Instituciones democráticas y violencia política: El papel de la autorrestricción

Otros responsables
Fecha
12/2025
Editorial
Universidad San Pablo
Revista
Instituto de Estudios Sociales, Política y Cultura
Título del libro
Nombre del evento
Fecha del evento
Institución organizadora
ISSN
2525-1600
eISSN
ISBN
Idioma
Español
Tipo del evento
Clasificación temática
Palabras clave
Resumen
Este trabajo defiende la democracia como un mecanismo para evitar el conflicto violento entre actores políticos, pero cuestiona la suficiencia de su definición minimalista para garantizar la paz. A partir de la teoría de Przeworski, se explica cómo las elecciones competitivas, periódicas y respetadas crean incentivos para canalizar los conflictos dentro de las instituciones. Sin embargo, la evidencia muestra que incluso en democracias consolidadas la violencia puede estallar. Para dar cuenta de este fenómeno, propongo complementar la definición minimalista con la condición de autorrestricción: una norma informal que exige a oficialismo y oposición moderar el ejercicio de su poder para no impedir la participación efectiva del adversario. Retomando las ideas de Schumpeter, Kelsen, Linz y Bermeo, argumento que sin autocontrol, acuerdo y compromiso con las reglas democráticas, las instituciones pierden su capacidad de contener los conflictos y estos pueden desbordarse en violencia. En conclusión, sostengo que la democracia requiere no solo reglas y elecciones, sino también una disposición activa de los actores políticos a convivir con el adversario y respetar los límites de su propia fuerza.
This paper defends democracy as a mechanism to avoid violent conflict between political actors, but it questions whether the minimalist definition of democracy is sufficient to guarantee peace. Building on Przeworski‘s theory, it explains how competitive, periodic, and respected elections create incentives to channel conflict within institutional frameworks. However, evidence shows that violence can still erupt even in consolidated democracies. To address this, I propose complementing the minimalist definition with the self-restraint condition: an informal norm that requires both incumbents and opposition to moderate their exercise of power so as not to prevent the effective participation of their adversaries. Drawing on the ideas of Schumpeter, Kelsen, Linz, and Bermeo, I argue that without self-control, compromise, and commitment to democratic rules, institutions lose their ability to contain conflict, which may spill into violence. In conclusion, I contend that democracy requires not only rules and elections but also an active disposition of political actors to coexist with their opponents and respect the limits of their own power.
This paper defends democracy as a mechanism to avoid violent conflict between political actors, but it questions whether the minimalist definition of democracy is sufficient to guarantee peace. Building on Przeworski‘s theory, it explains how competitive, periodic, and respected elections create incentives to channel conflict within institutional frameworks. However, evidence shows that violence can still erupt even in consolidated democracies. To address this, I propose complementing the minimalist definition with the self-restraint condition: an informal norm that requires both incumbents and opposition to moderate their exercise of power so as not to prevent the effective participation of their adversaries. Drawing on the ideas of Schumpeter, Kelsen, Linz, and Bermeo, I argue that without self-control, compromise, and commitment to democratic rules, institutions lose their ability to contain conflict, which may spill into violence. In conclusion, I contend that democracy requires not only rules and elections but also an active disposition of political actors to coexist with their opponents and respect the limits of their own power.
Colecciones
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa
