Adding Collective Actors to Collective Outcomes: Labor and Recent Democratization in South America and Southern Europe

The study of late twentieth century democratic transitions has become a major topic in comparative politics, and one particular analytic framework, which gives primacy to elite strategic choice, has become virtually hegemonic.' Despite a number of critiques, this approach continues to shape scholarly understandings of recent process of democratization. Yet a single framework can not possibly embrace whole panoply of issues raised by these transitions. An alternative line of analysis not easily accommodated within dominant account is role of collective actors. Contra dominant paradigm, present study explores role of one particular collective actor, organized labor movement, in recent democratic transitions in South America and southern Europe. Focusing on collective action undertaken by unions and labor-affiliated parties, we argue that labor movement often played an important role in recent transitions. Labor was not limited to an indirect role, in which protest around workplace demands was answered through cooptive inclusion in electoral arena. Rather, labor movement was one of major actors in political opposition, explicitly demanding a democratic regime. In some cases union-led protest for democracy contributed to a climate of ungovernability and delegitimation that led directly to a general destabilization of authoritarian regimes. Moreover, continual protest, rather than creating an authoritarian backlash, kept transition moving forward. Finally, while protest of other groups also put regime on defensive, labor-based organizations went further in two ways: they often won a place in negotiations, and they expanded scope of contestation in successor regime. The dominant paradigm has built upon founding essay by O'Donnell and Schmitter, which emphasizes role of leadership and elite interaction. While that essay suggests that the greatest challenge to transitional regime is likely to come from . . collective action of working class, it also emphasizes ephemeral nature of popular upsurge and subsequent decline of people.2 Other comparative analyses and theoretical accounts, focusing more exclusively on elite interaction, have not picked up on this theme. This article argues that union-led protest was much more central to democratization process