Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:52:45.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authoritarian Inheritance, Political Conflict and Conservative Party Institutionalisation: The Cases of Chile and Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2021

André Borges Open the ORCID record for André Borges [Opens in a new window]
André Borges*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Brasília
*
*Corresponding author. Email: andrebor75@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Party development in post-transition Latin America has often proceeded unevenly, as right-wing elites opted for non-partisan forms of political action and conservative parties remained poorly institutionalised. Recent research has demonstrated that party-building was facilitated where the political Right benefited from valuable political assets – party brand, territorial organisation, sources of funding and clientelistic networks – inherited from authoritarian regimes. This article argues that authoritarian inheritance in isolation is insufficient to foster conservative party institutionalisation. It analyses the trajectories of the major right-wing parties in Brazil and Chile, where former authoritarian incumbents benefited extensively from authoritarian inheritance and yet levels of institutionalisation differed widely across parties. The comparative analysis demonstrates that right-wing parties were most likely to consolidate where, in addition to inheriting valuable resources from the dictatorship, they experienced ideologically driven, violent conflict during their early years.

Spanish abstract

Spanish abstract

El desarrollo de partidos en Latinoamérica posterior a la transición con frecuencia ha procedido de forma desigual, en la medida en que las élites derechistas optaron por formas no partidistas de acción política y los partidos conservadores permanecieron pobremente institucionalizados. Investigaciones recientes han demostrado que la construcción partidaria fue facilitada cuando organizaciones de derecha se beneficiaron de valiosos recursos políticos − tradición partidaria, organización territorial, fuentes de financiamiento y redes clientelares − heredados por los regímenes autoritarios. Este artículo señala que la herencia autoritaria por sí sola es insuficiente para nutrir la institucionalización de partidos conservadores. Analiza las trayectorias de los principales partidos de derecha en Brasil y Chile, donde antiguos gobiernos autoritarios se beneficiaron extensamente de la herencia autoritaria y aun así los niveles de institucionalización fueron muy diferentes entre los partidos. El análisis comparativo demuestra que los partidos derechistas tenían mayor probabilidad de consolidarse donde, además de la herencia de recursos valiosos de la dictadura, experimentaron violentos conflictos de motivación ideológica durante sus primeros años.

Portuguese abstract

Portuguese abstract

O desenvolvimento partidário no período pós-transição na América Latina tem frequentemente ocorrido de maneira desigual, pois as elites de direita optaram por formas não partidárias de ação política e os partidos conservadores se institucionalizaram de maneira limitada. Pesquisas recentes demonstraram que a construção partidária foi facilitada quando a direita política pôde se beneficiar de valiosos ativos políticos – marca partidária, organização territorial, fontes de financiamento e redes clientelistas – herdados de regimes autoritários. Este artigo argumenta que a herança autoritária, por si só, é insuficiente para fomentar a institucionalização de partidos conservadores. São analisadas as trajetórias dos principais partidos de direita no Brasil e no Chile, onde antigos governos autoritários se beneficiaram amplamente da herança autoritária e ainda assim os níveis de institucionalização diferiram amplamente entre os partidos. A análise comparativa demonstra que os partidos de direita tiveram maior probabilidade de se consolidar onde, além de herdar recursos valiosos da ditadura, vivenciaram conflitos ideológicos violentos durante seus primeiros anos.

Keywords

authoritarianismpolitical Rightparty institutionalisationauthoritarian inheritanceSpanish keywords:autoritarismoderecha políticainstitucionalización partidariaherencia autoritariaPortuguese keywords:autoritarismodireita políticainstitucionalização partidáriaherança autoritária
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , November 2021 , pp. 767 - 793
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

1 Dalton, Russell J. and Weldon, Steven, ‘Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization’, Party Politics, 13: 2 (2007), pp. 179–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lupu, Noam and Stokes, Susan, ‘Democracy, Interrupted: Regime Change and Partisanship in Twentieth-Century Argentina’, Electoral Studies, 29: 1 (2010), pp. 91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tavits, Margit, ‘The Development of Stable Party Support: Electoral Dynamics in Post-Communist Europe’, American Journal of Political Science, 49: 2 (2005), pp. 283–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Levitsky, Steven, Loxton, James and Van Dyck, Brandon, ‘Introduction’, in Levitsky, Steven, Loxton, James, Van Dyck, Brandon and Domínguez, Jorge I. (eds.), Challenges of Party-Building in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Gibson, Edward, Class and Conservative Parties: Argentina in Comparative Perspective (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), p. 7Google Scholar; Cannon, Barry, The Right in Latin America: Elite Power, Hegemony and the Struggle for the State (New York: Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gibson defines a party's core constituencies as those sectors of society that are most important to its political agenda and resources and, thus, exert the greatest influence on the party's agenda, regardless of their importance in electoral terms.

