Federal Intervention and Subnational Democratization in Argentina: A Comparative Perspective

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to our understanding of how subnational democratization occurs by undertaking a comparative historical analysis of three Argentine provinces that faced federal intervention in the second and third decades after national democratization. In it I aim to identify some of the areas in which illiberal political structures and practices can be expected to democratize in the face of an external shock (federal intervention) and some of the areas in which we are more likely to observe resilience. The chapter has a long-term perspective that does not focus exclusively on the period immediately after the federal intervention but rather assesses the political changes that occurred at least a decade after federal intervention. This long-term perspective allows me to take into account the possibility of decreasing effects or, on the contrary, of effects that become evident only with the lapse of time (Pierson 2004). The evidence presented in the chapter suggests that federal intervention can dismantle repressive political structures and practices, put an end to human rights violations and state-protected violence (for example, by the police), and bring about alternation in office in the short term. However, the case studies show that federal intervention alone is unlikely to put an end to family politics, state capture, and the interdependence between the three branches of government, which should (ideally) be separate and function as checks and balances.