Political Science Quarterly
Volume 116 No. 2 (Summer 2001)

 

The Political Right in Postauthoritarian Brazil: Elites, Institutions, and Democratization
By Timothy J. Power. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.
Reviewed by Jorge I. Dominguez

 

What difference has the orientation and behavior of the political Right in Brazil had for the consolidation of democracy in the years that have followed the transition from military rule in 1985? Timothy Power argues that Brazil's political Right had a strong anti-institutionalist and anti-legislative orientation, contrib-uting to weaken Brazil's parliamentary and partisan institutions in the 1980s and 1990s, thus making it more difficult to deepen and consolidate democratic practices and outcomes.

Brazil's military rulers retained a nearly powerless national congress almost uninterruptedly between 1964 and 1985. Power studies the parliamentary vet-erans of those years who were elected to congress again in the years following military rule. For the years after 1985, he compares those parliamentarians who supported the military government to those parliamentarians who opposed it. The Right is defined behaviorally; therefore, it is constituted of politicians who supported military rule. Politician socialization explains why the authoritarian legacy endured during constitutional government. Even after the regime transi-tion, parliamentary supporters of authoritarian rule are likely to be weaker sup-porters of democratic institutions than those parliamentarians who once op-posed authoritarian rule.

Power's empirical findings support his expectations. He discovers that rightwing politicians hide their ideological orientations. Right-wing politicians, however, have distinct views and behaviors compared to parliamentary veter-ans who had opposed military rule. They are more likely to support the high prerogatives that the armed forces retained. They are more likely to believe that they won office in the late 1980s and 1990s through their personal efforts, not their party membership, and less likely to vote the party line, preferring to vote according to local constituency interests. Rightwing parties, therefore, show lower levels of party discipline than other parties. One in three members of congress changed parties during each of the first three legislative sessions under constitutional government, 1987-1999. Right-wing parliamentary veter-ans are also less supportive of democratic values and institutions, and they are much less active in congress than veterans from other parties. They contribute less than other parliamentarians, therefore, to the consolidation of demo-cratic practices.

At times Power overplays his hand, however. He argues that "the prefer-ences of ex-authoritarians for executive office were uniquely intense" (p. 89). In support, he compares the prior office-holding experience of both sets of vet-erans elected to congress in three different post-1985 elections. And yet, eigh-teen of the twenty-four tests on p. 91 are not statistically significant at the .10 level. Similarly, Power argues that former authoritarians are "less active in par-liamentary activities" (p. 169). In support, he compares various possible parlia-mentary activities. And yet, eleven of the eighteen tests on p. 171 are not statis-tically significant at the .05 level. In both instances, the significant relationships that do exist are in accord with Power's hypotheses, but the full statistical analy-sis is less categorical than his verbal argument.

Assessments of the Right's role may also differ. The political Right sees itself as the party of order. It supports the government of the day, no matter who is president. Given Brazil's stunning macroeconomic policy challenges in the 1980s and 1990s, this party of order probably did contribute to democratic consolidation, enabling President Fernando Henrique Cardoso to enact key economic reforms constitutionally. Power gives the political Right too little credit for this outcome.

Nonetheless, Power's research is careful and well designed. His analysis is intelligent and nuanced. His results are persuasive. The book is well written. This work is a subtle and effective analysis of a key political actor-dominant in Brazil under dictatorship, powerful still under constitutional government, and theoretically significant for understanding the prospects for democratic consoli-dation in a great many countries.

Jorge I. Dominguez
Harvard University