4 Cannon, The Right in Latin America; Eaton, Kent, ‘New Strategies of the Latin American Right’, in Luna, Juan Pablo and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (eds.), The Resilience of the Latin American Right (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Juan Pablo Luna and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, ‘Introduction’, ibid, p. 14; Kenneth M. Roberts, ‘Democracy, Free Markets and the Rightist Dilemma’, ibid. pp. 25−47.

5 Luna and Rovira Kaltwasser, ‘Introduction’; Weyland, Kurt, ‘Neopopulism and Neoliberalism in Latin America: How Much Affinity?’, Third World Quarterly, 24: 6 (2003), pp. 1095–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 James Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties and the New Right in Latin America’, in Levitsky et al. (eds.), Challenges of Party-Building in Latin America, pp. 245−72; James Loxton and Scott Mainwaring (eds.), Life after Dictatorship: Authoritarian Successor Parties Worldwide (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018). Loxton (2016) defines ASPs as parties that emerge from authoritarian regimes, but that operate after a transition to democracy.

7 Loxton and Mainwaring (eds.), Life after Dictatorship.

8 Kestler, Thomas, Lucca, Juan Bautista and Krause, Silvana, ‘Timing, Sequences and New Party Institutionalization in South America’, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 13 (June 2019), pp. 315–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levitsky, Steven, ‘Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, the Case and the Case for Unpacking the Concept’, Party Politics, 4: 1 (1998), pp. 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Randall, Vicky and Svåsand, Lars, ‘Party Institutionalization in New Democracies’, Party Politics, 8: 1 (2002), pp. 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Levitsky, Steven R. and Way, Lucan A., ‘Beyond Patronage: Violent Struggle, Ruling Party Cohesion, and Authoritarian Durability’, Perspectives on Politics, 10: 4 (2012), pp. 869–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Rosenblatt, Fernando, Party Vibrancy and Democracy in Latin America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Coppedge, Michael, ‘The Evolution of Latin American Party Systems’, in Mainwaring, Scott and Valenzuela, Arturo (eds.), Politics, Society, and Democracy: Latin America (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998)Google Scholar.

12 Hagopian, Frances, Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carlos Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet: El caso de la Unión Demócrata Independiente’, Kellogg Institute Working Paper No. 285, 2001.

13 Fernando Luiz Abrucio and David Samuels, ‘A nova política dos governadores’, Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, 40–41 (Aug. 1997), pp. 137–66; Power, Timothy J., Political Right in Postauthoritarian Brazil: Elites, Institutions, and Democratization (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Heiss, Claudia and Navia, Patricio, ‘You Win Some, You Lose Some: Constitutional Reforms in Chile's Transition to Democracy’, Latin American Politics and Society, 49: 3 (2007), pp. 163–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet’; Power, Political Right in Postauthoritarian Brazil.

15 Frantz, Erica and Geddes, Barbara, ‘The Legacy of Dictatorship for Democratic Parties in Latin America’, Journal of Politics in Latin America, 8: 1 (2016), pp. 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hicken, Allen and Kuhonta, Erik Martínez, ‘Shadows from the Past: Party System Institutionalization in Asia’, Comparative Political Studies, 44: 5 (2011), pp. 572–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 This lack of attention to the multidimensional nature of party development often leads to imprecise or incorrect analyses of empirical cases. For instance, Levitsky et al. classify Brazil's PFL as a case of successful party-building, whereas my empirical analysis demonstrates it is actually a case of failed institutionalisation. See Levitsky, Loxton and Van Dyck, ‘Introduction’.

