International Party Networks in Latin America

Detlef Nolte

nolte@giga-hamburg.de

Preliminary version

Paper prepared for the XXX International Congress of the Latin American Studies

San Francisco, May, 23-26, 2012

2

Introduction

While as a result of and as a reaction to the processes of globalization a growing

number of transnational social and political networks emerged, it first sight it looks

like as political parties and party networks have no influence in global politics and

debates. While the process of regional integration has advanced in many regions,

with the exception of the EU no transnational parties or regional party federations

materialized. However, the existing global party internationals encompass more than

500 parties. Latin America is a region with strong links to global party networks and a

significant number of member parties in all party internationals. Moreover, it is a

region with various competing and autochthonous regional party networks. The

different regional networks (in total four) or the regional sections of global party

internationals list around 240 Latin American member parties with a considerable

number of double affiliations. So Latin America might be an interesting test case to

analyze the strength, influence and functions of international political party networks.

This paper will provide an overview of the activities of international political party

networks1 in Latin America. It compares the strength (membership, representation in

parliaments and governments) of party internationals and their political orientation.

Based on an analysis of the official declarations of the organizations the paper

includes some preliminary reflections about whether the party internationals have a

common ideological denominator and about what their political objectives and raison

d’être are.

1. Global political party internationals and their presence in Latin America

International political party networks or political party internationals are a blank spot

in political science. This is especially true for Latin America. There are few analyses

of Latin American political party networks, and those generally relate to the Socialist

International (SI) and focus mostly on the 1970s and 1980s (Mujal-León 1989; Mujal-

León / Nilsson 1995). There are no scientific analyses (not even official histories) of

1 In this paper I will not analyze bilateral cooperation patterns between Latin American

parties – for example, the Brazilian PT giving advice to the Peruvian president Ollanta Humalla in his electoral campaign (Latin America Weekly Report WR 11-14 (April 2011).

3

the other party internationals and networks in Latin America, let alone comparative

analysis. One might suspect that the scientific neglect is related to the marginal

importance of these organizations. Quite interestingly, an article on the international

role of political parties in the handbook of party politics (Lawson 2006) dedicates

more space to NGOs than to transnational party networks outside of Europe. While

as a result of and in reaction to the process of globalization many transnational

networks of non-state actors developed, there are no signs on the global level for the

formation of parties to structure ideology based disputes debates (Zürn 2011: 103).

At first sight, it looks as if regional and global political party internationals – not

only in Latin America - do not have much influence in real politics. However, they

survived. Moreover, quite interestingly in the past two decades new political party

internationals like the Global Greens and the Latin American UPLA have been

launched. What is more, there has been even a competition between different party

networks on the Left and on the Right. In sectors of the Latin American left there is a

tendency not to participate in global political party internationals but rather to

cooperate in regional party networks. In contrast parties in the center or on the right

demonstrate a greater predisposition to participate in global political party networks.

All global political party internationals – the Socialist International (SI), the

centrist and former Christian-democratic IDC-CDI (Internationale Démocrate

Centriste - Centrist Democrat International), the conservative IDU (International

Democrat Union), the Liberal International (LI) and the Global Greens (GG) - were

created by European parties and they still have their stronghold in Europe (see

annex table 1 and graphics 1 - 5). Outside of Europa their influence and presence

vary. Smith (2001) points out that party internationals did not advance in Africa and

Asia. What about their strength in Latin America? While varying in global strength all

party internationals have member parties in Latin America.

4

Graphic 1: Number of Member parties of party internationals in Latin America (excluding the Caribbean) compared to total number

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SI IDC ODCA IDU UPLA LI GG

Latin America

Summe

When we compare the different political party internationals with regard to the relative

importance of their Latin American member parties (see table 1 in annex, graphics 2 -

7) the IDU and the IDC-CDI have much more member parties in Latin America (17%

and 22% respectively) than in Asia (7% and 3% respectively) and Africa (10% and

13% of the affiliated parties respectively). Moreover, the IDU records many member

parties in the non-Spanish Caribbean. The SI has more or less the same number /

percentage of member parties in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa (18%) and

has the greatest number of member parties in the Caribbean compared with other

party internationals. In contrast, the Global Greens have more member parties in

Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia than in Latin America (11%). The Liberal International

has more or less the same strength in Africa, Asia and Latin America (13%).

n Graphic 2: Percentage of member parties in Latin America of party internationals

5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SI IDC ODCA IDU UPLA LI GG

% in Lateinamerika

6

7

While in foreign relations and economic relations Europe’s influence in Latin America

decreased during the last decade in party-to-party relations, it is still quite strong.

European parties are still a role model for Latin American parties. However, party

cooperation between Latin America and Europe stagnated in the past decade. There

seems to be tendency that the cooperation functions better in the center-right

spectrum than on the left. In addition to the parties political foundations are also quite

important. The Spanish FAES (Fundación para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales),

linked to the Popular Party, mentions both the regional party networks ODCA and

UPLA (see below) as cooperation partners. During the government of José Maria

Aznar (1996-2004) the PP developed strong links with the political right in Latin

America. After his time as Prime Minister Aznar, who is now president of FAES,

made many visits to Latin America. After the recent change of government in Spain

8

the influence of FAES and the Partido Popular in Latin America could increase again.

There are also other European party foundations active in Latin America. For

example the Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation linked to the Swedish Conservative Party

(Moderaterna) is an important and steady cooperation partner of the UPLA.

