group. This group, formed around Manuel Pardo, developed into the Partido Civil (PC; Civil Party), and became the first Peruvian political party. The party won the 1872 elections, but this civilian government did not last long. It was interrupted by the war against Chile, which resulted in a reduction in the national territory, a bankrupt economy, an indebted country, and the return of the military to the political arena until 1895. In this year, a revolt finally ousted Andrés Avelino Cáceres, who had been elected in 1894 being the only candidate standing for election. Prior to the election, interim President Colonel Borgoño had dissolved congress and reinstated the electoral legislation of 1861. In 1894 a civil war broke out in the middle of a general crisis. Nicolás de Piérola assumed leadership of the rebels. In March 1895, Nicolás de Piérola’s troops entered the city of File where, after two days of military confrontation, the representatives of Cáceres signed an armistice that allowed a government to meet under the chairmanship of Manuel Candamo. The downfall of the military government in 1895 triggered what has come to be called the ‘Aristocratic Republic’, characterized by the reign of the Partido Civil. The party governed for over twenty years (with a brief interruption from 1912 to 1914). The political landscape in this period was marked by fighting between the oligarchic parties. The two main contenders were the Partido Civil and the Partido Democrático (PD; Democratic Party). The former had a clear focus on urban economic development and supported immigration from Europe to counter labor shortages. The latter envisioned a society with an oligarchic elite based on personal merits rather than birth and fought for a federal union between Peru, Chile, and Bolivia. A third party, the Partido Nacional (PN; National Party) played a minor role but its program was unclear. Elections during this period were barely competitive and were characterized by the exclusion of the majority of the population from suffrage. Augusto B. Leguía’s seizure of power in 1919 put an end to the hegemony of the Partido Civil, although in the past decade he had been one of its leaders. He was supported by traders, civil servants, middle and lower ranked military, and workers, i.e. by social groups that had only recently emerged and that had different demands to those of the old political elite. Leguía gradually dismantled the bases of support for the Partido Civil, and built an ever-tighter alliance with US investors, thereby displacing British investors along the national territory. The increasing numbers of workers began to organize in guilds. This was the start of the Central General de Trabajadores del Perú (CGT), which owed much to the initiative and support of the Marxist Partido Comunista Peruano (PCP; Peruvian Communist Party), founded by José Carlos Mari-

Peru

447

átegui, and the populist Partido Aprista Peruano (PAP; Peruvian Aprista Party), founded by Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. Both antioligarchic groups fought strongly against the ‘Leguiísmo’, which had banned them on several occasions. The economic crisis of the 1930s, caused by a combination of the worldwide depression and internal factors such as continued spending, brought about Leguía’s downfall, and with it the irruption of the masses into national politics. The oligarchy, unable to form new political parties, had no alternative but to support an army officer, Luis M. Sánchez Cerro, at the 1931 elections. As the PCP was banned, it could not contest these elections, and the defeated PAP labeled them fraudulent. In 1932, the government implemented a series of laws to restrict the political work of the PAP and its leader Haya de la Torre. Shortly afterwards, President Sánchez survived an assassination attempt by a young member of the PAP. The subsequent government repressions against the party and its supporters caused a series of uprisings and the death of many civilians. In 1933, Sánchez was eventually assassinated by another aprista (member or supporter of the PAP) during a military parade. A state of emergency was declared and General Oscar R. Benavides seized power. This marked the beginning of the third period of military government, during which both apristas and communists were persecuted and repressed. Nevertheless, the apristas managed to gain undisputed leadership among a large sector of the organized population for the next three decades. The country experienced a series of oligarchic governments, not including José Luis Bustamante y Rivero’s government from 1945 to 1948, which was brought to an end by a coup d’état. This period was characterized by the banning of political parties, the impoverishment of most of the population, the lack of political rights, and the strong presence of US interests. The oligarchy could not address issues crucial to the majority of the national population, as this would have jeopardized their own economic interests. The processes of industrialization and urbanization, which had begun in the 1950s, went hand in hand with a process of migration to the urban areas that caused overcrowding in Lima and other cities, dramatically exposing the problems of the farming world and threatening the basis of the oligarchic power. At this time, the military’s power of veto, which had been introduced in 1932, was abolished and the PAP joined the political system, yet it had to pay a price: the party aligned itself more closely with the oligarchy and even had to enter into coalitions with them later. In 1956, the PAP supported Manuel Prados’ bid for the presidency and thereafter maintained a socalled ‘state of contact’ with its former enemies in the government. The

448

Peru

anti-oligarchic stance was partly abandoned and two new reformist parties emerged: Acción Popular (AP; Popular Action) and Democracia Cristiana (DC; Christian Democracy). Together, the AP and DC won the 1963 presidential elections with their candidate Fernando Belaúnde Terry. However, the failure of Belaúnde Terry’s reformist government worsened the serious problems of Peruvian society, and in 1968 a new military government emerged with a clear program of reforms. It finally displaced the traditional elite parties from power. General Juan Velasco Alvarado’s government tried to gain popular support, but his authoritarian attitude towards the population gave rise to a marked opposition from a radical union movement and a large group of Marxist parties from the so-called ‘New Left’, which were established as a radical alternative to the PAP and the CP. The military government of Velasco Alvarado ended in 1975 amidst a wave of social protest and an economic crisis heightened by excessive spending. The military dictator Francisco Morales Bermúdez succeeded Velasco Alvarado as president. However, in 1977, a general strike forced him to call elections to a constituent assembly and, three years later, the ongoing economic crisis mobilized such strong opposition that the dictator was forced to retire. The process of transition began in 1978 with the ‘Political Transfer Plan’. An elected constituent assembly drafted the constitution that governed the country’s institutional and political life up to the coup d’état of 5 April 1992, led by President Alberto Fujimori. The traditional parties reappeared (PAP, AP, PPC) and other Marxist parties emerged as a consequence of their activity against the dictatorship. All parties were legalized and participated in the transition except for AP, Sendero Luminoso, and Patria Roja. In 1978, an unprecedented series of elections began: one election to the constitutional assembly (1978), four municipal elections (1980, 1983, 1986, and 1989), a regional election (1989), and three presidential and parliamentary elections (1980, 1985, 1990). These led to three consecutive constitutional governments as well as many local and regional governments, thereby effectively generating political power. However, the stabilization of democratic institutions did not coincide with an increase in social democracy, so extreme poverty continued to affect the majority of the population, victims of a devastating economic crisis. This abject poverty led to the formation of terrorist groups such as Sendero Luminoso (Lightning Path), but they failed to gain massive popular support for their proposals.

Peru

449

Nevertheless, the unstable political system, built on an extremely confused society, and the political institutions descended into a crisis, paving the way for Alberto Fujimori’s coup d’état on 5 April 1992. The 1993 Constitution was drawn up in this state of absolute power, and the constitution made it possible for the president to be re-elected in 1995. President García implemented an extensive fiscal policy, aimed mainly at stimulating economic demand by subsidizing basic products, but these policies led to a substantial increase in the public sector, to inefficiency, and hyperinflation. Alberto Fujimori emerged as an alternative for major sectors of the population, who were disillusioned with politicians in general. During the first two years of his government Fujimori managed to control inflation, albeit at the cost of a deep recession. He also opened the economy to foreign capital. These achievements, and the Peruvian population’s general distrust of political parties, facilitated Fujimori’s coup d’état, the so-called autogolpe. At this time, Fujimore could count on massive support for his actions, and his leadership was further consolidated thanks to the capture of Abimael Guzmán Reinoso, leader of the Sendero Luminoso, and to the victories in the elections to the constituent assembly and the subsequent approval of the constitution in the 1993 referendum. The election campaign for Fujimori’s third term was marked by a dirty campaign against opposing candidates and electoral fraud. His main contender, Alejandro Toledo, withdrew from the runoff after serious allegations of fraud during the first round, which Fujimori narrowly won. Fujimori’s assumption of office for his third term was accompanied by numerous protests. His final downfall, however, was initiated by the publication of a video tape in September 2000 showing his close advisor Vladimiro Montesinos handing over a large sum of money to a congressman who had defected from the opposition to Fujimori’s ranks. Montesinos fled the country and shortly afterwards Fujimori sought asylum in Japan during a trip to Asia and resigned as president. The congress declared Valentín Paniagua transitional president. He formed a cabinet of renowned national personalities who prepared the way for the elections of 2001, which were won by Alejandro Toledo. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The following laws have governed the Peruvian electoral processes: Electoral Law of 26 April 1822, Law of 2 December 1849, Law of 4 April 1861, Law of 20 November 1896, Law 4907 of 30 January 1924, Electoral Statue-Decree-Law 7177 of 26 May 1931, amended by the

450

Peru

Decree-Law 7287, constitution of 1931, Law of 17 September 1955, Decree-Law 14250 and amendments, and the constitutions of 1979 and 1993. Throughout Peru’s electoral history the president has been elected together with his two vice presidents, and a two-chamber parliament (senators and deputies). There were also elections to a constituent assembly, three of them in the 20th century (1931, 1979, and 1993). The presidential terms varied from five to six years. Since 1931 parliament has been elected on the same day as the president, and its term of office resembles that of the president. Regarding Peruvian electoral law, all the constitutions before 1979 (eight in total) were restrictive. During the 19th century, suffrage was limited, voluntary, indirect, and public. The Electoral Law of 1896 granted the right to vote to all male, literate, and tax-paying Peruvian citizens over 21. In 1931, the right to vote was extended to all literate men over 21. Suffrage became compulsory, direct, and secret. However, female suffrage was first introduced in 1955, and women could vote for the first time in 1956. In 1979, the new constitution finally abolished all remaining requirements that excluded major sectors of the population from voting. Illiterate people voted for the first time in 1980. Until 1979, each constitution had provided for the indirect election of the president, be it through an electoral college, through parliament, or by direct suffrage. The method applied was plurality. From 1931, the president had to win one third of the vote to be elected. If he failed to muster this amount, parliament selected one of the top three candidates. However, this only happened once, in 1962. In general, immediate presidential re-election was forbidden, except on two occasions: in 1826, with Bolivar’s ephemeral Constitución Vitalicia (Lifelong Constitution), which lasted 54 days, and during Leguía’s eleven-year dictatorship. In parliamentary elections Peru has traditionally had a system of proportional representation. Elections were held in two kinds of constituencies, one for the house of representatives and one for the senate. Politically, Peru is divided into departments, which are in turn divided into provinces. Until 1980, the 60 senators were elected in one single constituency. Thereafter they were elected at the departmental level in MMCs. The 1979 Constitution stipulated that former presidents became lifelong senators after completing their terms, but this was abolished in the 1993 Constitution. Before the 1979 Constitution, the 180 representatives were elected at provincial level. As of 1979, the 180 deputies were elected in 24 departments and the constitutional province of Callao. These were also MMCs but due to their small size many of them were actually SMCs.

Peru

451

The 180 deputies were elected in MMCs that corresponded to the 24 departments, Lima Metropolitana, Callao port, and the remaining provinces of the department of Lima. In accordance with a transitional provision of the constitution, Lima had 40 deputies while the rest of the seats were distributed according to population densities: two constituencies of 11 deputies, two of 10, three of 9, three of 8, two of 7, one of 6, two of 4, four of 3, two of 2, and three of 1. Up to 1931, some parliamentary elections were held at times different to the presidential elections; the reason for this was that only one-third of parliament was elected at the same time. Since 1931, parliamentary elections have been held at the same time as presidential elections, with the same ballot paper but a different vote. Before this year, there had been a single vote with closed and blocked lists. With regard to seat allocation in parliament, the systems applied were the simple electoral quota at the department or provincial level and the method of the largest remainder. Between 1978 and 1984, parties were required to submit at least 40,000 supporting signatures before national elections to be able to run. In 1984, this number was raised to 100,000 signatures, and as of 1995, parties were required to submit a number of signatures corresponding to 4% of the registered voters. 1.3. Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of 1993, Ley Orgánica de Elecciones (No. 26859 / 11/01/1997), Ley de Elecciones Municipales (No. 26864 / 10/14/1997), Ley de los Derechos de Participación Ciudadana (No. 26300), Ley de Elecciones de los Jueces de Paz No Letrados (No. 27539 / 10/25/2001), Ley de Elecciones Regionales (No. 27683 / 03/15/2002). Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, direct, and secret for all citizens over the age of 18. Voting is compulsory until the age of 70. Registered citizens have a libreta electoral (electoral card) and a national identity card that enables them to vote. Citizens living abroad may vote at presidential elections and elections to the national assembly. Members of the armed forces and the national police can neither vote nor be elected. Elected national institutions: The president and his vice presidents are elected on the same ballot paper with only one vote. The term of office

452

Peru

is five years. Peru has a unicameral parliament with 120 members. Its term coincides with the presidential term. Nomination of candidates: Parties have to submit supporting signatures of at least 5% of the registered voters to be allowed to present candidates. The Jurado Nacional de Elecciones delists a party if it gained less than 5% of the vote in the last elections. Candidates can stand for elections on either party or independent lists. Both president and parliamentarians can be re-elected. Electoral system - presidential elections: The president and his two vice presidents are elected by absolute majority. If they do not reach this majority a second round is held between the two candidates with the most votes. - parliamentary elections: The unicameral parliament, the national assembly, is elected in MMCs of different magnitude through proportional representation. The party lists are closed and non-blocked. Citizens may cast an optional preferential vote, which means that they can select up to two representatives from the list. The same ballot is used for presidential and parliamentary elections, but with a different vote for each. Seats are allocated following the d’Hondt formula. There is no threshold of representation. If parliamentarians resign or die they are replaced by the candidate on the list who received the highest number of preferential votes. Organizational context of elections: The electoral organization is distributed among three different bodies: the Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE), responsible for electoral justice, the Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (ONPE), responsible for the organization of the electoral process , and the Registro Nacional de Identificación y Estado Civil (RENIEC), in charge of the registry office. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The electoral data presented in the following tables are based on information from the Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE), except in some specific cases. Unfortunately, the data before 1963 are incomplete, because the military government that seized power the year before took all the electoral information from the JNE and did not return it. The intention was to examine an alleged case of electoral fraud in favor of the APRA. Only the data from 1978 on are generally complete, although

Peru

453

there are only official publications for the years 1978, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1995. No information is available for the presidential elections of 1990, for the elections to the constituent congress of 1992, and for the 1993 referendum. Percentages have been calculated by the author.

Peru

454 2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’État Year 1930 1931 1939 1945 1948 1950 1956 1962 1963 1968 1975 1978 1980 1985 1990 1990 1992 1993 1995 2000 2000 2001 2001 a

Presidential elections

Parliamentary elections Elections Lower Upper for Constit. Chamber Chamber Assembly

Referen dums

Coups d’état 25/08

11/10 22/10 10/06

11/10 22/10 10/06

22/10 10/06 27/08

02/07 17/06 10/06a 09/06

02/07 17/06 10/06a 09/06

02/07 17/06 10/06a 09/06

18/07 03/03 03/10 29/08 18/06

18/05 14/04 08/04 (1st) 10/06 (2nd)

18/05 14/04 08/04

18/05 14/04 08/04 22/11

09/04 09/04 (1st) 28/05c (2nd) 08/04 (1st) 03/06 (2nd)

b

31/10

05/04 31/10

09/04 09/04b 08/04 b

Elections have been anulled by coup d’état. The political constitution of 1993 abolished the bicameral parliament (house of representatives and senate) and replaced it with the unicameral national assembly. c The runoff was boycotted by the opposition and its candidate Alejandro Toledo Manrique of Perú Posible. b

Peru

455

2.2 Electoral Body 1931–2001 Year Type of Populationb electiona 1931 1939 1939 1939 1945 1945 1945 1950 1950 1950 1956 1956 1956 1962 1962 1962 1963 1963 1963 1978 1980 1980 1980 1985 1985 1985 1990 1990 1990 1990 1992 1993 1995 1995d 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001

CA/Pr Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S Pr R S CA Pr R S Pr R S Pr (1st) Pr (2nd) R S CA Ref Pr NA Pr (1st) Pr (2nd) NA Pr (1st) Pr (2nd) NA

6,120,000 6,080,313 6,080,313 6,080,313 6,857,538 6,857,538 6,857,538 7,632,460 7,632,460 7,632,460 8,904,874 8,904,874 8,904,874 10,516,473 10,516,473 10,516,473 10,825,832 10,825,832 10,825,832 16,414,402 17,295,274 17,295,274 17,295,274 19,697,549 19,697,549 19,697,549 22,332,100 22,332,100 22,332,100 22,332,100 22,462,000 22,639,443 23,531,701 23,531,701 25,939,329 25,939,329 25,939,329 26,346,840 26,346,840 26,346,840

Registered voters Total % number pop. 392,363 — 597,182 9.8 — — — — 776,572 11.3 — — — — 776,132 10.2 — — — — 1,575,741 17.7 — — — — 2,221,906 21.1 — — — — 2,070,718 19.1 — — — — 4,978,831 30.3 6,471,101 6,431,651 37.2 6,431,651 37.2 8,333,433 42.3 8,282,545 42.0 8,282,545 42.0 10,013,225 44.8 10,007,614 44.8 10,012,325c 44.8 10,013,225 44.8 11,339,756 50.5 11,620,820 51.3 11,974,396 50.1 11,865,283 50.4 14,567,468 56.2 14,567,468 56.2 14,567,468 56.2 14,898,435 56.6 14,898,435 56.6 14,898,435 56.6

Votes cast Total number 323,654 339,193 — — 456,310 — — — — — 1,324,229 — — 1,969,288 — — 1,954,284 — — 4,172,962 5,121,328 4,573,141 5,258,247 7,544,836 6,608,533 7,206,943 7,837,116 7,958,232 6,818,536 5,539,680 8,086,312 8,178,742 8,803,049 7,961,114 12,066,229 11,800,310 11,942,810 12,264,349 12,128,969 11,987,641

% reg. voters 82.5 56.8 — — 58.8 — — — — — 84.0 — — 88.6 — — 94.4 — — 83.1 79.1 71.1 81.8 90.6 79.8 87.0 78.2 79.5 68.1 55.3 71.3 70.4 73.5 67.1 82.8 81.0 82.0 82.3 81.4 80.5

% pop. — 5.6 — — 6.7 — — — — — 14.9 — — 18.7 — — 18.1 — — 25.4 29.6 26.4 30.4 38.3 33.6 36.6 35.1 35.6 30.5 24.8 36.0 36.1 37.4 33.8 46.5 45.5 46.0 46.5 46.3 45.5

456

Peru

a

Pr = President; NA = National Assembly; R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber), S = Senate (Upper Chamber), CA = Constitutional Assembly, Ref = Referendum. b The population data are based on the census of 1940: 6,208,040; 1961: 9,906,746; 1972: 13,538,208; 1981: 17,754,800 and 1993: 22,048,356. Numbers for the remaining years are estimates and projections based on these data by Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI) and The Statesman’s Yearbook. Population data for 2000/2001 is taken from INEI. c The difference between the number of voters registered for the lower and the upper chamber elections is due to the fact that Peruvians living abroad cannot vote in the lower chamber elections. d The constitution of 1993 abolished the bicameral parliament (house of representatives and senate) and replaced it with the unicameral national assembly.

2.3 Abbreviations AP APP APS AR ARS C 90a C 90/NMa CC CN CODEb CODE/PP

Acción Popular (Popular Action) Alternativa Perú Puma (Alternative Peru Puma) Acción Política Socialista (Socialist Political Action) Acción Republicana (Republican Action) Acción Revolucionaria Socialista (Revolutionary Socialist Action) Cambio 90 (Change 90) Cambio 90/Nueva Mayoría (Change 90/ New Majority) Coalición Conservadora (Conservative Coalition) Coalición Nacional (National Coalition) Convergencia Democrática (Democratic Agreement) Convergencia Democrática/País Posible (Democratic Agreement/Possible Country) COONAN Cooperación Nacional (National Cooperation) DC Democracia Cristiana (Christian Democracy) FAHF Frente Agrícola Humanista Femenino (Female Humanist Agricultural Front) FDN Frente Democrático Nacional (National Democratic Front) FDUN Frente Democrático de Unidad Nacional (Democratic Front of National Unity) FIM Frente Independiente Moralizador (Moralizing Independent Front) FIRN Frente Independiente de Reconciliación Nacional (Independent Front of National Reconciliation) FJD Frente de Juventudes Democráticas (Front of Democratic Youths) c FLN Frente de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Front) d FNTC Frente Nacional de Trabajadores y Campesinos (National Worker’s and Farmer’s Front) FOCEP Frente Obrero Campesino Estudiantil y Popular (Worker’s, Farmer’s, Student’s and People’s Front) FP Frente Patriótico (Patriotic Front) e FREDEMO Frente Democrático (Democratic Front) FREPAP Frente Agrícola Peruano (Peruvian Agricultural Front) d IN Izquierda Nacionalista (National Left)

Peru

457

ISf IUg LADI

Izquierda Socialista (Socialist Left) Izquierda Unida (United Left) Lista Avanzada Democrática Independiente (Independent Democratic Progressive List) Lista Independiente Cooperación Nacional (Independent List of National Cooperation) Lista Independiente Democrática Junín (Democratic Independent List Junín) Lista Independiente Democracia Nissei Callao (Independent List Democracy Nissei Callao) Lista Independiente Frente Revolucionario de Izquierda de Huánuco (Independent List Leftist Revolutionary Front of Huánuco) Partido Movimiento Nacional 7 de Junio (Party National Movement 7th of June) Movimiento de Avanzada Socialista (Progressive Socialist Movement) Movimiento de Bases Hayistas (Movement of the Hayistas’ Bases) Movimiento Democrático de Izquierda (Democratic Movement of the Left) Movimiento Democrático Pradista (Pradista Democratic Movement) Movimiento Independiente Agrario (Independent Agrarian Movement) Movimiento Independiente Inca (Independent Inca Movement) Movimiento Independiente Nuevo Peru (Independent Movement New Peru) Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) Movimiento Independiente Regionalista Ancashino (Independent Regionalist Ancashino Movement) Movimiento Libertad (Liberty Movement) Movimiento Nuevo Perú (Movement New Peru) Movimiento Popular de Acción e Integración Social (People’s Movement of Social Action and Integration) Movimiento Social Independiente/Recambio (Social Independent Movement/Change) Movimiento Social Progresista (Social Progressive Movement) Nueva Mayoria (New Majority) Movimiento Cívico Obras (Civic Works Movement) Organización Política de la Revolución Peruana (Political Organization of the Peruvian Revolution) Perú 2000 (Peru 2000) Partido de Integración Nacional (National Integration Party) Partido de Avanzada e Integración Social (Progressive and Social Integration Party) Partido de Avanzada Nacional (National Progressive Party) Partido Aprista Peruano (Peruvian Aprista Party) Partido Civil (Civic Party) Partido Constitucional (Constitutional Party) Partido Comunista del Perú; Patria Roja (Communist Party of Peru; Red Fatherland)

LICN LIDJ LIDNC LIFRIH M7J MAS MBH MDI MDPh MIA MII MINP MIR MIRA ML MNP MPAIS MSI MSP NM OBRAS OPRP P 2000 PADIN PAIS PAN PAP PC PCC PC DEL P

458 PCP PCP-BR PCR PCRP PD PDP PDRP PL PMLN PMR PN PND POMR PP PPC PRP PR PRT PSDN PSP PSR PST PUM PyD R SODE UCI UD UDPi UIj UNk UNm UNIRl UNOk UN y CD UPP (1) UPP (2)

Peru Partido Comunista Peruano (Peruvian Communist Party) Partido Comunista Peruano – Bandera Roja (Peruvian Communist Party – Red Flag) Partido Comunista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Communist Party) Partido Constitucional Renovador del Perú (Constitutional Renewal Party of Peru) Partido Demócrata (Democratic Party) Partido Descentralista del Perú (Decentralistic Party of Peru) Partido Democrático Reformista Peruano (Democratic Peruvian Reform Party) Partido Liberal (Liberal Party) Partido Mariateguista para la Liberación Nacional (Mariateguista Party for the National Liberation) Partido Mariateguista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Mariateguista Party) Partido Nacional (National Party) Partido Nacional Democrático (National Democratic Party) Partido Obrero Marxista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Workers’ Marxist Party) País Posible (Possible Country) Partido Popular Cristiano (People’s Christian Party) Partido Reformista del Perú (Reformist Party of Peru) Partido Restaurador (Restoration Party) Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (Revolutionary Worker’s Party) Partido Social Demócrata Nacionalista (Nationalist Social Democratic Party) Partido Socialista del Perú (Socialist Party of Peru) Partido Socialista Revolucionario (Revolutionary Socialist Party of Peru) Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (Socialist Worker’s Party) Partido Unificado Mariateguista (Unified Mariateguista Party) Paz y Desarrollo (Peace and Development) Movimiento Renovación (Renewal Movement) Solidaridad y Democracia (Solidarity and Democracy) Unión Cívica Independiente (Independent Civic Union) Unión Democrática (Democratic Union) Unidad Democrática Popular (Popular Democratic Union) Unidad de Izquierda (Unity of the Left) Unidad Nacional (National Unity) Unidad Nacional (National Unity) Unión de Izquierda Revolucionaria (Union of the Revolutionary Left) Unión Nacional Odriísta (National Odriísta Union) Unidad Nacional y Concordia Democrática (National Unity and Democratic Concordance) Unión Popular Peruano (Popular Peruvian Union) Unión por el Perú (Union for Peru)

Peru UR VR VR-PC a

459 Unión Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Union) Vanguardia Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Vanguard) Vanguardia Revolucionaria – Proletariado Comunista (Revolutionary Vanguard – Communist Proletariat)

Cambio 90 participated in the 1990 elections. In the 1992 elections it joined the electoral alliance Nueva Mayoría, which changed its name to Cambio 90/Nueva Mayoría. b Front formed by PPC, MBH and independents. c Front, formed mainly by the PCP and some independent individuals. d Ran under the name ‘IN’ in 1985 and continued under its own name afterwards. e Front formed by AP, PPC, ML, and SODE. f Front formed by PSR, PCR, and several small groups. g IU is an electoral front formed by PSR, PCP, FOCEP, UDP, UNIR, and PCR in 1980. In 1984, the member parties of UDP merged with PUM, which subsequently joined IU. In 1985 APS and PADIN were integrated into PUM, too. PADIN withdrew shortly thereafter. In 1989, the recently founded MAS was incorporated, but some time before the municipal elections of that year IU was definitively divided. PSR, PCR, and independent individuals formed IS. In 1990, IU’ members were: PUM, PCP, UNIR, MAS, APS, FOCEP, and PMR. h Former Democratic Pradista Movement (Movimiento Democrático Pradista). i Political front formed by VR, MIR, and PCR in 1977. After the 1980 elections, the front founded IU together with other parties. j Front formed by PCP, PR, FLN, and VR-PC. The front joined with UDP and founded IU in 1980. k Participated in 1980 elections as ‘UN’. Afterwards it continued under its own name. l Front formed by PCP, PSR, PCP-BR. m Front formed by R, PPC, and SN for the 2001 elections.

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1931–2002 Party / Alliance

Years

AR PAPb PCRP PDP PSPc UR CC FP PCPd PR DCe FJD MDP UN y CD APf FLNg MSP UNO

1931 1931; 1945; 1962–2001 1931 1931 1931;1962; 1980–1990 1931; 1945; 1963 1939 1939 1945;1962; 1978–1990 1950 1956–1978; 1985–1990 1956 1956; 1963–1980 1956 1962–2001 1962; 1980 1962 1962–1980; 1990

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya 1 1 10 11 1 1 — 1 3 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 6 1 1 4 6 1 1 2 4 1 1 7 8 2 2 1 1 4 5

Peru

460 Party / Alliance (continued) FNTCh UPP PDRP ARS FOCEPi PPCj PSRk PSTl UDPm APSn OPRP PAIS PRTo UI UNIR CODE FAHF FDUN IU M7J MBH PADINp PAN PMLN C 90 C 90/NM FIM FREDEMO FREPAP IS UCI UD UPP CODE-PPq OBRAS MNP PRP APP PyD FIRN R MIA Perú 2000 Perú Posible

Years 1963–1995 1963 1978 1978 1978–1990 1978–1995 1978–1990 1978–1985 1978–1980 1980–1990 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980–1990 1985 1985 1985 1985–1995 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1990 1992–1995, 2001 1990–2001 1990 1990–2001 1990 1990 1990 1995–2001 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 2000 2000–2001

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya 4 6 1 1 — 1 — 1 4 4 3 5 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 — 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 — 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 1 1 2 2

Peru Party / Alliance (continued) Somos Perúr Solidaridad Nacional Avancemos Solución Popular Todos por la Victoria Proyecto País Renacimiento Andino Unidad Nacionals a

461 Years 2000–2001 2000

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentarya 1 2 1 1

2000 2001 2001

1 1 1

1 1 1

2001 2001

1 1

1 1

2001

1

1

Includes elections to the constitutional assemblies. b Participated in the 1945 elections on the lists of the FDN. In 1985, parts of DC and SODE joined PAP. c In 1990, PSP participated on the lists of IU. d Participated on following parliamentary lists: 1945 on the FDN list; 1962 on the FLN list; 1980 on the UI list; 1985 on the IU list. It only ran under its own list in the constitutional elections of 1978. e Participated in the elections of 1985 on the lists of PAP and in 1990 on those of IS. f Formed by the base of the FJD. It participated in the elections of 1990 on the lists of FREDEMO. In all the other elections it participated with its own lists. g Participated in 1980 within UNIR. h In 1995, it participates in the races for the presidency and the congress together with the alliance Perú al 2000/FNTC. i Front formed by PST, POMR, PCP-BR and independent individuals in 1978. In 1980, the front was dissolved, FOCEP became a party and participated as such in the 1980 elections. From 1985 on it participated on the lists of IU. j Joined CODE for the 1985 elections and FREDEMO for the 1990 elections. k Participated on the lists of PRT in 1980, on the lists of UI in 1985 and on the lists of IS in 1990. l With other groups it formed the FOCEP. In 1980, it participated on the list of PRT and in 1985 under its own name. m Joined PUM in 1984, with the exception of a PCR wing. n Joined IU in 1985. o In 1980 it included candidates of PST and POMR on its lists. p Participated on the list of IU in 1985. q Former CODE in alliance with País Posible (PP). r Alliance with Causa Democrática. s Alliance of PPC, SN and R.

Peru

462 2.5 Referendums 1993 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Yes No a

Total number 11,620,820 8,178,742 734,645 7,444,097 3,895,763 3,548,334

% – 70.4 8.9 91.0 52.3 47.7

Invalid votes include blank votes.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1931–1992 1931a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesb Valid votes UR PAP AR Partido Constitucional Renovador del Perú

Total number 392,363 323,645 23,818 299,827 152,149 106,088 21,950 19,640

%

Seats

%

– 82.5 7.4 92.6 50.8 35.4 7.3 6.5

145 — — — —

100.0 — — — —

a

The elections for constitutional assembly have been held simultaneously with the presidential elections. b Invalid votes include blank votes.

1978 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes PAP PPC FOCEP PSR PCP UDP FNTC DC PUN MDP

Total number 4,978,831 4,172,962 661,576 3,511,386 1,240,674 835,285 433,413 323,520 207,612 160,741 135,552 83,075 74,137 68,619

%

Seats

%

– 83.7 15.8 84.1 35.4 23.8 12.3 6.6 5.9 4.5 3.8 2.3 2.1 1.9

100 37 25 12 6 6 4 4 2 2 2

100.0 37.0 25.0 12.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Peru 1978 (cont.) ARS PDRP a

Total number 20,164 19,594

% 0.5 0.5

Seats – –

%

Seats

%

0.0 0.0

Invalid votes include blank votes.

1992 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes C 90/NM PPC FIM R MDI CODE FNTC FREPAP SODE MIA a

463

Total number 11,339,756 8,086,312 1,910,255 6,176,057 3,040,552 602,110 437,908 435,414 338,746 326,219 237,162 169,303 126,189 105,703

% – 71.3 23.7 76.3 49.2 9.8 7.1 7.1 5.5 5.3 3.8 2.7 2.0 1.7

80 44 8 7 6 4 4 3 2 1 1

100.0 55.0 10.0 8.8 7.5 5.0 5.0 3.8 2.5 1.2 1.2

Invalid votes include blank votes.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 National Assembly 1995–2001 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes C90/NM (95) UPP (2) PAP FIM CODE/PP AP PPC R OBRAS IU FREPAP

1995 Total number 11,865,283 7,961,114 3,671,464 4,289,650 2,193,724 584,099 274,263 205,117 175,693 142,638 127,277 123,969 80,918 80,078 46,102

% – 67.1 46.1 53.9 51.1 13.6 6.4 4.8 4.1 3.3 3.0 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.1

2000 Total number 14,567,468 11,942,810 2,007,685 9,935,125 – 254,582 546,930 751,323 – 245,115 – – – – 216,953

% – 82.0 16.8 83.2 – 2.6 5.5 7.6 – 2.5 – – – – 2.2

Peru

464 Year (cont.) Perú al 2000/FNTC MIA MNP Perú 2000 Perú Posible Somos Perú Solidaridad Nacional Avancemos Others a

1995 Total number 46,027 33,283 28,177 – – – – – 148,285b

% 1.1 0.8 0.7 – – – – – 3.5

2000 Total number – – – 4,189,018 2,308,635 715,396 399,985 307,188 –

% – – – 42.2 23.2 7.2 4.0 3.1 –

Invalid votes also include blank votes. PRP: 12,484; APP: 11,961; Apertura para el Desarrollo Nacional: 10,224; FIRN: 9,988; MII: 9,281; MSI: 6,116; others: 88,231. b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Perú Posible PAP UN FIM Somos Perú C 90/NM AP UPP (2) Solución Popular Todos por la Victoria FREPAP Proyecto País Renacimiento Andino a

2001 Total number 14,898,435 11,987,641 2,565,932 9,421,709 2,477,624 1,857,416 1,304,037 1,034,672 544,193 452,696 393,433 390,236 336,680 191,179 156,264 155,572 127,707

Invalid votes also include blank votes.