17 In fact, the literature fails to establish a clear causal hierarchy, in terms of the relative importance of distinct dimensions of authoritarian inheritance. For instance, some authors argue that the economic and/or national security achievements of the dictatorship are a crucial element in the explanation of ASP survival and endurance, whereas others claim that authoritarian ruling parties are more likely to survive when they rely on programmatic appeals. T. J. Cheng and Teh-Fu Huang, ‘Authoritarian Successor Parties in South Korea and Taiwan: Authoritarian Inheritance, Organizational Adaptation, and Issue Management’, in Loxton and Mainwaring (eds.), Life after Dictatorship, pp. 84−112; Miller, Michael K., ‘Don't Call It a Comeback: Autocratic Ruling Parties After Democratization’, British Journal of Political Science, 51: 2 (2019), pp. 559−83Google Scholar.

18 Luna and Rovira Kaltwasser, ‘Introduction’.

19 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

20 Levitsky, ‘Institutionalization and Peronism’, p. 79.

21 Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, p. 68.

22 Randall and Svåsand, ‘Party Institutionalization in New Democracies’, p. 12.

23 Matthias Basedau and Alexander Stroh, ‘Measuring Party Institutionalization in Developing Countries: A New Research Instrument Applied to 28 African Political Parties’, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) Working Paper No. 60, 2008.

24 Kestler, Lucca and Krause, ‘Timing, Sequences and New Party Institutionalization in South America’.

25 Levitsky, ‘Institutionalization and Peronism’.

26 Randall and Svåsand, ‘Party Institutionalization in New Democracies’.

27 Kestler, Lucca and Krause, ‘Timing, Sequences and New Party Institutionalization in South America’.

28 Randall and Svåsand, ‘Party Institutionalization in New Democracies’, p. 82.

29 Lupu, Noam, Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Nina Wiesehomeier, ‘The Meaning of Left-Right in Latin America: A Comparative View’, Kellogg Institute Working Paper No. 370, 2010.

31 Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties and the New Right in Latin America’.

32 Ibid.; James Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties Worldwide’, in Loxton and Mainwaring (eds.), Life after Dictatorship.

33 Levitsky, Loxton and Van Dyck, ‘Introduction’.

34 Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties and the New Right in Latin America’, p. 254.

35 Cheng and Huang, ‘Authoritarian Successor Parties in South Korea and Taiwan’; Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties Worldwide’.

36 Frantz and Geddes, ‘The Legacy of Dictatorship for Democratic Parties in Latin America’; Brandon Van Dyck, ‘The Paradox of Adversity: New Left Party Survival and Collapse in Brazil, Mexico and Argentina’, in Levitsky et al. (eds.), Challenges of Party-Building in Latin America, pp. 136–7.

37 Frantz and Geddes, ‘The Legacy of Dictatorship for Democratic Parties in Latin America’, p. 24.

38 Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties Worldwide’, p. 14.

39 Levitsky, Loxton and Van Dyck, ‘Introduction’; Levitsky and Way, ‘Beyond Patronage’; Slater, Dan and Smith, Nicholas Rush, ‘The Power of Counterrevolution: Elitist Origins of Political Order in Postcolonial Asia and Africa’, American Journal of Sociology, 121: 5 (2016), pp. 1472–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Ibid.

41 Rosenblatt, Party Vibrancy and Democracy in Latin America, p. 41.

42 Levitsky and Way, ‘Beyond Patronage’, p. 871.

43 Bornschier, Simon, ‘Historical Polarization and Representation in South American Party Systems, 1900–1990’, British Journal of Political Science, 49: 1 (2019), pp. 153–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Singer, Matthew, ‘Elite Polarization and the Electoral Impact of Left-Right Placements: Evidence from Latin America, 1995–2009’, Latin American Research Review, 51: 2 (2016), pp. 174–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Although the literature does mention that these parties may inherit a ‘source of cohesion’ rooted in past conflict, this is a relatively underdeveloped dimension in the ASP model that is not given any theoretical precedence relative to the other dimensions. See, for instance, Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties Worldwide’, p. 14.

45 Luna, Juan Pablo and Altman, David, ‘Uprooted but Stable: Chilean Parties and the Concept of Party System Institutionalization’, Latin American Politics and Society, 53: 2 (2011), pp. 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sousa Braga, Maria do Socorro and Pimentel, Jairo Jr, ‘Os partidos políticos brasileiros realmente não importam?’, Opinião Pública, 17: 2 (2011), pp. 271–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mainwaring, Scott, Party Systems in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Ibid. Electoral volatility in Brazil's lower-chamber elections averaged 28 per cent between 2014 and 2018 as compared to 12 per cent in the previous three elections (2002–10). (Author's calculations based on official electoral data obtained from www.tse.jus.gov.br.)