Traditionally German political foundations have been quite active in supporting Latin

American parties. While the political foundation of the German CDU, the Konrad-

Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), actively supports (and for many year financed) the ODCA,

the Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (HSS)2 did not have such a close cooperation with the

Latin American Christian Democrats and preferred to cooperate with more

conservative Latin American parties. Since the beginning, the UPLA has received

financial support from the HSS. There is no comparable institutional support from the

other German political party foundations of the activities of party networks in Latin

America.

2. The competition of global and regional party networks in Latin America

In spite of the strong presence in this part of world, Latin America is no easy playing

ground for international party organizations that in general have strong roots in

Europe because Latin American political ideologies and political styles do not fit well

with European political patterns. For example, Latin American parties with an ethnic /

indigenous social basis and platform are not linked to the political party internationals.

Interestingly, the Brazilian parties – like, for example, the governing PT (Partido dos

Trabalhadores) and PMDB (Partido do Movimiento Democrático Brasileiro) – do not

have strong links to political party internationals. All in all, Latin America features

many regional and autochthonous party networks (see below).

2.1. The Socialist International and the Foro de São Paulo

International party networks are frequently associated with leftwing parties –

dating back to the Communist International (dissolved in 1943) and the Socialist

International (re-established in its current form in 1951). For m any years (especially

2 The HSS is the political foundation of the Christian Social Union (CSU = Christlich-Soziale Union), which is the Bavarian sister party of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

9

in it’s “golden period” – with party leaders like Willy Brandt, Olof Palme, Bruno

Kreisky and Felipe Gonzalez in the 1970s and 1980s), the Socialist International has

been something like a role model for international party cooperation with a very

strong incidence in Latin America (for some years there existed a special

coordination office for Latin America). Currently the SI has a Committee for Latin

America and the Caribbean3 that organizes an annual meeting in Latin America.

Current chair of the committee (since 2009) is the former president of Panama,

Martín Torrijos (PRD).

Since 1989 the Chilean Luis Ayala is Secretary General of the SI; eight of 37

Vice-Presidents come from Latin America (including Haiti). In total the SI has 25 full

member parties in Latin America (22) and the Caribbean (3); another ten parties are

consultative or observer parties. Compared to the number of member parties the

participation at the committee meetings is not strong (see table xx in annex). While

there have been 23 full member parties of the SI in Latin America in 2011 only 12/13

participated in the 2011 committee meetings. From the major parties especially the

Argentinean UCR and the Chilean Socialist Party do not demonstrate much interest

in the committee meetings. There exists no Latin American network of think tanks

linked to member parties of the SI.

While it has been quite influential in Latin America the position / standing of SI in

the region has always been questioned. Latin American leftwing parties have for

many years preserved a skeptical view on European Social-Democratic parties and

their platforms. Therefore, it is quite interesting to take a look at the parties that are

not part of the Socialist International. The influential Brazilian PT, which occupies the

Brazilian presidency since 2003 is not part of the SI; the same is true for the FLMN

(Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional) of El Salvador which started as

a guerrilla organization and is now the party in government. Neither are the parties of

the new left governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru linked to the SI.

However, these parties are members of the Foro de São Paulo, which was

launched by the PT in 1990 as a regular conference of left-leaning parties and social

movements. Since it’s creation the Foro de São Paulo organized 17 meetings, the

last one in 2011 in Managua (the 2012 meeting will be held in Caracas). A significant

number of Latin American elected presidents – in total 10 (those from Bolivia, Brazil,

3 The SI has also committees for South Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the CIS, the Caucasus and the Black Sea.

10

Ecuador, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay,

Venezuela) – come from parties that are affiliated with the Foro de Sao Paulo. Three

of these parties are also members of the SI. The Foro de Sao Paulo lists 84 member

parties, many of which are quite small and with little political influence. There are, for

example, 12 member parties both in Argentina and in Uruguay, and seven member

parties in the Dominican Republic. Even though the sheer number of affiliated parties

is not a valid indicator for the real strength of the Foro de São Paulo one should

make a note of the fact that the new left in Latin America (and also an important

sector of the traditional left) is organized outside of the SI. Another initiative on the

left, the call by the Partido Socialista Unificado de Venezuela (PSUV) and the

Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez in November 2009 to organize the V.

International, was not successful.

2.2. The Christian Democratic International (ODCA)

There has always been a strong competition between party networks in Latin

America. For example, the Christian Democratic Parties created their own

international network in Latin America (ODCA = Organización Demócrata Cristiana

de América / Christian Democratic Organization of America) in 1947 – even

preceding the re-foundation of the SI. At the global level, the ODCA parties are

affiliated with the former World Union of Christian Democrats (WUCD), founded in

Santiago de Chile in 1961 and renamed the Internal Democratic Center Party (IDC-

CDI) in 1999. The current executive committee of the IDC-CDI includes the ODCA

president plus another five representatives from Latin America. In the past Latin

American parties have been quite influential both within WUCD and IDC-CDI.4

Some European Christian Democratic parties – like the German CDU – are

also affiliated with the International Democrat Union (IDU) which was founded in

1983 and has a more rightist and market liberal position. This kind of double affiliation

is strictly forbidden for the member parties of ODCA. Moreover, a membership in

ODCA does not lead automatically to an affiliation with the IDC-CDI, which has only

17 member parties from Latin America. Currently (2012) the ODCA has 31 member

4 Rafael Caldera (Venezuela, 1961-1967), Andrés Zaldívar (Chile, 1982-1986), Eduardo Fernández (Venezuela 1989-1993), Ricardo Arias Calderón (Panama, 1995-2000) have been presidents of the Christian-democratic international, René De León (Guatemala, 1974-1982), Luis Herrera Campins (Venezuela, 1986-1989) and Sergio Pizarro Mackay (Chile, 1993-1995) have been secretary generals of the organization.