% – 80.5 21.4 78.6 26.3 19.7 13.8 11.0 5.8 4.8 4.2 4.1 3.6 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.4

Peru

465

2.7.2 House of Representatives 1980–1990 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes AP PAP PPC UNIR UDP PRT UI FNTC FOCEP UN MDP APS OPRP PAIS IU CODE IN FUN Others Independents a

1980 Total number 6,431,651 4,573,141 941,802 3,631,339 1,413,233 962,801 348,578 172,430 156,415 151,447 124,751 93,416 61,248 31,443 22,573 22,708 21,609 16,493 – – – – 9,786b 22,408

% – 71.1 27.9 79.4 38.9 26.5 9.6 4.8 4.3 4.2 3.4 2.6 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 – – – – 0.3 0.6

1985 Total number 8,282,545 6,608,533 777,823 5,830,710 491,581 2,920,605 – – – – – – – – – – – – 1,424,981 649,404 110,695 59,455 74,797c 99,192

% – 79.8 11.8 88.2 8.4 50.1 – – – – – – – – – – – – 24.4 11.1 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.7

Invalid votes include blank votes. PSP c Others include: PSP (14,775 votes), M7J (24,466); PAN (19,131) and PST (16,425). b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesb Valid votes FREDEMO PAP C 90 IU IS FNTC FREPAP

1990a Total number 10,012,325 6,818,536 1,857,066 4,961,470 1,492,513 1,240,395 819,527 497,764 264,147 124,544 62,955

% – 68.1 27.3 72.8 30.1 25.0 16.5 10.0 5.3 2.5 1.3

Peru

466 Year (cont.) UCI Movimiento Regionalista Loreto Others Independents

1990a Total number 41,210 23,836

% 0.8 0.5

58,411 336,168

a

1.2 6.8

The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d´état on 05/04/92. Invalid votes include blank votes. c Frente Tacneñista: 18,035; Movimiento Independiente en Acción: 14,547; UNO: 10,788; UD: 7,762; MBH: 5,047; Somos Libres: 2,232. b

2.7.3 Senate 1980–1990 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes PAP FNTC AP PSP PPC UNIR PRT UDP UI FOCEP UN OPRP APS Othersb a

b

1980 Total number 6,431,651 5,258,247 1,116,044 4,142,203 1,144,203 92,892 1,694,952 11,299 385,674 189,080 165,191 145,155 146,085 69,412 25,551 23,339 10,102 30,268

Invalid votes include blank votes. MDP: 17,560; PAIS: 12,708.

% – 81.8 21.3 78.8 27.6 2.2 40.9 0.3 9.3 4.6 4.0 3.5 3.5 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7

Peru Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesb Valid votes FREDEMO C 90 PAP IU IS FNTC FREPAP UCI Somos Libres CODE AP IN FUN PAN Others a

467 1985 Total number 8,282,545 7,206,943 1,162,305 6,044,638 – – 3,099,975 1,521,461 – – – – – 675,621 492,056 103,874 56,859 25,843 69,129c

% – 80.7 16.1 83.9 – – 51.3 25.2 – – – – – 11.2 8.1 1.7 0.9 0.4 1.1

1990a Total number 10,012,325 6,875,950 1,336,270 5,539,680 1,791,077 1,204,132 1,390,954 542,049 303,216 112,388 63,879 45,171 30,671 – – – – – 56,143d

% – 68.7 19.4 80.6 32.3 21.7 25.1 9.8 5.5 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.6 – – – – – 1.0

The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d´état on 05/04/92. Invalid votes include blank votes. c Frente Agrícola Humanista Femenino: 17,540; PST: 16,113; M7J: 15,126; PSP: 12,991; PMLN: 7,359. d UNO: 16,479; MBH: 13,616; FIR: 9,065; UD: 8,041; COONAM: 4,002; Movimiento Independiente Solidaridad: 3,142; Confederación Honorífica de Lucha Organizada Independiente: 1,798. b

Peru

468 2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 National Assembly 1995–2001 Year C 90/NM UPP (2) PAP FIM CODE/PP AP PPC R OBRAS IU FREPAP Perú al 2000/FNTC MIA Perú 2000 Perú Posible Somos Perú Solidaridad Nacional Avancemos Unidad Nacional Solución Popular Renacimiento Andino Todos por la Victoria

1995 Seats 120 67 17 8 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 – – – –

% 100.0 55.8 14.2 6.7 5.0 4.2 3.3 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 – – – –

2000 Seats 120 – 3 6 9 – 4 – – – – 2 –

% 100.0 – 2.5 5.0 7.5 – 3.3 – – – – 1.7 –

2001 Seats 120 3 6 28 11 — 3 — — — — — —

% 100.0 2.5 5.0 23.3 9.2 — 2.5 — — — — — —

– 52 29 9 5

– 43.3 24.2 7.5 4.2

— — 45 4 —

— — 37.5 3.3 —

— 17

— 14.2

– —

– —

3 —

2.5 —

—

—

—

—

1

0.8

—

—

—

—

1

0.8

—

—

—

—

1

0.8

Peru

469

2.8.2 House of Representatives 1963–1990 Year PAP AP UNO DC MDP PPC IU FNTC (IN) C 90 ML FIM IS SODE Independents

a

1963 Seats 139 56 39 26 10 2 – 3 – – – – – – 3

% 100.0 40.3 28.1 8.7 7.2 1.4 – 2.2 – – – – – – 2.2

1980 Seats 180 58 98 – – – 10 10 4 – – – – – –

% 100.0 32.2 54.4 – – – 5.6 5.6 2.2 – – – – – –

1985 Seats 180 107 10 – – – 12 48 1 – – – – – 2

% 100.0 59.4 5.6 – – – 6.7 26.6 0.5 – – – – – 1.1

1990a Seats 180 53 26 – – – 25 16 3 32 9 7 4 2 3

% 100.0 29.4 14.4 – – – 13.9 8.9 1.7 17.8 5.0 3.9 2.2 1.1 1.7

The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d´état on 05/04/92.

2.8.3 Senate 1963–1990 Year

1963 Seats 45 PAP 18 AP 15 UNO 7 DC 5 b IU – PPC/CODE – PRT — UDP — UNIR — UI — FOCEP — FNTC – SODE – C 90 – ML – IS – Independientes –

a

% 100.0 40.0 33.3 15.6 11.1 – – — — — — — – – – – – –

1980 Seats 60 18 26 – – — 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 – – – – –

% 100.0 30.0 43.3 – – — 10.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.6 1.6 – – – – –

1985 Seats 61 30a 6 1a – 15 7 — — — — — 1 1a – – – –

% 100.0 50.1 8.3 – 1.6 25.0 11.6 — — — — — 1.6 1.6 – – – –

DC and SODE participated on the list of the PAP and got one senator each.

1990d Seats 62 17c 8 – – 6 5 — — — — — 1 1 14 6 3 1

% 100.0 27.4 12.9 – – 9.7 8.1 — — — — — 1.6 1.6 22.6 9.7 4.8 1.6

Peru

470 b

IU was founded five months after the 1980 election by members of parliament for PRT (02), UDP (02), FOCEP (01), UNIR (02) and UI (02). c Former presidents Belaúnde and García were appointed senators for lifetime after completing their presidential terms. Belaúnde is counted under AP and García under PAP. d The legislative period of five years has been interrupted by the coup d’état on 05/04/92.

2.9 Presidential Elections 1931–2001 1931 Total number Registered voters 392,363 Votes cast 323,645 a Invalid votes 23,818 Valid votes 299,827 Luis M. Sánchez Cerro (UR) 152,149 Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (PAP) 106,088 José María de la Jara y Ureta (AR) 21,950 Antonuio Osores (PCRP) 19,640 a

% – 82.5 7.4 92.6 50.8 35.4 7.3 6.5

Invalid votes include blank votes.

1939 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Manuel Prado Ugarteche José Quesada

Total number 597,182 — — 339,193 262,971 76,222

% – — — — 77.5 22.5

1945 Total number Registered voters 776,572 Votes cast — a Invalid votes — Valid votes 456,310 José Luis Bustamante y Rivero (FDN) 305,590 Eloy G. Ureta Montehermoso (UR) 150,720

% – — — — 66.9 33.0

a

a

Invalid votes include blank votes.

Invalid votes include blank votes.

1950 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Manuel Odría (PR)a

a

Total number — — — — 550,779

% – — — — —

After the elimination of his adversary Ernesto Montage of the Liga Democrática, Odría was the only candidate.

Peru 1956 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Manuel Prado Ugarteche (MDP) Fernando Belaúnde Terry (FJD) Hernando de Lavalle Vargas (UN/CD)

471 Total number 1,575,741 1,324,229 75,931 1,248,298 567,713 457,966 222,619

% – 84.0 5.4 94.3 45.5 36.7 17.8

1962a Total number Registered voters 2,221,906 Votes cast 1,969,288 b Invalid votes 279,730 Valid votes 1,689,558 Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (PAP) 557,007 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (AP) 544,180 Manuel A. Odría Amoretti (UNO) 480,378 Héctor Cornejo Chávez (DC) 48,792 César Pando Egúsquiza (FLN) 33,341 Luciano Castillo Coloma (PSP) 16,658 Alberto Ruiz Eldredge (MSP) 9,202

% – 88.6 14.2 85.8 33.0 32.2 28.4 2.9 2.0 1.0 0.5

a

a

b

Invalid votes include blank votes.

Elections were annulled because of a coup d´état. Invalid votes include blank votes.

1963 Total number Registered voters 2,070,718 Votes cast 1,954,284 a Invalid votes 139,716 Valid votes 1,814,568 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (AP/DC) 708,662 Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (PAP) 623,501 Manuel A. Odría Amoretti (UNO) 463,085 Mareio Samamé Boggio (UPP) 19,320

a

Invalid votes include blank votes.

% – 94.4 7.2 92.9 39.1 34.4 25.5 1.1

Peru

472 1980 Total number Registered voters 6,471,101 Votes cast 5,121,328 a Invalid votes 1,130,074 Valid votes 3,991,254 Fernando Belaúnde Terry (AP) 1,793,190 Armando Villanueva del Campo 1,087,188 (APRA) Luis Bedoya Reyes (PPC) 382,547 Hugo Blanco Galdós (PRT) 160,713 Horacio Zevallos Gámes (UNIR) 134,321 Leonidas Rodríguez Figueroa (UI) 116,890 Carlos Malpica Santisteban (UDP) 98,452 Roger Cáceres Velásquez (FNTC) 81,647 Genaro Ledesma Izquieta (FOCEP) 60,853 b Others 75,453

a

% – 79.1 22.1 77.9 44.9 27.2 9.6 4.0 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.9

Invalid votes include blank votes. Carlos Carrillo Smith (UN): 18,170; Javier Tantaleán Vanini (OPRP): 17,737; Gustavo Mohme Llona (APS): 11,607; Alejandro Tudela Garland (MDP): 9,875; Waldo Fernández Durán (PAIS): 9,350; Luciano Castillo Coloma (PSP): 8,714. b

1985 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Alan García Pérez (PAP) Alfonso Barrantes Lingán (IU) Luis Bedoya Reyes (CODE) Javier Alva Orlandini (AP) Roger Cáceres Velásquez (IN)b Francisco Morales Bermúdez (FDUN) Othersc

a

Total number 8,333,433 7,544,836 1,044,181 6,500,550 3,452,111 1,605,139 773,313 471,150 91,968 54,899 52,212

% – 90.6 13.8 86.2 53.1 24.7 11.9 7.3 1.4 0.8 0.8

Invalid votes include blank votes. FNTC was called IN during the election. It returned to its old name afterwards. c Jorge Campos Arredondo (PAN): 26,366; Enrique Fernández Chacón (PST): 15,696; Peter Uculmana (M7J): 10,150. b

Peru

473

1990 (First round) Total number Registered voters 10,013,225 Votes cast 7,837,116 a Invalid votes 1,195,532 Valid votes 6,641,584 Mario Vargas Llosa (FREDEMO) 2,163,323 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (C 90) 1,932,208 Luis Alva Castro (PAP) 1,494,231 Henry Pease García (IU) 544,889 Alfonso Barrantes Lingán (IS) 315,038 Roger Cáceres Velásquez (FNTC) 86,418 Ezequiel Atacusi Gamonal (FREPAP) 73,974 b Others 31,503

a

b

Invalid votes include blank votes. Dora Larrea de Castillo (UNO): 21,962; Nicolás de Piérola y Balta (UD): 9,541.

1990 (Second round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (C 90) Mario Vargas Llosa (FREDEMO)

a

Total number 10,007,614 7,958,232 760,044 7,198,188 4,489,897 2,708,291

% – 79.5 9.6 90.4 62.4 37.6

Total number 11,974,396 8,803,049 1,576,708 7,226,341 4,645,279

%

Invalid votes include blank votes.

1995 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesa Valid votes Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (C90/NM) Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (UPP [2]) Mercedes Cabanillas (PAP) Alejandro Toledo Manrique (CODE/PP) Ricardo Belmont (OBRAS) Raúl Diez Canseco (AP) Ezequiel Ataucusi (FREPAP) Augustín Haya de la Torre (IU) Othersb

a

% – 78.3 15.3 84.7 32.6 29.1 22.5 8.2 4.7 1.3 1.1 0.5

– 73.5 17.9 82.1 64.3

1,555,623 297,327 234,964

21.5 4.1 3.3

175,042 121,872 56,827 41,985 60,021

2.4 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.8

Invalid votes include blank votes. Includes Luis Cáceres Velásquez (Perú al 2000/FNTC): 24,640; Sixtilio Dalmau (MNP): 9,583; Víctor Echegaray (PRP): 8,829; Edmundo Inga (APP): 6,740; Miguel Campos (P y D): 6,143; Carlos Cruz (FIRN): 5,106. b

Peru

474 2000 (First Round) Total number Registered voters 14,567,468 Votes cast 12,066,229 Invalid votes 980,359 Valid votes 11,085,870 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (Perú 5,528,568 2000) Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú 4,460,895 Posible) Alberto Andrade Carmona (Somos 333,048 Perú) Federico Salas Guevara Schultz 247,054 (Avancemos) Luis Castañeda Lossio (Solidaridad 199,814 Nacional) Abel Salinas Izaguirre (PAP) 153,319 Ezequiel Ataucusi Gamonal (FREPAP) 80,106 a Others 83,066

a

% – 82.8 8.1 91.9 49.9 40.2 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.7

Víctor Andrés García Belaúnde (AP): 46,523; Máximo San Román Cáceres (UPP [2]): 36,543.

2000 (Runoff) Total number Registered voters 14,567,467 Votes cast 11,800,310 Invalid votes 3,672,410 Valid votes 8,127,900 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori (Perú 2000) 6,041,685 Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú 2,086,215 a Posible)

% – 81.0 31.1 68.9 74.3 25.7

a

Toledo and his coalition inofficially withdrew from the runoff and asked their followers to boycott the election.

2001 (First round) Total number Registered voters 14,898,435 Votes cast 12,264,349 Invalid votes 1,662,629 Valid votes 10,601,720 3,871,167 Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú Posible) Alan García Pérez (PAP) 2,732,857 Lourdes Flores (UN) 2,576,653 Fernando Olivera (FIM) 1,044,207 Carlos Boloña (Solución Popular) 179,243 Ciro Gálvez (Renacimiento Andino) 85,436 Marco Arrunategui (Proyecto País) 79,077 Ricardo Noriega (Todos por la Victoría) 33,080

% – 82.3 13.6 86.4 36.5 25.8 24.3 9.8 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.3

Peru

475

2001 (Runoff) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alejandro Toledo Manrique (Perú Posible) Alan García Pérez (PAP)

Total number 14,898,435 12,128,969 1,675,484 10,453,485 5,548,556 4,904,929

% – 81.4 13.8 86.2 53.1 46.9

2.10 List of Power Holders 1895–2004 Head of state Nicolás de Piérola Villena Eduardo López de Romaña Alvizuri Manuel Candamo Iriarte Serapio Calderón Chirinos

Years 1895–1899 1899–1903 1903–1904 1904

José Pardo y Barreda 1904–1908 Augusto B. Leguía Salcedo Guillermo Billinghurst Angulo

1908–1912

Óscar R. Benavides Larrea

1914–1915

1912–1914

José Pardo y Barreda 1915–1919 Augusto B. Leguía Salcedo

1919–1930

Remarks Constitutional president from 08/09/1895 until 08/09/1899. Constitutional president from 08/09/1899 until 03/09/1903. Constitutional president from 08/09/1903 until 18/04/1904. He died in office. He was the second vice president under Candamo and succeeded him after his death. President from 18/04/1904 until 24/09/1904. Constitutional president from 24/09/1904 until 24/09/1908. Constitutional president from 24/09/1908 until 24/09/1912. President, elected by congress on 24/09/1912. Overthrown by a coup d’état on 04/02/1914. Military officer; he took over the presidency of the junta on 04/02/1914 and was formally appointed by congress on 15/05/1914. He acted as transitional president from 15/05/1914 until 18/08/1915. Constitutional president for the second time from 18/08/1915 until 04/07/1919. Took over the presidency after leading a rebellion to defend his electoral triumph over the defeated Partido Civil. Governed as provisional president until 12/10/1919, when he was officially elected by congress. He was a constitutional president until 25/08/1930.

Peru

476 Head of state (cont.) Years Manuel M. Ponce 1930 Brousset Luis M. Sánchez Cerro

1930–1931

Ricardo L. Elías Arias 1931 Gustavo Jiménez

1931

David Samanez Ocampo Luis M. Sánchez Cerro

1931

Oscar R. Benavides Larrea

1933–1939

1931–1933

Manuel Prado y 1939–1945 Ugarteche José L. Bustamante y 1945–1948 Rivero Manuel A. Odría Amoretti

1948–1950

Zenón Noriega Agüero

1950

Manuel A. Odría Amoretti

1950–1956

Manuel Prado Ugarteche

1956–1962

Ricardo Pérez Godoy 1962–1963

Remarks Military officer; took over the government as president of the junta of government. Governed from 25/08 until 28/08. Military officer; led the rebellion against Leguía in Arequipa and took over the presidency of the military junta on 28/08/1930. Governed until 01/03/1931. President of the provisional junta from 01/03 until 05/03. Military officer, became head of the transitional junta of government after a rebellion. Governed from 05/03 until 11/03. President of the junta of government from 11/03 until 08/12. Held general elections. Constitutional president; governed from 08/12/1931 until 30/04/1933, the day of his assassination. Military officer; after the assassination of Sánchez he was appointed president of the Republic by congress. Governed from 30/04/1933 until 08/12/1939. Constitutional president from 08/12/1939 until 28/07/1945. Constitutional president from 28/07/1945 until 27/10/1948. Overthrown by a coup d’état. Military officer; led the coup d’état against Bustamante y Rivero and governed as president of the junta of government from 27/10/1948 until 10/05/1950. Military officer, transitional president from 10/05/1950 until 28/07/1950. Held general elections. Odría won the elections after having imprisoned his only opponent Ernesto Montagne. Governed from 28/07/1950 until 28/07/1956. Constitutional president for the second time. Governed from 28/07/1956 until 18/07/1962. Overthrown by a coup d’état. Military officer, governed first together with the other commanders-in-chief, then he became chairman of the junta from 18/07/1962 until 03/03/1963. Removed by Nicolás Lindley.

Peru

477

Head of state (cont.) Years Nicolás Lindley 1963 López Fernando Belaúnde 1963–1968 Terry Juan Velasco Alvarado

1968–1975

Francisco Morales Bermúdez Cerruti

1975–1980

Fernando Belaúnde Terry Alan García Pérez

1980–1985

Alberto K. Fujimori Fujimori

1990–2000

Valentín Paniagua Corazo

2000–2001

Alejandro Toledo Manrique

2001–

1985–1990

Remarks Military officer. Governed from 03/07 until 28/07. Constitutional president from 28/07/1963 until 03/10/1968. Overthrown by a coup d‘état. Military officer, president of the revolutionary government of the army; Governed from 03/10/1968 until 29/08/1975. Military officer; president of the revolutionary government of the army; Governed from 29/08/1975 until 28/07/1980. Constitutional president for the second time from 28/07/1980 until 28/07/1985. Constitutional president from 28/07/1985 until 28/07/1990. Won the elections in a runoff against the highly favored author Mario Vargas Llosa. Constitutional president from 28/07/1990. He led a coup d’état while being in office (autogolpe) and proclaimed himself president of the Emergency Government for National Reconstruction on 05/04/1992. Reelected twice (1995 and 2000). Resigned on 20/11/2000 in the middle of a scandal involving bribery of a member of parliament. President of the congress since 16/11. Following the constitutional succession rules he became transitional president on 22/11 after Fujimori’s two vice presidents resigned. He was a transitional president until 28/07/2001. Constitutional president since 28/07/2001.

478

Peru

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Corte Suprema de Justicia (1913). Jurisprudencia electoral. Lima: Lib. de la Academia. Defensoría del Pueblo (2000). Elecciones 2000. Balance de la segunda vuelta electoral. Lima. — (2000). Elecciones 2000. Supervisión de la Defensoría del Pueblo. Lima. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Balance de la primera vuelta. Lima: Defensoría del Pueblo. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Balance de la segunda vuelta. Lima: Defensoría del Pueblo. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Supervisión de la Defensoría del Pueblo. Lima: Defensoría del Pueblo. Dirección de Estadística (without year). Estadística electoral y parlamentaria del Perú 1870 al 1876. Lima: J. M. del Castillo. Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (1978). Resultados de las elecciones para representantes a la Asamblea Constituyente. Lima: JNE. — (1984). Resultados de las elecciones municipales de 1980 y de las elecciones municipales complementarias de 1981. Lima: JNE. — (1984). Resultados de las elecciones municipales de 1984. Lima: JNE. — (1986). Resultados de las elecciones políticas generales de 1985. Lima: JNE. — (1995). Resultados de las elecciones políticas generales de 1995. Lima: JNE. Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (1998). Compendio de normas legales de aplicación en el proceso de elecciones municipales 1998. Lima: ONPE — (2000). Compendio legal electoral 2000. Lima: ONPE. — (2000). Elecciones Generales del año 2000. Informe Ejecutivo. Lima: ONPE. — (2001). Elecciones 2001. Recurso electrónico. Lima: ONPE. — (2001). Informe final de la campaña de voluntariado para la segunda vuelta. Lima: ONPE. Registro Electoral (1963). Población electoral, año 1961. Lima: Registro Electoral del Perú. — (1973). Población electoral del Perú, año 1972. Lima: Registro Electoral del Perú. Senado de la República (1961). Presidentes del Senado, comisiones directivas y señores senadores 1829–1960. Lima: Cámara de Senadores.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Abad Yupanqui, S. (1999). ‘Observación electoral y personeros’, in Ponencias y conclusiones del Primer Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima: Horizonte, 123–147.

Peru

479

Anderle, A. (1985). Los movimientos políticos en el Perú entre las dos guerras mundiales. Havanna: Casa de las Américas. Aramburú, J. F. (1915). Derecho electoral. Antecedentes históricos y aplicaciones a la nueva ley. Lima: La Opinión Nacional. Arca Parró, A. (1936). Manual de legislación electoral del Perú. Lima: Torres Aguirre. Asociación Civil Transparencia (2001). El debate presidencial. Reto y responsabilidad. Lima: ACT. — (2001). Elecciones 2000. Balance y propuesta. Lima: ACT. — (2001). Las elecciones que el Perú merecía. Informe final 2001. Lima: ACT. — (2001). Informe de monitoreo de medios. Enero 2001. Lima: ACT. Barba Caballero, J. (1981). APRA. Presente y futuro. Análisis de la derrota electoral, drama interno y proyecciones del aprismo. Lima: Cultura Popular. Barreda y Laos, F. (1917). Índice de los documentos electorales en defensa de las elecciones de diputados realizadas en la provincia de Cajatambo. Lima. Barreto Wilson, J. (1991). Marketing politico. Elecciones 1990. Lima: CIUP. Basadre, J. (1980). Elecciones y centralismo en el Perú. Lima: CIUP. — (1981). La vida y la historia. Lima. Basombrio Iglesias, C. (2000). Las elecciones frankenstein, 830 razones; nacieron con deformidades incurables, se armaron a la mala, con fallas estructurales insalvables y terminaron con cicatrices monstruosas en todo el cuerpo. Lima: IDL. — (2000). ‘Elecciones viciadas irremediablemente. 110 razones (… y seguimos contando)’. Ideele 126: 2–7. Béjar Rivera, H. (1983). ‘Los movimientos sociales y los partidos políticos desde 1930 hasta 1968. Su significado en términos de participación popular’, in H. Giannoni (ed.), El Perú de Velasco. Lima: Cedep, 74–93. Belaúnde Terry, F. (1963). Así se hizo el fraude. Lima: Minerva. Benavides Correa, A. (1946). Los partidos políticos del Perú. Estudio histórico-doctrinario. 2 volumes. BA thesis, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Benvenutto, N. (1921–24). Parlamentarios del Perú contemporáneo (1904– 1924). 3 volumes. Lima. Bernales Ballesteros, E. (1980). Crisis política. ¿Solución electoral?. Lima: Desco. Blondet Montero, C. (1999). Las mujeres y la político en la década de Fujimori. Lima: IEP. Boggio, M. R., Romero, F., and Ansión, J. (1991). El pueblo es así y también así. Lógicas culturales en el voto popular. Lima: Instituto Democracia y Socialismo. Bonilla, H. and Drake, P. (eds.) (1989). El Apra de la ideología a la praxis. San Diego, Calif.: University of California.

480

Peru

Burga, M. and Flores Galindo, A. (1984). ‘Aprismo, comunismo y el proceso electoral de 1931’, in M. Burga, (ed.), Apogeo y crisis de la República aristocrática. Vol. 3. Lima: Rikchay Perú, 213–265. Bustamante y Zapata, J. (1950). Elecciones generales de 1950. Lima: Torres Aguirre. CAAAP (1980). Elecciones, partidos políticos y la Amazonía. Lima: CAAAR. Cámara de Diputados (1917). El proceso electoral de Lima de 1917 en la Cámara de Diputados. Lima: Torres Aguirre. Carpio Marcos, E. (2000). ‘El proceso electoral Peruano’. Revista de Derecho Político 48–49: 43–67. Castillo Ochoa, M. (1990). ‘El populismo conservador. Sánchez Cerro y la Unión Revolucionaria’, in A. Adfianzón (ed.), Pensamiento político peruano 1930–1968. Lima: Desco, 84–113. Castro Pozo, H. et al. (1989). Regionalización, elecciones y consultas populares. Lima: Ipadel. Celadec (1981). Elecciones presidenciales del Perú. Lima: Celadec. Chanamé Orbe, R. (1990). ‘El sufragio en el Perú’. Socialismo y Participación 52: 53–87. Chanduví Tomes, L. (1988). El Apra por dentro. Lo que hice, lo que vi, lo que sé. 1931–1957. Lima. Chang Rodríguez, E. (1985). Opciones políticas Peruanas 1985. Lima: CDI. Chávez, L. A. (1998). ‘Mecánica naranja. Cambio 90, Nueva Mayoría y ahora Vamos Vecino’. Quehacer 113/mayo-junio: 18–28. Chávez Molina, J. (2000). ‘Candidatura de Alberto Fujimori Fujimori’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16: 65–72. — (2000). Mis votos singulares. Historia del fraude que nunca se debe repetir. Lima: Horizonte. Chirinos Soto, E. (1962). Cuenta y balance de las elecciones de 1962. Lima. — (1982). La nueva Constitución y los partidos. Lima: Centro de Documentación Andina. Chirinos Soto, F. (1985). Democracia y elecciones. Lima: AFA. CIED (1980). ¿El voto perdido? Critica y autocrítica de izquierda en la campaña electoral de 1980. Lima: CIED. — (without year). Partidos y conciencia en las barriadas. Lima: CIED. Coloma Marquina, J. M. (1996). ‘Postulación de candidaturas y el rol de los partidos políticos. Una visión comparada’. Simposio sobre reforma electoral. Lima. Comisión Andina de Juristas (2000). Perú 2000. Un triunfo sin democracia. Lima: CAJ. Córdova, M. (1990). ‘Perú 1989. El desborde de los partidos’. Temas de Actualidad 2: 65–75

Peru

481

Cotler, J. (1990). ‘Los partidos políticos y la democracia en el Perú’, in L. Pásara and J. Parodi (eds.), Democracia, sociedad y gobierno en el Perú. Lima: IEP, 101–112. — (1991). ‘Partidos y presidencialismo. Problemas políticos de la democracia en el Perú’, in L. Pásara (ed.), Las formas políticas de la democracia en los países andinos. Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú. Lima: IFEA, 23–44. — (1994). Política y sociedad en el Perú. Cambio y continuidades. Lima: IEP. Daeschner, J. (1993). La guerra del fin de la democracia. Mario Vargas Llosa versus Alberto Fujimori. Lima: Perú Reporting. Dancuart, P. E. (1906–10). Crónica parlamentaria del Perú. Historia de los congresos que han funcionado en la República desde 1822. 4 volumes. Lima. Davies, T. Jr. and Villanueva, V. (1983). Secretos electorales del APRA. Correspondencia y documentos de 1939. Lima: Horizonte. Degregori, C. I. and Grompone, R. (1991). Demonios y redentores en el nuevo Perú (Elecciones 1990: Una tragedia en 2 vueltas). Lima: IEP. Diaz Zegarra, W. A. (2000). El derecho electoral en el Perú. Lima: Palestra. Dietz, H. (2000). Pobreza urbana, participación política y política estatal. Lima 1970–1990. Lima: PUCP. Echegaray Correo, I. R. (1966). La Cámara de Diputados y las constituciones del Perú (1822–1965). Lima. Eguiguren Praeli, F. (1990). ‘La elección presidencial en la Constitución de 1979. Alcances y controversias en el sistema electoral vigente’. Lecturas sobre temas constitucionales 4: 34–53. Fernández, C. (1987). ‘Notas sobre el sistema de partidos políticos en el Perú’. Síntesis 3: 23–47. Ferrero Costa, E. (1992). Proceso de retorno a la institucionalidad democrática en el Perú. Lima: CEPEI. Fowks, J. (2000). Suma y resta de la realidad. Medios de comunicación y elecciones generales 2000 en el Perú. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. Franco, C. (2001). Perú. Entre el proceso electoral y las incertidumbres del futuro. Lima: Ipadel, 65–72. Fundación Internacional para Sistemas Electorales: La normatividad de los partidos políticos. Lima: Simposio sobre Reforma Electoral. Garavito Amezaga, H. (1989). El Perú liberal. Partidos e ideas políticas de la Ilustración de la República Aristocrática. Lima: El Virrey. Garcia Belaúnde, D. (1986). Una democracia en transición. Las elecciones peruanas de 1985. Lima: Okura. Goyzueta, L. F. (1980). Populismo en las elecciones peruanas de 1956. Lima. Grados Bertorini, A. (1984). ‘El elector de 1985’. Debate (Lima)32: 34–52. Guerra García, F. (1996). Reforma del Estado y crisis de los partidos. Lima: Cedep. Hernández Canelo, W. M. (1998). Legislación electoral peruana. Lima, OEA.

482

Peru

Instituto Nacional Demócrata para Asuntos Internacionales (2000). Informe del NDI/Centro Carter. Tercera Misión de Observación Preelectoral. Lima: The Carter Center. — (2000). Segundo Informe del NDl/Centro Carter. Misión Internacional de Observación Pre-electoral. Lima: The Carter Center. Landa Arroyo, C. (2000). ‘La responsabilidad constitucional del Jurado Nacional de Elecciones. Reelección el caso de la presidencial’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16/enero: 27–32. Lira, P. (1877). Formulario de elecciones populares. Lima: El Nacional. Lynch, N. (1992). Para cambiar el Estado (La reforma del Congreso Nacional). Lima: Instituto Democracia y Socialismo. — (2000). Política y antipolítica en el Perú. Lima: Desco. Macassi Lavender, S. (2001). Prensa amarilla y cultura política en el proceso electoral. Lima: Asociación de Comunicadores Sociales Calandria. McDonald, R. and Ruhl, M. (1994). ‘Perú’, in Smitch (ed.), Party Politics and Elections in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 114–153. Macera, C. F. (1956). El proceso electoral de 1956. Lima. — (1963). El proceso electoral de 1963. Lima: Scheuch. Manzanilla, J. M. (1931). Elecciones políticos y municipales (2nd edn.). Lima: Rivas Berrio. Medina Garcia, O. (1980). Perú 1978–1980. Análisis de un momento político. Lima: C’est. Mercado Ulloa, R. (1985). Los partidos políticos en el Perú. El APRA, el PCP y Sendero Luminoso. Síntesis historiográfica. Lima: Latinoamericana. Miró Quesada, F. (1964). La ideología de AP. Lima. — (1990). ‘La ideología de Acción Popular’, in A. Adrianzén (ed.), Pensamiento político Peruano 1930–1968. Lima: Desco, 94–118. Miró Quesada, J. A. (1893). Estudio sobre el sufragio en el Perú. Lima. Miró Quesada Laos, C. (1961). Autopsia de los partidos políticos. Lima: Páginas Peruanas. Molinari, T. (1998). ‘La Unión Revolucionaria, el Apra y el antifascismo de 1931’, in R. Silva Santisteban (ed.), Encuentro de Peruanistas. Lima: Universidad de Lima, 67–84. Morán Alva, M. (1950). Los partidos políticos y la democracia. BA-thesis, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Muñoz Arce, R. (2000). Manual de fiscalización electoral (2nd edn.). Lima: JNE. Nohlen, D.; Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. San José/Costa Rica: IIDH. North, L. and North, D. (1968). Elecciones presidenciales de 1945. Lima. Ortíz de Zevallos, J. (1984). La democracia peruana presenta pruebas. Lima: CDI.

