Hilgers 2008

Hilgers, Tina. 2008. "Causes and Consequences of Political Clientelism: Mexico's PRD in Comparative Perspective". Latin American Politics and Society. 50 (4): 123-153. 

•  Introduction
• PRD has been dhandicapped by factionalism, personalism, and clientelism (123)
• PRD has lost many supporters because they have become disillusioned with PRD
• Why have PRD politicians come to use clientelism?
• External Factors
• poverty
• long history of clientelism in Mexican politics
• PRI's use of clientelism
• PRD founders proficiency at using clientielism
• Internal Factors
• party's strategy during democratic transition
• predominance of Cuauthémoc Cardenas and primacy of his political strategy set the party on a path of personalistic factions and centralized power (124)
• the PRD focused on elections
• did NOT focus on creating an institutionalized party
• thus leadership and alliances were personalized
• Comparison case: PT in Brazil
• shared similar external factors, but this party decided to create internal institutions
• Use of clientelism also ambiguous
• PRD client experiences range from exploitation to participatory community building (125)
• Defining Clientelism
• People of differing social status exchange goods and services for mutual benefit
• the durability of the relationship depends on its benefits outweighing its costs
• Gouldner (1977), clientelism not necessarily bad, "principle of reciprocity" (126)
• Flynn (1975) clentelism = elite control of masses
• Fox (1994)
• authoritarian clientelism = relationship of asymmetrical power
• semi-clientlelism = elites have no capacity to ensure compliance
• heart of clientelism = tension between positive and negative processes (127)
• but just describing it as "exchange of goods" does not distinguish clientelism from patronage, vote-buying, or pork-barreling
• The Initial Causes of Perredista Clientelism
• PRI used camarillas extensively, networks through which (128)
• groups endorsed successful figures
• and actors moved up in the ranks of government as their mentors did
• though much of the lower classes likely voted for Cárdenas in 1988, they couldn't afford to continue to support him post-election because this would threaten their relationship with PRI government
• Given this environment, Cárdenas and his supporters decided to consooidate the amalgam of the FDN into a party (129)
• immediate problems:  this party was ridiculously divided ideologically
• only thing everyone agreed on: they wanted to beat the PRI
• Generally three big currents (FAR fro internally homogeneous)
• institutional, independent left -- all the previous left parties, ended up being sort of center-left
• social left/civil society organizations -- left, but did not fit in with institutional groups...mobilizers, student movements, etc
• ex-priistas -- no unity, just wanted to beat PRI
• Cárdenas believed best strategy was electoral, just try and get PRI unelected at every level
• democratic transition immediately, radical change could come later
• primacy of his vision legitimated  Cárdenas even though he ran for Presidency of PRD unopposed (130)
• ((some FDN groups didn't join PRD, either wanting to maintain independence or not anger PRI))
• PRD never formally detailed procedures for structuring the currents and ensuring internal democracy in PRD (131)
• no horizontal links in the party...all info flowed through Cárdenas!
• the currents began to seem like the PRI's camarillas
• BUT the PRD didn't have as much access to resources, so internal competition over resource was worse
• each current was organized around one "strong man"
• everything became a negotiation, internal elections became undeniably fraudulent/negotiated
• The rise of AMLO split the party between Cárdenas and AMLO (152)
• AMLO made alliances with external groups, which strengthened his position but weakened party unity
• At times the PRD's desire to win elections has overshadowed its principles
• some candidates are courted purely because of their clientelist networks
• In 2004 Congress the pRD noted the issues of clientelism and corruption in the party, tried to ameliorate them, but of course these changes totally failed to win overall support (133)
• The PRD in Government
• even in elected local government there are disputes between members of different currents
• In the Federal District (134)
• the PRD promised to regulate taxis drivers (piratas who rob people), vendors and squatters
• but instead allied with them to increase PRD voter strength
• groups/citizens that are unable/unwilling to make such alliances are immediately and a disadvantage
• THERE HAVE BEEN SOME GOOD DEVELOPMENTS IN DF (135)
• but these tend to be undermined by the methods through which they were achieved
• AMLO portected the poor through unorthodox and extra-constitutional means
• in the end, this is probably bad for democracy
• PRD administrator in Nezhualcóyotl, Estado Mexico, made government way more tasnparent
• BUT this meant he/his faction was less able to negotiate party positions and policy
• in Chiapas clients  who leave the PRD are repressed (136)
• My Take: OVERALL: Good governing undermines ability for people to move up in PRD
• Now people just expect the PRD to be clientelistic, nationwide (137)
• Comparison to PT in Brazil
• PT faced authoritarian beginnings, lots of clientelism in country, and success hinged on Lula's personalistic leadership (138-139)
• PT still does patronage and targeted social programs, but this isn't like the PRD's clientelism (139)
• patronage does note = clientelism (140)
• Blosa Familia is universal, so while its good for PT votes, it doesn't exactly have the same connotation as focused clientelistic distribution of benefits
• My Take: Splitting hairs a bit, but there is something less bad about PT's clentelism than the PRD's
• While PRD though winning electiosn was key, the PT did not think this was enough (141)
• PT's early focus was on building organization, seeking POLICY change first!
• PT adopted democratic procedures early on and the rules are enforced, as is party unity
• PT's connection with voters/its base have kept it from becoming a catch-all party
• The Clients' Perspective
• in some instances clientelism is the best method for keeping politicians accountable, and could build community (142)
• FPFV, squatters group, allied with PRD in DF
• demonstrating and rallying with PRD became mandatory to get apartment/material benefits (143)
• if you left group, they didn't return your deposit assuming you wouldn't have the legal means/stamina to get it back
• clearly it is tough being in this alliance, but members have few resources and few alternatives (144)...some think it's a fine bargain, others don't
• some in DF sought clientelistic linkages to provide for themselves, but found they built community and political power as well (145)
• Conclusion
• Those wo stick with PRD after engaging in clientelism are not the poorest of the poor, nor are they in highly exploitative relationships with their patron (147)
•