11

parties in Latin America (plus 5 observer parties) and five member parties from the

Caribbean. The current president of ODCA is Senator Jorge Ocejo Moreno (PAN,

Mexico). ODCA has 10 vice-presidents from different Latin American countries. The

political networks of center-right parties in Latin America do not include only parties

but also think tanks, which while formally independent are often linked to the member

parties and sometimes interconnected. 16 Latin American think tanks are cooperating

with the ODCA or its member parties.

2.3 The UPLA

The UPLA (Union de Partidos Latinoamericanos) is one of the most recent regional

party internationals. It was founded in November 1992. Among the founding parties

were ARENA, ADN, and Renovación Nacional. However, from the beginning, UPLA

also received strong support from the Colombian Conservative Party. Andrés

Pastrana was the first secretary general5 of UPLA from 1992 until 1996, and. Andrés

Allamand (RN, Chile) was the first sub-secretary general. At the beginning, UPLA

was to a certain extent a network of new parties and movements on the right

(UCeDé, Argentina; Nueva Fuerza Demócrata Independiente, Colombia) and of

rightwing parties that had their roots in authoritarian regimes (Renovación Nacional,

Chile; UDI – Unión Demócrata Independiente; ARENA, El Salvador; AND, Bolivia).

In its first period, one of the UPLA’s main objectives was to gain the respect of

the other political party internationals and to give better democratic credentials to

some of the member parties. Later, when these parties were successful in elections

and their democratic credentials became more accepted, UPLA could increase its

attractiveness in Latin America. Various Latin American ex-presidents have been

presidents of UPLA, like Andrés Pastrana (Colombia), Jorge Quiroga (Bolivia) and

Armando Calderón Sol (El Salvador). Since 2000 one of the main objectives of UPLA

has been to work against the leftist political trend in Latin America. Hugo Chávez

stands out as the bête noire of UPLA, but a close second would be Evo Morales

For some years, the UPLA was strongly related to the Bolivian rightwing

parties, starting with ADN and continuing with Podemos, and to the Chilean right.

5 At the beginning (1992-1996) the UPLA was directed by a secretary general and a sub-secretary general. After a reform of the statute the directory is composed of a president and currently four vice-presidents.

12

With the disintegration of the Bolivian right the Chilean parties became even more

important within UPLA. Their position was consolidated when Sebastián Piñera won

the presidential elections in 2010. Up to 2005, the secretariat of UPLA had been in

La Paz, it moved to Chile in 2006. Since 2008, the Chilean senator Jovino Novoa

(UDI) is president of UPLA. For the period 2010–2012, the directorate of UPLA was

further composed as follows: vice-presidents – Azalia Aviles (Partido Conservador,

Nicaragua), Fernando Araujo (Partido Conservador, Colombia), César Maia

(Démocratas, Brazil), José Ricardo Taveras (FNP, Dominican Republic).

Since 2006 the UPLA has been registered as the regional organization for

Latin America of the International Democrat Union (IDU). Former UPLA president

(1998–2002) Marco A. Solares (Partido Unionista, Guatemala) was deputy chairman

of IDU (2009-2011). At present (2012) the IDU directory includes three vice chairmen

from member parties of the UPLA (two from Chile).

Currently the UPLA lists 17 member parties compared to 21 Latin American

parties affiliated with the IDU. The IDU has also eight member parties in the non-

Spanish Caribbean. Linked to the UPLA is a network (Latinoamérica Libre) of nine

think tanks. As a party network of the political right in Latin America, the UPLA is in

competition with the LI and especially with the ODCA.6 Five Latin American parties

have double membership in ODCA and UPLA: the Democrátas of Brazil, the

Colombian Conservative Party, the Partido Reformista Social Cristiano (PRSC) of the

Dominican Republic, the Partido Nacional de Honduras (PNH) and the Partido

Popular Cristiano (PPC) of Peru.7

2.4. The Liberal International

The Liberal International (LI), founded in 1947, does not have a strong presence

in Latin America and has no member parties in the Caribbean. In 2005 the LI

excluded the Liberal Party of Nicaragua (Partido Liberal Constitucionalista), which

6 The declaration of principles of the UPLA from 1992 is quite general. UPLA supports democracy and a social market economy (economía social del mercado), the dignity of man, his liberty and his transcendental destiny, a subsidiary state, the family as an integrative force of society, and it favors Latin American integration. A member party of the Christian Democratic ODCA would not have problems adhering to these objectives. 7 For a short period Lourdes Flores (PPC, Peru) has been both vice-chairman of the IDU and

vice-president of IDC-CDI.

13

when in power was involved in scandals of corruption and obstruction of justice.

During the Honduran crisis, after the coup against president Manuel Zelaya (2009),

the Liberal International strongly supported the government of interim president

Roberto Micheletti. Both politicians were member of the Liberal Party of Honduras

affiliated with the LI. During the crisis as a sign of support for his government,

Micheletti was elected as one the vice-presidents of the Liberal International.

Currently, there are 11 Latin American member parties (including observer

parties), which include three Cuban parties (in exile), one Guatemalan party with

observer status (Movimiento Reformador), that has been dissolved, and one political

group without party status (the Brazilian Liberal Group). However, quite recently there

have been two new affiliations (as observer members) with the LI, the Partido Liberal

Radical Autentico (PLRA) of Paraguay and the Partido Patriota (PP) of Guatemala.

The candidate of the latter, Otto Pérez won the presidential elections in his country in

November 2011.

Linked to the Liberal International and supported by the German Friedrich-

Naumann-Stiftung (FNS) is the Liberal Network of Latin America (Red Liberal de

América Latina = RELIAL), which was created in 2004 and embraces social

organizations, think tanks and parties. Interestingly there exists an overlapping

membership between the liberal network of think tanks and the network which is

linked to the more conservative UPLA (Latinoamérica Libre). A total of six think tanks

are affiliated with both networks (for example Libertad y Desarrollo in Chile or the

Fundación Libertad in Argentina). This might be seen as an indicator that both

political party internationals are competing in the same political space.

2.5. Global Greens

The Global Greens, the most recent political party international (founded in 2001),

also have member parties in Latin America (in total 10 plus two parties with observer

status) and they dispose over a regional sub-organization, the Federation of

American Green Parties (Federación de Partidos Verdes de las Américas, FPVA),

which was constituted in 1997 and which includes also green parties from the United

14

States and Canada8. However the representation of Green parties in Latin American

parliaments is not very strong. Currently the Greens have representatives in the

parliaments of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. The Latin American member parties of

the Global Greens are Iniciativa Verde (Argentina), Partido Verde (Bolivia), Partido

Verde (Brasil), Partido Ecologista (Chile), Partido Verde (Colombia), Partido

Ecologista Verde (Mexico), Verdes en Alianza (Nicaragua), Partido Ecologista

Alternativa Verde (Peru), Movimiento Verde Ecológico (Venezuela), Partido Los

Verdes (Guatemala). Observer parties are Partido Les Verts (Guyana) and Partido

Verde (Dominican Republic). The current president of the FPVA is Manuel Díaz

Capdevilla (Movimiento Verde Ecológico; Venezuela), the vice-presidents are Carlos

Ramón González (Partido Verde de Colombia) and Margot Soria Saravia (Partido

Verde de Bolivia).

2.6. COPPAL

There exists another, genuine Latin American party network called COPPAL

(Conferencia Permanente de Partidos Politicos de América Latina). COPPAL was

founded by the Mexican PRI in 1979. The organization integrates many parties with a

particular national and/or Latin American trait like the PRI (Mexico), APRA (Alianza

Popular Revolucionaria Americana) in Peru and the Peronist Party (Argentina).

However, it seems to be – even more than other party internationals – a paper

organization and an umbrella for parties with quite different ideological profiles that

compete against each other at the national level. In some countries, the COPPAL is

all-inclusive and embraces all important parties. For example, it lists for Argentina

both the Radical Party and the Peronist Party as member parties, and for Uruguay it

includes the three mayor parties Frente Amplio, Partido Nacional and Partido

Colorado. Currently COPPAL lists as affiliated a total of 51 parties (plus 6 associated

parties, including a Canadian party) in Latin America and the Caribbean. COPPAL is

basically a project of the PRI and of a sector of the Peronist Party. This fact might

explain why COPPAL has two websites, one in Mexico and one in Argentina The 88-

8 The last document of a regional meeting on the website(s) of the FPVA dates from 2009 (http://www.fpva.org.mx/documentos.htm; http://www.verdesamericagreens.org).

15

year-old ex-senator Antonio Cafiero from the Peronist Party is since 2005 president

of COPPAL.

3. Membership and Strength of the Political Party Internationals in Latin

America

If we compare the party affiliation of Latin American presidents since 1985 and take a

look whether their parties were affiliated to one of the mayor regional and

international party networks, the total number of affiliated parties does not vary very

much (see graphic 8). In general around ten out of 18 presidents with a maximum of

12 in 2000 were linked by their party membership to party internationals (one should

mention, that in 1985 and 1990 there were still some countries with authoritarian

regimes or significant restrictions for left parties). However, there exists variation with

regard to the relative strength of the party networks. While the SI had a very strong

presence in 1985, it slowly declined afterwards and recovered recently. The ODCA

had a strong and constant presence in the 1990s, but the UPLA measured up to the

ODCA in the 2000s which is partly explained by the double affiliation of a number of

member parties. The LI was always a minor actor in Latin America.

Graphic 8: Presidential parties affiliated to international party networks 1985 – 2010

If we compare the total number of member parties (including observer parties),

currently (2012) ODCA has the largest number of member parties (31) and the SI

16

comes second with 27 member parties. The balance sheet changes when we take a

look at the number of member parties represented in parliament and in government

(see graphic 10; and table xx in annex), because the ODCA includes the largest

number of Latin American parties without parliamentary representation (10, including

4 Cuban parties).

While many of the parties of the new leftist presidents in Latin America are not

members of the Socialist International, currently the SI is the political party

international with the strongest presence in Latin American parliaments (24 parties)

with the ODCA placed second (18) and the UPLA third (14) and finally the LI with five

parties. Yet, quite a lot of these parties have only a few parliamentary seats and a

quite modest voting strength (see graphic 9). Seven member parties of the SI got

less than five percent of the vote. More than half (23 out of 42) of the member parties

of SI and ODCA represented in parliament got less than 10 percent of the vote in the

most recent parliamentary election.