Peru

483

Otárola Peñaranda, A. (1997). Reelección presidencial y derecho de referéndum. Lima: Foro Democrático. Palacios, F. (1870). Proyecto de Ley de Elecciones, dedicado al Congreso de 1870. Lima: F. Moreno. Paniagua Corazao, V. (2000). ‘Reelección o continuismo presidencial’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia. 16/Enero: 41–45. — (2000). ‘Trampas y engaños del proceso electoral. Consecuencias y explicaciones’. Lecturas sobre temas constitucionales 15: 21–56. Panty Neyra, Ó. (1986). Tendencias y partidos políticos del Perú. Tacna. Pareja Pflucker, P. (1978). El caso Vásquez Lapeyre. Confidencial en torno a las elecciones de 1939. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Pásara, L. (1989). La izquierda en la escena pública. Lima: Cedys/Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1993). ‘El ocaso de los partidos’, in Alvarez Rodrich, A. (ed.), El poder en el Perú. Lima: Apoyo, 23–28. Patino Samudio, M. (1893). Estudio de nuestras leyes sobre elecciones políticos. Lima: Benito Gill. Pease Garcia-Yrigoyen, H. (1988). ‘Los partidos de izquierda en la transición democrática’, in Aguilera y Donoso (ed.), Democracia y precariedad bajo el populismo aprista. Cuadernos Desco N° 12. Lima: Desco, 14–33. — (1999). Electores, partidos y representantes sistema electoral, sistema de partidos y sistema de gobierno en el Perú. Lima: PUCP, Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Perales Hernández, O. (1978). Junio 1978. Asamblea Constituyente. Lima: Universidad Garcilaso de la Vega. Planas Silva, P. (1998). Comunicación política y equidad electoral. Lima: Universidad de Lima. — (1998). Los orígenes del Apra. Lima: Okura Editores. — (2000). La democracia volátil. Movimientos, partidos, lideres políticos y conductas electorales en el Perú contemporáneo. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (2001). La videopolítica en el Perú. Las elecciones y el acceso de los partidos y los candidatos en los inicios de la IV. Peruana. Lima: Universidad San Martín de Porres. Portocarrero Maisch, G. (1983). De Bustamante a Odría. El fracaso del Frente Democrático Nacional 1945–1950. Lima: Mosca Azul. Quiróz, M. T. (1996). El Apra. El movimiento social y el Estado 1945–1948 (elecciones y lucha político en la coyuntura del 45). Lima: Fomciencias. Quispe Correa, A. (2000). ‘Validez de la Resolución No. 2191-99-JNE’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16/Enero: 47–49. Ramirez Novoa, E. (2000). La democracia, los partidos políticos y su constitucionalización. Lima: AFA.

484

Peru

Ramírez y Berríos, M. G. (1957). Grandezas y miserias de un proceso electoral en el Perti, junio 17 de 1956. Lima: P. L. Villanueva. — (1963). Examen expectral de las elecciones del 9 de junio de 1963. Lima: Rávago e hijos, Enrique. — (2000). Los partidos políticos y las elecciones del 2000. Lima: Horizonte. Rendón Vásquez, J. (1989). Legislación electoral. Registro electoral, elecciones políticas, elecciones municipales, elecciones regionales. Lima: Gráfica Danik. Ríos, R. R. (1919). Ley de Elecciones 2108. Lima: Torres Aguirre. — (1924). La Ley Electoral 4907. Lima: H. La Rosa y Cia. Rojas Samanéz, A. (1982). Partidos políticos en el Perú, manual y registro. Lima: CDI. — (1994). Nuevos retos, otro rol. Los partidos y los políticos en el Perú. Lima: Salgado Editores, Lima. Roncagliolo, R. (1980). ¿Quién ganó? Elecciones 1931–1980. Lima: Desco. — (1990). ‘La Democracia Cristiana. Marcos de referencia y momentos iniciales’, in A. Adrianzén (ed.), Pensamiento político peruano 1930– 1968. Lima: Desco, 211–244. Rospigliosi, F. (1992). ‘Las elecciones peruanas de 1990’, in R. Cerdas, J. Rial, and D. Zovatto (eds.), Una tarea inconclusa. Elecciones y democracia en América Latina 1988–1991. San José de Costa Rica: IIDH/Capel, 116–133. Rubio Correa, M. (1997). Las reglas que nadie quiso aprobar. Ley de Partidos Políticos. Lima: Ed. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial. Sistema Electoral Peruano (1999). Ponencias y conclusiones. Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima: JNE/ONPE. Salmón, J. (1993). Entre la vanidad y el poder. Lima: Apoyo. Santisteban de Noriega, J. (1999). Derechos humanos y elecciones. Primer Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima. Santos Chichizola, J. A. (1964). Los partidos políticos. BA thesis, Lima. Sivirichi, A. (1955). Historia del Senado del Perú. Vol. 1. Lima. Sulmont Hoak, D. (1999). Calentando motores. Análisis de tendencias electorales y de las relaciones entre los potenciales candidatos presidenciales en la coyuntura actual. 1998–1999. Lima: PUC. Tamariz Lúcar, D. (1995). Historia del poder. Elecciones y golpes de Estado en el Perú. Lima: Campodónico. Tanaka, M. (1998). Los espejismos de la democracia. El colapso del sistema de partidos en el Perú 1980–1995 en perspectiva comparada. Lima: IEP. — (1999). Los partidos políticos 1992–1999. Estatalidad, sobrevivencia y político mediática. Lima: EP. — (2000). ‘Perú. Elecciones 2000 y los conflictos poselectorales’. Nueva Sociedad 12/Sept.–Oct.: 34–47.

Peru

485

Távara, S. (1951). Historia de los partidos. Lima: Huascarán. Tizón y Bueno, R. (1903). Apuntes para la historia del Parlamento Peruano. Lima. Torres Guzmán, A. (1989). Perfil del elector. Lima: Apoyo. Tuesta Soldevilla, F. (1986). Perú 1985. El derrotero de una nueva elección. Lima: CIUP/Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1989). Pobreza urbana y cambios electorales en Lima. Lima: Desco. — (1995). ‘Partidos políticos y elecciones en el Perú (1978–1993)’. Cuadernos Capel 38: 43–59. — (1995). Rol y funciones del parlamento. Lima: Apoyo. — (1995). Sistema de partidos políticos en el Perú (1978–1995). Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1996). ‘Las elecciones presidenciales de 1995 en el Perú’. América Latina Hoy 13: 54–63. — (1996) (ed.). Los enigmas del poder Fujimori 1990–1996. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1996). ‘Formas de composición o mecanismos de elección del parlamento’. Politik 1/1: 41–53. — (1996). ‘El impacto del sistema electoral sobre el sistema político peruano’, in F. Tuesta Soldevilla (ed.), Los enigmas del poder Fujimori 1990–1996. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (1996) (ed.). Simposio sobre reforma electoral (Memoria). Lima: IFES/USAID. — (1998). ‘Notas sobre el derecho y sistema electoral’, in Memorias del III Congreso Nacional de Sociología. Cajamarca, Congreso Nacional de Sociología: 189–221. — (1999). Dime que circunscripción tienes y te diré qué quieres. La circunscripción electoral en el Perú. Lima: Transparencia. — (1999) (ed.). El juego político. Fujimori, la oposición y las reglas. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert, 1999. — (1999). ‘Perú. De la plaza pública a los escenarios mediáticos’, in F. Tuesta Soldevilla and F. Priess (eds.), Campanas electorales y medios de comunicación en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Fundación Konrad Adenauer, 65–93. — (1999). ‘Sistemas electorales comparados de América Latina’, in JNF/ONPE/Reniec, Ponencias y conclusiones del Primer Seminario de Coordinación Interinstitucional del Sistema Electoral. Lima: Horizonte, 159–193. — (1999) (ed.). Sistemas electorales en la Región Andina. Mecanismos, efectos y reformas. Bogotá: Parlamento Andino/UPD-OEA. — (2001). La jornada electoral. Análisis comparativo Lima-Huamanga de las elecciones generales 2000. Lima: USAID.

486

Peru

— (2001). Perú político en cifras 1821–2001 (3rd edn.). Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. — (2002). ‘La Circunscripción Electoral: Perú y la Región Andina’. Documentos de Trabajo 1: 7–24. Lima: Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales, Centro de Investigación Electoral (CIE ONPE). Ugolotti Dansey, H. (1963). Las elecciones de 1963 y la lección del 62. Lima: Offsett Peruana. Ulloa Cisneros, A. (1917). Para la historia. El proceso electoral de 1919. Lima. Valderrama, M., Chullen, J., and Malpica, C. (1980). El Apra. Un camino de esperanzas y frustraciones. Lima: El Gallo Rojo. Valdivia Cano, R. (2000). Diccionario de derecho electoral peruano. Legislación, doctrina, jurisprudencia. Lima: JNE. — (2000). Las elecciones en el Perú. Lima: J. C. Servicios Gráficos. Valle Riestra, J. (1998). El Tribunal de Garantías Constitucionales. El caso de los votos nulos blancos. Lima. — (2000). ‘Sobre la no reelección. La sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional’. Diálogo con la jurisprudencia 16/Enero: 61–64. Vargas Llosa, A. (1991). El diablo en campana. Madrid: El País-Aguilar. Vargas Llosa, M. (1993). El pez en el agua. Memorias. Barcelona: Seix Barral. Various (1978). Seminario sobre la situación y derechos políticos del Analfabeto en el Perú. Lima: PUC. Vega Centeno, I. (1985). Aprismo popular. Mito, cultura e historia. Lima: Tarea. — (1986). Ideología y cultura en el aprismo popular. Lima: Tarea/Friedrich Ebert. — (1991). Aprismo popular. Cultura, religión y política. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú/Tarea. Velásquez, J. L. (1936). Contra la amenaza civilista de 1936. Lima: S. A. Villanueva, V. (1977). El Apra en busca del poder. Lima: Horizonte. — (1977). El Apra y el ejercito (1940–1950). Lima: Horizonte. Villarán, M. V. (1918). ‘Costumbres electorales’. Mercurio Peruano 1: 3. Weck, W. (2000). ‘Elecciones presidenciales y parlamentarias en Perú. Con el triunfo de Fujimori pierde la democracia’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano 14: 81–93. Welsh, F. J. and Turner, F. C. (eds.) (2000). Opinión publica y elecciones en América. Caracas: IPSA. Wiener Fresco, R. A. (1998). El reeleccionista. Clima político y juego del poder en el Perú de los 90. Lima: A-4 impresores. Wilson Barreto, J. (1992). Marketing político y elecciones 1990. Lima: CIUP. Zavaleta, J. (2000). ‘El fujimorazo’. Cambio 16 1488: 56–59. Zuzunaga Flores, C. (1992). Vargas Llosa. El arte de perder una elección. Lima: Peisa.

URUGUAY by Dieter Nohlen*

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Uruguay stands out from the other Latin American countries because of its long tradition of competitive democratic politics. The country has experienced nearly 60 years of democracy during the 20th century. Its traditional parties, the Colorados and the Blancos (officially known as the National Party) were formed approximately 150 years ago, and the institutions, values, and practices of democratic politics are deeply embedded in society. Despite the dominance of the Colorados between 1865 and 1958, the stability of Uruguay’s democracy resulted from the competitive balance between the two traditional parties due to power-sharing mechanisms. However, in the 1960s, coinciding with the beginning of a prolonged economic crisis, political competition between the Blancos and the Colorados became increasingly virulent. The combination of the guerrilla activities of the left-wing Tupamaros, the politicization of the military forces, and growing political polarization eventually led to the breakdown of Uruguay’s democracy. After twelve years of military rule, a democratic regime was reinstated in 1985. Since then, electoral competition between the two traditional parties and the Frente Amplio has displayed a centripetal pattern, contributing to the stabilization of democracy. Uruguay originated as a result of the South American wars of independence when the country was created as a buffer state between the two bordering rival countries Argentina and Brazil. These countries formally recognized Uruguay’s independence in 1828. Until the mid19th century, Uruguayan politics was characterized by civil warlike struggles among the most influential factions of the leading class. In the last third of the 19th century, the Colorados and the Blancos reached an agreement on diverse institutional mechanisms that would secure the *

I would like to thank Martín Lauga for his research assistance and Carlos A.Urruty, president of the Corte Electoral, for the revision of this chapter.

488

Uruguay

participation of both groups in power. Since this time, elections have been a crucial element in the political system. Towards the end of the 19th century, Uruguay became integrated in world trade economy, based on the comparative advantages of its agrarian export economy. This economic integration played a large role in the early stabilization of the political system. The rapid economic development was accompanied by a high immigration quota, and favored the development of politically influential middle and lower classes in the capital Montevideo. The two traditional parties opened up to these new social sectors at the beginning of the 20th century. Political power was gradually transferred from the rural oligarchy to the middle classes. The liberal reformer José Battle y Ordóñez of the Colorados became president in 1903. His presidency led to a successful combination of capitalism and state formation. In his two presidencies (1903–1907 and 1911– 1915), he promoted the creation of government agencies, state banks, and public enterprises, and introduced fairly advanced social legislation. This was the start of the ongoing democratization of Uruguay’s politics and society. Following several electoral reforms, the unique Uruguayan electoral system, known as the ‘double simultaneous vote’ or ‘Lema Law’, was created in the first decades of the 20th century. It originated alongside the development of the party system; in fact, it can be regarded as the result of the traditional fragmentation of the Colorados and Blancos. Up to the 1997 constitutional reform, the double simultaneous vote provided for the simultaneous election of all the representative organs (president, chamber of deputies, senate) with one single ballot and one single vote. Before the emergence of the Frente Amplio, an electoral coalition of different leftist parties, new political parties had not been excluded, but the traditional parties had been favored by the double simultaneous vote. The system made it difficult for new parties to gain access to the lema (or party) status, whilst also promoting the vote for the two traditional parties, as opening up the lemas allowed voters to vote for both sublemas (intra-party factions or currents) and lists. Given that the victorious candidates resulted from the total amount of votes collected at the lema level, and not at the level of the individual candidates (sublemas), the lemas became involved in strategies to forge vote accumulation. The main drawback of this system was that the elected president actually represented only one sector (sublema) of his party, often assuming office with the votes of just one clear minority of the electorate. In the 1930s, the worldwide economic crisis revealed the fragility of Uruguay’s economic model based on the exportation of agricultural pro-

Uruguay

489

ducts. The negative effects of the economic crisis (especially unemployment) could be partly contained by expanding the state machinery and implementing a policy of industrialization aimed at the substitution of imports. Despite the economic crisis, the working class remained politically important. Patronage based on the proportional distribution of administrative posts in the numerous state agencies and public enterprises helped the two traditional parties maintain their central positions within the party system. Both parties continued to promote strategies of democratic agreement. They introduced a collegiate executive based on the Swiss model, which allowed both parties access to government. Nevertheless, even though the Colegiado (a nine-member executive) was introduced twice (1918–1933 and 1951–1966), its poor performance led to the restoration of the presidential system. In accordance with the principle of ‘co-participation’, from 1934 to 1942 the senate was equally divided permanently between the Colorados and the Blancos. The 1931 ‘Pork-Barrel Pact’ extended this co-participation to the selection of boards of directors for public enterprises. At the end of the 1950s, the Uruguayan economy entered a prolonged crisis. The state began to lose its distributional capacity, which had previously had a stabilizing effect on both politics and society. During the following decades, the income and living standards of all social classes decreased. The persisting economic crisis brought about social conflicts, affected the political process negatively, and intensified the political disputes. At the end of the 1960s, the left-wing Tupamaros’ urban guerilla forces began an armed struggle against the political system. The democratic governments and then the military commanders responded by increasing the repression. Between 1971 and 1973, the democratic regime gradually gave way to a military dictatorship. In 1973, the congress elected in 1971 was dissolved, and political power was centralized under the Junta de Comandancia Suprema, being all the parties, unions, and local authorities excluded from the political arena. The Uruguayan military forces were able to suppress the left-wing guerilla forces, but failed to modernize the economy. In November 1980, the military government held a plebiscite in order to legitimize its power. However, the Uruguayans rejected the new constitution, and the military admitted defeat. In 1982, the military government allowed the Colorados, the Blancos, and the Unión Cívica to choose new leaders via primaries. The result confirmed both the increasing erosion in the military’s support and the strength of the opposition forces within the traditional parties (especially for the exiled Blanco senator Wilson Ferreira). A fraction of the military, who were in favor of

490

Uruguay

democratization, negotiated the restoration of democracy with the traditional parties (Parque Hotel talks in 1983 and Pacto del Club Naval of 1984). In 1984, the country held the first presidential and legislative elections since 1971. These ended in the victory of the Colorado party and its presidential candidate, Julio María Sanguinetti. In 1990, he was succeeded by the Blanco candidate Luis Alberto Lacalle. Sanguinetti was returned as president in 1995, heading a coalition government with the Blancos. On the surface, Uruguay has traditionally had a two-party system, consisting of the Colorados and the Blancos; from 1865 to 1958, the Colorados were dominant and remained the majority party. But with respect to their internal structures, the Uruguayan parties have been highly fragmented, approaching a multiparty system. This ambivalence was caused in part by the Uruguayan electoral system, which underwent substantial modification with the constitutional reform of 1997. After the electoral success of the left-wing Frente Amplio in the 1971 elections, the two-party system began its transformation into a three-party system. In the aftermath of redemocratization, this evolution has been confirmed in the 1984, 1989 and 1994 elections. Today, each of the three parties has approximately one third of the seats in the bicameral general assembly. After the emergence of this third party, it was the Frente Amplio that gained most from the double simultaneous vote, as this was the only way for leftist parties to accumulate votes. The 1997 constitutional reform, initiated in 1995 by the two traditional parties in a coalition government, represented the actual implementation of reform after several previous attempts had been frustrated ever since the restoration of democracy. The constitutional amendments included several issues that had emerged from arduous negotiations with the Frente Amplio. However, due to pressure from its base, the Frente denied parliamentary approval at the last minute and began a campaign against the passing of the reform in the scheduled referendum. The constitution was finally ratified by a very narrow margin in December 1996. The main focus of the constitutional reform was the introduction of a system of absolute majority for presidential elections. Each lema presents only one candidate. Following Uruguayan tradition, accumulation of votes takes place only in the first round of presidential and parliamentary elections, when electors vote for lemas. Electors only vote for candidates if a second round is held. The first politician to win a presidential election held under the new system was Jorge Battle Ibanez of the Colorado Party. In the second round, he was supported by the Blanco Party.

Uruguay

491

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions According to the first Uruguayan constitution of 1830, the president was elected indirectly by the bicameral parliament, the senate was indirectly elected, and members of the chamber of representatives were elected directly and publicly (orally). However, in the 19th century suffrage was limited to literate men, which, in practice, meant that the majority of the population was excluded from voting. The 1893 electoral law introduced the ballot paper, replacing the oral vote, but the voters now had to write down the names of the candidates and sign the ballot papers, so the public character of the suffrage remained unchanged. Direct, secret, and universal male suffrage was introduced in the 1918 Constitution. In this same year, the economic conditions attached to candidacy for the presidency, the senate, or the chamber of representatives were also abolished. In 1924, it was made law that voters had to be entered in the National Electoral Register. The 1932 Constitution introduced direct election of the senate, and the 1934 Constitution introduced universal adult suffrage. Since the beginning of the 20th century until the constitutional reform in 1997, Uruguay had a unique electoral system, the ‘double simultaneous vote’, which linked the presidential and parliamentary elections (a constitutional reform in 1997 partially separated them). The elections to the executive and legislative offices were held on the same day, with one electoral ballot and one vote. Within one lema (party), different binominal lists of presidential and vice presidential candidates contested the elections, each representing a sublema (intraparty faction). Nevertheless, the presidential election was primarily a decision taken among lemas: the winners were the candidates of the lema who obtained the relative majority of the vote; within the lema, the victorious candidates were those belonging to the sublema that received the relative majority of the vote. Thus, the candidates who had received the highest percentage of the vote might not necessarily be elected, since the candidates had to belong to the lema with the highest percentage of the vote. 1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitución de 1997, Ley 16.017 de 20 de enero de 1989, Ley 16.019 de 5 de abril de 1989, Ley 16.021 de 13 de abril de 1989, Ley 7.812 de 1925.

492

Uruguay

Suffrage: Uruguay has universal adult suffrage. Minimum voting age is 18. Voting is compulsory and unjustified abstention is punishable by a fine. Other voting requirements include Uruguayan citizenship and presence in the country on polling day. Elected national institutions: The president is elected directly for a fiveyear term; the elections are held on the last Sunday of October. If a second round is required, it is scheduled for the last Sunday of November. The immediate re-election of the president is prohibited. The bicameral general assembly is also directly elected for five years. The general assembly consists of a 30-member senate (plus one ex officio: the vice president of the Republic) and a 99-member chamber of representatives. They are jointly elected together with the election of the president. Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates are elected in open, secret, and noncompulsory primaries by the Uruguayan voters (one candidate per party; before this reform, several candidates could be nominated within each party or lema). The minimum age for candidacy is 35. - parliamentary elections: Nominated by political parties (lists of candidates must be submitted to the National Electoral Court at least 20 days before the elections). The minimum age for candidacy is 25 for representatives and 30 for senators. Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority system. If no candidate achieves this majority, a second round is held between the two top candidates (one month after the first round, on the last Sunday of November). - parliamentary elections: the 99 members of the chamber of representatives are elected in 19 constituencies of different sizes. The Electoral Court distributes the seats according to the number of voters in the constituencies, each constituency corresponding to one department. The constitutional minimum is guaranteed for each constituency. In 1994, there was one constituency of 45, one of 13, seven of three, and ten of two deputies. The 1997 constitutional reform abolished the accumulation of votes by sublemas. This means that political parties can accumulate votes based on their different lists. These lists are closed and blocked. The seats are allocated via the d’Hondt formula. For the election of the 30 senators, a broad freedom of candidacy remains in the form of sublemas and, within them, candidate lists, which

Uruguay

493

are closed and blocked. The senators are elected in one single nationwide constituency; the voter votes for intraparty factions within the lema. These votes are added and accumulated for the lema to which the sublemas and candidate lists belong. The seats are distributed via the d’Hondt formula. Organizational context of elections: Elections are administrated and supervised by the Corte Electoral (Electoral Court), an independent partybased body created by law on 9 January 1924. Of its nine members, five are considered neutral, as they are elected by a two-thirds majority by a general assembly of senators and deputies of both houses of the parliament, four are representatives of the political parties. The Electoral Court is simultaneously the supreme electoral authority, manager of elections, and supreme court of electoral justice. It was awarded constitutional status in 1934. The Electoral Court enjoys high public esteem. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The Uruguayan electoral statistics are reliable and fulfill international standards. The statistics do not differentiate between blank votes and invalid votes until 1971 (for this reason, only invalid votes are included in the tables with the exception of intraparty elections in 1982). In the tables, the names of the factions and their respective electoral results are set in italics in order to differentiate them from the names of the parties to which they belong.

Uruguay

494 2. Tables

2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year 1916 1917 1919 1920 1922 1925 1926 1928 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1971 1973 1980 1984 1989 1989 1992 1994 1994 1996 1999 1999 2004 a

Presidential Parliamentary elections Elections. elections Lower Upper for Constit House House Assembly 30/07 xx/xx xx/xx xx/xx xx/xx 02/08 29/11 02/08 28/11 28/11 25/11 25/11 25/11 30/11 30/11 30/11 29/11 27/11 25/06 19/04 19/04 27/03 27/03 27/03 29/11 29/11 29/11 24/11 24/11 24/11 26/11 26/11 26/11 26/11 26/11 26/11 30/11 30/11 30/11 25/11 25/11 25/11 27/11 27/11 27/11 28/11 28/11 28/11

Referen dums

Coups d’état

25/11

31/03 19/04 29/11 24/11 26/11

21/02

30/11 27/11 28/11 27/06 30/11

25/11

25/11

25/11

26/11

26/11

26/11

27/11

27/11

27/11

31/10 28/11a 31/10

31/10

31/10

31/10

31/10

Second round of presidential elections.

16/04 26/11 13/12 28/08 27/11 08/12 31/10

Uruguay

495

2.2 Electoral Body 1916–2004 Year Type of Populationb electiona 1916 1917 1917 1919 1920 1922 1925 1925 1926 1928 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1934 1938 1938 1942 1942 1946 1946 1950 1950 1951 1954 1958 1958 1962 1962 1966 1966 1971 1971 1980 1984 1989 1989 1989 1992

CA Pa Ref Pa Pr Pa Pa CNA Pr/CNA CNA Pr/CNA Pa CNA CA Pa Ref Pr Ref Pr/Pa Ref Pr Ref Pr Ref Ref CNG CNG Ref CNG Ref Pr/Pa Ref Pr/Pa Ref Ref Pr/Pa Ref Pr/Pa Ref Ref

1,214,100 1,228,000 1,228,000 1,257,017 1,300,000 1,386,031 1,430,000 1,430,000 1,532,431 1,598,515 1,620,000 1,670,000 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,734,000 1,734,000 1,932,000 1,932,000 2,014,000 2,014,000 2,090,000 2,090,000 2,150,000 2,150,000 2,210,000 2,310,000 2,471,200 2,471,200 2,611,600 2,611,600 2,708,500 2,708,500 2,728,500 2,728,500 2,850,000 2,927,500 2,940,000 2,945,000 2,945,000 3,130,600

Registered voters Total % number pop. 223,020 18.4 — — 223,020 — — — — — — — 331,743 21.1 304,005 21.3 353,860 23.1 382,817 23.9 398,169 24.6 419,271 25.1 431,192 25.5 428,597 25.2 422,865 24.4 422,865 24.4 636,171 32.9 636,171 32.9 858,713 42.6 858,713 42.6 993,892 47.6 993,892 47.6 1,168,206 54.3 1,168,206 54.3 1,158,939 52.4 1,295,502 56.1 1,410,105 57.1 1,409,372 57.0 1,528,239 58.5 1,526,868 58.5 1,658,368 61.2 1,656,322 61.2 1,878,132 68.8 1,875,660 68.7 1,944,951 68.2 2,197,503 75.2 2,283,597 77.7 2,319,022 78.7 2,319,022 78.7 2,345,077 74.9

Votes cast Total numberc 146,632 128,888 89,322 188,352 178,777 246,324 271,468 241,910 289,255 296,101 318,760 309,048 160,625 246,882 249,125 232,269 357,209 357,187 574,703 574,577 649,405 — 823,829 — 429,760 879,242 1,005,362 — 1,171,020 — 1,231,762 — 1,726,049 — 1,689,424 1,930,931c 1,934,715 2,056,355 — 1,981,650

% reg. voters 65.7 — 40.1 — — — 74.3 79.3 81.7 77.3 80.1 73.7 37.3 57.6 58.9 54.9 56.1 56.1 66.9 66.9 65.3 — 70.5 — 37.1 67.9 71.3 — 76.6 — 74.3 — 91.9 — 86.9 87.9 84.7 88.7 — 84.5

% pop. 12.1 — — 15.0 13.8 17.8 17.3 16.9 18.9 18.5 19.7 18.5 9.5 14.5 14.4 13.4 18.5 18.5 28.5 28.5 31.1 — 38.3 — 19.4 38.1 40.7 — 44.8 — 45.5 — 63.2 — 59.3 66.0 65.8 69.8 — 63.3

Uruguay

496 Year Type of Populationb (cont.) electiona 1994 1994 1994 1996 1999 1999 2004 2004 a

Ref Pr/Pa Ref Ref Pr/Pa Prd Pr/Pa Ref

3,167,500 3,167,500 3,167,500 3,203,600 3,313,000 3,313,000 3,720,000 3,720,000

Registered voters Total % number pop. 2,278,375 71.9 2,330,154 73.6 2,330,154 73.6 2,343,920 73.2 2,402,160 72.5 2,402,135 72.5 2,487,816 66.9 2,487,816 66.9

Votes cast Total numberc 1,964,509 2,130,618 — 2,019,843 2,204,884 2,206,112 2,229,583 2,229,583

% reg. voters 86.2 91.4 — 86.2 91.8 91.8 89.6 89.6

% pop. 62.0 67.3 — 63.0 66.6 66.6 60.0 60.0

Pr = President, Pa = Parliament, CA = Constitutional Assembly, CNA = Consejo Nacional de Administración (National Administration Council), CNG = Consejo Nacional de Gobierno, Ref = Referendum. b Results of the censuses in 1900: 915,647; 1908: 1,042,686; 1963: 2,595,510; 1975: 2,763,964. c No information on the total number of voters is available for the years prior to 1971, only the valid votes. Therefore, the percentage of the voters out of the registered population was calculated on the basis of the valid votes. After 1971 the total amount of votes is considered. d Second round of presidential elections.

2.3 Abbreviations EP FA FideL MCC NE PAN PAP PBR PC PCU PD PDC PDS PGP PI PMR PN PNI PR PS PV UC UDR

Encuentro Progresista (Progressive Encounter) Frente Amplio (Broad Front) Frente Izquierda de Liberación (Liberation Left Front) Movimiento Cívico Cristiano (Christina Civic Movement) Nuevo Espacio (New Space) Partido Autóctono Negro (Black Native Party) Partido Agrario Popular (Popular Agrarian Party) Partido Blanco Radical (Radical White Party) Partido Colorado (Colored Party) Partido Comunista Uruguayo (Uruguayan Communist Party) Partido Demócrata/Unión Democrática (Democratic Party/Democratic Union) Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) Partido Demócrata Social (Social Democratic Party) Partido por el Gobierno del Pueblo (Party for the Government of the People) Partido Independiente (Independent Party) Partido Movimiento Renovador (Party Renewal Movement) Partido Nacional (National Party) Partido Nacional Independiente (Independent National Party) Partido Reformista (Party for Renewal) Partido Socialista (Socialist Party) Partido Verde (Green Party) Unión Cívica (Civic Union) Unión Democrática Reformista (Democratic Renewal Union)

Uruguay UI UP URC

497 Unión Industrial (Industrial Union) Unión Popular (Popular Union) Unión Radical Cristiana (Christian Radical Union)

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1916–2004 Party / Alliance PN PSc UCd PC (Anticolegialista)e PC (Colegialista)e PCf PC Gral. Rivera P. Autonomía Coloradag P. Coalición Colorada Nacionalistag P. Rionegrense Listas Coloradas P. Blancoh P. Bandera Coloradag PC Batllistag PD Unión Colorada PCUl PC Radical (vierismo)g UI Agrupación Col. Batlle Libre PAP PBRh Unión Colorada de Duraznog P. Por la Tradición Coloradag PR Agrup. Col. Juventud Riveristag

Years

Elections contested Presidentiala Parliamentaryb 1916–1919; 1925– 16 22 1931; 1934–2004 1916–1931; 1934– 4 18 1958; 1966 1916; 1919–1958; 7 15 1984; 1999 1916 0 1 1916 0 1 1916–1931; 1934– 16 23 2004 1917–1934 0 8 1917 0 1 1917 0 1 1917 1919–1922 1919 1919 1919–1934 1919 1919 1922–1958 1922–1933 1922 1925

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0

1 2 1 1 7 1 1 12 5 1 1

1925–1931 1925–1931 1925

0 1 0

3 3 1

1928–1934

0

4

1928; 1933–1934 1928

0 0

3 1

Uruguay

498 Party / Alliance (continued) P. Concentración Coloradag Agrup. Militar Patria y Ejército Sindicato Gente de Artes y Afines Comisión Nac. de Unificación del PCh P. Saravistah PAN P. Independiente Feminista P. Concentración Patriotica Cándida Díaz de Saraivah P. M. Pacheco y Obes P. Por las Libertades Públicasi PNIh PDSj P. La Concordancia P. Liberal P. Por la Defensa de los Derechos P. del Pueblo PMRk UDRk FIdeLl PDCm UPn MCCo FA (lema PDC)p URCo FA NE (lema PGP)p PV FA–EP PI a

Years 1928

Elections contested Presidentiala Parliamentaryb 0 1

1931

0

1

1931

0

1

1933

0

1

1934–1938 1938 1938

0 0 0

2 1 1

1938

1

0

1938 1938

0 1

1 0

1942–1954 1946–1950 1938–1942; 1950 1950 1950

4 1 1 1 1

4 2 2 0 0

1950 1958 1958 1962–1966 1962–1966 1962–1971 1966–1971 1971–1984 1971 1989 1989–1999 1989 1994–2004 2004

1 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1

0 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 1 3 1 3 1

Includes the 1954, 1958 and 1962 elections to the Consejo Nacional de Gobierno (national government council). 15 elections in all. b Includes the 1916 and 1933 elections to the constitutional assemblies. The 1930 elections are excluded due to lack of data. 21 elections in all. c Founded in 1904; constested elections since 1910. In 1962 it was part of the UP alliance; since 1971 it belongs to the FA. d Became PDC in 1962, afterwards MCC and URC; appeared again in 1984.

Uruguay

499

e

Names taken by the PC for the Convención Nacional Constituyente (national constituent convention). f From 1917 to 1934, independent colorado lemas contested the parliamentary elections of representatives, senators and members of the constituent convention, but they stood together for presidential elections and elections to the Consejero de Administración (government counsellor), making use of accumulation mechanisms. g Colorado lemas for the elections of representatives and senators between 1917 and 1934. h Dissident Blanco lemas of different periods. i Socialist-Communist alliance for the 1938 presidential elections. j Independent Nationalist origin. k 1958 Colorado dissidents. l The PCU was created mainly by socialist activists that at the beginning adhered to the Third International. In 1962 and 1966 the PCU contested elections together with minor allied groups. In 1971 FIdeL was a list (sublema) within the FA. In 1984 and 1989 the Communists together with minor allied groups formed Democracia Avanzada as a sublema within the FA. m It sprang from the UC in 1962, also contesting elections in 1966. In 1971 and 1984 the lema was lent to the FA coalition, and the PDC strictu sensu contested as a sublema with a different name. n In 1962, alliance between Communists and dissident Communists. In 1966, small former nationalists’ groups. In 1971, it became a sublema of FA. o PDC’s dissidents at different times. p Leftist coalition which, in 1971 and 1984, comprised Communists, Socialists, ChristianDemocrats, radical left-wingers and dissidents of the two traditional parties. It split in 1989: one faction founded the NE and the rest kept the name and the lema FA.

