Setting the Comparative Agenda: Territorially Uneven Democratization Processes in Large Federations

Abstract

This chapter offers a comparative historical analysis of the nature and scope of variations in political rights at the subnational level in the worlds six largest federal democracies--Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the United States in the Americas, as well as India and Russia--thus covering federations that underwent democratic transitions in the first, second, and third waves of democratization. The aim is to demonstrate and explain the marked divergences in the extent and quality of political rights held by citizens in different subunits of these democracies. There is a growing literature on the persistence after the transition to democracy of illiberal or authoritarian politics at the subnational level that has emphasized the uneven spread of democratic practices in different federal states. It shows that the existence of brown areas (O Donnell 1993), authoritarian enclaves (Gibson 2012; Mickey 2015), or closed games (Behrend 2011) lead to the partial or incomplete application of democratic norms that are supposed to prevail nationally. This subject has received increased scholarly attention under the rubric of subnational authoritarianism,and building on that, we extend our coverage to a wider range of analogous cases under the rubric of subnational illiberal structures and practices.