Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:52:35.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polarization and Electoral Incentives: The End of the Chilean Consensus Democracy, 1990–2014

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2018

Jorge Fábrega ,
Jorge González  and
Jaime Lindh
Jorge Fábrega*
Affiliation:
Associate professor at the Research Center for Social Complexity, School of Government, Universidad del Desarrollo.
Jorge González*
Affiliation:
Assistant professor at the Universidad Adolfo Ibañez.
Jaime Lindh*
Affiliation:
Researcher at the Fundación Piensa.
*
jfabrega@udd.cl
jorge.gonzalez@uai.cl
jaime.lindh@fundacionpiensa.cl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consensus democracy among the main Chilean political forces ended abruptly after the 2013 presidential and parliamentary elections, the most polarized elections since the return to democracy in 1990. Relying on spatial voting theory to uncover latent ideological dimensions from survey data between 1990 and 2014, this study finds patterns of gradual polarization starting at least ten years before the collapse of consensus, based on an increasing demobilization of the political center that misaligned politicians from their political platforms (particularly in the center-left parties). That phenomenon changed the political support for the two main political coalitions and the intracoalition bargaining power of their various factions. The pattern also helps to explain the process behind the 2015 reform of the electoral system.

Keywords

PolarizationideologyChilean politics
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 49 - 68
Copyright
© 2018 University of Miami 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldassarri, Delia, and Bearman, Peter. 2007. Dynamics of Political Polarization. American Sociological Review 72: 784–811.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Claudio, and Silva, Ernesto. 2008. Re-visitando la teoría espacial del voto: nueva evidencia sobre Chile al 2003 y sus implicancias para las candidaturas presidenciales del 2005. Estudios Públicos 109: 267–284.Google Scholar
Centro de Estudios Públicos. Estudio Nacional de Opinión Pública No.16–75 (1990–2014). Santiago: Centro de Estudios Públicos. Datasets available at https://www.cepchile.cl/cep/site/tag/port/all/tagport_1619_1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Claro, Fernando. 2017. ¿Mudos o conversos? Estudios Públicos 144: 365–372.Google Scholar
Cleveland, William. 1979. Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 368: 829–836.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review 98, 2: 355–370.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter. New York. Free Press: 206–261.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1990. Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 34, 4: 903–935.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, Evans, John, and Bryson, Bethany. 1996. Have Americans’ Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102, 3: 690–755.Google Scholar
Dockendorff, Andrés. 2010. El rol de las encuestas en las elecciones de 2005: selección de candidatos presidenciales en Chile. Revista Enfoques 8, 13: 159–180.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay. 1998. A Spatial Analysis of Candidate Competition in Dual Member Districts: The 1989 Chilean Senatorial Elections. Public Choice 97, 3: 451–474.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65, 2: 135–150.Google Scholar
Emol. 2014. Senador Quintana anuncia retroexcavadora contra modelo neoliberal. http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2014/03/25/651676/nueva-mayoria-advierteque-pasara-retroexcavadora.html. Accessed January 12, 2016.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1990. Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, John. 2003. Have Americans’ Attitudes Become More Polarized? An Update. Social Science Quarterly 84: 71–90.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gamboa, Ricardo, and Morales, Mauricio. 2016. Chile’s 2015 Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of the Game. Latin American Politics and Society 58, 4: 126–144.Google Scholar
González, Jorge. 2000. The Political Instinct: The Role of Deception in the Chilean Transition to Democracy. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
González, Jorge. 2008. El efecto de la ambigüedad en la transición chilena. Santiago: Ril.Google Scholar
Guzmán, Eugenio. 1993. Reflexiones sobre el sistema binomial. Estudios Públicos 51: 303–324.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin, and Munger, Michael. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Michigan Studies in Political Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Lo, James, and Olmsted, Jonathan. 2016. Fast Estimation of Ideal Points with Massive Data. American Political Science Review 110, 4: 631–656.Google Scholar
Magar, Eric, Rosenblum, Marc R., and Samuels, David J.. 1998. On the Absence of Centripetal Incentives in Double-Member Districts: The Case of Chile. Comparative Political Studies 31, 6: 714–739.Google Scholar
Mansuy, Daniel. 2016. Nos fuimos quedando en silencio. Santiago: Instituto de Estudios Sociales.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1998. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1980. Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review 74, 2: 432–446.Google Scholar
Segovia, Carolina, and Gamboa, Ricardo. 2012. Chile: el año en que salimos a la calle. Revista de Ciencia Política 32, 1: 65–85.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lehmann, Pola, Matthieß, There, Merz, Nicolas, Regel, Sven, and Weßels, Bernhard. 2017. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017bGoogle Scholar
Von Baer, Ena. 2009. Sistema binominal: consensos y disenso. In Reforma del sistema electoral chileno, ed. Arturo Fontaine, Cristian Larroulet, Jorge Navarrete, and Ignacio Walker. Santiago: PNUD, CEP, Libertad y Desarrollo, Proyecto América, and Cieplan.Google Scholar
Walker, Ignacio. 1992. Transición y consolidación democrática en Chile. Revista de Ciencia Política 14, 1–2: 89–104.Google Scholar