Latin American Democracy Under Strain as Regional Reports Flag Polarisation and Crime

Across recent election cycles, rival candidates have repeatedly accused one another of weakening democratic norms. In the same period, a cluster of sobering assessments on democratic health across Latin America has entered public debate. Taken together, these developments point to widening unease about how governance is holding up in the region.

The United Nations Development Programme has issued a wide-ranging study on democracy and development, titled Democracies Under Pressure. In its foreword, the report states that current tensions "are unfolding in a context in which democracies face new and interconnected pressures. Political polarization has intensified. Organized crime and illicit economies have expanded their influence in some contexts. Digital platforms and artificial intelligence are transforming the public sphere and the way people participate in political life".

Separately, the Spanish journal Tiempo de Paz has published a special edition on governance across Latin America, edited by Paquita Sauquillo and Carlos F. Liesa. The volume surveys structural and contextual forces shaping democratic foundations in the region. Alongside pieces on economic conditions, security, violence, and rising migration, Marcela Ríos — International IDEA's representative for Latin America and former Minister of Justice of Chile — assesses a regional democracy caught between resilience and public disillusionment.

Both works converge on the view that Latin American democracy stands at a critical juncture, though they frame the problem in slightly different ways. The UNDP study says it "revisits the notion of a 'democracy of citizens' proposed by the UNDP report in 2004," while noting that it "incorporates the role of the State as a key mediator between democracy and human development." That stress on the state's central role marks a shift from the 2004 analysis, which placed greater weight on what it termed "the creation of citizenship".

That analytical split runs through several contributions and through the introduction to Tiempo de Paz's Latin America edition. At its core is a question of how democracy should be valued. One view treats democracy instrumentally, measuring it by the public goods it delivers — jobs, schooling, healthcare, and related services. Another treats democracy substantively, as a system through which societies can settle collective choices without violence. Where the instrumental view dominates, backing for democracy tends to rise and fall with wider structural shocks, including global economic downturns. Where the substantive value is widely understood, support is more likely to endure through hardship.

During the consultations that produced the 2004 democracy report, that dual understanding was distilled in a widely accepted line: "The quality of democracy depends not only on the quality of institutions, but also on the quality of citizenship" — in other words, on the strength of citizens' political culture. The 2004 document therefore treated citizenship-building as indispensable to consolidating what it called a democracy of citizens.

Even then, the 2004 report exposed divergent instincts between analysts who saw the state as the foundation of democratic progress and those who placed greater faith in citizens' political culture. In the 2026 UNDP study, voices favouring a stronger state-centred approach appear to have re-emerged as part of an effort to "reimagine the futures of democracy." Some will read that as a needed update; others may view it as a retreat from the citizenship-centred model that has drawn praise since 2004.

Yet, as Tiempo de Paz's special issue argues, the choice may be illusory. Strong, capable states and sustained work to deepen citizenship through a political culture that honours democracy's substantive worth need not be treated as opposing paths.