For most of the party internationals, the quotation by Hällhag (2008: 100) “All

Internationals are clubs that are ‘hard to enter, even harder to leave’” is only partially

true. It is not so difficult enter, but only a few parties leave. Some party internationals

have a very permissive attitude towards affiliation. For example, the IDU has two

European regional partner internationals: the European Democrat Union (EDU) and

the European Peoples Party (EPP). The latter is also affiliated with IDC-CDI. In some

Eastern European countries, the IDU has up to five member parties. Quite to the

point is the second part of the citation. It is very unusual to become expelled from a

party international or to renounce membership. Parties that lost importance at the

national level don’t like to leave the international stage. Therefore quite a number of

minor parties are members of the different party internationals (see graphic xx). In

Latin America this is especially true for member parties of the Global Greens but in

some measure also for the other party internationals.

17

Graphic 9: Voting strength of the member parties of party internationals 2008-2012

While the ODCA has the greater number of member parties, the SI embraces

more parties in parliament. In some countries more than one party affiliated with the

different party internationals is represented in parliament or government (for example

two member parties of UPLA integrate the current Chilean government). SI, ODCA

and UPLA are represented in roughly the same number of Latin American

parliaments (14/15) (see table xx in annex). Member parties of the SI are in 6

countries part of the government and provide the president in three countries (Costa

Rica, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua). The ODCA is part of three governments

where it is also the party of the president (Honduras and Mexico). Although the PJ is

a member of the ODCA since 1998, the current Argentinean government of Christina

Kirchner does not show much affinity with the ODCA. Parties affiliated with the UPLA

are participating in three governments where they are also the party of the president

(Chile, Honduras und Panama). Since 2011 a member party (observer status) of the

LI occupies one presidency (Guatemala). Together, the member parties of SI, ODCA,

UPLA and LI occupy the presidency in nine of 18 Latin American countries - including

18

the Argentinean president Christina Kirchner. In three more countries they are part of

the government. However, in South America only the presidents of Chile and

nominally the president of Argentina are members of a party which is affiliated with

one of the global party networks. In contrast, the parties of ten democratically elected

Latin American presidents are members of the Foro de São Paulo (Bolivia, Brazil

Ecuador, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay,

and Venezuela). Three of these parties are also members of the SI. One should

mention, that the Cuban Communist Party is also member of the Foro de São Paulo.

Graphic 10: Member Parties (including observer parties) of Party Internationals in Latin America 2012

4. Ideological Profile of the Member Parties of the Political Party Internationals

in Latin America

There are some strange bedfellows in some of the political party internationals. In

1998, during the neoliberal presidency of Carlos Menem (1989–1999) the Peronist

Party entered the ODCA. Most of the member parties of the ODCA do not feel so

comfortable with the Peronism of the current president of Argentina Cristina Kirchner.

The same could be said about the relationship between the European member

19

parties of the SI and the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional) of Daniel

Ortega in Nicaragua. Quite surprisingly one of the parties affiliated (as observer) to

the Liberal International is the party of retired general Otto Pérez Molina in

Guatemala (Partido Patriota). The same is true with regard to the membership in the

LI of the Mexican Partido Nueva Alianza (PANAL) which was created by the teachers

union. The Mexican Partido Ecologista Verde is in favour of death penalty. For this

reason the European Greens argue for the expulsion of the party from the Global

Greens.

One may ask, whether the parties that are members of the different

transnational party networks really share a common ideological profile? To answer

this question, one can take a look at the ideological self-placement on a left–right

dimension of the deputies of the member parties of the different transnational party

networks. The parliamentary elite surveys of the University of Salamanca provide the

database. However, there is one limitation: many member parties are quite small with

no or only minor parliamentary representation. They will not enter into the calculation.

Graphic 11 demonstrates, first, that the different political party internationals clearly

vary with regard to the ideological self placement of their member parties. They are

clustered in different sections of the left–right spectrum. The member parties of the SI

in their majority are located to the left of the center. They cover the left–right

spectrum from 2.1 (FSLN / Nicaragua) to 6,0 (PLN / Costa Rica) with a mean of 4.0.

The parties of ODCA were in the center-right, sharing a common space with the SI

(4-6) and feature a mean of 6.0. In contrast, the UPLA and LI member parties have

means of 7.0 and 6.9, respectively. The UPLA, the ODCA and the Liberal

International overlap in the ideological spectrum of the left–right dimension. Most of

the parties of these three political party internationals are located between 6 and 8.

This is not so surprising because 5 member parties of ODCA and UPLA are

members of both transnational party networks.

So it is not so easy to define which of these three party political internationals in

Latin America represents the political right. Rather, several international party

networks compete in the same political space on the political right, representing

conservative, Christian-democratic and neo-liberal positions. These positions overlap

as the double affiliation of think tanks with liberal and conservative networks indicate.

There are also double memberships in different party internationals, and the

20

commitment of the member parties to the competing international party networks

depends on opportunistic and/or strategic calculations.

Graphic 11: Self-placement of the member parties (mean) of the international party networks in Latin America (latest available data)

1 extreme left – 10 extreme right

0

1

2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

SI

ODCA

UPLA

LI

Source: Universidad de Salamanca, Elites Parlamentarias (http://americo.usal.es/oir/elites/eliteca.htm)

If we take a look at other political dimensions or specific issues, the positions of

member parties of the center-right party networks are more differentiated but still

quite close. For example, ODCA parties are a little bit more in favor of a stronger role

of the state in the economy (regulation, control of public utilities, control of natural

resources) than are UPLA and LI parties. The member parties of all three party

networks are strongly in favor of free trade agreements with the U.S. There are no

major differences with regard to value issues (abortion, same-sex unions) also in

comparison to the position of the member parties of the SI.

