Bloggings by boz

Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Argentina. That was the list of countries that I wrote in January were likely to be less stable than Bolivia in 2009 (go back to the post to see why I used that benchmark). I defined instability as facing threat of government overthrow or significant protests or violence. So how did I do?


First the good news: Bolivia has been very stable this year. I hit that prediction right on the money. The economy weathered the economic crisis as well as any in Latin America. The elections were held with minimal incident. Protests and violent confrontations were limited, certainly smaller than those seen in 2008. The president showed he maintains strong support among the majority of the population and received a new mandate for his agenda.

Second, the country on this list that proved most resilient relative to their problems was Ecuador. When you consider the conditions Ecuador faced this year (declining oil prices, global economic crisis) and the general instability the country has faced over the past decade, Ecuador has all the signs for potential instability. Yet, the government played its cards well. Potential problems within the political system or on security issues, whether in the capital or in rural indigenous communities, have been handled with greater care than the other countries on the list. Simply for structural reasons, I'd still place Ecuador on a list of countries likely to face instability in 2010, but Correa defied those expectations in 2009 and deserves credit for how he handled what could have been a year of major crisis.

Argentina also weathered the storm quite well, even though the government got pummeled in an election and continues to face very low approval ratings. No real threats of a coup or serious instability emerged this year (losing an election or low popularity do not equal instability). The economy trudged along in 2009, with serious economic threats constantly on the horizon, but never reaching the Kirchners, as it has been for several years now.

The other countries on this list didn't fare as well. Honduras, Guatemala and Paraguay all faced serious problems that did or threatened to topple the governments. Nicaragua falls in a category by itself. Peru, Venezuela and Haiti didn't see their central governments threatened, but did see serious clashes and challenges to the government's authority.

As has been well covered on this blog and elsewhere, Honduras saw a coup after an institutional battle. Honduras' weak democratic institutions, hurt economy and significant crime and impunity set the conditions for the fire and the institutional battle was the spark. That the military stepped in to resolve what should have been fought in the democratic institutions was a troubling symbol of the past for Latin America. There is little doubt this country deserved to be on the list and was the one where the conditions fell into place for a disaster.

Guatemala and Paraguay faced the largest threats outside of Honduras. Both governments were in doubt for a time and both governments lead the list of for potential instability heading into 2010. As bad as Honduras was in 2009, it's scarier to think that Guatemala and Paraguay were only a step or two behind during the past year. Like Honduras, both governments face weak democratic institutions, economies in crisis, rising crime, branches of government in opposition to each other and increasingly public concerns about the militaries' role in politics.

Nicaragua saw a near coup of another kind, as President Ortega committed some fairly blatant fraud in the local elections in late 2008 and repressed protests about those elections both on the streets and in the government's institutions. The regular clashes between the president, congress and courts led to a situation that in some ways mirrors Honduras but received far less attention. As the Honduran Supreme Court completely violated the spirit and letter of the constitution in their rulings against President Zelaya, the Sandinistas staged their own institutional coup in using the courts to grant Ortega power that violated the Nicaraguan constitution. 2010 enters with Ortega's popularity way down while he continues to reach for greater power for himself and his wife.

Peru's government stability was never in doubt this year, but the situation outside of Lima in 2009 was rather problematic. Protests in Bagua, the largest protests on the continent this year, left dozens of indigenous protesters and security forces dead and wounded. The government was forced to rescind its decrees that led to the protests. The events, which included human rights abuses, have not been fully investigated. Meanwhile, the federal government faces an increasing threat from drug traffickers posing as a resurgent Sendero Luminoso. That instability is combined with an underperforming economy and a population that clearly dislikes the central government.

Like Peru, Venezuela's government wasn't in jeopardy either. However, it continues to face what I've called the strong government, weak state paradox, and that situation deteriorated in 2009. The government cracked down on protesters, arrested political opponents on trumped up corruption charges, violated its own constitution in hamstringing opposition politicians at the local level and continued to centralize control around a single caudillo. Increasing tensions with Colombia and calling for the country to "prepare for war" added a new twist to the stability issue. Meanwhile, in spite of the institutional battles, the government doesn't have full control over its territory. FARC, ELN, Colombian and Venezuelan paramilitary groups, drug cartels, gangs and common criminals operate with virtual impunity inside of Venezuela. The crime rates are among the highest on the continent (and even the world) and the police are estimated to be responsible for 15-20% of the violent crime. President Chavez's actions and statements draw a lot of attention, but the economic and security conditions that exist beneath the surface are a much more troubling problem.

Haiti didn't so much face new instability as much as it simply continued to be the poorest and least developed country in the hemisphere. Preval's government remained in place, though he was forced to switch out prime ministers. The economic crisis hit Haiti hard, reducing remittances. Greater foreign aid was pledged, in part due to former US President Clinton's efforts to highlight the country, but delivery of effective foreign aid remains limited. Haiti's plight can't be represented in 2009 by a single unstable moment but rather an ongoing tragedy.

Finally, did I miss any countries? I know some people would have placed Mexico on the list of countries that faced instability 2009, but I wouldn't. For as bad as the drug violence is, it didn't really threaten the government. That could change in future years, but it didn't quite reach that level this year. Similarly, Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador all saw high crime and local areas where the government lacked control, but don't make the cut in my measurements.

I wrote this post because I was thinking about the problems in Honduras, Guatemala and Paraguay and wanted to look back to what I predicted earlier this year (also read this post written about stability analysis about two weeks ago). Prior to this year, we saw several years of relative calm and democratic elections. However, the security and economic conditions at the start of 2009 were a signal that was coming to an end. All in all, it was a troubling year for parts of Latin America, but it could have been a lot worse. Some countries are set to recover in 2010 while others seem ready to take 2009's problems and spiral downwards. I try to hope for the best, but I think we're in for another rocky year in 2010.