47 Stepan, Alfred C. (ed.), Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar.

48 Power, Political Right in Postauthoritarian Brazil; Ribeiro, Ricardo Luiz Mendes, ‘Decadência longe do poder: Refundação e crise do PFL’, Revista de Sociologia e Política, 22: 49 (2014), pp. 5–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet’; Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties and the New Right in Latin America’; Peter Siavelis, ‘Chile: The Right's Evolution from Democracy to Authoritarianism and Back Again’, in Luna and Rovira Kaltwasser (eds.), The Resilience of the Latin American Right, pp. 242−67.

50 Barozet, Emmanuelle and Aubry, Marcel, ‘De las reformas internas a la candidatura presidencial autónoma: Los nuevos caminos institucionales de Renovación Nacional’, Política, 45: 1 (2005), pp. 165–96Google Scholar; Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet’.

51 Siavelis, ‘Chile’.

52 I focus on the major parties because these are the parties for which there is available data on all the relevant dimensions of party institutionalisation.

53 Wiesehomeier, Nina and Benoit, Kenneth, ‘Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition’, Journal of Politics, 71: 4 (2009), pp. 1435–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Baker, Andy and Greene, Kenneth F., ‘The Latin American Left's Mandate: Free-Market Policies and Issue Voting in New Democracies’, World Politics, 63: 1 (2011), pp. 43–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Wiesehomeier and Benoit, ‘Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition’.

56 Bolleyer, Nicole and Ruth, Saskia P., ‘Elite Investments in Party Institutionalization in New Democracies: A Two-Dimensional Approach’, Journal of Politics, 80: 1 (2018), pp. 288–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Navia, Patricio and Osorio, Rodrigo, ‘It's the Christian Democrats’ Fault: Declining Political Identification in Chile, 1957–2012’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 48: 4 (2015), pp. 815–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Rosenblatt, Party Vibrancy and Democracy in Latin America, p. 106.

59 David Samuels and Cesar Zucco Jr, ‘Party-Building in Brazil’, in Steven Levitsky et al. (eds.), Challenges of Party-Building in Latin America.

60 The Socialist Party was created in 1933, 21 years after the foundation of the Chilean Communist Party in 1912.

61 Thomas E. Skidmore, ‘Brazil's Slow Road to Democratization: 1974–1985’, in Alfred C. Stepan (ed.), Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).

62 Ibid., p. 30.

63 Power, Political Right in Postauthoritarian Brazil, p. 67.

64 Ricardo Luiz Mendes Ribeiro, ‘PFL: Do PDS ao PSD’, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Universidade de São Paulo, 2016, pp. 52–4.

65 Ferreira, Denise Paiva, PFL x PMDB: Marchas e contramarchas (1982–2000) (Goiânia: Editora Alternativa, 2002)Google Scholar.

66 Timothy Power, ‘The Contrasting Trajectories of Brazil's Two Authoritarian Sucessor Parties’, in Loxton and Mainwaring (eds.), Life after Dictatorship, p. 234; Maria do Carmo Campello de Souza, ‘The Brazilian “New Republic”: Under the “Sword of Damocles”’, in Stepan (ed.), Democratizing Brazil, pp. 355–6.

67 Skidmore, ‘Brazil's Slow Road to Democratization’.

68 Soares, Gláucio Ary Dillon, A democracia interrompida (Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora, 2001)Google Scholar; Roberts, Kenneth M., Deepening Democracy?: The Modern Left and Social Movements in Chile and Peru (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

69 Marcelo Ridenti, ‘Oposições à ditadura: Resistência e integração’, in Daniel Aarão Reis (ed.), A ditadura que mudou o Brasil (São Paulo: Editora Schwarcz, 2014).

70 Guillermo O'Donnell, ‘Transitions, Continuities, and Paradoxes’, in Scott Mainwaring and Guillermo O'Donnell (eds.), Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), pp. 17–56; Souza, ‘The Brazilian “New Republic”’.

71 Skidmore, ‘Brazil's Slow Road to Democratization’, p. 22.

72 Paiva Ferreira, PFL x PMDB, p. 58.

73 Mainwaring, Scott, Meneguello, Rachel and Power, Timothy Joseph, Partidos conservadores no Brasil contemporâneo: Quais são, o que defendem, quais são suas bases (Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2000)Google Scholar.

