This article focuses on the months before the Spanish-American war began in April 1898 and addresses two related questions: first, why was the opposition to the war so strong in the United States; second, why did it not prevail? To explore these questions, the papers of the McKinley administration are examined, along with the Congressional Record and forty-one US newspapers, as well as twelve major European newspapers (British, French, German and Spanish) and the relevant documents from the British and Spanish archives. It is only in the press that one can find a coherent, well-articulated and explicit explanation of the antiwar position.

A crucial development in current Latin American politics is the growing involvement of indigenous movements in democracies grappling with the challenges of regime consolidation. This article examines how Ecuador's indigenous movement consecrated new rights and national constitutive principles in the 1997–8 constitutional assembly. It argues that the indigenous movement defined the legitimacy and purpose of the assembly through an ideological struggle with other political actors, in turn shaping the context and content of constitutional reforms in Ecuador. The article concludes that softening the boundary between ‘cultural politics’ and ‘institutional politics’ is necessary in order to understand the impact of social movements in Latin America.

In Bolivia's 2002 national elections indigenous-movement-based political parties combined to capture 27 per cent of the vote, far surpassing their previous performance and constituting a major improvement in the representation of the country's excluded indigenous majority. Using a social movement theory framework, I attribute this result to five interacting factors: institutional changes that opened the system; the collapse of two competitive parties; the consolidation of indigenous peoples' social movement organisations; the unpopularity of the Banzer-Quiroga government and the intense anti-government mobilisations it provoked in 2000; and the ability of the indigenous parties to capitalise on growing nationalist, anti-US public sentiment.

In 1994 Mexico's ruling party granted new powers of judicial review and increased independence to the Mexican Supreme Court. Would these reforms enable the Court to overcome decades of judicial subordination? I examine all Mexican Supreme Court decisions addressing the constitutionality of electoral rules – rules that are inherently contentious because they determine the chances for obtaining power – during Zedillo's sexenio. These cases, culminating with a 1998 ruling counter to a key PRI political interest, demonstrate a fundamental change in Mexico's institutional power balance. This study also demonstrates the utility of electoral cases to evaluate Court power within and across countries.

‘Demanding adherence to principles is, either, to accept the federal system with all its advantages and dangers, or to denounce it frankly and proclaim the empire of central government, granting it the power to correct the abuses that local authorities might commit.’Ignacio Vallarta

The annulment of the 2000 gubernatorial elections in Tabasco marked a fundamental precedent for electoral justice in Mexico and the role of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación – TEPJF) in federal, state and local elections. Successive constitutional reforms that ended with the ‘definitive’ electoral reforms of 1996 have consolidated a regime of electoral dispute adjudication at the federal level, giving political parties the right to appeal state cases before federal authorities. Whereas a clear tendency exists towards greater decentralisation of power under ‘new federalism’, in the electoral field centralism concentrated on the TEPJF and the Supreme Court of Justice has been adopted. However, in the context of political pluralism and a more authentic federalism, the TEPJF's new role has caused conflicting reactions. Some sectors are insisting on the need to limit this institution's powers so that in the future it can only rule over subnational elections based on well-defined criteria that respect specific jurisdictional principles.

After long neglecting issues of citizen security and justice, democratisation theorists have recently begun to recognise the importance of the rule of law. Yet theorising the construction of state institutions of security and justice has tended to be piecemeal and divorced from broader theoretical debates. Using the case of post-war El Salvador, this article first argues that justice and security are tremendously important for the survivability and everyday relevance of democracy, given that crime is the chief threat to support for democracy.

Second, the article explores competing views of institutional reform. It finds support for path-dependent ‘mode-of-transition’ approaches that postulate heightened agency to adopt new rules and reform institutions during uncertain transition periods. However, more sceptical cultural and institutional theorists are right insofar as the formal removal of authoritarian structures and personnel is easier than the informal transformation of state practices and of society's attitudes about state services. The article also finds that security (i.e., military, intelligence and police) reforms operate differently to judicial reforms, which were more difficult and were less tied to the country's peace process. The interaction of these reform processes with a post-war crime wave helps explain why international observers consider El Salvador's reforms a success story, but many Salvadoreans do not.