Organized Labor and Democracy in Latin America

Although the relationship between organized labor and democracy in Latin America has long been considered to be important, it remains the subject of substantial dis pute. Several influential scholars, most notably Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens, have argued that organized labor is a consistent champion of democracy and that, consequently, strong labor movements make democratic outcomes more likely.1 However, evidence from Latin America calls this argument into question. Although Latin American labor movements have often played a leading role in strug gles against dictatorships, their record with respect to democracy has been mixed. In several countries, including Argentina, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru, labor move ments actively backed nondemocratic regimes during the latter half of the twentieth century. In other cases, unions either supported coups against elected governments (Argentina, Bolivia) or engaged in maximalist strategies that put democratic regimes at risk (Chile, Bolivia, Peru). This article seeks to explain variation in labor support for democracy in Latin America since 1945. Based on a comparative analysis of the seven most populous countries in Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, and Chile), as well as two smaller countries in which labor movements have had a major impact on regimes (Bolivia and Nicaragua), it argues that labor movements' regime orientation hinged on two factors: the nature of their partisan alliances and the perceived regime alternatives. Although a few Latin American labor movements aligned themselves with solidly democratic parties after 1945, most were aligned with Marxist or populist parties that held instrumental views toward democracy. These labor movements fought for democracy when no better alternative existed or when their leaders believed that democracy would further their material and organi zational interests. However, where inclusionary nondemocratic regime alternatives existed or were perceived to be viable alternatives, they often failed to fight for democracy and sometimes fought against it. In other words, Latin American labor movements were contingent democrats.2 These findings not only challenge arguments that organized labor is a consistent champion of democracy, but they also call into question the essentialist assumption underlying those claims: that labor's political behavior can be reduced to the defense