2.5 Referendums Year 1917 1934 1938a 1938a 1942 1946b 1946b 1950c 1951d 1958e 1958e 1962e 1966e 1966e 1966e 1966e 1971f 1980g 1989h

Registered Valid Yes voters votes 223,020 89,322 84,992 422,865 232,269 222,145 636,171 357,187 333,802 636,171 340,289 333,802 858,713 574,577 443,414 993,892 — 252,353 993,892 — 289,101 1,168,206 — 2,128 1,158,939 429,760 232,076 1,409,372 — 233,941 1,409,372 — 153,662 1,526,868 — 195,623 1,656,322 — 786,987 1,656,322 — 175,095 1,656,322 — 86,315 1,656,322 — 1,120 1,875,660 — 491,680 1,944,951 1,529,682 643,858 2,319,022 — 1,681,592

% val. % reg. No Apvotes voters proved 95.2 38.1 4,330 Yes 95.6 52.5 10,124 Yes 93.5 52.5 23,385 Yes 98.1 52.5 6,487 Yes 77.2 51.6 131,163 Yes — 25.4 — No — 29.1 — No — 0.2 — No 54.0 20.0 197,684 Yes — 16.6 — No — 10.9 — No — 12.8 — No — 47.5 — Yes — 10.6 — No — 5.2 — No — 0.1 — No — 26.2 — No 42.1 33.1 885,824 No — 72.5 — Yes

Uruguay

500 Year (cont.) 1989i 1992j 1994k 1994l 1994m 1996n 2004o a

Registered voters 2,283,597 2,345,077 2,278,375 2,330,154 2,330,154 2,343,920 2,487,816

Valid votes 1,881,558 1,782,318 1,798,833 — — 1,945,316 2,229,583

Yes 1,082,454 1,293,016 564,393 694,351 1,540,462 1,015,028 1,440,006

% val. % reg. No votes voters 57.5 47.4 799,104 72.5 55.1 489,302 31.4 24.8 1,234,440 — 29.8 — — 66.1 — 52.2 43.3 930,288 64.6 57.9 788,924

Approved Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Two reforms were decided in that referendum, one of which concerned the composition of the senate and the Juntas Departmentales. b The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting the reforms; 35% of the registered voters were required. The first reform introduced different ballot papers to elect the president and the parlamentarians. Hence, the voters could vote for different parties at each level. The second reform established a Colegiado. c The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting of the proposal; 35% of the registered voters were required. d According to a previous political agreement, only the plurality of votes was needed. e The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting of the issue; 35% of the registered voters were required. The reforms abolished the collective form of government, i.e. the Colegiado. f Proposal for the re-election of the president. g The military proposed a new constitution (approval or rejection). h The constitution includes a regulation establishing that increase in the income of retired people and pensioners should be linked to that of civil servants. The referendum was only about accepting or rejecting the proposal; the plurality of votes and a turnout of at least 35% was required. Preliminary results based on provisional counting. i The referendum concerned the so-called Ley de Caducidad. j Change of five articles of Law No. 16,211 (privatization of state enterprises). k Reform of the 1967 Constitution. l Constitutional reform envisaging the allocation of 27% of the public budget or 4.5% of the BIP to public education. m Constitutional reform to ensure that the norms regulating the state pension system cannot be altered by budget laws. n Reform of the 1967 Constitution. o Constitutional reform to treat access to piped water and sanitation services as a fundamental human right.

Uruguay

501

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1916 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PN PC (lema) Colegialista Anti–Colegialista PS UC (Catholics) 1933 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PN PC–lemaa Batllistas terristas Gral. F. Rivera Radical (vieristas) P. Por la Tradición Colorada (sosistas) Comisión Nacional de Unificación del PC UC (Catholics) PCU Othersb a

Total number 223,020 — — 146,632 68,073 60,420 14,548 2,001 1,590 Total number 428,597 — — 246,882

% – — — 65.7

Seats

218 105 87 22 2 2

46.4 41.2 9.9 1.4 1.1 % – — — 57.6

%

Seats

%

101,419 130,761 80,563 24,088 11,595 13,713

41.1 53.0 32.6 9.8 4.7 5.6

284 117 151 95 28 13 15

802

0.3

–

9,707 4,950 45

3.9 2.0 0.0

11 5 –

a

100.0 48.2 39.9 10.1 0.9 0.9

100.0 41.2 53.2 33.5 9.9 4.6 5.3 – 3.9 1.8 –

The Batllistas Netos and a nationalist current, which became PNI later on, abstained. The PS did not take part either. b Others include PR (45 votes).

Uruguay

502 2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1917–2004 Year

1917 Total number Registered voters — Votes cast — Invalid votes — Valid votes 128,888 Lema Colorados 98,477 PC 63,617 P. Coalición Colorado 32,254 Nacionalista – PC Batllista PC Gral. Rivera 2,606 – PC Bandiera Colorada (vieristas) – Unión Colorada – Listas coloradas Lema Blancos 29,257 PN 29,257 – P. Blanco – UC PS 703 P. Rionegrense 315 P. Autonomia 136 Colorada – PD Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lema Colorados PC Batllista PC Gral. Rivera Unión Colorada de Durazno PC Radical Agr, Col, Batll, Libre Listas coloradas Lema Blancos

1922 Total number — — — 246,324 123,279 95,995 14,460 – 9,726 – 3,098 116,080

% – — — — 76.4 49.4 25.0

1919 Total number — — — 188,352 97,689 – –

% – — — — 51.9 – –

– 2.0 –

55,623 13,129 12,293

29.5 7.0 6.5

– – 22.7 22.7 – – 0.5 0.2 0.1

11,612 5,032 83,520 71,538 11,982 2,133 4,324 – –

6.2 2.7 44.3 38.0 6.4 1.1 2.3 – –

686

0.4

–

– — — — 50.0 39.0 5.9 –

1925 Total number 331,743 — — 271,468 134,617 106,693 16,302 2,318

3.9 – 1.2 47.1

8,436 868 – 127,207

%

% – — — — 49.6 39.3 6.0 0.9 3.1 0.3 – 46.9

Uruguay

503

Year (cont.) PN PBR UC PS PCU UI PAP

1922 Total number – – 2,787 997 3,179 2 –

Year

1928 Total number 382,217 — — 299,017 144,070 88,553 21,814

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lema Colorados PC Batllista P. por la Tradicion Col. PC Gral. Rivera PC Radical P. Concentración Col. Agr. Col. Juventud Riv. Lema Blancos PN PBR PCU PS UC PAP PR Sind, Gente de Arte y Afines Agr, Militar Patria y Ejército Others

– – 1.1 0.4 1.3 0.0 –

1925 Total number 122,530 4,677 2,999 1,794 4,838 – 13

– — — — 48.2 29.6 7.3

1931 Total number 419,271 — — 309,048 151,791 110,693 13,831

%

%

% 45.1 1.7 1.1 0.7 1.8 – 0.0

% – — — — 49.1 35.8 4.5

21,322 9,879 1,671

7.1 3.3 0.6

18,302 8,965 –

5.9 2.9 –

831

0.3

–

145,159 140,940 4,219 3,911 2,931 2,743 199 4 –

48.5 47.1 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 –

136,992 133,625 3,367 6,235 5,630 7,404 151 – 412

44.3 43.2 1.1 2.0 1.8 2.4 0.0 – 0.1

–

–

–

244

0.1

–

–

189

0.1

Uruguay

504 Year

1934 Total number Registered voters 422,865 Votes cast — Invalid votes — Valid votes 249,125 Lema Colorados 139,832 PC Batllista 110,330 Por la Tradicion Col. 6,158 PC Gral. Rivera 23,344 Lema Blancos 92,903 PN 91,608 P. Saravista 1,295 PCU 3,634 PS 5,849 UC 6,878 PR 29 P. Indep. Feminista – P. Autóct. Negro – P. La Concordancia – P. M. Pacheco y Obes – Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Lema Blancos PN PNI PDS UC PS PCU P. La Concordancia

1942 Total number 858,713 — — 575,700 328,596 199,265 132,235 67,030 – 24,433 9,036 14,330 40

% – — — — 56.1 44.3 2.5 9.4 37.3 36.8 0.5 1.5 2.3 2.8 0.0 – – – –

% – — — — 57.1 34.6 23.0 11.6 – 4.2 1.6 2.5 0.0

1938 Total number 636,171 — — 375,771 219,362 – – – 122,440 114,564 7,876 5,736 13,152 14,802 – 122 87 69 1 1946 Total number 993,892 — — 670,229 310,556 271,037 208,088 62,949 5,081 35,147 15,731 32,677 –

% – — — — 58.4 – – – 32.6 30.5 2.1 1.5 3.5 3.9 – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% – — — — 46.3 40.4 31.0 9.4 0.8 5.2 2.3 4.9 –

Uruguay Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN PNI UC PCU PS PDS Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN UC PCU PS UDR PMR FIdeLa UP PDC Others a

505 1950 Total number 1,168,206 — — 828,403 433,628 254,788 62,686 36,093 19,026 17,400 4,711 71 1958 Total number 1,410,105 — — 1,005,362 379,062 499,425 37,625 27,080 35,478 19,979 6,325 – – – 388

% – — — — 52.3 30.8 7.6 4.4 2.3 2.1 0.6 0.0

% – — — — 37.7 49.7 3.7 2.7 3.5 2.0 0.7 – – – 0.0

1954 Total number 1,295,502 — — 879,242 444,429 309,818 32,341 44,255 19,541 28,704 – 154 1962 Total number 1,528,239 — — 1,171,020 521,231 545,029 – – – – – 40,886 27,041 35,703 1,130

% – — — — 50.5 35.2 3.7 5.0 2.2 3.3 – 0.0

% – — — — 44.5 46.5 – – – – – 3.5 2.3 3.0 0.1

Frente Izquierda de Liberación, formed by Communists and allies; their acronym coincides with the first name of the Cuban Revolution’s leader, Fidel Castro.

Uruguay

506 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN FIdeL PDC FA (lema PDC)d PS UP MCCe Others a

1966 Total number 1,658,368 — — 1,231,762 607,633 496,910 69,750 37,219 – 11,559 2,655 4,230 1,806

% – — — — 49.3 40.3 5.7 3.0 – 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1

1971 Total number 1,878,132 1,726,049 48,647a 1,664,119c 681,624 668,822 – – 304,275 – 69,474d 8,844 554

% – 91.9 2.8b 96.4 41.0 40.2 – – 18.3 – 4.2 0.5 0.3

Official figure; the correct figure resulting from the substraction would be 61,930. Official figure. The correct result is 3.6%. c The vote shares of the parties add up to 1,733,593. d In 1971, FIdeL was founded as a coalition comprising Communists and their allies, Socialists, Christian-Democrats, UP (one of the legal branches of the Tupamaros) and dissidents from the two traditional parties. In order to take advantage of the rule which allows different factions to accumulate votes, it took the name (lema) Partido Demócrata Cristiano. The PDC strictu sensu voted with the Selma Michelini’s sector (Lista 99, former Colorado) within the sublema Frente del Pueblo. e Dissident sector of the PDC which refused to be part of the party in 1966. Another group, the URC, split in 1971. b

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN FA (lema PDC) UC FA NE PV Others a

1984 Total number 2,197,503 1,930,931 44,569 1,886,756a 777,701 660,767 401,104 46,241 – – – 943

% – 87.9 3.2 97.7 41.2 35.0 21.3 2.5 – – – 0.0

1989 Total number 2,319,022 2,056,355 85,769 1,970,586 596,964 765,990 – – 418,403 177,453 10,835 941

% – 88.7 4.2 95.8 30.3 38.9 – – 21.2 9.0 0.5 0.0

The number of valid votes is 1,886,362 if invalid votes are subtracted from votes cast. 1,886,756 is the sum of party vote shares.

Uruguay Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN FA–EP NE Others a

b

507 1994 Total number 2,330,154 2,130,618 101,337 2,029,281a 656,426 633,384 621,226 104,773 13,470

% – 91.4 4.8 95.2 32.3 31.1 30.8 5.2 0.6

1999 Total number 2,402,160 2,204,884 57,735 2,147,149 703,915 478,980 861,202 97,943 5,109b

% – 91.8 2.6 97.4 32.8 22.3 40.1 4.6 0.2

The sum of party votes in 1994 is 2,029,279. In 1999, others include: UC (5,109).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Blank votes Valid votes FA–EP PN PC PI Others a

2004a Total number 2,487,816 2,229,583 21,541 31,031 2,177,169 1,124,761 764,739 231,036 41,011 56,503

% – 89.6 1.0 1.4 97.6 51.7 35.1 10.6 1.9 2.6

The numbers listed correspond to the official figures. However, neither do the parties’ shares add up to the number of valid votes, nor does the sum of valid, blank, and invalid votes equal the number of votes cast.

2.7.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1934–2004 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN PCU UC PS a

1934a Total number 422,865 — — 221,203 125,981 91,585 3,637 – –

Before 1934, senators were elected indirectly.

% – — — — 57.0 41.4 1.6 – –

1938 Total number 636,171 — — 361,923 219,375 114,571 – 14,802 13,175

% – — — — 60.6 31.7 – 4.1 3.6

Uruguay

508 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN PNI PCU UC PS PDS PSU Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN PNI UC PCU PSU PDS Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN UC UDRa PDC PCU PS FIdeLb

1942 Total number 858,713 — — 574,703 328,599 131,235 67,030 14,330 24,433 9,036 – – 40 1950 Total number 1,168,206 — — 838,288 443,440 254,834 62,701 36,100 19,026 17,401 4,715 71 1958 Total number 1,410,105 — — 1,005,362 379,062 499,425 37,625 19,979 – 27,080 35,478 –

% – — — — 57.2 22.8 11.7 2.5 4.3 1.6 – – 0.0

% – — — — 52.9 30.4 7.5 4.3 2.3 2.1 0.6 0.0

% – — — — 37.7 49.7 3.7 2.0 – 2.7 3.5 –

1946 Total number 993,892 — — 670,061 310,390 208,085 62,950 32,677 35,147 – 5,081 15,731 – 1954 Total number 1,295,502 — — 879,242 444,429 309,818 32,341 44,255 19,541 28,704 – 154 1962 Total number 1,528,239 — — 1,171,018 521,231 545,027 – – 35,703 – – 40,886

% – — — — 46.3 31.1 9.4 4.9 5.2 – 0.8 2.3 –

% – — — — 50.5 35.2 3.7 5.0 2.2 3.3 – 0.0

% – — — — 44.5 46.5 – – 3.0 – – 3.5

Uruguay Year (continued) UP Others a

b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN PDC PS FIdeL UP FA (lema PDC) URC Others b

% – 0.7

1962 Total number 27,041 1,130

% 2.3 0.1

1966 Total number 1,658,368 — — 1,231,762 607,633 496,910 37,219 11,559 69,750 2,655 – – 6,036

% – — — — 49.3 40.3 3.0 0.9 5.7 0.2 – – 0.5

1971 Total number 1,878,132 1,726,049 48,647a 1,664,119 681,624 668,822 – – – – 304,275 8,844 554

% – 91.9 2.8b 96.4 41.0 40.2 – – – – 18.3 0.5 0.0

Official figure. The correct figure after the sustraction would be 61,930. Official figure. The correct result is 3.6%.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN FA (lema PDC) UC FA NE PV Others a

1958 Total number – 6,713

Communists and allies. In 1962 FIdeL included Socialists and a dissident sector of the PN.

Year

a

509

1984 Total number 2,197,503 1,930,931 44,569 1,886,362a 777,701 660,767 401,104 46,241 – – – 943

% – 87.9 2.3 97.7 41.0 35.1 21.3 2.5 – – – 0.1

1989 Total number 2,319,022 2,056,355 85,769 1,970,586 596,964 765,990 – – 418,403 177,453 10,835 941

% – 88.7 4.2 95.8 30.3 38.9 – – 21.2 9.0 0.5 0.0

Official figure, which does not coincide with the figure obtained when the parties’s votes are added up (1,886,756).

Uruguay

510 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN FA–EP NE Others a

b

% – 91.4 4.8 95.2 32.3 31.1 30.8 5.2 0.6

1999 Total number 2,402,160 2,204,884 57,735 2,147,149 703,915 478,980 861,202 97,943 5,109b

% – 91.8 2.6 97.4 32.8 22.3 40.1 4.6 0.2

The sum of party votes in 1994 is 2,029,279 Others include: UC (5,109).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Blank votes Valid votes FA–EP PN PC PI Others a

1994 Total number 2,330,154 2,130,618 101,337 2,029,281a 656,426 633,384 621,226 104,773 13,470

2004a Total number 2,487,816 2,229,583 21,541 31,031 2,177,169 1,124,761 764,739 231,036 41,011 56,503

% – 89.6 1.0 1.4 97.6 51.7 35.1 10.6 1.9 2.6

Official figures. However, neither do the parties’ shares add up to the number of valid votes, nor does the sum of valid, blank, and invalid votes equal the number of votes cast.

Uruguay

511

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Lower Chamber (House of Representatives) 1919–2004 Year PC PC Battlista PC Gral. Rivera Unión Colorada PC Bandera Colorada (vieristas) P. Colorado PC Radical Unión Colorada de Durazno Others PN PS PCU PBR UC Year PC PC PC Gral. Rivera PC por la Tradición Colorada PC Radical PN PBR UC PS PUC

1919 Seats 123 64 40 9 7 7

% 100.0 52.0 32.5 7.3 5.7 5.7

1922 Seats 123 63 49 8 – 5

– – – 1 56 2 – – 1

% 100.0 51.2 39.8 6.5 – 4.1

1925 Seats 123 63 – 7 – –

% 100.0 51.2 – 5.7 – –

– – – 0.8 45.5 1.6 – – 0.8

– – – 1 58 – 1 – 1

– – – 0.8 47.2 – 0.8 – 0.8

51 4 1 – 56 – 1 2 1

41.5 3.3 0.8 – 45.5 – 0.8 1.6 0.8

1928 Seats 123 59 37 9 9

% 100.0 48.0 30.1 7.3 7.3

1931 Seats 123 60 45 7 5

% 100.0 48.8 36.6 5.7 4.1

1934 Seats 99 55 43 10 2

% 100.0 55.5 43.4 10.1 2.0

4 60 1 1 1 1

3.3 48.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

3 55 1 3 2 2

2.4 44.7 0.8 2.4 1.6 1.6

– 39 – 2 2 1

– 39.4 – 2.0 2.0 1.0

Uruguay

512 Year PC Para Servir al País (Baldomir) Viva Terra (Acevedo) Batllismo Libertad y Justicia Para Servir al País Por la Patria Depto. de Paysandú PN PS UC PCU PNI Year PC Batllismo Libertad y Justicia Lista 15 Lista 14 PN Mov. Popular Nacionalista Reconstrucción Blanca Herrerismo Unión Blanca Democrática Nacionalismo Intransigente PS UC PCU PNI UDR

1938 Seats 99 64 33 31 – – – – – 29 3 2 1 – 1950 Seats 99 53 41 12 – – 31 – – – – – 2 4 2 7 –

% 100.0 64.6 33.3

1942 Seats 99 58 –

31.3 – – – – – 29.3 3.0 2.0 1.0 –

– 34 14 8 1 1 23 1 4 2 11

% 100.0 53.5 41.4 12.1 – – 31.3 – – – – – 2.0 4.0 2.0 7.1 –

1954 Seats 99 51 – 3 33 15 35 12 1 22 – – 3 5 2 3 –

% 100.0 58.6 –

1946 Seats 99 47 –

% 100.0 47.5 –

– 34.3 14.1 8.1 1.0 1.0 23.2 1.0 4.0 2.0 11.1

– – – – – – 31 2 5 5 9

– – – – – – 31.3 2.0 5.1 5.1 9.1

% 100.0 51.5 – 3.0 33.3 15.2 35.4 12.1 1.0 22.2 – – 3.0 5.1 2.0 3.0 –

1958 Seats 99 38 – – 26 12 51 – – 24 25 2 3 3 2 – 2

% 100.0 38.5 – – 26.3 12.2 51.5 – – 24.2 25.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 – 2.0

Uruguay Year PC Por la Unión del Partido Unión Colorado y Batllista Unión Colorado y Batllista Por el Gobierno del Pueblo Unión Colorado y Ballista (Gestido/Pacheco) Unidad y Reforma (Batlle/Lacarte) Por el Gobierno del Pueblo (Vasconcellos/Rodriguez) Por la Defensa del Batllismos (Michelini/Lanza) Unión Naciobal Reeleccionista (Bordaberry) Unidad y Reforma (Batlle) Por la Unión del Partido (Vasconcelos) PN Unión Blanca Democrática Herrera – Por la Reforma Herrera (Haedo) Acción Blanca Herrerismo–Ruralismo (Echegoyen/Ortiz) Unión Blanca Democrática (Gallinal/Zaballos) Herrerismo (Heber/Storace) Por la Patria/MNR (Ferreira) Herrerismo (Aguerrondo) FideL PDC FA (lema PDC) Democristianos Comunistas y aliados Colorados Disidentes (Por el Gobierno del Pueblo) UP/Pro–tupamaro PS

513 1962 Seats 99 44 28 7 2 7 –

% 100.0 44.4 28.3 7.1 2.0 7.1 –

1966 Seats 99 50 – – – – 25

% 100.0 50.5 – – – – 25.3

1971 Seats 99 41 – – – – –

% 100.0 41.4 – – – – –

–

–

18

18.2

–

–

–

–

5

5.1

–

–

–

–

2

2.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

28

28.3

– –

– –

– –

– –

12 1

12.1 1.0

47 20 20 5 2 –

47.5 20.2 20.2 5.1 2.0 –

41 – – – – 19

41.4 – – – – 19.2

40 – – – – –

40.4 – – – – –

–

–

14

14.1

–

–

– – – 3 3 2 – – –

– – – 3.0 3.0 2.0 – – –

8 – – 5 3 – – – –

8.1 – – 5.1 3.0 – – – –

– 30 10 – – 18 7 4 1

– 30.3 10.1 – – 18.2 7.1 4.0 1.0

2 –

2.0 –

– –

– –

5 1

5.1 1.0

Uruguay

514 Year PC Batllismo Unido Unión Colorada y Batllista Batllistas Pachequistas PN Por la Patria Movimiento Nacional de Rocha Consejo Nacional Herrerista Herrerismo Renovación y Victoria FA (lema PDC) UC FA Democracia Avanzada PS Vertiente Artigusta Movimiento Participación Popular NE PGP PDC a

1984 Seats 99 41 35 6 – – 35 30a –a

% 100.0 41.4 35.4 6.1 – – 35.4 30.3 –

1989 Seats 99 30 – – 17 13 39 1 12

% 100.0 30.3 – – 17.2 13.1 39.4 1.0 12.1

4 1 – 21 2 – – – – –

4.0 1.0 – 21.2 2.0 – – – – –

– 23 3 – – 21 11 5 3 2

– 23.2 3.0 – – 21.2 11.1 5.1 3.0 2.0

– – –

– – –

9 8 1

9.1 8.1 1.0

Por la Patria and Movimiento Nacional de Rocha formed an electoral coalition.

Uruguay

515

Year

1994 Seats 99 PC 32 Foro Batllista 24 P por el Gobierno del Pueblo 1 Batllismo Radical 2 Sector Vaillant 1 UCB 1 Cruzada 94 3 PN 31 Sector Alberto Volonté 16 Renovación y Victoria 1 MNR 2 Herrerismo 12 FA-EP 31 Asamblea Uruguay 17 Espacio 90 7 Vertiente Artiguista 2 PC 2 MPP 2 EP 1 NE 5 PI –

% 100.0 32.3 24.3 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 31.3 16.2 1.0 2.0 12.1 31.3 17.2 7.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.1 –

1999 Seats 99 33

% 100.0 33.3

2004 Seats 99 10

% 100.0 10.1

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

22

22.2

34

34.3

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

40

40.4

53

53.5

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

4 –

4.0 –

– – – – – – –

– – – – – – –

2

2.0

2.8.2 Upper Chamber (Senate) 1934–2004 Year PN PC Por la Victoria (Batllismo Terrista) Gral. Rivera Batllismo Libertad y Justicia Por Servir el País Por la Patria (Riveristas) PNI UC

1934a Seats 30 15 15 13 2 – – – – – –

% 100.0 50.0 50.0 43.3 6.7 – – – – – –

1938a Seats 30 15 15 – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 50.0 50.0 –

1942 Seats 30 7 19 –

% 100.0 23.3 63.3 –

– – – – – – –

– 10 4 4 1 3 1

– 33.3 13.3 13.3 3.3 10.0 3.3

Uruguay

516 a

According to a constitutional regulation the senate was formed by parlamentarians of the two most successful lemas in equal proportion.

Year PC Batllismo Batllismo Lista 15 Batllismo Lista 14 Libertad y Justicia Para Servir al País PN Herrera Mov. Popular Nacionalista Reconstrucción Blanca PNI Con nuestras ideas, con nuestras hombres Reconstrucción Blanca UC PCU PS Year

1946 Seats 30 15 9 – – 4 2 10 – – – 3 – – 1 1 – 1958 Seats 31 12 7 5 –

PC Batllismo Por las ideas de Batlle Unión Colorada y Ballista Lista C, Batlle Lista Bautista López Toledo – Por el Desarrollo y la – Justicia Social Por el Gobierno del Pueblo – Por la Defensa del Batllismo – PN 17 Herrera 9 Unión Blanca Democrática 8 Lista Echegoyen – L.A. de Herrera (Lista Haeda) – UC 1 PS 1 PDC – FIdeL –

% 100.0 50.0 30.0 – – 13.3 6.7 33.3 – – – 10.0 – – 3.3 3.3 –

1950 Seats 30 17 12 – – – 5 10 – – – 2 1 1 1 – –

% 100.0 56.7 40.0 – – – 16.7 33.3 – – – 6.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 – –

1954 Seats 31 17 – 10 6 1 – 11 6 4 1 1 – – 1 – 1

% 100.0 54.8 – 32.3 19.4 3.2 – 35.5 19.4 12.9 3.2 3.2 – – 3.2 – 3.2

% 100.0 38.7 22.6 16.1 –

1962 Seats 31 14 8 – 3

– –

1 –

3.2 –

– 7

– 23.3

– – 54.8 29.0 25.8 – – 3.2 3.2 – –

2 – 15 – 7 6 2 – – 1 1

6.5 – 48.4 – 22.6 19.4 6.5 – – 3.2 3.2

1 2 13 – – – – – – – 1

3.3 6.7 43.3 – – – – – – – 3.3

% 100.0 45.2 25.8 – 9.7

1966 Seats 30 16 6 – –

% 100.0 53.3 20.0 – –

Uruguay Year PC Batllismo Unión Nacional Reeleccionaria Por la Unión del Partido Batllismo Unido Integración Batllista Corriente Ballista Independiente Unión Colorado y Batllista Batllismo (Batlle) Batllismo (Sanguinetti) UCB (Pacheco – Jude) UCB (Pacheco – Millor) PN Defensores de las Leyes Herrerismo – Ruralismo Unidos a la Victoria Por la Patria Movimiento Nacional de Rocha Consejo Nacional Herrerista Por la ruta de Herrera Renovación y Victoria Herreristas FA (lema PDC) Patria Grande FIdeL Frente del Pueblo PGP FA Democracia Avanzada PS Vertiente Artiguista NE (PGP)

517 1971 Seats 30 13 5 7

% 100.0 43.3 16.7 23.3

1984 Seats 30 13 – –

% 100.0 43.3 – –

1989 Seats 30 9 – –

% 100.0 30.0 – –

1 – – –

3.3 – – –

– 8 1 1

– 26.7 3.3 3.3

– – – –

– – – –

– – – – – 12 8 2 2 – –

– – – – – 40.0 26.7 6.7 6.7 – –

3 – – – – 11 – – – 5 3

10.0 – – – – 36.7 – – – 16.7 10.0

– 2 3 2 2 12 – – – 1 4

– 6.7 10.0 6.7 6.7 40.0 – – – 3.3 13.3

– – – – 5 1 2 2 – – – – – –

– – – – 16.7 3.3 6.7 6.7 – – – – – –

2 1 – – 3 – – – 3 3 2 1 – –

6.7 3.3 – – 10.0 – – – 10.0 10.0 6.7 3.3 – –

– – 2 5 – – – – – 7 4 2 1 2

– – 6.7 16.7 – – – – – 23.3 13.3 6.7 3.3 6.7

Uruguay

518 Year PC PGP Foro Batllista Batllismo Radical Cruzada 94 PN Sector Volonté MNR Herrerismo FA–EP Asamblea Uruguay PS PC MPP NE (PGP)

1994 Seats 31 11 1 7 1 2 10 5 1 4 9 5 2 1 1 1

% 100.0 35.5 3.2 22.6 3.2 6.5 32.2 16.1 3.2 12.9 29.0 16.1 6.5 3.2 3.2 3.2

1999 Seats 30 10 – – – – 7 – – – 12 – – – – 1

% 100.0 33.3 – – – – 23.3 – – – 40.0 – – – – 3.3

2004 Seats 30 3 – – – – 10 – – – 17 – – – – –

% 100.0 10.0 – – – – 33.3 – – – 56.7 – – – – –

2.9 Presidential Elections 2.9.1 Consejo Nacional de Administración (National Administration Council) 1925–1932 1925 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Contra el Servicio Militar (batllistas) PC Gral, Rivera Por la Pureza del Sufragio Unión Col, de Durazno al lema PC Radical PN

Total number 304,005 — — 241,910 115,518 95,486 16,133 2,818 1,038 43 7,137 119,255

% – — — — 47.8 39.5 6.7 1.2 0.4 0.0 3.0 49.3

Uruguay 1926 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Por el Triunfo Colorado (batllistas, riveristas y radicales) Por la Tradición Colorada al lema PN PBR PCU a

Total number

%

353,860 — — 289,131 141,553 97,475

– — — — 49.0 33.7

Corrected by the Senatea — — — (289,253) (141,579) —

43,929 149 139,959 3,844 3,775

15.3 0.0 48.4 1.3 1.3

— — (140,055) — —

The figures in brackets are the corrections made by the senate in the final counting.

1928 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Por los Ideales Batllistas Por el Triunfo y la Unión del P. Colorado Comité Dptal, Col, Batllismo José Batlle y Ordóñez al lema PN PBR PCU UC a

519

Total number

%

Corrected by the Senate — — — (296,101) (144,912) — —

382,817 — — 292,765a 143,280 87,933 54,662

– — — — 48.9 30.0 18.7

598

0.2

87 141,055 3,715 3,791 954

0.0 48.2 1.3 1.3 0.3

— (142,729) — — —

%

Corrected by the Senate — — — (318,064) (165,827) — — —

—

If all party votes are added up, the sum is 292,795.

1930 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Por la Victoria F. Rivera al lema

Total Number 398,169 — — 317,293a 165,069 136,832 28,882 113

– — — — 52.1 43.2 9.1 0.0

Uruguay

520 1930 (cont.) PN PCU a

Total Number 149,339 2,243

% 47.2 0.7

Corrected by the Senate (150,642) (2,291)

If all party votes are added up, the sum is 316,651. Furthermore, the sublema votes do not equal the votes for the PC.

1932 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Por la Victoria del Batllismo P. Por la Tradición PC Radical al lema PN Por el Sufragio, por la democracia económica Agrup. Pop. al lema PCU PS

Total number 431,192 — — 160,625 107,664 85,106 11,388 11,073 97 41,908 37,872 3,828 208 5,227 5,826

% – — — — 67.0 53.0 7.1 6.9 0.1 26.1 23.6 2.4 0.1 3.3 3.6

2.9.2 Presidential Elections 1926–1950 1926 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Por el Triunfo Col, (batllistas, riveristas y radicales) Por la Tradición al lema PN PBR PCU a

Total number 353,860 — — 289,255 141,581a 97,475 43,929 149 140,055 3,844 3,775

The sublema votes (141,553) do not equal the votes for PC.

% – — — — 48.9 33.7 15.2 0.1 48.4 1.3 1.3

Uruguay 1930 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Por la Victoria (Fórmula Gabriel Terra) F. Rivera (Fórmula Manini Ríos) al lema PN PCU a

521 Total number

%

398,169 — — 317,343a 165,069 136,832

– — — — 52.0 43.1

Corrected by the Senate — — — (318,760) (165,827) —

28,882 113 149,997 2,227

9.1 0.0 47.3 0.7

— — (150,642) (2,291)

Sum of party votes (317,293) is less than number of valid votes and sum of sublema votes is not equal to the PC’s share.

1938 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Baldomir-Charlone Blanco Acevedo-Martínez Thedy al lema PN P. Concentración Patriótica P. Por las Libertades Públicas

Total number 636,171 — — 357,205 219,311 121,259 97,998 54 114,506 6,487 16,901

% – — — — 61.4 33.9 27.4 0.0 32.1 1.8 4.7

1942 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Amézaga/Guani Blanco Acevedo/Vilaró Rubio Williman/Mermot al lema PN Herrera/Berro Turena/Olivera Turena/Saraiva al lema PNI

Total number 858,713 — — 574,703 328,599a 234,127 74,767 670 66 131,235 129,132 1,384 667 52 67,030

% – — — — 57.2 40.7 13.0 0.1 0.0 22.8 22.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 11.7

Uruguay

522 1942 (cont.) UC PCU PS Others a

Total number 24,433 14,330 9,036 40

% 4.3 2.5 1.6 0.0

The sum of the PC’s candidates’ shares equals 309,630.

