Figure 6. Changes in political orientation in 18 Latin American countries,
1990 - 2009
Source: authors’ compilation on the basis of Keefer (2006) and national data reported by
Wikipedia for the years 2006-09. Notes: a few corrections were made to the Keefer database, as
in the case of: Chile 1990-99 that we treat as a centre (and not a right) regime and a left (not a
right) regime since 2000; Colombia 2003-07, that we treat as a right (not an independent)
regime; Costa Rica 1990-94, that we treated as a left (instead of right) regime, and between 1998
and 2007 when we treat as a centre -left (instead of right) regime; Mexico between 1990 and
2000 which we treat as a centre (instead of a left) regime; and Uruguay 1995-2004, that we
consider a centre (instead of a right) regime; Venezuela 1990-93 that we treat as a left (not a
right) regime, 1994-8 that we treat as a right (not left) regime, and from 1999 onwards that we
consider a left (not an independent) regime.
As noted by Panizza (2005) and Lustig (2009), such regimes vary
substantially among each other. Some of the LOC regimes now
dominating the region can be defined as social-democratic, as in is
the case of Chile’s Partido Socialista, Uruguay’s Frente Amplio and
Brazil’s Partido dos Trabalhadores (ibid, see also Lustig 2009). These
parties have their roots in organizations of the working class, but
have evolved into broad coalitions comprising sectors of business
and the middle classes, the urban and rural poor, the unemployed
and those working in the informal sector. They have abandoned any
notion of revolutionary break in favor of electoral politics and
respect for the institutions of liberal democracy. In contrast, a
second group of countries (such as Argentina and Ecuador)
036912151990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Right
Centre
Left