74 I discuss the case of the PDS/PP in greater detail in the following section.

75 Roberts, Deepening Democracy?; Schneider, Cathy Lisa, ‘Violence, Identity and Spaces of Contention in Chile, Argentina and Colombia’, Social Research, 67: 3 (2000), pp. 773–802Google Scholar.

76 Power, ‘The Contrasting Trajectories of Brazil's Two Authoritarian Successor Parties’; Torcal, Mariano and Mainwaring, Scott, ‘The Political Recrafting of Social Bases of Party Competition: Chile, 1973–95’, British Journal of Political Science, 33: 1 (2003), pp. 55–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Martins, Renato, ‘Chile: A democracia e os limites do consenso’, Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, 49: 1 (2000), pp. 65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Schneider, ‘Violence, Identity and Spaces of Contention in Chile, Argentina and Colombia’.

79 Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties and the New Right in Latin America’.

80 James Ivor Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Inheritance and Conservative Party-Building in Latin America’, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 2014, p. 177; Heiss and Navia, ‘You Win Some, You Lose Some’.

81 Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Sucessor Parties and the New Right in Latin America’, p. 262.

82 Rosenblatt, Party Vibrancy and Democracy in Latin America.

83 Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet’.

84 Loxton, ‘Authoritarian Inheritance and Conservative Party-Building in Latin America’; Siavelis, ‘Chile’,

85 Ibid.

86 Rosenblatt, Party Vibrancy and Democracy in Latin America, pp. 105–6.

87 The first democratic congressional elections occurred in 1986 in Brazil and in 1989 in Chile. Brazil's lower-chamber elections are always held in even years and Chile's elections in odd years.

88 Power, Political Right in Postauthoritarian Brazil.

89 Paiva Ferreira, PFL x PMDB; Ribeiro, ‘PFL’.

90 Barozet and Aubry, ‘De las reformas internas a la candidatura presidencial autónoma’; Siavelis, ‘Chile’.

91 Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet’.

92 Power, ‘The Contrasting Trajectories of Brazil's Two Authoritarian Sucessor Parties’, p. 239.

93 Ribeiro, ‘Decadência longe do poder’, pp. 61–4.

94 Ribeiro, ‘PFL’.

95 Ribeiro, Pedro Floriano, ‘Organização e poder nos partidos brasileiros: Uma análise dos estatutos’, Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, 10: 1 (2013), pp. 225–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Barozet and Aubry, ‘De las reformas internas a la candidatura presidencial autónoma’.

97 Huneeus, ‘Derecha en el Chile después de Pinochet’; Luna, Juan Pablo, ‘Segmented Party–Voter Linkages in Latin America: The Case of the UDI’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 42: 2 (2010), pp. 325–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These accounts are consistent with the routinisation scores presented in Table 1: the UDI obtained a score of 0.91 as compared to 0.63 for the RN.

98 Rosenblatt, Party Vibrancy and Democracy in Latin America, p. 105.

99 Albert Fishlow, ‘A Tale of Two Presidents: The Political Economy of Crisis Management’, in Stepan (ed.), Democratizing Brazil; Juan Andrés Fontaine, ‘Transición económica y política en Chile: 1970–1990’, Estudios Públicos, 50 (Autumn 1993), pp. 229–79.

100 Brazil's GDP increased at a yearly average rate of 6.3 per cent between 1964 and 1984 and, during most of the period, growth rates were positive and above 4 per cent (www.ipeadata.gov.br). In the case of Chile there was substantial volatility in growth rates, and the average performance was significantly worse: an average 2.6 per cent growth from 1974 to 1989. Ricardo French-Davis and Oscar Muñoz, ‘Desarrollo económico, inestabilidad y desequilibrios políticos en Chile: 1950–89’, Colección estudios CIEPLAN, No. 28, 1990, pp. 121–56.

101 While comparing these figures, one should note that the development of RN's brand likely reflects the party's connection to the National Party, and not only association with Pinochetismo, as already mentioned earlier in the article.

102 Albertus, Michael and Menaldo, Victor, Authoritarianism and the Elite Origins of Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018)Google Scholar.

103 Hicken and Martínez Kuhonta, ‘Shadows from the Past’.

104 Fuks, Mário, Ribeiro, Ednaldo and Borba, Julian, ‘From Antipetismo to Generalized Antipartisanship: The Impact of Rejection of Political Parties on the 2018 Vote for Bolsonaro’, Brazilian Political Science Review, 15: 1 (2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, online only.