21

What about the relative strength and the perspectives of the different networks

of center-right parties? With the decline of the Bolivian right and the electoral defeat

of ARENA in El Salvador, the UPLA has suffered some setbacks. Yet its member

parties won the presidency in Chile, and the party of the president of Panama

affiliated with the UPLA. So its position in the competition with ODCA is not so weak.

The member parties of the ODCA also suffered setbacks: The Venezuelan COPEI

almost disappeared, not to mention the decline of Christian-democratic parties in

Central America. The Chilean Christian Democrats, one of drivers of the ODCA, are

now out of government. And there exists a high probability that the PAN, which

currently holds the presidency of ODCA, will lose the presidency in Mexico in the next

general elections.

5. Why do parties cooperate?

Why do parties cooperate, what is the raison d’être of international party networks (in

Latin America)? (1) As the data of the Salamanca of parliamentary elite surveys

demonstrate the mayor Latin American party networks bring together parties which

display an ideological affinity. (2) Party networks can transmit role models of

successful parties within the own political ideological camp that might be copied or

adapted to different national contexts. (3) International party networks can provide a

platform for parties to ally against common enemies and to support each other in

electoral campaigns. (4) Moreover, international party networks can function as

watchdogs against developments that jeopardize democracy which include the

political discrimination against ideological affine parties.

In Latin America, in some countries democracy is still at risk. From time to

governments try to restrict the media or to change the rules of the political game in

their favor. International party networks can help their member parties when

democracy becomes restricted by government activities against the opposition or

when the rules of the game were manipulated against member parties. And they can

help member parties to stay in the democratic game (“as the only game in town”). For

example, international party networks can participate in electoral observation

missions.

22

In the case of the most recent declarations of the ODCA around 25% are in

support of member parties, 60% refer to threats against democracy (see appendix

table xx). In the case of the UPLA 27% of the declarations in the period 2008-2012

refer to supporting other member parties, 9% are protests against the persecution of

member parties and 54% refer to threats against democracy (see appendix table xx).

In recent years, the programmatic discourse of UPLA has become mainly a negative

discourse. This might be explained by the weakening of member parties in former

strongholds of the UPLA (for example Bolivia). This antagonistic political-ideological

orientation of UPLA is clearly demonstrated by the public declarations of its

directorate. Approximately 30% (10 out of 34) of the country references in the

declarations of the directorate since 2008 mention Venezuela. The ALBA countries

together (Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela) are mentioned in 65% of all

country references (annex graphic xx)..

“Successful parties have always been role models” (Hällhag 2008: 100). This

remark hints at one possible function of international party networks. They can

transmit role models. This might be the reason, why International party networks are

generally coordinated by parties that are political successful. This means, that under

democratic conditions they won elections. International political party networks can

motivate member parties to emulate electoral successful parties and adapt the

strategies of these parties to their own national context. They might also be helpful in

electoral campaigns (e.g. photo shootings with popular foreign presidents or technical

advice in electoral campaigns).

So in general we should expect that electoral successful parties dominate the

regional party networks. In the Socialist International, in the past leaders from the

Venezuelan Acción Demócratica (AD) and the Chilean socialist party were quite

influential. However, an analysis of the leadership of the SI committee for Latin

America and the Caribbean demonstrates that there is currently no leading party of

the SI in Latin America (see annex table xx). This is clearly demonstrated by the

parties that occupy the chair of the committee: Rolando Araya (PLN, Costa Rica,

2004-2009) and Martín Torrijos (PRD, Panama, 2009- ). Moreover, many member

parties do not participate in the annual meetings of the committee (see annex table

xx).

In the ODCA for many years, COPEI from Venezuela had a pivotal position. In

the 70s and 80s Central American Christian Democratic Parties played in important

23

role. In this period they were important actors in the sub-region which is reflected in

the presidencies of ODCA. From the late 1980s up to the past decade the Chilean

Christian Democrats were the dominant party in the ODCA. From 1987 until 2006

they occupied the ODCA presidency most of the time. Since 2007 the PAN from

Mexico has been in a leading position in the ODCA (see table xx in the appendix).

Likewise, UPLA has been always directed by electoral successful parties. In the

UPLA’s first decade, the Colombian Conservative Party and the Partido de Avanzada

Nacional (PAN) from Guatemala were active forces within the organization. Later,

ARENA played an important role. For some years, the UPLA was strongly related to

the Bolivian rightwing parties, starting with ADN and continuing with Podemos, and to

the Chilean right. With the disintegration of ADN the Chilean rightwing parties

became even more important within UPLA. Their position was consolidated when

Sebastián Piñera won the presidential elections in 2010. The changing influence of

the member parties within UPLA is well reflected in the composition of the directorate

of the organization9 (see table xx).

9 The principal organs of UPLA are the directorate (consejo directivo) and the general assembly. The general assembly meets every two years to elect the president and four vice-presidents, which, along with the honorary presidents (ex-presidents) and honorary directors, constitute the directorate that normally meets three to four times a year.

