Associations and the Exercise of Democratic ... - Citizenship DRC

IDS WORKING PAPER 285In large countries, where sharp regional variation in government presence andpolitical practices are common, important causal relations can be masked instatistical analyses conducted with national-level data, as these average highvariations in the values of important explanatory variables. This is a particularlysignificant concern in countries where enclaves of the authoritarian clientelismassociated with ‘low intensity democracy’ coexists with regions where governmentdoes far better at enforcing civil or political rights and producing public goods fortheir realisation (O’Donnell 1993; Fox 1994; Foweraker and Landman 1997). Subnationalunits such as large urban centers constitute a universe with a higherdegree of internal homogeneity than national units and reduce this heterogeneityproblem (Snyder 2001). In the particular cases of Brazil and Mexico, the vigorousand pluralist associational sphere that is hypothesised to influence citizenship, andthe background condition of a relatively effective government presence, aredistributed in a highly uneven manner across national territory, and in particular inrural areas. Hence the selection of the two cities where these two factors arestrongly present is more appropriate than the selection of national units.São Paulo and Mexico City are most likely cases, if the generalisations based onthe experience of affluent democracies do not hold in these cases they will bepowerfully undermined (George and Bennett 2005: 120–1). The cities have the kindof substantial government presence that is considered a virtual prerequisite for thepossibility of high quality citizenship and vigorous associational sphere (Linz andStepan 1996: 37; O’Donnell 1993; Diamond 1999). For example, coverage ofmunicipal water supply and sanitation is close to 98 per cent of households. Andthe associational sphere is considered vibrant and substantial in both cities. On theother hand, Brazil and Mexico are middle-income countries which differ substantiallyfrom the affluent industrial democracies in which most existing research has beenconducted. As important urban centers in these countries, São Paulo and MexicoCity therefore provide a good test for the generalisations based on this research,exactly because they represent a different type of context. The two countries arerecent democracies, share long legacies of authoritarian rule and social relations,and have associational spheres that until recently were dominated by corporatistassociations under high levels of state control. Furthermore, the cases are locatedin countries that over the past three decades have seen the gradual emergence ofcompetitive democratic institutions and pluralist associational spheres.The political institutions and associational spheres in the two cities do, however,vary in important ways. The cities have different political histories and have playeddistinct roles in the national political life of their respective countries. At the timeof the survey, Brazil and Mexico were also at different moments in their respectivedemocratic trajectories: in the former democratisation involved a transition frommilitary rule, and a profound reform of the its historically weak and fragmentedparty system (1979), the writing of a new constitution (1988), and the first postmilitarydirect election of president in 1989; in the latter, democratisation involveda move from a one-party dominant regime to a multiparty regime, in which twoopposition parties became significant political contenders and, with reforms of theelectoral system, won political power at the national level in 2000 for the firsttime. The variation democratic trajectory and timing between the countries, and inthe role of the respective cities, provides a further test of any generalisations aboutassociations’ citizenship effects.20