1946 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Berreta/Batlle Schiaffino/Castellanos Baldomir/Mussio Fournier al lema PN Herrera/Echegoyen Muñoz/Fontella Muñoz/Durán al lema PNI UC PCU

Total number 993,892 — — 649,405 310,496 185,715 83,534 40,875 372 208,120 205,923 557 1,479 161 62,955 35,154 32,680

% – — — — 47.8 28.6 12.9 6.3 0.0 32.0 31.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 9.7 5.4 5.0

1950 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Martínez Trueba/Brum Mayo Gutiérrez/Batlle Pacheco Blanco Acevedo/Giambruno PN Herrera/Echegoyen Estradé/Arróspide al lema PNI Delgado/Roldán UC PCU PS Othersb

Total number 1,168,206 — — 823,829 433,454a 162,262 195,930 120,949 254,834 253,077 1,421 396 62,701 36,100 19,026 17,401 313

% – — — — 52.6 19.7 23.8 14.7 30.9 30.7 0.2 0.0 7.6 4.4 2.3 2.1 0.0

Uruguay

523

a

Sum of PC candidates’ vote shares equals 479,141, the sum of PN candidates’vote shares is 254,894. The last five parties should be subsumed in ‘others’ and then listed in a footnote. b Others include: PDS (242 votes); P. La Concordancia (38 votes); P. Liberal (23 votes); P. Por la Defensa de los Derechos (6 votes); P. del Pueblo (4 votes).

2.9.3 Consejo Nacional de Gobierno (National Government Council) 1954–1962 1954 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Batllismo Lista 15 Batllismo Lista 14 Libertad y Justicia al lema PN Herrerismo Mov. Pop. Nacionalista Reconstrucción Blanca PNI UC PS PCU Others a

Total number 1,295,502 — — 879,242 444,429 254,648 180,164 9,292 325 309,818a 160,738 112,124 36,818 32,341 44,255 28,704 19,541 154

% – — — — 50.6 29.0 20.5 1.1 0.0 35.2 18.3 12.7 4.2 3.7 5.0 3.3 2.2 0.0

Seats

6 – – – – 3 – – – – – – – –

Sum of PN sublemas’ vote shares is 309,680.

1958 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC PN UC PS PCU Others

Total number 1,410,105 — — 1,005,362 379,062 499,425 37,625 35,478 27,080 26,692

% – — — — 37.7 49.7 3.7 3.5 2.7 2.7

Seats

3 6 – – – –

Uruguay

524 1962 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PN PC FideL PDC UP Others

Total number 1,528,239 — — 1,171,020 545,029 521,231 40,886 35,703 27,041 1,130

% – — — — 46.5 44.5 3.5 3.1 2.3 0.1

Seats

6 3 – – – –

2.9.4 Presidential Elections 1966–1999 1966 Total number Registered voters 1,658,368 Votes cast — Invalid votes — Valid votes 1,231,762 PC 607,633 Gestido/Pacheco 262,040 Batlle/Lacarte 215,642 Vasconcellos/Rodríguez 77,476 Michelini/Lanza 48,992 Aréchaga/Berchesi 4,064 al lema 389 PN 496,910 Echegoyen/Ortiz 228,309 Gallinal/Zeballos 171,618 Heber/Storace 96,772 al lema 211 PDC, Bidart/Saralegui 37,219 MCC, Chiarino/Flores 4,230 PS 11,559 Cardoso/Bernhard 7,892 Frugoni/Gavazzo 3,646 UP 2,655 FIdeL, Aguirre González/Pastorino 69,750 Others 1,806

% – — — — 49.3 21.3 17.5 6.3 4.0 0.3 0.0 40.3 18.5 13.9 7.9 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 5.7 0.1

Uruguay

525

1971 Total number Registered voters 1,878,132 Votes cast — Invalid votes — Valid votes 1,664,119 PC 681,624a Bordaberry/Sapelli 379,515 Batlle/Rodríguez 242,804 Vasconcellos/Mora 48,844 Pintos/Torialli 5,402 Ribas/Gorlero 4,025 al lema 604 PN 668,822 Ferreira Aldunate/Pereyra 439,649 Aguerrondo/Heber 228,569 al lema 604 FA (lema PDC), Seregni/Crottogini 304,275 URC, Pérez/Saralegui 8,844 Others 554 a

% – — — — 41.0 22.8 14.6 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 40.2 26.4 13.7 0.0 18.3 0.5 0.0

PC candidates’ vote shares add up to 681,194.

1984 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Sanguinetti/Tarigo Pacheco/Pirán al lema PN Zumarán/Aguirre Ortiz Paysee/Maeso al lema FA (lema PDC), Crottogini/D’Eia UC, J. U. Chiarino Others

Total number 2,200,086 — — 1,886,756 777,701 588,143 183,588 5,970 660,767 553,193 76,014 21,903 9,657 401,104 46,241 943

% – — — — 41.2 31.2 9.7 0.3 35.0 29.3 4.0 1.2 0.5 21.3 2.5 0.0

Uruguay

526 1989 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PN Lacalle/Aguirre Pereyra/Tourné Zumarán/García Costa al lema PC Batlle/Sanguinetti Pacheco/Millor Faingold/Vispo al lema FA, Seregni/Astori NE (lema PGP), Batalla/Quijano PV, Talice/Portillo Othersa a

Total number 2,319,022 — — 1,970,586 765,990 444,839 218,656 101,046 1,449 596,964 291,944 289,222 14,482 1,316 418,403 177,453 10,835 941

% – — — — 38.9 22.6 11.1 5.1 0.1 30.3 14.8 14.7 0.7 0.0 21.2 9.0 0.5 0.0

Others include: Partido Movimiento Justiciero (441 votes), Partido Convergencia (190 votes), Partido de los Trabajadores (30 votes).

1994 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PC Julio M. Sanguinetti Jorge Batlle Jorge Pacheco PN Alberto Volonté Juan Andrés Ramírez Carlos J. Pereyra FA–EP, Tabaré Vázquez NE, Rafael Michelini Others a

Total number 2,330,154 2,130,618 101,337 2,029,281a 656,426 500,760 102,551 51,935 633,384 301,655 264,255 65,650 621,226 104,773 13,470

% – 91.4 4.8 95.2 32.3 24.7 5.1 2.6 31.2 14.9 13.0 3.2 30.6 5.2 0.7

Sum of individual shares is only 2,029,279. Moreover, candidates’ shares do not equal party shares.

Uruguay 1999a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes FA-EP, Tabaré Vázquez PC, Jorge Battle PN, Luis Alberto Lacalle NE, Rafael Michelini Others a

b

527 Total number 2,402,160 2,204,884 57,735 2,147,149 861,202 703,915 478,980 97,943 5,109b

% – 91.8 2.6 97.4 40.1 22.3 32.8 4.6 0.2

First round of presidential elections which is identical to the parliamentary elections. Others include: UC (5,109 votes).

1999a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Jorge Battle Tabaré Vázquez a

Total number 2,402,135 2,206,112 65,626 2,140,486 1,158,708 981,778

% – 91.8 3.0 97.0 54.1 45.9

Second round of presidential elections contested by the two most successful candidates of the first round, where none achieved an absolute majority.

2004 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes FA-EP, Tabaré Vázquez PN, Jorge Larrañaga PC, Guillermo Stirling Others a

Total numbera 2,487,816 2,229,583 52,421 2,144,070 1,124,761 764,739 231,036 56,503

% – 89.6 2.4 96.2 51.7 35.1 10.6 2.6

Official figures. However, neither do the candidates’ shares add up to the number of valid votes, nor does the sum of valid and invalid votes equal the number of votes cast.

Uruguay

528 2.10 List of Power Holders 2.10.1 List of Presidents 1919–2004 Head of State Baltasar Brum José Serrato Juan Campisteguy Gabriel Terra

Years 1919–1923 1923–1927 1927–1931 1931–1938

Alfredo Baldomir Juan José de Amézaga Tomás Berreta Luis Batlle Berres Andrés Martínez Trueba

1938–1942 1942–1946 1946 1946–1950 1952–1955

Oscar D. Gestido 1967 Jorge Pacheco Areco 1967–1972 Juan M. Bordaberry 1972–1976 Alberto Demicheli

1976

Aparicio Méndez Gregorio C. Alvarez Rafael Addiego Julio Maria Sanguinetti Luis Alberto Lacalle Julio Maria Sanguinetti Jorge Battle Ibanez Tabaré Vázquez

1976–1981 1981–1985 1985 1985–1990 1990–1995 1995–2000 2000–2004 2004–

Remarks During this period the executive comprised two branches: the presidency with its Interior, War, Navy and Foreign Affairs Ministries, and the Consejo Nacional de Administración (National Administration Council). The last president, Gabriel Terra, conducted a coup d’état, bringing back a unipersonal executive. Terra served as de facto president until 1934, and as constitutional president in a later period. Constitutional president. Constitutional president. Died in office (2/8/1946). Vice president. Served the remaining term. With a new constitution from 1952 to 1966 the executive comprised a 9-member National Government Council. In 1966, a new constitutional regime reestablished the unipersonal executive. Died in office in December 1967. Vice president. Served the rest of the term. Coup d’état on 27/06/1973. Overthrown by the armed forces in 1976. President of the Consejo de Estado. Held the interim presidential office. Elected by the Consejo de la Nación. Elected by the Consejo de la Nación. Interim president (15 to 28/02). First elected president after the dictatorship. Governed according to the constitution. Constitutional president. Constitutional president. Constitutional president. Constitutional president. Won an absolute majority in the first round.

Uruguay

529

2.10.2 Consejeros del Consejo Nacional de Administración (Members of the National Administration Council) 1925–1932 1925 Luis A. de Herrera (PN). Martín C. Martínez (PN). Gabriel Terra (PC Batllista) 1926 José Batlle y Ordóñez (PC Batllista). Luis Cancela (PC Batllista). Arturo Lussich (PN) 1928 Baltasar Brum (PC Batllista). Victoriano Martínez (PC Batllista). Ismael Cortinas (PN) 1930 Juan P. Fabini (PC Batllista). Tomás Berreta (PC Batllista). Alfredo García Montes (PN) 1932 Antonio Rubio (Batllismo). Andres Martínez (Batllismo). Gustavo Gallinal (PN)

Uruguay

530

2.10.3 Consejeros del Consejo Nacional de Gobierno (Members of the National Government Council) 1952–1966 Andrés Martínez Trueba Luis Batlle Berres Alberto F. Zubiría Arturo Lezama Carlos L. Fisher Justino Zavala Muniz Zoilo A. Chelle Luis A. Herrera Ramón Viña Daniel Fernández Crespo Martín R. Echegoyen Benito Nardone Eduardo V. Haedo Faustino Harrison Justo M. Alonso Pedro Zabalza Manuel Rodríguez Correa Ledo Arroyo Torres César Batlle Pacheco Daniel Fernández Crespo Luis Giannattasio Washington Beltrán Alberto Heber Carlos M. Penadés Washington Guadalupe Luis Batlle Berres Amílcar Vasconcellos Oscar D. Gestido

1952–1954 1954–1958

Appointed by the parliament PC Batllista PC Batllista PC Batllista PC Batllista PC Batllista PC Batllista PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Mov. Pop. Nacionalista

1958–1962

PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Herrera PN Sublema Herrera Sublema Batllismo Lista 15

1962–1966

Sublema Batllismo Lista 15 Sublema Batllismo Lista 14 PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática PN Sublema Unión Blanca Democrática Unión Blanca Democrática Unión Blanca Democrática; he resigned and was replaced by Héctor Lorenzo y Losada PC Sublema Batllismo; he did not assume office; Alberto Abdala assumed it in his place. PC Sublema Batllismo Sublema Unión Col. y Batllista

Uruguay

531

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources Corte Electora/Sección Estadística (1989). Elecciones generales de 26 de noviembre de 1989. Montevideo. Dirección General de Estadística y Censos (1970). Boletín Estadístico.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Acevedo, E. (1934). Anales históricos del Uruguay, Vol. I–VI. Montevideo. Aguiar, C. and Argenti, G. (1983). Elecciones uruguayas: Un marco de análisis preliminar. Montevideo: CIEDUR. Balbis, J. (1984). ‘Los resultados en cifras. 1948–1982’. Cuadernos del CLAEH (Montevideo) 31: 101–114. Biles, E. R. (1972). Patronage Politics: Electoral Behaviour in Uruguay. Baltimore, Md./ London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Bottinelli, O. (1986). ‘Dilemas de la reforma electoral’, in D. Nohlen and J. Rial (eds.), Reforma electoral. Deseable, posible? Montevideo: FESUR/EBO. Botinelli, O., Nohlen, D., and Rial, J. (1990). ‘Uruguay: Sistema electoral y resultados electorales’, in Lateinamerikaforschung, Arbeitspapier 3. Heidelberg. Cocchi, A. (1986). La legislación electoral vigente: Desarrollo histórico y estructura actual. Montevideo. — (ed.) (1988). Reforma electoral y voluntad política. Montevideo: FESUR/EBO. Corlazzoli, J. P. (1984). ‘Les “Elections Primaires” en Uruguay de Novembre 1982’, in D. Nohlen (ed.), Wahlen und Wahlpolitik in Lateinamerika. Heidelberg: Esprint, 215–243. Crespo, I., Mieres, P., and Pérez, R. (1991). ‘Uruguay. De la quiebra institucional a la presidencia de Lacalle (1971–1991)’. Revista de Estudios Políticos (Nueva Época) 74: 297–321. Equipos-Consultores Asociados – Sistema de Estudios de Opinión Pública. (Base de datos 84–85–86). Opinión de los Montevideanos sobre el sistema electoral. Montevideo. Fabregat, J. T. (1950–1971). Elecciones uruguayas. Montevideo: Corte Electoral. — (1950). Elecciones uruguayas (Febrero de 1925 a Noviembre de 1946). Montevideo: Poder Legislativo. — (1957). Elecciones uruguayas (Noviembre de 1950 a Noviembre de 1954). Montevideo: Cámara de Representantes. — (1962). Elecciones uruguayas (Elecciones de 30 de noviembre de 1958). Montevideo: Cámara de Senadores.

532

Uruguay

— (1964). Elecciones uruguayas (Elecciones del 25 de noviembre de 1962). Montevideo: Cámara de Senadores. — (1968). Elecciones uruguayas (Plebiscito y elecciones de noviembre 27 de 1966). Montevideo: Cámara de Senadores. — (1967). Organización cívico electoral del Uruguay. Montevideo. Filgueira, C. and Filgueira, F. (1998). ‘Coaliciones reticentes. Sistema electoral, partidos y reforma estructural en el Uruguay’, in D. Nohlen and M. Fernández (eds.), El presidencialismo renovado. Instituciones y cambio político en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad, 287–308. Finch, H. (1991). ‘Uruguay since 1930’, in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–232. Franco, R. and Cisa, A. (1977). ‘Breve historia del sistema electoral uruguayo’, in Cuadernos CIESU 19. Montevideo. Franco, R. (1985). Democracia a la uruguaya. Un análisis electoral del período 1925–1984. Montevideo: El libro libre. — (ed.) (1986). El sistema electoral uruguayo: Peculiaridades y perspectivas. Montevideo. — (1987). ‘Los sistemas electorales y su impacto politico’, in Cuadernos del CAPEL 20. San José de Costa Rica. Gillespie, C. G. (1986). ‘Activists and Floating Voters: The Unheeded Lessons of Uruguay's 1982 Primaries’, in P. W. Drake and E. Silva (eds.), Elections and Democratization in Latin America. 1980–1985. San Diego, 215–244. — (1991). Negotiating Democracy: Politicians and Generals in Uruguay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 178–207. González, L. A. (1986). ‘El doble voto simultáneo y la ley de lemas’, in R. Franco (ed.), El sistema electoral uruguayo: Peculiaridades y perspectivas. Montevideo. — (1991). Political Structures and Democracy in Uruguay. Notre Dame. — (1995). ‘Continuity and Change in the Uruguayan Party System’, in S. Mainwaring and T. Scully (eds.), Building Democratic Institutions. Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, 138–163. Gros Espiell, H. and Arteaga, J. J. (1991). Esquema de la evolución constitucional de Uruguay. Montevideo. Handelman, H. (1986). ‘Prelude to Elections: The Military's Legitimacy Crisis and the 1980 Constitutional Plebiscite in Uruguay’, in P. W. Drake and E. Silva (eds.), Elections and Democratization in Latin America. 1980–1985. San Diego, 201–214. Kerbusch, E.-J. (1971). Das uruguayische Regierungssystem. Der Zweite Colegiado 1952–1967. Köln.

Uruguay

533

Lauga, M. (1998). ‘La reforma constitucional uruguaya de 1996’, in D. Nohlen and M. Fernández (eds.), El presidencialismo renovado. Instituciones y cambio político en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad, 309–324. Lindahl, G. (1962). Uruguay's New Path. A Study in Politics During the First Colegiado 1919–1933. Stockholm. McDonald, R. (1972). ‘Electoral Politics and Uruguayan Political Decay’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 26/1: 25–45. Mieres P. (1988). ¿Cómo votan los uruguayos? Las elecciones de 1984. Montevideo: CLAEH/EBO. Neschen, J. (1971). Uruguay. Besonderheiten eines Verfassungssystems. Münster. Nohlen, D. (1971). ‘Politischer Wandel durch Wahlen: Der Fall Uruguay’, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 48: 3–22. — (1981). Sistemas electorales del mundo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. — (1998). ‘Sistemas electorales parlamentarios y presidenciales’, in D. Nohlen, S. Picado, D. Zovatto (eds.), in Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 145–185. Nohlen, D. and Rial, J. (eds.) (1986). Reforma electoral. Deseable. Posible? Montevideo: FESUR/EBO. Pérez Pérez, A. (1970). La ley de lemas. Contenido. Alcance. Inconvenientes. Sugerencias para su reforma. Montevideo: Fundación de Cultura Universitaria. Rama, G. W. (1987). La democracia en Uruguay. Una perspectiva de interpretación. Buenos Aires: GEL. Rial, J. (1986). ‘The Uruguayan Elections of 1984: A Triumph for the Center’, in P. W. Drake and E. Silva (eds.), Elections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980–1985. San Diego, 245–272. Rial, J. and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Elecciones y democracia en América Latina, 1992–1996. San José: IIDH/CAPEL. Rouquié, A. (1973). L’Uruguay de M. Pacheco à M. Bordaberry. Les élections de novembre et les débuts de la présidence Bordaberry. Paris. Solari, A. (1986). ‘El sistema de partidos y régimen electoral en el Uruguay’, in R. Franco (ed.), in El sistema electoral uruguayo: Peculiaridades y perspectives (Montevideo), 1: 117–150. Taylor, P. B. (1955). ‘The Electoral System in Uruguay’. Journal of Politics, 17/1: 19–42. Thibaut, B. (1996). Präsidentialismus und Demokratie in Lateinamerika. Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile und Uruguay im historischen Vergleich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Venturini, A. R. (1989). Estadísticas Electorales 1917–1982. Montevideo: EBO. — (1989). Estadísticas Electorales, Elecciones Nacionales 1926–1982, Elecciones Internas 1982. Montevideo: EBO.

534

Uruguay

Weinstein, M. (1995). ‘Uruguay: The Legislature and the Reconstitution of Democracy’, in D. Close (ed.), in Legislatures and the New Democracies in Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Rienner, 137–150.

VENEZUELA by José Molina and Bernard Thibaut

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Venezuela was a rather marginal colony in its early years and only acquired importance in the 19th century, from both an economic and administrative point of view. This development happened systematically within a plantation-based economy (cacao, indigo, cotton, coffee, sugar cane). The long and costly wars of independence began in 1810. They were marked by the ethnic and social conflicts arising from the considerable number of slaves among the population, and ended with Venezuela’s independence from Spain and the foundation of Great Colombia. Venezuela finally split from Great Colombia and declared itself an independent republic on 22 September 1830. The constitution of 1811 was the first in Latin America. It provided for a tripartite executive, a two-chamber legislature, and a federal state. The 1830 Constitution, however, established a strong, one-person presidential system whilst maintaining a two-chamber legislative system. Despite the introduction of constitutional amendments up to 1999, the basic political structure set up by this constitution remained in force. That same year, a new constitution established a unicameral national assembly to replace the two-chamber congress. Few of the 24 Venezuelan constitutions enacted before 1961 were relevant to the development of an effective political process. Before 1958, Venezuela had scarcely enjoyed eight years of civilian governments, and only a brief period of democracy (1945–1948). The dissolution of Great Colombia was followed by the so-called Conservative Oligarchy (1830–1847), led by General Juan Antonio Páez. During this period, Caracas became the center of political decision-making and the nucleus of economic activity, based on the exportati

The authors would like to thank Carlos Huneeus who contributed to an earlier version of this study with his work on political and electoral developments in Venezuela in the 19th century.

536

Venezuela

on of coffee and cacao. As the landholding sector in the inland areas began to lose power this resulted in a center-periphery cleavage, which would be responsible for the country’s unstable political development throughout the 19th century. The 1840s witnessed the revival of violent conflicts between the landowning sector, organized around the Partido Liberal (Liberal Party), and Caracas’ conservative trade-oriented elite, which controlled central government. The constitution of 1858 recognized a principle included in the constitution of 1857, namely the centralization of the state. It was also the first constitution to grant universal and direct suffrage to men. Nevertheless, the first truly democratic, universal, and direct elections were held as late as 1946, when a constituent assembly was elected. The conflict between Liberals and Conservatives together with the numerous social rebellions led to the so-called Federal Wars (1859– 1863). The civil war was followed by a revolution, as a result of which the traditional oligarchy lost its property to the victorious military caudillos. The constitution of the United States of Venezuela, enacted in 1864, recognized the separation of powers and the representative function of the government but failed to end the country’s political instability. Political life was now dominated by the regional caudillos. Juan Vicente Gómez’s dictatorship (1908–1935) consolidated the central power of the state and began the process of modernization. Gómez, the last caudillo, broke with the regionalist power structures of the 19th century, which had regained its status after Guzmán’s downfall. Oil exploitation had special relevance within this process: Since 1917 it had been in the hands of US oil consortiums working under license. When the number of licenses rose, oil exploitation provided the economic resources to expand the public sector and professionalize the army and civil service. During his time in government Gómez introduced numerous constitutional reforms to adapt the legal framework of his de facto authoritarian government to the political needs of his personal control of the government, which he either exercised directly as president, or through a figurehead president under his control. The economic expansion of oil caused a change in the social structure that translated into a process of political mobilization and organization in the 1940s and 1950s. In this context, the rise of a trade union movement in the oil fields, organized by left-wing political activists was particularly important. They were strongly influenced by the social democratic Acción Democrática (AD; Democratic Action) and the communist Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV; Communist Party of Venezuela). This period gave rise to the most important trade union in

Venezuela

537

Venezuela to date, the Confederación de Trabajadores Venezolanos (CTV; Venezuelan Labor Confederation), founded in 1936, as well as to the most important organization of political and economic interests, the Federación de Cámaras de Comercio y Producción (FEDECAMARAS; Trade and Industry Chambers Federation), founded in 1942. Political groups also emerged led by intellectual representatives of the urban middle-classes, different from the traditional actors of the 19th century. The leadership of these groups is known as the Generación del 28 (Generation of 28), because of the protests against the dictatorship they led in 1928. The first political party in a modern sense was the Partido Comunista Venezolano, founded in 1931. The Acción Democrática was formed in 1941, and the social christian Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente (COPEI; Electoral Independent Committee for Political Organization) was founded in 1946. This process of organization was the key factor for opening the political scene following Gómez’s death in 1936. After the presidency of General Eleazar López Contreras (1935–1941), the country opened up to a certain extent. In 1945, the AD and a group of young army officers (Unión Patriótica Militar) conducted a civil-military coup that put an end to General Isaías Medina Angarita’s presidency (1941–1945). This incident marked the beginning of a three-year democratic government (Trienio). The junta resulting from this coup, led by Rómulo Betancourt, prepared the first free and competitive elections in the history of the country. These elections led to the establishment of a constituent assembly in 1946. The AD won both these elections and the presidential and parliamentary polls of 1947 with over 70% of the votes and became the leading political force in the country. Rómulo Gallegos, the candidate standing for the AD, was elected president. During his tenure there was a gradual polarization between the reformist government and the opposition as both sides seemed to seek conflict rather than agreement. The period was marked by political sectarianism. The extreme political polarization has been regarded as one of the main causes of the failure of this first democratic period. In November 1948, a military coup d’état that was not actively opposed by a part of the opposition ousted Venezuela’s first democratically elected government. Left-wing political leaders went into exile and the PCV and AD were banned in 1950 and 1951 respectively. In November 1952, the dictatorial government called for elections to the constituent assembly. The opposition candidates were members of the Unión Republicana Democrática (URD; Democratic Republican Union) and COPEI. The former, led by Jóvito Villalba and backed clandestinely by the AD and PCV, won the elections. The go-

538

Venezuela

vernment did not acknowledge the results and the leader of the Junta de Gobierno Pérez Jiménez proclaimed himself president and banned the COPEI and URD. Democracy returned to Venezuela in 1958. The one-time political enemies during the Trienio period (AD, COPEI, PCV, and URD) joined forces with the major social groups (business, unions, church, and military) in opposition against Pérez Jiménez’s government. They managed to oust the government with the help of a general strike and set the basis for the current democracy. They achieved this by setting up various political pacts, among others the so-called Pacto de Puntofijo signed on 31 October 1958 by the AD, COPEI, and URD. In this pact, these groups (excluding the PCV) agreed to establish a common political program focused on preserving democracy and to form a coalition government, no matter who might win the presidential elections. This pact was the beginning of a period of consensus to defend democracy and tone down the political and social conflicts that marked Venezuelan politics up to 1998. The presidential and parliamentary elections of 1958 gave an absolute majority to the AD but the parties who signed the pact governed in coalition. They drew up a new constitution that was enacted in 1961 and enjoyed the support of all forces in parliament, even the PCV. As such, it represented a wider range than established in the Pacto de Puntofijo. The text in force until 1999 established a presidential republic organized along federal lines with a bicameral legislature. However, the federal organization and the constitutional mechanisms intended to prevent the preeminence of the executive over the other constitutional bodies were of little relevance until the late 1980s. From an economic point of view, the democratic government in power since 1958 was as much influenced by oil exploitation as the previous governments. Since the 1930s, oil had been the material basis for the development program represented by all political groups. The programs of the AD and COPEI were very similar: both followed a program based on using the revenue derived from oil exploitation to diversify the economic structures and build a modern national industry administered by the state. The enduring social differences did not significantly affect Venezuela’s political stability. However, the consolidation of the democratic system was endangered during the 1960s by armed struggles with left-wing guerrillas. The prohibition of the PCV in 1962, because of its participation in the Cuban-backed guerilla insurgency against the elected government, was formally lifted in 1969. However, the Communists were allowed to nominate candidates and campaign for the 1968 general elections under the name of Unión Para Avanzar (UPA; Unity For Ad-

Venezuela

539

vancing). From then on, most of the former members of the guerrilla movement joined the political competition thanks to an amnesty and the legal recognition of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionario (MIR; Movement of the Revolutionary Left), the other main participant in the guerrilla insurgency. MIR was founded by former members of the radical left-wing of the AD. It had been banned since 1963. The Venezuelan party system became fragmented in the 1960s at the same time as the AD lost its position as the undisputed predominant and majority party. Amidst internal ideological conflicts and personal rivalries over the presidential candidacy, the party suffered a series of internal divisions (1960, 1962, and 1967) that weakened it significantly. Party identification among the rural population, built up during the forties and at its peak during the 1946 and 1947 elections, was also weakened during the dictatorship years, mainly due to emigration to the cities, which reduced the importance of the rural vote and created a sizeable urban population without strong party ties. This decline in party identification and the splits that plagued the AD opened the door to personalist parties, built around individuals with strong personal and financial bakking, who were relevant in the 1963 and 1968 elections. The weakening of the AD enabled Rafael Caldera’s COPEI to win the 1968 presidential elections, which meant that a new party was able to assume power for the first time. The party system was characterized by several cleavages. A regional (west-east) one: AD was traditionally strong in the eastern states, while COPEI (Christian Democrats) had its electoral base in the western Andean regions, which was also a strongly Catholic area. A second cleavage concerned the division between the rural inland states, where the two main parties enjoyed considerable support, and the central coastal region, where the other parties enjoyed more significant backing in the elections. During the forties, the class cleavage was also important as the AD was associated with the labor and peasant movements, and COPEI with the middle classes. By the early seventies both parties had become catch-all parties, and the social, religious, and regional cleavages had lost electoral relevance. Ideological differences also lost relevance as both parties moved to the center of the political spectrum, and ended up positioning themselves close to each other at the center-right. From 1973, the party system showed a tendency towards concentration. AD and COPEI gradually became the axis of electoral competition, despite the growing number of contesting parties. AD and COPEI managed to reach a certain degree of cohesion in their regional bases and to alternate in government, although the AD still enjoyed a certain structu-

540

Venezuela

ral superiority, due to its strong links with the trade union movement and peasant organizations, and a larger number of party identifiers. COPEI, despite winning two elections, never matched the level of influence that the AD achieved within organized labor, or its number of party members and sympathizers. Soon after the oil industry had been nationalized in 1975, the development strategy favored by both parties was plunged into a crisis. The first oil crisis had brought about a huge increase in revenue, which resulted in a boom of consumer imports and reinforced the role of the state in the economy, which was already quite significant at that stage. Although the state had sources of revenue, it resorted to foreign loans to finance its large investment projects and to meet the great need for imports. However, this loan policy did not accelerate the process of modernization and economic growth as the country had expected. On the contrary, when oil prices fell and the debt crisis began in the early 1980s, Venezuela found itself loaded with debts and submerged in the mayhem of an economic crisis. In the 1980s, efforts to adapt the economic structure only served to worsen the political problems, especially as the state’s margin for solving social conflicts was reduced due to the sharp decrease in oil revenues and per capita income. The development model followed by the AD and COPEI since the Pacto de Puntofijo was based on the distribution of the oil rent by the state to keep social conflicts low by improving the conditions of the different sectors, even though the model clearly favored the wealthy. The crisis of this model, the state and the parties defending it, namely AD and COPEI, and the attempt to replace it with a neo-liberal package agreed with the IMF, gave rise to a disorganized uprising by the poor sectors of the population. This revolt led to widespread looting in 1989 in Caracas and other cities controlled by the army and there were thousands of civilian casualties. This crisis caused a continuous decline in electoral participation and eroded party loyalties, but it did not become a real danger to the stability of the democratic system until 1992 when Hugo Chávez led a military coup that failed. In the mid-1980s a debate began on how to reform the structure of the state. In 1984, under pressure from civil organizations and public opinion, President Lusinchi established the Comisión Presidencial para la Reforma del Estado (COPRE; Presidential Committee for State Reform). Until it was dissolved by President Chávez in 1999 to make way for the process of constitutional reform and the constituent assembly, this institution encouraged the modernization of institutions as a way to fight the deterioration of the political system. The most important results

Venezuela

541

of this process were the electoral reform and decentralization, which began in earnest in 1988 and 1989. Nominal voting was introduced for elections to legislative bodies from the 1993 election onwards, following a system of personalized proportional representation, based on the German electoral system. This established direct elections for mayors and governors and the transfer of power from a central body to the states, in order to set up a direct political link between the parliamentarians and their citizens, and thus effectively implement the form of organization provided for by the constitution—formally federalist but (to date) de facto centralist. At the 1988 elections, party competition became moderately pluralized and personalized, thereby inverting the tendency to concentration and party dominance in existence since 1973. Other parties became strong in some regions mainly due to the success of individual leaders, but the AD and COPEI nevertheless maintained their domination, with 43.3% and 31.3% of the parliamentary vote respectively. These elections can be seen as the beginning of a tendency towards party de-institutionalization and personalist politics, characteristics that are now central to the Venezuelan political system. In December 1988, the AD candidate Carlos Andrés Pérez was elected president for the second time, and inaugurated in February 1989 (he served a first term from 1974 to 1979). The AD won 48% of the vote in the chamber of deputies and in the senate. Pérez introduced an economic adjustment program agreed with the International Monetary Fund. Subsequent rises in fuel prices and public transport fees caused social protests that led to riots on 27 and 28 February, which, although centered in Caracas, extended to the whole country. The government resorted to the military to suppress the revolts and there were several thousand casualties. As a consequence of this military intervention the armed forces split and the government lost popular support. The structural adjustment program continued until early 1992, when the first of two coups d’état that year took place. According to opinion polls, a large sector of the population was sympathetic towards the coup as it was seen as attacking a regime that was corrupt and highly unpopular. However, this sympathy was expressed at a time when most of those questioned also declared that they supported democracy. This paradox demonstrates a weakness in popular support for democracy in Venezuela, which had been detected before by Baloyra and Martz (1979), polling in 1973, and that is found to be common to underdeveloped democracies. The coup leaders, Lieutenant Colonels Hugo Chávez and Francisco Arias Cárdenas, immediately became popular figures, although in the years before 1998, support for Chávez as a potential presidential candidate had never been

542

Venezuela

higher than 10%. A number of civil leaders from the radical wing of La Causa R (LCR; The Radical Cause) participated in the coup attempt, among them Pablo Medina and Alí Rodríguez. They later split from the party to organize the radical left-wing party Patria Para Todos (PPT; Fatherland for All), which supported Chávez in 1998. The second coup took place on 27 November, a week after the regional and municipal elections. This time it was led by Generals Francisco Visconti and Gruber Odreman. A proposal for constitutional reform, prepared by a parliamentary team led by former President Rafael Caldera, which would have introduced the institution of recall for elected offices, as a way to end the unpopular Pérez government, was finally discarded due to fierce opposition by the media and AD. The media was opposed to constitutional reforms that would give the public the right to reply to information affecting their reputation. The IMF sponsored economic adjustment program was also suspended, but Pérez’s government failed to recover its legitimacy. In 1993, as the attempts to regain legitimacy for the political system and the government appeared doomed to failure, and with support for the main parties, including AD, waning, the attorney general brought an indictment against the president on charges of misappropriation of public funds. The supreme court considered the charges to be justified and the senate approved the procedure. Pérez was dismissed from office and provisionally replaced, in accordance with the constitution, by the president of the senate, Octavio Lepage and then finally succeeded by Ramón J. Velásquez, a well-known independent academic with close ties with the AD, who was appointed by congress once Pérez’ removal from office was considered definite. Velásquez successfully led the country to the national elections scheduled for December 1993 in the midst of military, social and political unrest. Rafael Caldera won the 1993 presidential elections backed by the Convergencia (a splinter group of COPEI founded as Caldera’s electoral platform in July), the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS; Movement Towards Socialism) and other minor left-wing parties. The radical leftwing group LCR, some of whose leaders had taken part in the coup attempts of 1992, gained over 20% of the vote, thereby positioning themselves at the same political level as the traditional parties. It was the first time since the establishment of democracy that a candidate outside the AD or COPEI won the elections. Thus, the two-party system became a multi-party system, and the virtually absolute control exerted by the AD and COPEI came to an end. The party system was becoming deinstitutionalized, party loyalties were much less important than in the past, and elections were, to a great extent, decided on government per-

Venezuela

543

formance, personalized leadership and issues such as change or the IMFinspired economic adjustment. In 1996, after two years of economic uncertainty, the Caldera government abandoned its electoral agenda and implemented a structural adjustment program known as the Agenda Venezuela. After a promising first year, in which the program gained widespread support, the plan failed due to the fall in oil prices in 1998, and as a result, government popularity sunk. When the population elected Caldera in 1993 it had opted for moderate change, and when this option failed, the way was opened up for more extreme alternatives. The radical option had already enjoyed massive support in 1993 through La Causa R. At this point, retired Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez took advantage of the political climate and contested the 1998 elections at the head of his party Movimiento V República (MVR; Fifth Republic Movement), in alliance with the left-wing parties (MAS; PPT and the other groups that had previously supported Caldera). He offered revolutionary change within the framework of democracy and defeated the moderate alternatives of Irene Sáez and Enrique Salas Romer. Their failure owed much to the fact that, having accepted the support of the traditional parties (first Sáez, but also Salas in the last month of campaigning), the population considered their ties to be too close. Chávez’s victory was an expression of the demise of traditional party loyalties, disenchantment with the Caldera government, personalist politics, and a desire for political change. He was supported by all social sectors, and attained a majority of votes in all of them, except the richest 5%. This was not a socially or ideologically grounded vote. Nor was it based on party loyalties. It was a vote based on an evaluation of government and was a vote for change, and therefore the future of the administration’s popular support depended mostly on its ability to satisfy the electorate on basic matters. This is why the support started to decline swiftly by the end of 2001 when the economic and social situation had not only not improved, but had deteriorated. Chávez won the presidency, but not a majority in congress, something which convinced him to implement one of his most important offers: he called a referendum to decide on the formation of a constituent assembly. Although this body was not provided for in the constitution of 1961, the supreme court, in a controversial resolution in January 1999, did not consider it unconstitutional. The referendum was held on 25 April 1999. The opposition called for abstention. Turnout was the lowest ever for national elections, but the proposal was approved by more then 90% of the votes. In July of the same year, elections were held to elect the members of the assembly.