24

Annex

25

Table 1: Global Strength of Political Party Internationals by region (January 2012)

Types of membership IDU CDI LI SI GG ODCA UPLA

Full members Observer/consultative Total

127

127

64 10 74

59 22 81

99 48

147

88 18

106

Member parties per region

Europe 67 38 39 53 43

Americas (incl.) 32 18 12 38 14 36 17

USA/Canada

Carribean (English)

Latin America (including Haiti) o Observer parties Latin America

2 8

22

2

16 1

1

11 4

2 9

27 4

2

12 1

5

31 5

17

Africa (sub-Saharan) 13 10 12 26 25

Asia – Pacific (incl.) 9 2 11 13 17

Australia, New Zealand, Fiji 3 2 3

North Africa and the Middle East 6 6 7 17 7

26

Table 2: Latin America - Membership in Political Party Internationals (2010/2011)10

in () voting strength (last parliamentary election) Words in bold = in parliament ; * = in government; ( ) observer or consultative parties (SI); P = president

Sources: Political database of the Americas, Wikipedia, USAL LEGISLATINA

Country SI ODCA UPLA LI

Argentina11

PS (5%<) PDC (1%<) PRO (18%) (Recrear)

UCR (12%) PJ* P (38%)

Bolivia PDC Consenso Popular12

Brazil PDT (5%) Demócratas (10% <) Demócratas (10% <)

(PSDB) (12%)

Chile PPD (13%) PDC (14%) UDI* (23%)

PS (10%) RN* P (18%)

PRSD (5%<)

Colombia PLC* (19%) PCC (21%) PCC (21%)

(PDA) (10% <)

Costa Rica PLN* P (37%) PUSC (10% <) ML (14%)

Dom. Republic PRD* P (42%) PRSC (10% <) PRSC (10% <)

FNP

Ecuador ID (5% <) UDC (1% <) PSC (14%)

El Salvador PDC (10% <) ARENA (39%)

Guatemala UNE* P (23%) DCG (disolved) Partido Unionista (<5%) (PP) P (27%)

(MR)13

Honduras PNH* P (57%) PNH* P (57%) PLH (38%)

PDCH (5% <)

Mexico PRI (37%) PAN* P (28%) Panal (5%<)

PRD (12%)

Nicaragua FSLN* P (61%) Partido Conservador14

(<1%)

Panama PRD (35%) P. Popular (5%<) Cambio Dem.* P (23%)

Paraguay PPS* (5% <)15

PDC MDR/ANR16

(33%) (PLRA) (29%)

PDP (5% <) (PPQ) (10% <)

Peru APRA (10% <) PPC (10% <)17

PPC (10% <) PJN (not reg.)

PDC

Uruguay18

Nuevo Espacio* PDC

PSU* (Unión Cívica)19

(P. Nacional) (29%)

Venezuela AD (10% <) Copei (10% <) Proyecto Venezuela (5%<)

MAS (1% <) (Conv. Nac.) (1% <)

(Podemos) (5%<)

parties in parliament () incl. observers 22 (24) 13 (18) 15

2 (4)

number of countries 15 13 (15) 14 2 (4)

part. in government 8 3 4 1

countries 7 3 3 1

10

Not included are the four Cuban member parties of ODCA - Partido Demócrata Cristiano, Directorio Democratico Cubano, Proyecto Democrata Cubano, Movimiento Cristiano Liberacíon and the four Cuban member parties of the LI - Partido Liberal de Cuba (PLC), Partido Solidaridad Democrático (PSD), Unión Liberal Cubana (ULC) . 11

In the last Argentinean parliamentary elections many parties entered divided in different electoral alliances (with variations between the different electoral districts). Therefor it is nearly impossible to calculate the voting strength of the different parties. 12

The ADN lost importance since 2005. Former ADN politicians were members Poder Democrático Social (Podemos) and Consenso Popular. For some of the calculations in the tables of this article I took data from ADN. 13

Did not participate in the 2007 elections. 14

As part of an alliance with Alianza Liberal Nicaraguense (ALN) which won 26% of the votes.. 15

The Partido Paś Solidario (PPS) has one Senator.. 16

Affiliated is only the Movimiento de Dignidad Republicano (MDR) faction of the Acción Nacional Colorado (ANR) 17 Member of electoral alliance Alianza para el Gran Cambio which won 14% of the vote. PPC won 7 out 12

parliamentary seats of the Alianza. 18

Because of the complicated system of party lists and coalitions it was not possible to calculate the voting strength of all Uruguayan parties. 19

2009 as part of the Alianza Nacional faction of the Partido Nacional. Elected one Senator.

27

Table: Chair of the Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean of the SI

Period Chair Vice-chairs

1997 José Francisco Peña Gómez PRD, Dominican Republic

1998 - 2004 Luis Ayala (Secretary General) PS, Chile

1999-2000: Anselmo Sule, PRSD (Chile) Fernando Martín, PIP (Puerto Rico) 2000-2004 Anselmo Sule, PRSD (Chile) Raúl Alfonsin, UCR (Argentinien)

2004-2009 Rolando Araya, PLN, Costa Rica

José Murat, PRI (Mexico) Maria del Carmen Viñas PS, (Argentina)

2009-2011 Martin Torrijos PRD, Panama

28

Table: Number of participating Latin American parties in the meetings of the SI committee for

Latin America

Country / party Status 9/00 6/02 5/04 5/05 4/06 3/09 4/10 5/11 10/11

Argentina PS UCR

1 1

x x

x x

x x

x -

x x

x -

x x

- -

- -

Brazil PDT PT

1 4

- -

x -

- -

x -

x -

x -

x -

x

x x

Chile PS PPD PRSD

1 1 1

- - x

- - x

x - x

x - -

- - -

- - -

- x x

- x -

- x -

Bolivia MIR a)