544

Venezuela

The candidates of government parties, grouped under the so-called Polo Patriótico (MVR, MAS, PPT, and others) obtained almost all the seats, greatly helped by a plurality electoral system that did not contemplate proportional representation (see data below). With the absolute domination of the national constituent assembly, the government assumed absolute power, intervening both in the legislative and judicial powers. The supreme court acknowledged the supra-constitutional character of the national constituent assembly, which elaborated the draft constitution over the next four months. A referendum was held in December 1999 and the constitution was approved. Afterwards, the assembly finally dissolved the congress and appointed a Comisión Legislativa Nacional (National Legislative Commission) to substitute it provisionally until the general elections that were to be held in May 2000. This legislature was filled solely with government supporters; not one member of the opposition was appointed by the constituent assembly. The same happened with the state legislatures. Furthermore, the assembly also replaced the members of the supreme court and the national electoral council, the attorney general and the comptroller general by government loyalists. The reaction of the opposition was weak because the traditional parties were deeply discredited and plagued by internal crises. By the beginning of 2000 the government had absolute control over all branches of power, enjoyed broad popular support and had favorable prospects for the elections planned for the middle of the year, partly because of a significant increase in public revenues as a consequence of rising oil prices, but also because the approval of the new constitution allowed the government to claim that it was fulfilling its electoral promise. The new constitution respected the democratic institutions and, following the proposal made by the Caldera Committee in 1992, introduced mechanisms of direct participation, such as the calling of referenda to decide issues of national interest or the substitution of elected officers (recall), including recall for the president if requested by 20% of registered voters, at least 25% of the register voters actually vote, and the yes vote attains at least as many votes as those won by the elected officer subject to recall. Instead of the two-chamber congress, the constitution set up a unicameral national assembly. It consolidated the decentralization process without widening it. It also updated the provisions regarding human rights, creating the office of the ombudsman for their defense. It granted the military the right to vote and eliminated the provision according to which the armed forces were an obedient institution without decision or deliberating capacity vis-à-vis the civil authorities. This measure was strongly criticized, but was in alignment with the declared

Venezuela

545

government project to become a civil-military movement: The military, both active and retired officers, played an ever greater role in public functions. The final decision on who was promoted to the higher level of the military was left solely in the hands of the president. According to the 1961 Constitution these promotions needed senate approval. By implementing this provision, President Chavez secured political control over the military, and discarded one of the cornerstones of the previous system: pluralism in the political control over the military. The 2000 elections ratified the popular support for the government. Chávez won by a wide margin against an opposition candidate, Francisco Arias-Cárdenas, who had split from the government ranks and had been one of the commanders of the coup attempt in February 1992. The parties supporting the government gained a majority in the national assembly, but stopped short of achieving the two-thirds needed to appoint members to important offices, such as the national electoral council, the controller general, the attorney general and the Ombudsman. Nevertheless, they were able to fill the latter three jobs with government supporters after negotiations with the AD and Proyecto Venezuela (Venezuelan Project) that gave the latter some justices in the supreme court. Controlling all branches of power, the government attempted to gain control of the Trade Union movement. In order to do this they called for a referendum on whether to hold direct elections for the renewal of the Board of Directors of the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV; Venezuela Labor Confederation), the main trade union organization of the country. The referendum was held on 3 December 2000 together with the municipal elections. The yes-vote won by a wide margin, but abstention reached its highest point in national voting at 76.5%. The trade union elections were held the next year. The government lost but never recognized the victory of the AD’s candidate Carlos Ortega. From this point on, the government constantly tried to set up a meaningful parallel trade union organization in support of the government, but their efforts failed. At this point, the government excluded CTV as a negotiating partner. By the end of 2001, the CTV had joined ranks with the main business organization (FEDECAMARAS) to lead the huge demonstrations and protests that surrounded the coup attempt of April 2002, and the national strike of December 2002. The failure to topple the government forced the CTV and FEDECAMARAS to give up the leadership of the opposition movement. By the middle of 2003 the parties have regained ground, but CTV and FEDECAMARAS along with several middle class, non-governmental organizations still have significant in-

546

Venezuela

fluence in the opposition and in the drive to request a recall referendum to end Chávez mandate, which was put into motion by the end of 2003. To conclude, the history of democratic Venezuela, after the unstable 19th century, is closely linked to the consolidation of the state and the modernization of society initiated in the 1920s and connected to oil exploitation. The political parties, which appeared in the first half of the 20th century and soon evolved into mass organizations without a fixed social structure, determined the transition to democracy and its consolidation. They were the main political actors up to the 1990s, when electoral volatility and personality politics became increasingly more central. The main reasons for the stable development since 1958 were, first, the remarkable ability of the Puntofijo elites to reach political consensus; second, the possibility of using the oil rent to reduce social conflict by avoiding extreme poverty and inequality; third, a political culture that, in spite of not being unequivocal, increasingly supported democracy and made the establishment of an enduring dictatorship of any kind inconceivable, and last but not least, success in achieving civil control of the military based on pluralist political control. With social and economic decay starting in the 1980s due to the decrease in oil revenues, one of the pillars of the Puntofijo political system disappeared. In addition, the inability of the traditional parties (AD and COPEI) to address the economic crisis in a way that could satisfy the electorate, the increase in corruption, and the partisan clientelism, gradually eroded the party loyalties and confidence in the traditional leadership, despite efforts to implement reforms regarding decentralization and the electoral system. As a consequence, electoral abstentionism increased and more and more voters looked for political alternatives. This trend, after a first government alien to the traditional parties in 1993, gave victory to Polo Patriótico (Patriotic Pole)—Chávez’s electoral coalition—and the civil-military platform of President Hugo Chávez Frías. The break from the so-called Puntofijo regime enjoyed popular support as long as the hope for change remained and the basic democratic institutions were not dismantled. However, since the end of 2001, a number of factors have caused a decline in the government’s popular support in the midst of increasing polarization: the failure to fulfill the expectations for social change, the ambiguity towards democratic institutions represented by the close relationship with countries governed by the authoritarian left (particularly Cuba), the resistance to apply the direct democracy mechanism established in the constitution once they were not sure to win the referenda, the imposition of left-wing oriented economic measures by executive decree (without parliamentary or social negotiation) alienated the business and

Venezuela

547

economic sectors. As in Chile in 1973, and Nicaragua during the 1980’s, faced with a left-wing government that was seen as unwilling to negotiate its social program and as being too close to Cuba, the business and middle classes, in alliance with the main trade union movement, and with increasing popular support, attempted to topple the government, first by staging a coup attempt with military backing in April 2002 that failed, and later by a general strike whose stated purpose was to force the government to accept an early referendum on its mandate or resign to hold new elections. The result was great political instability, caused by two factors: first, the undemocratic tendencies within the right wing opposition and, second, the government's refusal to solve the crisis by calling new elections. Under the guidance of the Organization of American States, the Carter Center, and the United Nations, the government and opposition reached a shaky agreement in May 2003. The key factor was the scheduling of a recall referendum after the government reached half its term in August 2003. This was formally requested by the opposition in December 2003. The events in Venezuela show that an attempt to provoke radical social change tends to be haunted by extreme instability when associated with a policy of social confrontation instead of negotiation. The result of the policy of extreme confrontation adopted by the Chávez government has been the failure to achieve any meaningful change; the deterioration of the social conditions of the lower classes mainly due to a sharp increase in unemployment because of lack of investments by the frightened private sector, and mismanagement of the economy; extreme political instability; and the loss of popular support. According to most public opinion polls, support for the government tumbled from 80% in 1999 to 30% in the middle months of 2003. 1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The electoral law is regulated by the constitution (26 constitutions from 1811 to 1999) and by the electoral provisions. Several pieces of electoral legislation were drawn up during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, but without any real effect, due to the rule of authoritarian governments. The legal provisions for elections during the democratic periods were those put into effect on the following dates: 20 September 1945, 15 March 1946, 19 September 1947, 23 May 1958, 8 April 1959, 31 March 1964, 16 December 1970, 3 September 1973, 6 July 1977, 22 August 1998, 1 September 1989, 26 February 1992, 29

548

Venezuela

July 1993, 16 May 1995, 13 December 1997 (amended and reprinted on 13 March 1998, reformed 27 May 1998), 25 April 1999 (bases for the election of members of the constituent assembly, approved by referendum), and 30 January 2000 (Estatuto Electoral del Poder Público, Public Powers Electoral Statute) exclusively for the elections of 28 May 2000. The 1998 law was not repealed, and served as complimentary legislation for the 2000 elections, and if not amended or repealed will also be used for future elections). In the 19th century the presidential term was generally four years, occasionally (1847 and 1893) two years. The 1901 Constitution extended it to six years, and in 1936 it was reduced again to four years. From 1958 to 1999 it was five years. The terms for senators and deputies usually corresponded to those of the president, but two-year terms were also applied. From 1958 to 1999, the term for deputies and senators was five years without partial renewal. Five years was also the term for the presidential mandate between 1958 and 1999. The re-election of the president has usually been forbidden, especially immediate re-election. The constitution of 1961, for example, did not allow re-election until at least ten years after the end of the last term. Presidents Pérez and Caldera won a second mandate in this fashion. Caldera served from 1969 to 1974, and from 1994 to 1999. Pérez was President from 1974 to 1979, and from 1989 to 1993, when he was tried for corruption and removed before completing his term of office. Until 1946, there was limited and generally indirect suffrage (with the formal exceptions of 1858 and 1859) within an authoritarian framework. These were not democratic elections by any means. Ownership requirements were formally abolished as early as the middle of the 19th century, but women and illiterates remained excluded from voting. Fair elections as such were never conducted until 1946, so these rights were just a façade. The electoral law of 1945, drawn up during the process of liberalization but still within a non-democratic framework, was the first to give women the right to participate in the local government elections. Universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage was introduced in 1946 and applied for the first time that year at the elections to the constituent assembly and afterwards, under the constitution of 1947, at the presidential and congressional elections (deputies and senators) held in 1947. These were the first democratic elections held in the country. In the 19th century and up to 1946, the legal age for the right to vote was commonly set at 20 or 21 years. In 1946, it was lowered to 18 years, increased again to 21 in 1951, for the rigged elections of 1952 and the plebiscite held by the dictatorship in 1957, and lowered to 18 again in 1958. Suffrage was not compulsory from 1945 to 1947, but the constitu-

Venezuela

549

tion of 1961 established suffrage as both a right and a duty. Until the electoral reform of 1993 those who did not vote could be penalized with fines, or denied access to some public services such as university registration or passports, although these measures have not been enforced since the mid-1970s. The minimum age to be elected was traditionally fixed at 25 years. The 1961 Constitution established 21 as the minimum age to be elected to public office, another requisite was literacy. For the senate and presidential office the minimum age was set at 30 years in 1961. The electoral law of 1941 was the first to consider party and voter associations as the main way to present candidates for political offices. Since then, legal requirements for candidacy have been largely reduced. To present a list of candidates to congress in a constituency, a group of citizens (until 1992 a minimum of ten, five since 1993) needed only to submit the signatures of a small percentage (at least 0.5%) of the voters in the relevant constituency, at least 200. In 1995 the percentage rose to 2% and in 1998 to 5%. The 1995 law attempted to introduce a deposit for candidates wishing to run for the presidency but the supreme court declared this measure to be unconstitutional. Until the introduction of direct elections, the senate was elected by the legislative assemblies of the states or the provinces. The deputies were elected by the assembly of municipal councils that existed in each state or province. The constitutions and electoral laws of the 19th century established absolute majority for the indirect election of deputies and senators. The absolute majority system remained in force until 1945. From 1946 to 1988 the system applied was proportional representation in multimember constituencies with closed and blocked lists, with an additional compensatory proportional distribution of seats at the national level. In 1993 personalized proportional representation was used, in which half of the seats were elected by plurality, most of them in single-member districts, but proportional representation prevailed, and continued to use blocked and closed lists. According to the Organic Law of Elections and Political Participation, half of the seats in each constituency were elected by plurality in single or multi-member districts. This applied for the 1993 and 1998 elections. An additional compensatory proportional distribution of seats was kept until the changes introduced by the 1999 Constitution, and the Electoral Statute for the 2000 elections. This provision lowered the percentage of seats allocated according to proportionality to 40%.

550

Venezuela

In the 19th century, the electoral constituencies corresponded generally to the provinces or the states. Most of them elected two senators, whereas the number of deputies elected per province was determined according to the population. Since 1945, the division into electoral constituencies corresponds to the division of the country into federal states, a federal district and two federal territories. Until the 1989 elections there were 20 federal states and two federal territories. In 1992 the two federal territories became states. For the elections of 1998 the number of states was increased to 23. With the capital district, there is a total of 24 constituencies for the national parliamentary elections. From 1947 to 1998 each federal state elected two senators, as did the federal district (now called capital district). No deputies were elected in the two federal territories. Additionally, the minorities were allotted senators on the basis of their nationwide vote in order to compensate the difference (up to three) between the number of senators that they would be allotted according to strict proportionality and the number they were allotted in the distribution by entities. The 1999 Constitution abolished the senate. Regarding the elections to the chamber of deputies up to 1998 and the national assembly after 1999, the size of the constituencies is calculated according to the size of the population. The relation between the deputies and the population is regulated by the constitution and the relevant electoral law. The Electoral Statute of 1947 established the relation at one deputy per 120,000 inhabitants. The federal territories were considered an electoral constituency with one deputy. Until 1970, the following electoral laws established different proportions between the number of deputies and the population. Between 1970 and 1998 one deputy was elected for every 0.55% of the Venezuelan population. Each state elected at least two deputies until 1988 and three to the present day. The federal territories were considered a one-deputy constituency. Closed and blocked lists were introduced in 1946 with the introduction of proportional representation. Deputies and senators were elected using this system with one single vote until 1988. Throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century absolute majority (not actually in effect) was required for the election of deputies and senators in the electoral colleges, with a possible second round between the top two candidates. If they drew level again after the second round the winner was chosen by lot. The Electoral Statute of 15 March 1946 established the legal framework for the elections to the constituent assembly of that year. It also introduced the system of proportional representation, which is essentially

Venezuela

551

valid to date. Until 1988, seats were allocated using the following process: First, seats were distributed at constituency level according to the d’Hondt formula, both for the senate and for the chamber of deputies; in a second round seats for the additional deputies and senators at the national level were distributed using the method of the single electoral quota to compensate parties that received less seats in the first round than their proportional share. The maximum number of additional deputies and senators allowed per party varied repeatedly: in 1946, it was one deputy for the constituent assembly; in 1947, it was two deputies and two senators; in 1959, it was six deputies and four senators; in 1977, it was four deputies and two senators and finally, in 1988, it became five deputies and three senators. The number of extra seats and thus seats per constituency was increased by the introduction of personalized proportional representation in 1998. The supreme court decided, however, that the constitution of 1999 does not allow an increase in the number of deputies by distributing compensatory additional seats, so they were not allocated in the 2000 elections. The 1997 Electoral Law established an electoral quota for women. According to this provision, one-third of the list candidates for each party had to be women. It was only applied in 1998. It was not applied for the elections of the national constituent assembly in 1999, and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared it unconstitutional the following year. As an exception, a plurality system was established for the election to the national constituent assembly in 1999. There were 24 regional multimember constituencies comprising a total of 104 seats and one national constituency with 24 plurality seats. In the regional constituencies the voters had as many votes as there were seats. The candidates with most votes were declared winners, proportional representation was not applied. In the national constituency they could vote for a maximum of ten candidates, so a plurality system with limited vote applied. The 24 candidates with the most votes were declared the winners, again proportional representation did not apply, but the limited vote allowed the opposition to gain few seats. The national constituency was an additional constituency and was not compensatory. Therefore, its result was simply added to the other 24 constituencies. Apart from the members elected, three members were appointed by the most representative organizations of the indigenous population.

552

Venezuela

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The general principles of the electoral law and system are regulated by the 1999 Constitution. The Ley orgánica de sufragio y participación política (Organic Law of Elections and Political Participation) of 26 May 1998 regulates the electoral process. However, for the 2000 elections a special Electoral Statute was passed by the constituent assembly, and its provisions prevailed over those of the Organic Law of Elections. Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every Venezuelan citizen who is at least 18 years old and neither a convicted prisoner nor declared mentally disabled by a judicial decision is entitled to vote. Voting is not compulsory. The members of the military were given the right to vote by the 1999 Constitution. Elected national institutions: The president is elected for a six-year term and the national assembly for a five-year term. The president can be reelected once. The national assembly has only one chamber and currently consists of 165 deputies. 162 of them are elected in 23 states plus the capital district, formerly called the federal district. Each of these territorial units elects three deputies plus the result of dividing its population between a quota that is equal to 1.1% of the national population. If in the calculation one territorial unit obtains a remainder equal to or greater than 50% of the quota, it is entitled to one additional deputy. The other three seats are elected in three indigenous constituencies with one seat each. After their first election, deputies can only be re-elected twice consecutively. Elections are held on a Sunday within the first fortnight of December in the year before the end of the term. Nomination of candidates In general, nominations to any election can be made by parties, but independent candidates are also accepted. - presidential elections: Only Venezuelans by birth without dual nationality who are over 30 years old can be elected president. The clergy is excluded from this right. - parliamentary elections: Candidates have to be 21 years old. Electoral system - presidential elections: Plurality system.

Venezuela

553

- parliamentary elections: Personalized proportional representation. Each voter has two votes, the voto lista (list vote) for the party he or she chooses and another one for as many candidates as are elected in the singlemember or multi-member district by nominal vote according to plurality. Lists are closed and blocked. The national electoral council decides whether the nominal seats are to be elected in single or multi-member districts. Single-member seats prevail, but if a municipality has a population that entitles it to more than one seat, then a multi-member seat must be established as municipalities cannot be split into more than one electoral district. In practice, this means that in large cities nominal seats are elected in multi-member districts. The allocation of seats takes place at the district level. The total number of district seats to be filled is distributed among the lists by proportional representation (d’Hondt formula). The number of seats won by a party or independent group in single-member districts in the constituency (territorial unit) is then subtracted from the number of seats that it is entitled to proportionally in that constituency according to its list vote. The difference is allotted to the candidates of the list in the order of nomination (closed and blocked lists). If the number of seats obtained by one list in one constituency (territorial unit) is higher than the number that it is entitled to proportionally (extra seats), the party or independent list of candidates keeps the higher number, but an equal number of seats corresponding to the last quotients in the distribution using the d’Hondt formula are eliminated to prevent an increase in the number of seats. In the indigenous constituencies, voters elect their representatives by plurality. Organizational context of elections: Elections are organized by the Consejo Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Council). It has the status of a government branch equal to the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, according to the constitution. It has five members, who must be politically independent according to the constitution of 1999 and the Organic Law of Elections and Political Participation. The members are appointed by the national assembly with the agreement of two-thirds of its members, in order to guarantee that they have the broad approval of the political parties. Following this orientation, the national electoral council elected in 1998 was filled with independents, and their work was generally regarded as impartial during the elections of 1998 and 1999. As expected by political scientists, this move from partisan to non-partisan members in the national electoral council increased the public’s trust as regards the fairness of elections (19% in 1995 to 91% in February 1999).

554

Venezuela

Following the approval of the 1999 Constitution, and contradicting its provisions, the constituent assembly appointed five members who were supporters of the government. They failed in their organization of the 2000 elections, which were postponed from April to July. The new members, appointed by a provisional legislature completely controlled by the government, were selected among people without partisan affiliation, but mostly close to the government. The minority was appointed from nominations by NGOs. They ran the 2000 elections, but were not able to manage the claims against local and regional elections satisfactorily. Consequently, trust in the fairness of elections dropped again according to public opinion polls. The national assembly elected in 2000 has the task of appointing new members according to the orientation of the constitution, and with the agreement of two-thirds of its members. In August 2003, when a recall referendum was requested against the president, they failed to agree on the new members, and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice decided to fill the vacuum temporarily. 1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The data presented in the following tables are taken from the publications of the Consejo Supremo Electoral (CSE) until 1997 and from the Consejo Nacional Electoral since 1998. There are inconsistencies, both within the single sources and among the different official sources consulted. We have tried to correct them as far as possible, by comparing them with other official sources. Since the national elections of 1993, there is no printed official publication of the results. We have resorted to the electronic sources provided by the Dirección de Estadística del consejo Supremo Electoral for the 1993 elections (Consejo Supremo Electoral, Dirección de Estadísticas Electorales 1994) and the official web sites for the 1999 and 2000 elections and referendums (Consejo Nacional Electoral INDRA 1999a, 1999b) and the CNE’s journal (Consejo Nacional Electoral 1999), http://www.cne.gov.ve/estadisticas.asp, as well as the official CD ROM published by the national electoral council: República Bolivariana de Venezuela Elecciones 2000.

Venezuela

555

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d’Etat Year 1945 1946 1947 1948 1952 1957 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 1999

Presidential elections

14/12

07/12 01/12 01/12 09/12 03/12 04/12 04/12 05/12 06/12

2000 30/07 2004 a

Parliamentary Elections for Referendums Coups d’état electionsa Constitutional Assembly 18/10 27/10 14/12 24/11 30/11 15/12 07/12 23/01 01/12 01/12 09/12 03/12 04/12 04/12 05/12 08/11 25/07 25/04 (I) 15/12 (II) 30/07 03/12 15/08

Until 1998 elections to both chambers of parliament have always been held on the same day. Since 2000 the legislature consists of a single-chamber parliament.

Venezuela

556 2.2 Electoral Body 1946–2000 Year Type of Populationb electiona 1946 1947 1947 1952 1957 1958 1958 1963 1963 1968 1968 1973 1973 1978 1978 1983 1983 1988 1988 1993 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2004 a

CAc Prc Pa CA Ref Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr/Pa D S Pr Ref CA Ref Pr Pa Ref Ref

4,390,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 5,518,925 6,745,967 6,785,000 6,785,000 8,150,000 8,150,000 9,687,000 9,687,000 11,280,000 11,280,000 13,122,000 13,122,000 17,317,000 17,317,000 18,751,000 18,751,000 20,913,000 23,410,000 23,410,000 23,446,000 23,623,000 23,738,000 23,920,000 24,208,000 24,208,000 24,401,000 26,127,000

Registered voters Votes cast Total % Total number pop. number 1,621,687 36.9 1,403,717 1,662,000 36.9 1,198,869 1,662,000 36.9 — — — 1,907,000 — — 2,924,985 2,913,801 42.9 2,722,053 2,913,801 42.9 2,684,949 3,367,787 41.3 3,107,563 3,367,787 41.3 3,059,434 4,134,928 42.7 3,999,617 4,134,928 42.7 3,907,823 4,737,152 42.0 4,571,561 4,737,152 42.0 4,572,187 6,223,903 47.4 5,449,801 6,223,903 47.4 5,449,790 7,777,892 44.9 6,792,208 7,777,892 44.9 6,789,061 9,185,647 49.0 7,518,663 9,185,647 49.0 7,500,085 9,688,795 46.3 5,829,216 10,991,482 47.0 5,792,391 10,991,482 47.0 5,884,588 11,013,020 47.0 6,988,291 11,022,031 46.7 4,001,672 10,986,871 46.3 5,079,445 10,940,596 45.7 4,819,786 11,720,660 48.4 6,637,276 11,705,702 48.4 6,559,146 d 11,784,831 48.3 2,632,523 14,037,900 53.7 9,815,631

% reg. % Voters pop. 86.6 32.0 72.1 26.6 — — — 34.6 — 43.4 93.4 40.1 92.1 39.6 92.3 38.1 90.8 37.5 96.7 41.3 94.5 40.3 96.5 40.5 96.5 40.5 87.6 41.5 87.6 41.5 87.3 39.2 87.3 39.2 81.9 40.1 81.7 40.0 60.2 27.9 52.7 24.7 53.5 25.1 63.5 29.8 36.3 16.9 46.2 21.4 44.1 20.1 56.6 27.4 56.0 27.1 23.5 10.8 69.9 37.6

CA = Constitutional Assembly; D = Deputies; Pa = Parliament; Pr = President; Ref = Referendum; S = Senate. b Population data are rounded figures of the official estimates based on population censuses: 1941: 3,850,721; 1950: 5,034,838; 1961: 7,523,999; 1971: 10,721,522; 1981: 14,516,735; 1990: 18,105,265; 2001: 24,765,581. The figure for 1947 is an official 1949 estimate. c Data for the 1946 and 1497 elections are taken from Bunimov (1968) and López Maya (1987). Approximate figure for 1947 calculated by applying to the 1946 number the same rate of growth as the total population between 1946 and 1947. d This is the official figure for registered voters. In the official results of this elections the total registered voters in the precincts that were actually tallied was: 11,202,214, and those that actually voted were 2,632,523. It is from these figures that abstention is calculated. This is the official abstention figure.

Venezuela

557

2.3 Abbreviations AA ABP AD AD–OP AEI AICO AIR ALCINA ALCO ALVE AM AMI AMOR APERTURA APD API APOP ARPA ARVI BIN BR CAMINA CBO 1 CC CD CCN CEPAS CIMA CI CN COIM CONFE CONIVE COPEI

Acción Agropecuaria (Agricultural Action) Alianza Bravo Pueblo (Brave People Alliance) Acción Democrática (Democratic Action) Acción Democrática Oposición (Opposition Democratic Action) Agrupación Electoral Independiente (Independent Electoral Group) — Acción Independiente Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Independent Action) — Alianza Comunal (Local Alliance) Alianza Liberal Venezolano (Venezuelan Liberal Alliance) — Araguaney Movimiento Independiente (Independent Araguaney Movement) — Apertura a la participación Nacional (Opening to National Participation) Alianza Popular Democrática (Democratic Popular Alliance) Alianza Popular Independiente (Independent Popular Alliance) — Alianza Revolucionaria Patriótica (Patriotic Revolutionary Alliance) Acción Renovadora Vencedora Independiente (Independent Victorious Renewal Action) Bloque Independiente Nacionalista (Nationalist Independent Block) Bandera Roja (Red Flag) — Caraboro Primero (Caraboro First) Causa Común (Common Cause) — Cruzada Cívica Nacionalista (Nationalist Civic Crusade) Cruzada Electoral Popular Agrupación S. (Popular Electoral Crusade Group S.) Comité Independiente Mayoritario (Majoritarian Independent Committee) Comité Independiente (Independent Committee) Convergencia Nacional (National Convergence) — Confianza Nacional (National Confidence) Consejo Nacional Indio de Venezuela (National Indian Council of Venezuela) Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente (Committee of Independent Electoral Political Organization)

558 CPZ CR DC DP EI ENADE ENCUENTRO EPA EVI FD FDP FE FEI FEVO FID FIN (1) FIN (2) FIPO FIR FND FNP FRFI FS FUN GAR GE GEO-Pro-S GOA GP IA IC ICC ICP ID IDEAL IP IPCN IPDC

Venezuela — Causa Radical (Radical Cause) Desarrollo de la Comunidad (Community Development) Democrático Popular (Popular Democratic) Electores Independientes (Independent Voters) Emergencia Nacional Democrática (Democratic National Emergency) Encuentro Nacional (National Encounter) El Pueblo Avanza (The People Advances) Electores Venezolanos Independientes (Independent Venezuelan Voters) Factor Democrático (Democratic Factor) Frente Democrático Popular (Popular Democratic Front) Fuerza Emancipadora (Emancipatory Force) Fuerza Electoral Independiente (Independent Electoral Force) Fuerza Espiritual Venezolano Orientadora (Venezuelan Spiritual Force Pointing the Way Ahead) Fuerza Independiente Democrática (Democratic Independent Force) Frente de Integración Nacional (National Integration Front) Frente Independiente Nacional (National Independent Front) Frente Independiente Popular (Popular Independent Front) Frente Independiente Regional (Regional Independent Front) Frente Nacional Democrático (Democratic National Front) Frente Nacional Popular (Popular National Front) Fuerza Revolucionaria Femenina Individual (Individual Female Revolutionary Force) Frente Soberano (Sovereign Front) Frente Unidad Nacionalista (Nationalist Unity Front) Grupo de Acción Revolucionario (Revolutionary Action Group) Gente Emergente (Emerging People) — Grupo de Opinión de Acción (Action and Opinion Group) — Independientes Auténticos (Authentic Independents) Izquierdista Cristiana (Christian Leftist) Independientes con el Cambio (Independents with Change) — Izquierda Democrática (Democratic Left) — Independientes Progresistas (Progressive Independents) Independientes por la Comunidad Nacional (Independents for the National Community) Independientes Pro Desarrollo de la Comunidad (Independents for Community Development)

Venezuela IPFN IPV IR IRE IRENE La Llave LAPY LCR LIDER LNR (OLVARRIA) LS LVP MAN MANO MAS MB MDD MDI MDP-BR MDT MEM MENI MEP MF MIA MIAP MIDE MIGATO MIN

559 Independientes Pro Frente Nacional (Independents for the National Front) Independientes por Venezuela (Independents for Venezuela) Integración Republicana (Republican Integration) Integración Renovadora Electoral (Electoral Renewal Integration) Integración Representación Nueva Esperanza (Integration and Representation New Hope) La Llama de Venezuela (The Flame of Venezuela) Lo Alcanzado Por Yaracuy (That which has been Achieved for Yaracuy) La Causa Radical (The Radical Cause)

— — Liga Socialista (Socialist League) — Movimiento de Acción Nacional (National Action Movement) — Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism) Movimiento de los Barrios (Districts Movement) Movimiento por la Democracia Directa (Movement for Direct Democracy) Movimiento Democrático Independiente (Independent Democratic Movement) Movimiento por la Democracia Popular–Bandera Roja (Movement for Popular Democracy–Red Flag) Movimiento del Trabajo (Labor Movement) — Movimiento Electoral Nacional Independiente (Independent National Electoral Movement) Movimiento Electoral del Pueblo (People’s Electoral Movement) Movimiento Familiar (Family Movement) Movimiento Independiente Apureño (Apureño Independent Movement) — — Movimiento Independiente Ganamos Todos (Independent Movement We All Win) Movimiento Integración Nacional (National Integration Movement)

MIO MIPO MIR

— —

MIRU MISIGLO XXI

— —

Movimiento Izquierda Revolucionario (Movement Revolutionary Left)

Venezuela

560 MIV ML MM MNV MOCIR MOINE MOMO MORENA

—

Movimiento Libertador (Liberating Movement) Movimiento Municipalista (Municipal Movement) — Movimiento Organizado Comunitario Integración Revolucionario (Joint Organized Movement Revolutionary Integration)