1

x

-

x

x

-

-

-

-

-

Colombia PLC PDA

1 3

- -

x x

x -

- -

x -

x -

x -

x x

- -

Costa Rica PLN

1

x

x

x

-

x

-

-

x

x

Dominican Republic PRD

1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ecuador PID

1

-

-

x

x

x

-

x

x

-

Guatemala CSD UNE

4 1

- -

- -

- -

x -

x -

x x

- x

- -

- -

Mexico PRD PRI

1 1

x x

- x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

Nicaragua FSLN

1

-

-

x

x

x

x

-

x

x

Panama PRD

1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Paraguay PDP PRF PPS

2 4 1

- - -

- - -

- x -

- - -

x x

- - -

- - x

- - -

x - -

Peru PAP

1

-

x

-

x

x

x

x

-

-

Puerto Rico PIP

1

-

-

-

x

x

x

x

x

-

Uruguay PSU PNE

1 1

x x

x x

x -

- -

x x

x x

x -

- -

x -

Venezuela AD MAS Podemos

1 1 2

x - -

x - -

x x -

x x -

x x -

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x -

29

All parties 12 14 17 15 20 17 19 15 13

Full member Party Status (1)

12

13

16

14

17

15

18

13

12

Consultative Party Status(2)

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

Observer Party Status(3)

-

1

-

-

-

0

-

1

-

Guest (4) -

-

1

1

2

1

-

-

1

a) Party status canceled by electoral court in 2006.

Glossary:

1: Full Member Party Status

2: Consultative Party Status

3: Observer Party Status

4: Guest

30

Table: Presidents of the ODCA since 1964

period Party, country

1964-1968 Rafael Caldera COPEI, Venezuela

1968-1973 René de León PDC, Guatemala,

1974-1980 Napoleon Duarte PDC, El Salvador

1981-1985 Ricardo Arias Calderón PDC, Panama

1985-1987 Osvaldo Hurtado DP, Ecuador

1987-1989 Renan Fuentealba PDC, Chile

1989-1991 Fidel Chavez Mena PDC, El Salvador

1991-?? Sergio Pizarro Mackay PDC, Chile

1995-1998 Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Echeverría PUSC, Costa Rica

1998 -2006 Gutenberg Martínez Ocamica PDC, Chile

2003-2006 Gutenberg Martínez Ocamica PDC, Chile

2007-2009 Manuel Espino Barrientos PAN, Mexico

2010-2013 Jorge Ocejo Moreno PAN, Mexico

First Vice-President Efraín Cepeda Sarabia PC, Colombia

Second Vice President Juan Carlos Latorre PDC, Chile

Third Vice-President César Dargam Dominican Republic

Fourth Vice-President Rodolfo Parker El Salvador

31

Table x: Directorate of the UPLA (1992–2012)

Time period President / Secretary General (1992-1996)

Vice-Presidents / Sub-secretary General (1992-1996)

2010–2012 UDI (Chile) Jovino Novoa

P. Conservador (Nicaragua) Azalia Avilés P. Conservador (Colombia) - Fernando Araújo Demócratas (Brazil) Cesar Maia FNP (Dominican Republic) José Ricardo Taveras

2008–2010 UDI (Chile) Jovino Novoa

P. Conservador (Nicaragua) Azalia Avilés Partido Colorado (Paraguay) Aníbal Zapattini PPC (Peru) Horacio Cánepa FNP (Dominican Republic) José Ricardo Taveras

2006–2008 ARENA (El Salvador) Armando Calderón Sol

UDI (Chile) Juan Antonio Coloma FNP (Rep. Dominicana) Pelegrín Castillo Proyecto Venezuela Henrique Salas Römer PNH (Honduras) Gilberto Goldstein substituted by P. Conservador (Nicaragua) Mario Rappaccioli

2004–2006 ARENA (El Salvador) Armando Calderón Sol ADN (Bolivia) up to 2005 Jorge Quiroga

PNH (Honduras) Gilberto Goldstein FNP (Dom. Republic) Pelegrín Castillo UDI (Chile) Juan Antonio Coloma Proyecto Venezuela Henrique Salas Römer ARENA (El Salvador) René Figueroa FNP (Rep. Dominicana) Pelegrín Castillo UDI (Chile) Juan Antonio Coloma Proyecto Venezuela Henrique Salas Römer

2002–2004 Independiente Marco A. Solares

UDI (Chile) Jovino Novoa Proyecto Venezuela Henrique Salas Römer ARENA (El Salvador) Archie Baldochi / José Antonio Salaverría PRSC (Dom. Republic) Federico Antún

2000–2002 P. Unionista (Guatemala) Marco A. Solares

UDI (Chile) P. Conservador (Colombia) ----- ------

32

1998–2000 PAN (Guatemala) Marco A. Solares

P. Conservador (Colombia) ADN (Bolivia) ARENA (El Salvador) ------

1996–1998 PAN (Guatemala) Marco A. Solares

PRSC (Dom. Rep) Proyecto Venezuela ARENA (ElSalvador) UDI (Chile)

1994–1996 Nueva Fuerza Democratica (Colombia) Andrés Pastrana

RN (Chile) Andrés Allamand

1992-1994 Nueva Fuerza Democratica (Colombia) Andrés Pastrana

RN (Chile) Andrés Allamand

33

Graph 6: Countries mentioned (frequency) in the declarations of the UPLA, ODCA and SI20

Source: calculation based on the UPLA website

20