— —

Movimiento Renovación Nacional (National Renewal Movement) MOREPO — MPCO Movimiento Pro Candidatura Obrero (Workers’ Movement for Candidature) MPI Movimiento Popular (Popular Movement) MR Movimiento Republicano (Republican Movement) MVR Movimiento V República (Fifth Republic Movement) NA Nueva Alternativa (New Alternative) NGD Nueva Generación Democrática (New Democratic Generation) NOR Nuevo Orden (New Order) NOSOTROS (PSN) — NRD Nuevo Régimen Democrático (New Democratic Regime) NT Nuevo Tiempo (New Time) OFM Organización Fuerza en Movimiento (Organization Force in Motion) OI — ONDA Organización Nacionalista Democrática Activa (Active Democratic Nationalist Movement) ONI — ONIS — OPINA Opinión Nacional (National Opinion) OPIR Organización Popular Independiente Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Independent Popular Organization) ORA Organización Renovadora Auténtica (Authentic Renewal Organization) OVNI Organización Venezolano Nacionalista Independiente (Independent Nationalist Venezuelan Organization) PAN Partido Auténtico Nacional (National Authentic Party) PCV Partido Comunista Venezolano (Venezuelan Communist Party) PDIN Movimiento Pro Defensa de Ideas (Movement for the Defense of Ideas) PDR Partido Democrático Republicano (Republican Democratic Party) PJ Primero Justicia (Justice First) PLT — — PLV PN Partido Nacional (National Party)

Venezuela PNI PNV PPT PPV PQAC PRIN PRIVO PRN PRP PSD PSO PST PSV PUAMA PUEBLO PUV PV RDB REI REINA RENACE RIN RN SI (1) SI (2) SOLUCION UDH UDI UFR UNION UNT UP UPA UPP

561 Partido Nacional Integracionista (Integrationist National Party) Partido Nacionalista Venezolano (Venezuelan Nationalist Party) Patria Para Todos (Fatherland for All) Partido Popular Venezolano (Venezuelan Popular Party) Por Querer a Venezuela (Out of Love for Venezuela) Partido Revolucionario Integración Nacionalista (Revolutionary Party Nationalist Integration) Profesionales Independientes de Volante (Independent Professional Drivers) Partido Revolucionario Nacionalista (Nationalist Revolutionary Party) Partido Revolucionario del Proletariado (Revolutionary Party of the Proletariat) — — Partido Socialista de Trabajadores (Socialist Workers’ Party) Partido Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Party of Venezuela) Pueblo Unido Multi-étnico Amazona (United Multi-Ethnic People of Amazona) — — Proyecto Venezuela (Project Venezuela) Revolución Dinámica en los Barrios (Dynamic Revolution in the Quarters) — Rescate Espiritual Integración Nacional (Spiritual Rescue National Integration) Rescate Nacional Electoral (Electoral National Rescue) — Rescate Nacional (National Rescue) Socialistas Independientes (Independent Socialists) Movimiento Solidaridad Independiente (Movement Independent Solidarity) Sociedad Luchadora con Independientes Organizados por la Nación (Fighting Society with Independents Organized for the Nation) Unidos por los Derchos Humanos (United for Human Rights) Unión Democrática Independiente (Independent Democratic Union) Unión Federal Republicano (Republican Federal Union) Unión Para El Progreso (Union for Progress) Un Nuevo Tiempo (A New Time) Unión Patriótica (Patriotic Union) Unión para Avanzar (Union for Progress) Unión Progresista del Pueblo (Progressive Union of the People)

Venezuela

562 URD URI UTOPIA UVEM VAMOS VOI VU VUC

Unión Republicana Democrática (Democratic Republican Union) Unión Revolucionaria Independiente (Independent Revolutionary Union) Movimiento Nacional Utopía (National Movement Utopia) — Venezuela Adelante Movimiento de Organización Social (Advance Venezuela Movement of Social Organization) Venceremos Organizados Independientes (We Will Win Independent Organized People) Venezuela Unida (United Venezuela) Vanguardia Unitaria Comunista (Communist Unitarian Vanguard)

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1946–2000 Party / Alliance

Years

AD COPEI PCV URD PLT PRP PSV UFR IR MENI PST AD–OP CEPAS FDP IPFN MAN PAN AIR ALVE AM CCN CBO EVI FEI FIR FND

1946–2000 1946–1988 1946–1958; 1973–2000 1946–2000 1947 1947 1947–1968 1947 1958 1958–1968 1958 1963 1963 1963–1978 1963 1963–1973 1963 1968 1968 1968 1968–1978; 1988 1968 1968 1968 1968 1968–1973

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 10 11 10 11 6 9 9 11 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2

Venezuela Party / Alliance (continued) FRFI IC MB MDI MEP ML MM MPCO OPINA OPIR OVNI PRINa PRIVO PSO UDI UPA UPP AEI ALCINA ARPA ARVI BIN DC DP FE FEVO FIPO MAS MF MIA MPI PRN REINA URI CC CR GAR IPDC MDT MIN MORENA VUC AICO AMI

563 Years 1968 1968 1968 1968–1973 1968–2000 1968 1968 1968 1968–2000 1968 1968 1968–1973 1968 1968 1968 1968; 1988 1968 1973 1973 1973; 1988 1973 1973 1973 1973; 1983 1973; 1983–1988 1973; 1988 1973 1973–2000 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1978 1978 1978; 1983 1978 1978 1978–2000 1978–1988 1978 1983 1983–1988

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 8 8 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 8 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 2 0 1 7 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 9 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 2

Venezuela

564 Party / Alliance (continued) CD CIDE CIMA COIM CONFE EI ENADE EPA FIN GEO Pro S GOA ICC ICP MID MIV–83 MOCIR MOINE NOR ONIS PNV RDB RN SI (1) UP UTOPIA UVEM VOI LCR LNR MPDIN NA NGD ALCO AMOR APD API APOP CAMINA CI CPZ FID FNP FUTURO SEGURO GP

Years 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983–1988 1983 1983 1983–1988 1983–1988 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983–1988 1983 1983 1983 1983–1988 1983–1988 1983–1988 1983–1988 1983–1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Venezuela Party / Alliance (continued) IA IDEAL IRE LIDER LVP MANO MEM MIAP MIDE MIPO MIRU MISIGLO XXI MOMO MOREPO 34 MNV NOSOTROS (PSN) NT OI ONI ORA PDR PENETRACION 88 PLV PPV PUEBLO PUV PV REI RENOVACION RIN CONVERGENCIA AA APERTURA IRENE MVR PPT PV SI (2) UDH ABP ENCUENTRO ID MDP-BR MIGATO

565 Years 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988–2000 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988, 1998 1988 1993–2000 1998–2000 1998 1998 1998-2000 1998–2000 1998–2000 1998–2000 1998–2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

Venezuela

566 Party / Alliance (continued) NRD OFM PUAMA UNT a

Years

Elections contested Presidential Parliamentary 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

2000 2000 2000 2000

In coalition with AD in 1973.

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1957a Total number — 2,924,985 186,013 2,738,972 2,374,790 364,182

% – — 6.4 93.6 86.7 13.3

The 1957 referendum was held by the dictatorial government of Pérez Jiménez under nondemocratic conditions in order to ask whether the people approved that he continued to stay in office without new elections and to appoint as national and regional legislators, and members of the local governments, those nominated by the government. Those above are the official results that were published by the government in Gaceta Oficial No. 25.541, 20 December 1957, according to Bunimov (1968, p. 96).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1999a (Ia) b Total number 11,022,031 4,001,672 194,590 3,807,082 3,516,558 290,524

% – 37.8 4.9 95.1 92.4 7.6

1999 (Ib) c Total number 11,022,031 4,001,672 212,989 3,788,683 3,275,716 512,967

% – 37.8 5.3 94.7 86.5 13.5

Referendum with two questions regarding the convention of a constitutional assembly. The first question asked whether a constitutional assembly should be convened or not. c The second question asked to approve or disapprove the president’s suggestion on the form of election of the constitutional assembly. b

Venezuela Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

567 1999 (II)a Total number 10,940,596 4,819,786 220,206 4,599,580 3,301,475 1,298,105

% – 44.4 4.6 95.4 71.8 28.2

The referendum asked to approve or disapprove the draft constitution presented by the constitutional assembly.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

2000a Total number 11,784,831c 2,632,523 280,002 2,352,521 1,632,750 719,771

% – 23.5 10.6 89.4 69.4 30.6

2004b Total number 14,037,900 9,815,631 25,994 9,789,637 3,989,008 5,800,629

% – 69.9 0.3 99.7 40.7 59.3

The referendum was held on 3 December 2000. It asked the following question: Do you agree that the trade union leadership must be renewed in the next 180 days, following an Electoral Statute to be approved by the Electoral Power, and according to the principles of alternation and universal, direct and secret elections as ordained in the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela, and that the directive boards of those unions, federations and confederations are suspended from their functions until those elections take place? b The referendum was held on 15 August 2004. Voters had to decide on the following question: Do you agree to revoke the popular mandate that was given through legitimate democratic elections to Hugo Chávez Frías as president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the current presidential term? c This is the official figure for registered voters. In the official results of this election the total registered voters in the precincts that were actually tallied was: 11,202,214, and those that actually voted were 2,632,523. It is from these figures that abstention is calculated. This is the official abstention figure.

Venezuela

568 2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1946 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AD COPEI PCV URD UFR Othersa a

Total number 1,621,687 1,403,717 1,706 1,402,011 1,099,601 141,418 50,837 49,721 38,440 21,994

%

Seats

%

– 86.6 0.1 99.9 78.4 10.1 3.6 3.5 2.7 1.6

160 137 19 2 2 0 0

– 85.6 11.9 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0

Others include the PLP (4,333 votes).

1952a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes URD FEI COPEI

Total number — — — 1,907,000 1,198,000 403,000 306,000

a

%

Seats

%

– — — — 62.8 21.1 16.0

— — — —

– — — —

The elections were manipulated and non-competitive. AD was banned and could therefore not participate. The delegates which convened in the famous session of April 1953 elected Marcos Pérez Jiménez as constitutional president of Venezuela for the period from 1953 to 1958. The government did not publish the results. It lost the election but did not recognize the results, and declared itself the winner. These figures are unofficial results reported by Armando Veloz Mancera (1963, p. 7), as quoted by Boris Bunimov (1968, p. 96).

1999 Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes c

Polo Patriótico Polo Democráticod Others a

Total number 10,986,871 5,079,445a 50,794,450a 6,073,409 44,721,041 29,424,635 9,873,223 5,423,183

% – 46.2 – 12.0 88.0 65.8 22.1 12.1

Seats

128b 121 4 3

%

– 94.5 3.1 2.3

Every voter had ten votes on the ballot. The total number of votes cast is, therefore, obtained by multiplying the number of ballots cast by ten. On the basis of the ‘potential’ votes cast, valid and invalid votes are calculated.

Venezuela

569

b

Three additional seats in the assembly were filled by indigenous delegates. They were elected by various indigenous associations. c Comprised MVR, MAS, PPT, PCV, MEP, and other minor groups. d Comprised AD, COPEI, Proyecto Venezuela, and Convergencia.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Chamber of Deputies 1947–2000 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AD COPEI URD PCV UFR PRP IR PST MENI Others a

b

1947 Total number 1,662,000 1,198,869 15,105 1,183,764 838,526 200,695 51,427 43,190 39,491 7,068 – – – 3,367a

% – 72.1 1.3 98.7 70.8 17.0 4.3 3.6 3.3 0.6 – – – 0.3

1958 Total number 2,913,801 2,684,949 104,732 2,580,217 1,275,973 392,305 690,357 160,791 – – 19,424 15,476 14,908 10,983b

Others include PLT (1) (1,300 votes), PSV (1,207) and PLT (2) (860). Others include the PSV (10,983 votes).

% – 92.1 3.9 96.1 49.5 15.2 26.8 6.2 – – 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4

Venezuela

570 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AD COPEI URD IPFN FDP AD–OP PSV MENI MAN PAN MEP CCN UPA FND PRIN MDI API Others a

1963 Total number 3,367,787 3,059,434 197,708 2,861,726a 936,124 595,697 497,454 381,600 274,096 93,494 24,670 18,510 15,746 14,555 – – – – – – – 4,230b

% – 90.8 6.5 93.5 32.7 20.8 17.4 13.3 9.6 3.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 – – – – – – – 0.1

1968 Total number 4,134,928 3,907,823 229,739 3,678,084 939,759 883,814 340,195 – 194,931 – 29,920 13,847 24,407 – 475,909 402,351 103,591 96,027 88,509 18,337 18,332 48,155c

% – 94.5 5.9 94.1 25.6 24.0 9.2 – 5.3 – 0.8 0.4 0.7 – 12.9 10.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 0.5 0.5 1.3

The sum the votes (2,856,176) does not correspond to the figure given in the official records (2,861,726). b Others include CEPAS (4,230 votes). c Others include AIR (9,154 votes), OPINA (7,339) and 18 minor parties.

Venezuela Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AD COPEI MAS MEP CCN URD FDP PCV MIR OPINA PNI IP CC MIN VUC LS MORENA Others a

571 1973 Total number 4,737,152 4,572,187 172,422 4,399,765 1,955,439 1,330,514 232,756 218,192 189,667 140,462 54,759 52,754 44,012 32,751 30,618 27,528 – – – – – 90,313a

% – 96.5 3.8 96.2 44.4 30.2 5.3 5.0 4.3 3.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 – – – – – 2.1

1978 Total number 6,223,903 5,449,790 166,901 5,282,889 2,096,512 2,103,004 325,328 117,455 10,906 88,807 13,697 55,168 123,915 7,961 – – 85,432 83,700 46,547 30,191 26,235 68,031b

% – 87.6 3.1 96.9 39.7 39.8 6.2 2.2 0.2 1.7 0.3 1.0 2.3 0.2 – – 1.6 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.3

Others include FUN (15,537 votes), MAN (12,588), PSD (12,238), FND (11,313), MPI (8,324) and 19 minor parties. b Others include MDT (22,966 votes), FUN (12,986), CR (12,573), GAR (9,034), IPDC (6,719), and other minor parties.

Venezuela

572 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AD COPEI MASa OPINA MEP URD PCV MIRa NA ICC LS MIN LCR LNR (OLVARRIA) NGD MAS/ MIRa FORMULA 1 ORA Others a

1983 Total number 7,777,892 6,825,180 244,281 6,580,899 3,284,166 1,887,226 377,795 130,022 129,263 125,458 115,162 103,923 68,729 63,822 53,506 59,870 35,304 29,642 10,288 – – – 106,723b

% – 87.8 3.6 96.4 49.9 28.7 5.7 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.2 – – – 1.6

1988 Total number 9,185,647 7,500,085 283,635 7,216,400 3,123,790 2,247,236 – – 116,621 103,883 – – – – – – 117,562 – 236,833 733,421 93,228 92,117 351,709c

% – 81.7 3.8 96.2 43.3 31.1 – – 1.6 1.4 – – – – – – 1.6 – 3.3 10.2 1.3 1.3 4.9

MAS and MIR contested the elections together. Others include CIMA (18,762 votes), RN (15,083), GAR (15,033), FUN (12,262), MIO (10,020), and 29 minor parties. c Others include 58 minor parties. b

Venezuela Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votesa AD COPEI La Causa R Convergencia MAS ORA MIN MEP URD PCV Proyecto Venezuela MVR PPT Apertura Renovación IRENE UDH SI Others a

573 1993 Total number 9,688,795 5,829,216 1,117,998 4,711,218b 1,099,728 1,065,512 974,190 651,918 509,068c 41,085 29,433 27,635c 26,299 21,180c – – – – – – – – 264,996e

% – 60.2 19.2 80.8 23.3 22.6 20.7 13.8 10.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 – – – – – – – – 5.6

1998 Total number 10,991,482 5,792,391 828,631 4,963,760 1,195,751 593,882 147,806 122,242d 440,665 26,610 18,099 17,343d 19,145 28,827d 518,235 986,131d 171,091d 76,991 61,704 62,738 30,760 24,729d 397,205

% – 52.7 14.3 85.7 24.1 12.0 3.0 2.5 8.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 10.4 19.9 3.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.5 8.0

The votes shown in the table are the votes cast for party lists, which—under the rules governing the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system used in the 1993 and the 1998 election—are the votes that determine the overall distribution of seats in the chamber of deputies. b The sum of all votes (4,711,044) does not correspond to the figure given in the official records (4,711,218). c These parties contested the 1998 election in the electoral alliance Polo Patriótico, which was established above all to support Hugo Chávez’ presidential candidacy. The parties ran separately for the list vote in most regions of the country. For the nominal seats, though, they presented common candidates in 22 out of 24 regions. d These parties plus GE formed the Polo Patriótico. e Others include GE (12,525 votes), which was part of the Polo Patriótico and 155 other minor parties.

Venezuela

574 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid Votes MVR AD PV COPEI MAS LCR PJ PPT UNT ABP CONVERGENCIA ENCUENTRO MIGATO Othersa a

2000a Total number 11,705,702 6,559,146 2,101,850 4,457,296 1,977,992 718,148 309,168 227,349 222,170 196,787 109,900 101,246 78,109 49,218 47,620 37,036 21,044 361,509

% – 56.0 32.0 68.0 44.4 16.1 6.9 5.1 5.0 4.4 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 8.1

Others include PCV (15,997 votes); OFM (10,547); MEP (3,738); URD (2,641); PUAMA (1,837), and several minor parties.

Venezuela

575

2.7.2 Senate 1947–1998 Until 1988 elections to the chamber of deputies (Cámara de Diputados) and the senate (Senado) took place on a single ballot (tarjeta pequeña). Therefore, the results were identical to those of the chamber of deputies. In 1993 and 1998 the elections to the chamber of deputies and the senate were held on separate ballots. In 1999 the senate was abolished. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AD COPEI La Causa R Convergencia MASa ORA MEPa URD MIN MVR Proyecto Venezuela PPT Apertura IRENE Renovación PCV SI Others a

1993 Total number 9,688,795 5,829,216 989,169 4,840,047a 1,165,322 1,103,896 1,005,816 650,352 526,197 41,157 26,545 25,732 23,459 – – – – – – – – 266,868c

% 46.3 60.2 17.0 83.0 24.1 22.8 20.8 13.4 10.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 – – – – – – – – 5.5

1998 Total number 10,991,482 5,884,588 776,201 5,108,567 1,246,567 518,976 151,960 119,951b 465,977 24,794 15,140b 16,680 19,138 1,008,693b 518,235 171,469b 123,948 63,422 61,992 24,929b 24,384b 429,705d

% 47.0 54.5 13.2 86.8 24.4 12.1 3.0 2.3 9.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 19.8 10.2 3.4 2.4 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 8.4

The sum of all parties’ votes (4,835,344) does not correspond to the figure given in the official records (4,840,047). b These parties formed the Polo Patriótico together with GE and IPCN (see below under ‘others’). c Others include PCV (14,159 votes), GE (10,709), and 147 minor parties. d A total of 260 other parties, among them UDH (21,550 votes), GE (9,271), IPCN (7,027), OPINA, PQAC, RENACE, MR, IPV, FS, OFM, PROCA, MDP-BR, OFI, FRENTE, OCIM, DR, MERI, MOS, and ROGE.

Venezuela

576 2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Chamber of Deputies 1947–2000 Year AD COPEI URD PCV UFR PRP PSV MENI IPFN FDP AD–OP MAN MEP CCN UPA FND PRIN Year AD COPEI MASa MEP CCN URD PCV MIRa OPINA PNI CC LS MIN VUC NA LCR NGD

1947 Seats 110 83 16 4 3 3 1 0 – – – – – – – – – – 1973 Seats 200 102 64 9 8 7 5 2 1 1 1 – – – – – – –

% 100.0 75.5 14.5 3.6 2.7 2.7 0.9 0.0 – – – – – – – – – –

1958 Seats 132 73 18 34 7 – – 0 0 – – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 51.0 32.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 2.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 – – – – – – –

1978 Seats 199 88 84 11 4 0 3 1 4 0 – 1 1 1 1 – – –

% 100.0 55.3 13.6 25.8 5.3 – – 0.0 0.0 – – – – – – – – –

1963 Seats 179 66 39 29 – – – 1 1 22 16 5 0 – – – – –

% 100.0 44.2 42.2 5.5 2.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 – 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 – – –

1983 Seats 200 113 60 10 3 – 3 3 2 3 – – 1 1 – 1 0 0

% 100.0 36.9 21.8 16.2 – – – 0.6 0.6 12.3 8.9 2.8 0.0 – – – – –

1968 Seats 214 66 59 18 – – – 1 0 – 10 – 1 25 21 5 4 4

% 100.0 30.8 27.6 8.4 – – – 0.5 0.0 – 4.7 – 0.5 11.7 9.8 2.3 1.9 1.9

% 100.0 56.5 30.0 5.0 1.5 – 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 – – 0.5 0.5 – 0.5 0.0 0.0

1988 Seats 201 97 67 – 2 – 2 1 – 1 – – – – – – 3 6

% 100.0 48.3 33.3 – 1.0 – 1.0 0.5 – 0.5 – – – – – – 1.5 3.0

Venezuela Year (cont.) MAS/ MIRa FORMULA 1 ORA a

1973 Seats – – –

% – – –

1978 Seats – – –

% – – –

1983 Seats – – –

% – – –

1988 Seats 18 2 2

% 9.0 1.0 1.0

In 1988 MAS and MIR contested the elections together.

Year AD COPEI La Causa R Convergenciad LAPYd MAS MEP MIN NGD ORA URD PV MVRe CONIVEe PPT PCV PJ ABP MIGATO PUAMA UNT Apertura Renovación IRENE Othersf a

577

1993a Seats 203 55 53 40 26

% 100.0 27.1 26.1 19.7 12.8

–

–

24 1 1 1 1 1

11.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1998b Seats 207 61 26 5 6 – 24 1 1

% 100.0 29.5 12.5 2.4 2.9 – 11.6 0.5 0.5

–

–

2 1 20 35

1.0 0.5 9.7 16.9

–

–

11 2

5.3 1.0

2000c Seats 165 30 8 3 1 3 21

% 100.0 18.2 4.9 1.8 0.6 1.8 12.7

– – – – –

– – – – –

7 77 3 1

4.3 46.7 1.8 0.6

–

–

– – – – –

– – – – –

5 1 1 1 3

3.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.8

3 2 3 4

1.4 1.0 1.4 1.9

– – – –

– – – –

In 1993, the total number of seats to be elected by personalized proportional representation in the 23 regional constituencies was 189. 102 of these were single member district seats and the remaining 87 list seats. Nine extra seats and five compensatory additional seats were added, for a total of 203. The extra seats were awarded when the number of single member seats won by a party in a constituency was higher than the number of seats it was entitled to in the proportional distribution. The party kept the extra seats. b In 1998, the total number of seats to be elected by personalized proportional representation in the 24 regional constituencies for the chamber of deputies was 189. 88 of these were single or

Venezuela

578

multi-member district nominal seats elected by plurality and 101 list seats. 18 compensatory seats were added, for a total of 207. c In 2000, there were three indigenous seats elected by plurality in three special indigenous single member constituencies. The other 162 seats were elected by personalized proportional representation in 24 constituencies. 97 were nominal seats elected by plurality in single or multimember districts, and 65 were elected by list vote. d LAPY is the denomination used by Convergencia to run in single member districts and avoid that the seats gained at this level get subtracted from the list seats in the state of Yaracuy. Thus, Convergencia-LAPY are the same party and got four seats (one list and three nominal), all in Yaracuy. e CONIVE was the denomination used by the indigenous sector of the MVR in order to run for the three indigenous seats that they won. Therefore, these three seats are actually MVR seats. Two of the 77 seats won with the votes of the MVR were actually allocated to members of one of its coalition partners in the state of Lara, namely the OFM. In 1998, the MVR, MAS, PPT, PCV, SI, MEP among others were coalition partners for the legislative elections, this coalition was denominated the Polo Patriótico (Patriotic Pole). For 2000, this alliance was basically integrated by MVR and MAS with other minor parties joining in some constituencies. f In 1998, there were four other parties with one deputy each: SI, UDH, OFM, and MDP-BR.

2.8.2 Senate 1947–1998 Year AD COPEI UFR PCV URD IPFN FDP AD–OP MEP CCN FND PRIN UPA a

1947 Seats 46 38 4 2 1 1 – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 82.6 8.7 4.3 2.2 2.2 – – – – – – – –

1958 Seats 51 32 6 – 2 11 – – – – – – – –

% 100.0 62.7 11.8 – 3.9 21.6 – – – – – – – –

1963 Seats 47a 22 8 – – 7 5 4 1 – – – – –

% 100.0 46.8 17.0 – – 14.9 10.6 8.5 2.1 – – – – –

1968 Seats 52a 19 16 – – 3 – 2 – 5 4 1 1 1

% 100.0 36.5 30.8 – – 5.8 – 3.8 – 6.6 7.7 1.9 1.9 1.9

The table shows only the elected senators. In addition, former presidents of the country joined the senate as life-time senators.

Venezuela Year AD COPEI MASb MEP URD CCN NGD MAS/ MIRb a

579 1973 Seats 47a 28 13 2 2 1 1 – –

% 100.0 59.6 27.7 4.3 4.3 2.1 2.1 – –

1978 Seats 44a 21 21 2 0 0 0 – –

% 100.0 47.7 47.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 – –

1983 Seats 44a 28 14 2 0 0 – 0 –

% 100.0 63.6 31.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 –

1988 Seats 46a 22 20 – 0 0 – 1 3

% 100.0 47.8 43.5 – 0.0 0.0 – 2.2 6.5

The table shows only the elected senators. In addition, former presidents of the country join the senate as life-time senators. b In 1988, MAS and MIR contested the elections together.

Year AD COPEI La Causa R Convergencia MAS MVR PPT Proyecto Venezuela PCV Apertura Renovación

1993 Seats 50 16 14 9 6 5 – – –

% 100.0 32.0 28.0 18.0 12.0 10.0 – – –

1998 Seats 54 21 6 1 3 5 8 4 3

0 – –

0 – –

1 1 1

% 100.0 38.9 11.1 1.9 5.5 9.2 14.8 7.4 5.5 1.9 1.9 1.9

2.9 Presidential Elections 1947–2000 1947 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rómulo Gallegos (AD) Rafael Caldera (COPEI) Gustavo Machado (PCV)

Total number — — — 1,172,543 871,752 262,204 38,587

% – — — — 74.3 22.4 3.3

Venezuela

580 1958 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rómulo Betancourt (AD) Wolfgang Larazabal (URD) Rafael Caldera (COPEI) a

b

Total number 3,367,787 3,107,563 188,686 2,918,877 957,574 589,177 551,266a 469,363 275,325 66,880 9,292

% – 92.3 6.1 93.9 32.8 20.2 18.9 16.1 9.4 2.3 0.3

Includes 24,128 votes from PSV and 16,163 votes from MENI.

1968 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rafael Caldera (COPEI) Gonzalo Barrios (AD) Miguel A. Burelli (URD) Luis Beltran Pietro (MEP) Alejandro Hernández (PSO) Germán Borreges (MAN) a

% – 93.4 4.1 95.9 49.2 34.6 16.2

Includes 84,451 votes from PCV and 18,312 votes from MENI. Includes 15,564 votes from IR and 11,405 votes from PST.

1963 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Raúl Leoni (AD) Rafael Caldera (COPEI) Jovito Villalba (URD) Arturo Uslar Pietri (IPFN) Wolfgang Larazabal (FDP) Raúl Ramon Giménez (AD-OP) Germán Borreglas (MAN) a

Total number 2,913,801 2,722,053 111,220 2,610,833 1,284,092 903,479a 423,262b

Total number 4,134,928 3,999,617 278,957 3,720,660 1,083,712a 1,050,806b 826,758c 719,461d 27,336 12,587

% – 96.7 7.0 93.0 29.1 28.2 22.2 19.3 0.7 0.3

Includes 16,501 from MDI. Includes 15,370 votes from API, 12,403 votes from AIR and 1,308 votes from OPIR. c Includes 240,337 votes from FDP, 132,030 votes from FND and 14,749 votes from MENI. d Includes 68,417 votes from PRIN and 5,513 votes from OPINA. b

Venezuela 1973 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Carlos Andrés Pérez (AD) Leonardo Fernández (COPEI) Jesus A. Paz Gallarraga (MEP) José Vicente Rangel (MAS) Jovito Villalba (URD) Miguel A. Burelli (OPINA) Pedro Tinoco (PNI) Otherse a

581 Total number 4,737,152 4,571,561 196,880 4,374,681 2,130,743a 1,605,628b 221,239c 186,255 134,478 33,977 29,399d 32,962

% – 96.5 4.3 95.7 48.7 36.7 5.1 4.3 3.1 0.8 0.7 0.8

Includes 2,168 votes from PRN. Includes 35,165 votes from FDP, 20,350 votes from IP and 3,394 votes from MPI. c Includes 30,235 votes from PCV. d Includes 4,001 votes from MD. e Martín Garcia V. (PSD) 11,965 votes; Germán Borregales (MAN) 9,331; Pedro Segnini L. (FND) 6,176; Raimundo Verde Roja (MDI) 3,754, and Alberto Solano (FE) 1,736. b

1978 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Luis Herrera Campins (COPEI) Luis Piñerua O. (AD) José Vicente Rangel (MAS) Diego Arria (CC) Luis Beltran Prieto F. (MEP) Américo Martín (MIR) Héctor Mujica (PCV) Othersd a

Total number 6,223,903 5,449,801 116,888 5,332,913 2,487,318a 2,309,577 276,083b 90,060c 59,947 52,287 29,305 28,336

% – 87.6 2.1 97.9 46.6 43.3 5.2 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.5

Includes 56,920 votes from URD, 8,623 votes from FDP and 7,076 votes from OPINA. Includes25,478 votes from VUC. c Includes 18,854 votes from MDT. d Leonardo Montiel (MORENA) 13,918 votes; Alejandro Gómez S. (FUN) 8,337, and Pablo Salas Castillo (CCN) 6,081. b

Venezuela

582 1983 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Jaime Lusinchi (AD) Rafael Caldera (COPEI) Teodoro Petkoff (MAS) José Vicente Rangel (MEP) Jorge Olavarria (OPINA) Otherse a

Total number 7,777,892 6,792,208 331,443 6,460,765 3,775,341a 2,166,467b 223,194c 221,918d 32,254 41,591

% – 87.3 4.9 95.1 58.4 33.5 3.5 3.4 0.5 0.6

Includes 86,408 votes from URD and 2,284 votes from VOI. Includes 80,074 votes from ICC, 12,174 votes from NGD, 11,565 votes from CIMA, 11,258 votes from FUN and 10,115 votes from MIO. c Includes 40,424 votes from MIR and 13,062 votes from IRE. d Includes 67,681 votes from PCV, 44,340 votes from NA, 25,157 votes from LS, 7,833 votes from GAR and 2,108 votes from SI. e Gonzalo Pérez H. (MIN) 19,528 votes; Luis Rangel B. (RN) 8,820; Andrés Velázquez (LCR) 5,917; Vinicio Romero (CONFE) 3,236; Alberto Solano (FE) 1,650; Juan Iarra Riverol (PNV) 1,363; Adolfo Alcala (EI) 1,077. b

1988 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Carlos Andrés Pérez (AD) Eduardo Fernández (COPEI) Teodoro Petkoff (MAS/ MIR) Godofredo Marín (ORA) Ismenia Villalba (URD) Edmundo Chirinos (PCV) Othersa a

Total number 9,185,647 7,518,663 187,276 7,331,387 3,879,024 2,963,015 200,479 62,896 61,684 59,034 105,255

% – 81.9 2.5 97.5 52.9 40.4 2.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4

Vladimir Gessen (NGD) 27,833 votes; Andrés Velázquez (LCR) 24,561; Gastón Guisandes (OPINA) 10,720; David Nieves (LS) 10,065; Jorge Olavarria (LNR) 9,969; Alberto Marini Urdaneta (FUN) 5,821; Luis Hernández Campos (CCN) 2,589; Luis Alfonso Godoy (Nosotros PSN) 2,532; Leopoldo Díaz Bruzual (NA) 2,528; Alejandro Peña Esclusa (PUV) 2,168; Rómulo Abrue Duarte (FEVO) 1,513; José Rojass Contreras (NOR) 1,176; Hernández Escarrá Quintara (MNV) 1,412; Alberto Solano (FE) 818; Napoleón Barrios (MPDIN) 736; Arévalo Tovar Yajur (ONI) 432; Rómulo Yordi Carvajal (PUEBLO) 382.

Venezuela 1993 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Rafael Caldera (Convergencia) Claudio Fermín (AD) Oswaldo Alvarez Paz (COPEI) Andrés Velásquez (La Causa R) Othersa a

583 Total number 9,688,795 5,829,216 212,517 5,616,699 1,710,722 1,326,287 1,276,506 1,232,653 71,531

% – 60.2 3.6 96.4 30.5 23.6 22.7 21.9 1.3

Modesto Rivero (ORA) 20,814 votes; Nelson Ojeda Valenzuela (FPI) 18,690; Luis Alberto Machado (RDLI) 6,851; Fernando Bianco (CEM) 5,590; José Antonio Cova (NGD) 4,937; Gabriel Puerta Aponte (MDP) 3,746; Rhona Otolina (FORMULA 1) 3,633; Romulo Abreu Duarte (FEVO) 1,554; Jesús Tang (PN) 1,251; Blas García Núñez (PEV) 1,198; Juán Chacín (PODER): 981; Carmen de González (CCN) 866; Felix Díaz Ortega (NOR) 780; Temístocles Fernández (IT): 640.

1998 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Hugo Chávez (MVR)a Henrique Salas Römer (PRVZL)b Irene Sáez (IRENE)c Othersa a

Total number 11,013,020 6,988,291 450,987 6,537,304 3,673,685 2,613,685 184,568 65,890

% – 63.8 6.5 93.5 56.2 40.0 2.8 1.0

Chávez was also supported by MAS, PPT, PCV, IPCN, GE, MEP, SI, and AA. Salas was also supported by AD, COPEI, and PQAC. c Sáez was supported by COPEI until a few days before the elections, when the party switched it support to Salas. d Luis Alfaro Ucero (ORA, URD, RENACE, VU, ICC, FIN, ONDA) 27,586; Miguel Rodríguez (Apertura) 19,629; Alfredo Ramos (La Causa R) 7,275; Radamés Muñoz León (NR) 2,919; Oswaldo Suju Rafo (FS) 2,901; Alejandro Peña Esclusa (PLV) 2,424; Domenico Tanzi (Participa) 1,900, and Ignacio Quintana (OPINA) 1,256. b

2000 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Hugo Chávez (MVR)a Francisco Arias-Cárdenasb Claudio Fermín (Encuentro) a

Total number 11,720,660 6,637,276 348,698 6,288,578 3,757,773 2,359,459 171,346

% – 56.6 5.3 94.7 59.8 37.5 2.7

Also supported by MAS, PCV, SI, IPCN, AA, MEP, GE, and NRD. Arias-Cárdenas was nominated as an independent candidate, supported also by LCR, ID, MIN, MDD, MDP-BR. He got 872,229 votes for his personal ticket. b

Venezuela

584 2.10 List of Power Holders 1899–2004 Head of State Cipriano Castro

Years 1899–1908

Juan Vicente Gómez 1908–1935 Victoriano Márquez B. 1915–1922 Juan Vicente Gómez 1922–1929 Juan Bautista Pérez 1929–1931 Pedro Hriago Chacín 1931 Juan Vicente Gómez 1921–1935 Eleazar López 1935–1941 Contreras Arminio Borjas 1936 Isaís Medina Angarita

1941–1945

Rómulo Betancourt

1945–1948

Rómulo Gallegos

1948

Carlos Delgado Chalbaud

1948–1950

Germán Suárez Flamerich Marcos Pérez Jiménez

1950–1952 1952–1958

Remarks Regional caudillo. Led a revolution and assumed power on 24/10/1899. Assumed power on 19/12/1908 by a coup d’état. De facto dictator until his death on 17/12/1935. Assumed presidency as provisional president on 03/05/1915. Formally assumed presidency on 03/05/1922. Formally assumed presidency on 03/05/1929. Assumed presidency after Bautista’s resignation on 24/06/1931. Formally assumed presidency on 13/07/1931. Army officer. Assumed presidency after Gómez’ death on 17/12/1935. Temporary president between 19/05 and 25/05/1936. Army officer. Assumed presidency on 05/05/1941. Overthrown by a coup d’état on 18/10/1945. Proclaimed as provisional president by the government junta on 18/10/1945. The government junta was composed by Unión Patriótica Militar and Acción Democrática. The elections to the Constitutional Assembly in 1946 as well as the presidential and parliamentary elections in 1947 were organized under his government. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 15/02/1948. Dismissed by coup d’état on 24/11/1948. Assumed power as head of the military junta that had emerged after the coup d’état against the Gallegos government. Assassinated on 23/11/1950 Assumed power as provisional president on 23/11/1950. Army officer. Declared himself president on 02/12/1952. Ousted after a civil-military rebellion on 23/01/1958.

Venezuela

585

Head of State (cont.) Years Wolfgang Larrazabal 1958–1959 Ugueto Edgardo Sanabría Rómulo Betancourt

1958 1959–1964

Raúl Leoni

1964–1969

Rafael Caldera 1969–1974 López Carlos Andrés Pérez 1974–1979 Luis Herrera Campins Jaime Lusinchi

1979–1984 1984–1989

Carlos Andrés Pérez 1989–1993

Octavio Lepage

1993

Ramón J. Velásquez 1993–1994 Rafael Caldera

1994–1999

Hugo Chávez Frías

1999–

Remarks Military. President of a civil-military junta that had been established after the downfall of the Jiménez dictatorship on 23/01/1958. Assumed provisional presidency on 14/11/1958. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 13/02/1959. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 11/05/1964. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 11/03/1969. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 12/03/1974. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 12/03/1979. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 02/02/1984. Constitutional president. Assumed power on 02/02/1989. He was formally dismissed from office on 21/05/1993, and subjected to trial by the Supreme Court. He was found guilty of mismanagement of public funds. Provisional president. Assumed presidency while being Chairman of the Congress on 21/05/1993 until 05/06/1993. President designated by Congress on 05/06/1993 to replace Pérez. Constitutional president. Assumed presidency on 02/02/1994. Constitutional president. Assumed presidency on 02/02/1999; re-elected on 30 July 2000. This second term was inaugurated in 19 August 2000.

586

Venezuela

3. Bibliography 3.1 Official Sources ‘Bases para la Convocatoria de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente aprobadas en referéndum el 25 de abril de 1999’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 36669, 25 March 1999 (The proposal for the referéndum). Consejo Nacional Electoral (1999). ‘Resultado del Referendo Consultivo’. Revista del CNE, 6 (mayo-junio): 9–11. Consejo Nacional Electoral – INDRA (1998). Resultados Electorales. Venezuela 1998 (CD-ROM). Caracas: Consejo Nacional Electoral. Consejo Nacional Electoral – INDRA (1999a). Resultados Electorales. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente de 1999. (as of 30 July 1999). Consejo Nacional Electoral – INDRA (1999b). Resultados Referendo Diciembre 1999. (as of 20 December 1999). Consejo Nacional Electoral (2000). República Bolivariana de Venezuela Elecciones 2000 (CD-ROM). . Consejo Supremo Electoral (1969). Estatutos y leyes electorales de Venezuela desde 1936 hasta 1952. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral. Consejo Supremo Electoral (1983). La estadística evolutiva de los partidos políticos en Venezuela 1958–1979. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral. Consejo Supremo Electoral (1987). Los partidos políticos y sus estadísticas electorales 1946–1984 (2 Vols.). Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral. Consejo Supremo Electoral (1994). Elecciones 1993 (2 Discs). Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral. ‘Constitución de la República de Venezuela del 23 de enero de 1961’, in Las constituciones latinoamericanas 1988, Vol 2. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ‘Ley Electoral’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 24/05/1958. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Electoral’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuelal, 22/12/1959. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Electoral’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 31/03/1964. ‘Ley Orgánica Del Sufragio’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 17/09/1970. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 18/01/1973. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 06/09/1973.

Venezuela

587

‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 6 de julio de 1977’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela, 29/09/1977. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 22 de agosto de 1988’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4059 (extraordinary issue), 10/11/1988. ‘Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 1 de septiembre de 1989’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4124 (extraordinary issue), 14/09/1989. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 26 de febrero de 1992’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4422 (extraordinary issue), 07/05/1992. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 29 de julio de 1993’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4618 (extraordinary issue), 20/08/1993. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio del 16 de mayo de 1995’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 4918 (extraordinary issue), 02/06/1995. ‘Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política del 13 de diciembre de 1997’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 5200 (extraordinary issue), 30/12/1997. ‘Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política del 13 de diciembre de 1997’ (Reprint due to mistake). Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 5219 (extraordinary issue), 13/03/1998. ‘Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política del 27 de mayo de 1998’. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela 5233 (extraordinary issue), 28/05/1998. Oficina Central de Estadística e Informática (1993). El censo 90 en Venezuela. Caracas: OCEI. Oficina Central de Estadística e Informática (1998). Proyecciones de Población por Estado. Publicaciones Electrónicas. Caracas: Fundación de Ediciones Oficiales de Estadística e Informática.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Abente, D. (1987). ‘Venezuelan Democracy Revisited’. Latin American Research Review, 22/1: 225–240. Alcántara Saez, M. (1999). Sistemas políticos de América Latina, Vol. 1: América del Sur (2nd edn.). Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. Alvarez, A. (1994). ‘La crisis de hegemonía de los partidos políticos venezolanos’, in A. Alvarez (ed.), El sistema político venezolano: crisis y transformaciones. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 131– 154.

588

Venezuela

Baloyra, E. (1993). ‘Venezuela. Elecciones generales. 5 de diciembre de 1993’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano, 10/julio-diciembre: 31–42. Baloyra, E. and Martz, J. (1979). Political Attitudes in Venezuela. Societal Cleavages and Political Opinion. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press. Bautista Urbaneja, D. (1988). ‘El sistema política, o cómo funciona la máquina de procesar decisiones’. Síntesis, 5: 143–170. Betancourt, R. (1967). Venezuela. Política y petróleo. Barcelona/Caracas/Mexico: Seix Barral. Boeckh, A. and Hörmann, M. (1992). ‘Venezuela’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 2: Südamerika. Bonn: Dietz, 510–536. Bracho, P. (1992). El partido político contra la sociedad. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia. Brewer-Carías, A. R. (1979). ‘50 años en la evolución institucional de Venezuela, 1926–1976’, in R. J. Velásquez (ed.), Venezuela moderna. Medio siglo de historia 1926–1976. Caracas: Fundación Eugenio Mendoza/Ed. Ariel. — (1985). El Estado incomprendido. Reflexiones sobre el sistema político y su reforma. Caracas: Vadell Hermanos Editores. — (1988). Problemas del estado de partidos. Caracas: Comp. Jurídica Venezolana. — (2002). Golpe de Estado y Proceso Constituyente en Venezuela. Mexico City: UNAM. Bunimov-Parra, B. (1968). Introducción a la sociología electoral venezolana. Caracas: Editorial Arte. Canache, D. (2002). ‘From Bullets to Ballots: The Emergence of Popular Support for Hugo Chávez’. Latin American Politics and Society, 44: 69–90. Canache, D. and Kulischeck, M. (eds.) (1998). Reinventing Legitimacy. Democracy and Political Change in Venezuela. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Combellas, R. (1988). La democratización de la democracia. Caracas. Comisión Para la Reforma del Estado (COPRE) (ed.) (1988). La Reforma del Estado. Proyecto de reforma integral de Estado. Caracas: COPRE. Coppedge, M. (1994). Strong Parties and Lame Ducks. Presidential Partyarcy and Factionalism in Venezuela. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Coronil, F. (1997). The Magical State. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press. Crisp, B. (1997). ‘Presidential Behavior in a System with Strong Parties: Venezuela, 1958–1995’, in S. Mainwaring and M. S. Shugart (eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 160–199.

Venezuela

589

Crisp, B., Levine, D., and Molina, J. (2003). ‘The Rise and Decline of COPEI in Venezuela’, in S. Mainwaring and T. Scully (eds.), Christian Democracy in Latin America: Electoral Competition and Regime Conflict. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Crisp, B. and Levine, D. (1998). ‘“Democratizing the Democracy”? Crisis and Reform in Venezuela’. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 40/2: 27–63. — (1999). ‘Venezuela: características y posible futuro democrático’. América Latina Hoy, 21: 5–25. De la Cruz, R. (1988). Venezuela en busca de un nuevo pacto social. Caracas: Alfadil. Ellner, S. (1988). Venezuelas Movimiento al Socialismo. From Guerilla Defeat to lnnovative Politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Ellner, S. and D. Hellinger (eds.) (2003). Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict. Boulder, Colo.: Lynn Rienner. Eweil, J. (1984). Venezuela. A Century of Change. Stanford, Calif.: University of Stanford Press. Gil Yepes, J. A. (1978). El reto de las élites. Caracas: Ed. Tecnas. Gómez Calcaño, L. and López Maya, M. (1988). ‘Venezuela: los actores políticos ante la reforma del Estado’, in C. Acuña et al. (eds.), Hacia un nuevo orden estatal en América Latina? Democratización/ modernización y actores socio-politicos. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 185–237. Guzmán, F. (ed.) (1986). La reforma del sistema electoral venezolano. Caracas: CSE. Hellinger, D. (1991). Venezuela. Tarnished Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Herman, D. L. (1980). Christian Democracy in Venezuela. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. — (ed.) (1988). Democracy in Latin America. Colombia and Venezuela. New York: Praeger. Herman, D. L. and Myers, D. J. (1985). ‘The Venezuelan Election 1983’, in H. J. Penniman (ed.), American Enterprise Instituto Election Yearbook 1983. Durham, S.C.: Duke University Press. Hernández, J. (1995). ‘Efectos políticos del sistema de representación proporcional personalizada en la elección de diputados al Congreso Nacional’. Cuestiones Políticas, 15: 37–51. Hillman, R. (1994). Crisis and Transition in Venezuela. Boulder, Col.: Lynne Renner. Karl, T. L. (1986). ‘Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Transition to Democracy in Venezuela’, in G. O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 169–219.

590

Venezuela

Koeneke, H. (1995). ‘Análisis de la campaña electoral’, in CENDES (ed.), El Proceso Electoral de 1993. Análisis de sus resultados. Caracas: CENDES, 43–67. Kornblith, M. (1996). ‘Crisis y transformación del sistema político: nuevas y viejas reglas de juego’, in A. Alvarez (ed.), El sistema político venezolano: crisis y transformaciones. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1–31. — (1998). Venezuela en los noventa. Las crisis de la democracia. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela-IESA. Levine, D. H. (1973). Conflict and Political Change in Venezuela. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. — (1987). ‘Venezuela’, in M. Weiner and E. Özbudun (eds.), Competitive Elections in Developing Countries. Durham, S.C.: Duke University Press. — (1989). ‘Venezuela: The Nature, Sources and Prospects of Democracy’, in L. Diamond, J. J. Linz, and S. M. Lipset (eds.), Democracy in Developing Countries. Vol. 4: Latin America. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Renner. López Maya, M. (1987). ‘Las Elecciones de 1946 y 1947’. Boletín de la Academia Nacional de la Historia, LXX/278: 440–449. López Maya, M., Gómez Calcaño, L., and Maingón, T. (1989). De Punto Fijo al Pacto Social. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Acta Científica Venezolana. Lopez Maya, M. and Lander, L. (1999). ‘Triunfos en tiempos de transición. Actores de vocación popular en las elecciones venezolanas de 1998’. América Latina Hoy, 21/abril: 41–51. McCoy, J. (1988). ‘The State and the Democratic Compromise in Venezuela’. Journal of Developing Societies, 4: 85–104. McCoy, J., Serbín, A., Smith, W., and Stambouli, A. (eds.). Venezuelan Democracy Under Stress. Miami, Fl.: University of Miami. McDonald, R. H. (1971). Party Systems and Elections in Latin America. Chicago, Ill.: Markham Publishers. Magallanes, M. V. (1977). Los partidos políticos en la evolución histórica de Venezuela. Caracas: Monte Avila Editores. — (ed.) (1986). Reformas electorales y partidos políticos (Colección del Cincuentenario 1). Caracas: CSE. — (ed.) (1987). Sistemas electorales, acceso al sistema político y sistema de partidos (Colección de Cincuentenario 3). Caracas: CSE. Maingón, T. (1995). ‘Los procesos electorales: un marco referencial para su estudio’, in CENDES (ed.), El Proceso Electoral de 1993. Análisis de sus resultados. Caracas: CENDES, 7–19. Maingón, T. and Sonntag, H. (1992). ‘Del rito democrático a la protesta silenciosa (elecciones de 1988 y 1989)’, in M. Magallanes (ed.), Liderazgo e Ideología. Caracas: Consejo Supremo Electoral. Marta Sosa, J. (1984). Venezuela: elecciones y transformación social. Caracas: Ediciones Centauro.

Venezuela

591

Martz, J. D. (1966). Acción Democrática. The Evolution of a Modern Political Party in Venezuela. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Martz, J. D. and Myers, D. J. (eds.) (1986). Venezuela. The Democratic Experience. New York: Praeger. Mijares, A. (1967). La evolución política de Venezuela 1810–1960. Buenos Aires: Ed. Universitaria de Buenos Aires. Molina, J. (1989). ‘Las elecciones nacionales de 1988. Ruptura de algunos mitos, respaldo a liderazgos regionales y debilitamiento del bipartidismo’. Cuestiones Políticas 4: 67–80. — (1991). El sistema electoral venezolano y sus consecuencias políticas. Valencia (Venezuela): Vadell Hermanos – Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. — (1994). ‘Beyond the Party List: Electoral Reform in Venezuela’, in S. Nagel (ed.), Latin American Development and Public Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 165–185. — (1995). ‘Los venezolanos abandonan el hábito de votar: la abstención en las elecciones de 1993’. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano, 13/enerojunio: 161–182. — (1998). ‘Evolution of the Party System in Venezuela, 1946–1993’. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 40/2: 1–26. — (1999). ‘La democracia venezolana en una encrucijada: las elecciones nacionales y regionales de 1998’. América Latina Hoy, 21/abril: 29–40. Molina, J. and Pérez, C. (1994). ‘Venezuela: ¿un nuevo sistema de partidos? Las elecciones de 1993’. Cuestiones Políticas 13: 63–90. — (2001). ‘Venezuela’, in Manuel Alcántara Sáez and Flavia Freidenberg (eds.), Partidos Políticos de América Latina. Países Andinos. Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. — (2001). ‘The presidential and parliamentary elections of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela: change and continuity (1998-2000)’. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 21: 219–247. Navas Blanco, A. (1998). El comportamiento electoral a fines del siglo XIX venezolano. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Nohlen, D. (2004). Sistemas electorales y partidos politicos. Mexico: UNAM. Nohlen, D. et al. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de derecho electoral comparado de América Latina. IIDH: San José, Costa Rica. Oropeza, A. (1985). Evolución constitucional de nuestra República. Caracas. Oropeza, L. J. (1983). Tutelary Pluralism. A Critical Approach to Venezuelan Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Peeler, J. A. (1985). Latin American Democracies. Colombia, Costa Rica and Venezuela. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Penniman, H. (ed.) (1980). Venezuela at the Polis. The National Elections of 1978. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

592

Venezuela

Pereira, V. (1998). ‘Problemas familiares de los partidos políticos: cambios de rumbo en la socialización política de los venezolanos’. Cuadernos del CENDES, 40: 139–158. Ramos Jiménez, A. (1987). Venezuela. Un sistema político en crisis. Mérida: Kappa Editores. Rey, J. C. (1989). El futuro de la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: Idea. — (1991). ‘La democracia venezolana y la crisis del sistema populista de conciliación’. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 74: 533–578. Rey Martínez, J. C. (1988). ‘El futuro de la democracia en Venezuela’. Síntesis (Madrid), 5: 171–220. Rey Martínez, J. C. et al. (1981). El financiamiento de los partidos políticos y la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: CSE. Rodríguez, F. (1996). ‘Política, militares y democracia en Venezuela’, in A. Alvarez (ed.), El sistema político venezolano: crisis y transformaciones. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 155–189. Romero, A. (1988). ‘El sistema política venezolano’. Ciencia Política, 13: 59–79. Salamanca, L. (1997). Crisis de la modernidad y crisis de la democracia en Venezuela. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela-Ildis. Sanoja, J. (1998). Historia Electoral de Venezuela 1810–1998. Caracas: CEC-El Nacional. Sonntag, H. R. (1988). ‘Estado y desarrollo sociopolítico en Venezuela’. Síntesis (Madrid), 5: 97–142. Spoerr, W. (1990). ‘Demokratie in Venezuela: Präsidentialismus, Parteien und Wahlen’. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee (Hamburg), 23/l: 19–33. Vaivads, H. (1999). ‘La teoría de realineamiento partidista. Una aproximación explicativa para el caso venezolano’. Cuestiones Políticas, 22: 133–146. — (1994) ‘Las elecciones de 1993 y sus efectos sobre los partidos políticos y el sistema de partidos’. Cuestiones Políticas, 22: 91–104. Veneziano, A. (1988). ‘La crisis del sistema político y la alternativa reformista en Venezuela’. Cuadernos de CLAEH (Montevideo), 48: 17– 31. Villabona Blanco, P. (1986). ‘Política y elecciones en Venezuela’. Revista de Estudios Politicos, 53: 215–237. Welsch, F. (1995). ‘Cultura política y resultados electorales’, in CENDES (ed.), El Proceso Electoral de 1993. Análisis de sus resultados. Caracas: CENDES, 19–29. Welsch, F. and Carrasquero, J. V. (1996). ‘¿Desconsolidación de la democracia en Venezuela? Rendimiento y legitimidad normativa’. Cuestiones Políticas, 16: 45–73. Welsch, F. and Werz, N. (1990). Venezuela. Wahlen und Politik zum Ausgang der achtziger Jahre. Freiburg: Arnold Bergstraesser lnstitut.

Glossary The following glossary of key concepts of elections and electoral systems refers to those definitions only that are systematically applied in this handbook. Absentee voting: Under an absentee voting provision a person entitled to vote and unable or unwilling to go to the assigned polling station on election day may still cast his/ her vote. Voting takes place before election day by mail or before or on election day at a different and sometimes special polling station than the one originally assigned. In the special case of external or overseas voting, embassies and military bases function also as polling stations for absentees. In most cases there is an application deadline for absentee voting before the elections. In electoral systems with more than one constituency it deserves special attention to which constituency absentee and especially overseas ballots are added. Absolute majority system: An electoral system in which a candidate becomes elected if he or she has received more than half of the valid votes. If no candidate reaches the necessary absolute majority, runoffs usually ensue among only the two candidates with the highest shares of votes. In order to avoid a runoff, in some cases the parliament decides. Alternative vote (system): An electoral system in which voters rank candidates according to their preferences. The decision rule is the absolute majority of first preference votes. If no candidate obtains the necessary absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and his/ her votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates on the basis of the voters’ second preferences. This procedure is repeated until one candidate obtains an absolute majority. Binomial system: An electoral system in which all MPs are elected in two-member-constituencies on a closed and non-blocked list of parties or electoral alliances, i.e. each elector has one vote. The decision rule is plurality. This electoral system tends to favor the second largest political forces in a country: only if the winning list receives twice as many votes as the list which finishes second, both seats will be given to the winning

594

Glossary

list (to the candidate with the second largest number of votes on this list). Blank votes: Blank votes, i.e. leaving the ballot blank, are seen in Latin America as a form of protest against the government and many statistics list blank votes separately from invalid votes. Candidacy: The form of candidacy is particularly important because the relationship between voter and representative can be influenced by different institutional arrangements. A fundamental distinction must be drawn between individual candidacies and party lists, i.e. between voting for certain candidates (in SMCs or small MMCs), or for lists of parties or independents (in MMCs). Closed and blocked list: A list system (also referred to as simply closed list) which allows the voter to cast his/ her vote only for one fixed list of party candidates, without being it possible for him/ her to express his/ her preferences within this list. See list. Closed and non-blocked list: A list system which allows the voter to decide who should represent the party in Parliament by letting him/ her choose between the candidates of a given list. See list. Combined electoral system: Generalized expression for electoral systems in which more than one principle of decision is applied (like in mixed-member proportional systems, compensatory systems or segmented systems). Compensatory system: A combined electoral system with more than one tier of seat allocation where the additional tier systematically favors those parties which were disadvantaged in the preceding step of seat allocation. Contrary to the segmented system, where the allocation of parliamentary seats takes place separately according to the majority principle and to proportional representation, the parts of a compensatory system are interconnected insofar as the unsuccessful votes of the majority part are additionally taken into account in the allocation of the PR-seats. By this hyper-proportional procedure, smaller parties or alliances are partially compensated for their disadvantage in the distribution of the majority seats.

Glossary

595

Constituency (or Electoral District): The territory in which elections are held is divided into constituencies in which candidates are elected. The number of constituencies in an election may range from one— all representatives are elected nationwide—to as many as there are representatives to be elected (i.e. parliamentary seats). Singlemember constituencies (SMCs) where only one candidate is elected can be distinguished from multi-member constituencies (MMCs) of small size (2–5 seats), medium size (6–10 seats) and large size (11 or more seats). The district magnitude is hence measured with reference to the number of seats to be distributed in the constituencies. The lower the number of constituencies, and the higher the number of seats awarded in each district, the stronger is the proportional effect of the electoral system. Decision rule: see Principle of decision. Deposit: Electoral laws frequently provide for candidates to pay a certain amount of money to get on the ballot. As a rule, a candidate will only be refunded after an election, if he has achieved a minimum of the vote share or has won a seat. While deposits tend to reduce the number of frivolous candidacies, they may also be exclusionary for candidates who cannot pay or raise the money for the deposit. An alternative to the deposit is the requirement of a certain number of certified supporters. D’Hondt method: A highest average formula with the sequence of divisors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Favors larger parties. See Electoral formulae. Droop quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one (V/[M+1]). Identical to Hagenbach– Bischoff quota. Electoral formulae: Where seats are distributed proportionally, a specific method of calculation has to be used. Although there are manifold methods, most of them can be classified into two basic categories, namely those based on average formula and those based on a quota. The typical feature of the highest average formula—the best known examples are the d’Hondt formula and the Saint-Laguë formula—is as follows: The votes gained by the various political parties are divided by a series of divisors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. in the case of the d’Hondt formula) so that decreasing numerical series result for each party. The seats are allocated to the highest numbers of quotients. The advantages of this

596

Glossary

method of distribution are its simplicity and the fact that all seats are distributed in just one step. Under quota systems, on the other hand, a quota is calculated. The number of seats the relevant parties will gain will be the same as the number of times their vote total can be divided by the quota. Examples are the Hare, Droop or Hagenbach-Bischoff quota, calculated by dividing the number of total votes cast by a certain divisor. These formulae do not allow for a one-step seat allocation, so the remaining seats have to be distributed in a second stage, often by the method of largest remainder of votes or by the greatest average method. The same effect on seat distribution as the Hare quota in combination with largest remainder has the Hare-Niemeyer formula. In comparison to average formula systems, the quota systems normally produce a more proportional outcome, thereby favoring smaller parties. Electoral system: Set of formal rules according to which voters may express their political preferences in elections and which enables the conversion of votes into parliamentary seats (in the case of parliamentary elections) or into executive positions (in the case of elections for President, governors, mayors, etc.). These rules affect the following spheres: constituencies, candidacies, voting procedures, and modes of seat allocation. External voting (or overseas voting): A provision which enables the voting age population living or staying abroad to cast their vote outside their home country. External voting is a special case of absentee voting. First vote: In a combined electoral system with two votes to be cast (e.g. segmented system), the first vote refers to the candidate vote (usually in SMCs) and the second vote to the party vote (in MMCs). Gerrymandering: This term refers to the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to suit the interests of political parties. It entails a deliberate political manipulation and exploits the varying spatial distribution of support for the various political parties. This tactic is named after Elbridge Gerry, a governor from Massachusetts who cut out a safe salamander-shaped district for himself in Boston. Greatest average: Method for the allocation of remaining seats. The seats that cannot be distributed under the electoral quota are allocated later to those parties with the highest average number of votes per seat (parties that have suffered most from the application of the electoral

Glossary

597

quota benefit most from the additional allocations). See Electoral formulae. Hagenbach-Bischoff quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one (V/[M+1]). See Electoral formulae. Hare quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M): (V/M). See Electoral formulae. Hare-Niemeyer formula: The number of seats for each party is calculated by dividing the valid votes of each party (PV) by the total number of valid votes (TV), and subsequently multiplying the result by the district magnitude (M): SP (seat portion) = ([PV/TV]*M). The greatest integer (GI) less or equal to the SP determines the number of seats given to each party. Remaining seats are given to the parties according to their largest remaining SP: (SP–GI). Identical with Hare quota together with Largest remainder. See Electoral formulae. Highest average formula: see Electoral formulae. Largest remainder: Formula used to allocate the remaining seats. The seats that cannot be distributed under the corresponding electoral quota are allocated successively to those parties with the largest remainder (total votes of the respective party minus its successful votes). See Electoral formulae. List, forms of lists: The different forms of party lists influence the relationship between the voter and the candidates or between the candidates and their parties. The strictly closed and blocked list permits only voting en bloc for a political party, and does not allow the voter to express his/ her preferences for or rejection of a given candidate. Instead, party committees decide the sequence of the candidates on the lists. Closed and blocked lists thus tend to increase the dependence of the representatives on the political parties. On the other hand, the parties can plan the composition of the party in Parliament (experts, minorities, women, etc.). On the contrary, preferential voting within a closed, (but) nonblocked list permits voters to decide who should represent the party in Parliament. This decision is only pre-structured by the party committees. A representative therefore feels less dependent on his/ her party. The open (i.e. non-closed and non-blocked) list allows voters to cross party

598

Glossary

lines and enables them to compile their own lists. Consequently, an open list may be considered as a mere proposal by the parties. Majority principle: see Principle of decision. Majority representation: see Principle of representation. Majority system: see Absolute majority system. Mixed-member proportional system: An electoral system in which two votes are cast. Unlike the segmented system, the number of seats per party list is determined by the second vote according to proportional representation in national or regional MMCs. Yet, a fixed number of seats (lower than the seat total) is allocated directly to winning candidates according to the plurality system in SMCs or MMCs determined by the first vote. The seats won by candidates—which are usually associated with a party and are also on this party’s list—are subtracted from the party’s seat total. If there are fewer seats per party than seats per (party) candidates, the elected candidates remain in parliament as additional members (surplus seats). Usually, the mixed-member proportional system—also known as the German model—does not cause many of such additional members of parliament and has therefore hardly any effect upon the proportionality of votes and parties: it is in effect a personalized system of proportional representation. MMC, Multi-member constituency: see Constituency. Multiple vote: see Vote(s). Open (i.e. non-closed and non-blocked) lists: A list system which allows voters to cross party lines and enables them to compile their own list of preferred candidates disregarding their party affiliation. See List. Overseas voting: see External voting. Parallel system: see Segmented system. Plurality system: An electoral system in which a candidate (in SMCs or MMCs) or a party list (in MMCs) is elected if he/ she/ it receives more valid votes than any other candidate or party list. Unlike in the absolute

Glossary

599

majority system, the plurality of valid votes—not the majority—is sufficient to get elected. Preferential voting: see Alternative vote system. Principle of decision: The decision principle is the formula that determines the winners and losers of an election. If the decision principle is the majority formula, it will be the majority of votes cast that will decide who wins and who loses the election (majority principle, i.e. either by plurality or by an [absolute] majority). If the proportional formula is the principle of decision, the result of an election is decided according to the proportion of votes cast obtained by each candidate or party (proportional principle). Principle of representation: There are two basic principles to classify electoral systems according to their impact they are intended to have upon the votes/seats relationship: majority representation and proportional representation. The objective of majority representation is to produce a parliamentary majority for one party or for a coalition of parties; this is achieved by the disproportion between votes and seats inherent in majority electoral systems. Proportional representation, on the other hand, aims at reflecting the existing social forces and political groups in a given country as accurately as possible, i.e. a more or less proportional relation between votes and seats. Proportional principle: see principle of decision. Proportional representation (PR): 1. see principle of representation. 2. An electoral system in which the share of seats reflects the share of votes in a constituency. The fewer the number of constituencies, and the larger they are, the more proportional is the overall effect of the system. The size of the constituencies creates natural thresholds which infringe proportionality, and legal thresholds have analogous effects. Furthermore, the electoral formula applied may have disproportional effects on the votes/seats ratio. An electoral system with only one (national) constituency and without a legal threshold is called pure PR. If there is more than one constituency the system is called PR in multi-member constituencies. In some countries, a part of Parliament is elected in (regional) MMCs and another part in one national constituency (e.g. in Guatemala): the system is then labeled PR in multi-member constituencies with an additional national list. In contrast to the segmented system,

600

Glossary

only one principle of decision is applied and the vote counts twice. See also Combined electoral system. PR in multi-member constituencies: see Proportional representation. PR in multi-member constituencies with an additional national list: see Proportional representation. Pure PR: see proportional representation. Quota systems: see Electoral formulae and Droop, Hagenbach-Bischoff and Hare quota. Runoff: see Absolute majority system. Saint-Laguë formula: A highest average formula with the sequence of divisors 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc. In comparison with the d’Hondt formula it tends to favour smaller parties. See Electoral formulae. Second vote: In a combined electoral system with two votes to cast (e.g. in a segmented system), the second vote refers to the party vote (in MMCs) and the first vote to the candidate vote (usually in SMCs). Segmented system (or parallel system): Two electoral systems are used to elect members of a parliamentary chamber separately: for a fixed portion of seats, proportional representation in medium- to large-sized (often national) MMCs is applied; for another portion of seats, MPs are elected in SMCs by plurality or absolute majority. These two parts of the segmented system are not connected in any way and their respective electoral formulae are also applied separately. This is the basic difference to compensatory systems, where the different parts of the electoral system are interconnected and the disproportional effect of the initial seat allocation by the majority principle is reduced by a hyper-proportional formula that favors smaller parties. A valuable indicator of the degree of proportionality of a segmented system is the ratio between the number of MPs elected by majority principle and the number of MPs elected by PR. SMC, Single-member constituency: see Constituency.

Glossary

601

SNTV, Single non-transferable vote: A plurality electoral system in MMCs in which the voter can only cast one vote. Seats are distributed by plurality according to the number of votes for the single candidates. The larger the constituencies, the more SNTV tends to proportional representation. Unlike in STV, in SNTV there is no quota, additional preferences cannot be given, and there is only one count of the votes. STV, Single Transferable Vote (also PR-STV): An electoral system in which voters can rank candidates according to their preferences in MMCs. In a multiple-round counting process, surplus votes of candidates who have reached the STV Droop Quota are transferred to second preference candidates proportionally to all second preferences of the voters of the successful candidate. Likewise, candidates with the lowest share of votes are eliminated and the corresponding votes are transferred to the next preference. The counting process continues until all seats of the constituency are filled. STV is also called PR-STV to distinguish it from the alternative vote. STV Droop quota: One plus the greatest integer (GI) less than or equal to the total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one: 1+ (GI ” V/[M+1]). See Electoral formulae. Thresholds of representation: A legal threshold (or hurdle) of representation is a certain, legally fixed number of votes or seats that a political party (or candidate) has to reach in order to be allowed to participate in the allocation of seats. Legal (or artificial) thresholds differ from natural thresholds, which may result from districting, i.e. from the size of the constituencies. Vote(s): Depending on the electoral system, voters can either cast one, two or a series of votes. If there is one vote, this is usually either for a single candidate, a closed and blocked list of a party or a candidate on a closed and non-blocked list. If the voter is entitled to two or more votes, he may cast them in favor of one candidate on a closed and non-blocked list exclusively (cumulative voting), of more than one candidate on a closed and non-blocked list (preference voting) or of candidates on various lists (panachage; see open list). Two votes are also the rule in combined electoral systems, where the first vote is to be cast for a candidate and the second vote for a party. The term multiple vote refers to an electoral system in which the voter may cast as many votes as seats are to be filled in the constituency.