In this episode, I talk to Dr. Javier Corrales, professor of Political Science at Amherst College. Dr. Corrales' research focuses on democratization, democratic backsliding, populism, foreign policies, and sexuality. He has also published extensively on Latin America and the Caribbean.
We talk about all of these things – advancement of queer rights in Latin America, why these countries seem to be liberalizing in this area when other regions of the world are experiencing significant contractions on queer rights, which characteristics of Latin American societies and politics influence liberalization on queer rights, what makes Cuba unique on this issue and in this region, the role that religion plays in queer rights advancement and contraction, what signs indicate democratic backsliding, and if we in the United States are still vulnerable to the rise of authoritarianism.
And, I also discuss the profound influence that Sinead O'Connor had on my social and political development. RIP.
Recommended:
Telltale Signs of Democratic Backsliding - Javier Corrales
The Politics of LGBTQ Rights Expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean – Javier Corrales
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
Post.news
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
**Artwork: Dovi Design
**Music: Joystock
In this episode, I talk to Dr. Javier Corrales, professor of Political Science at Amherst College. Dr. Corrales' research focuses on democratization, democratic backsliding, populism, foreign policies, and sexuality. He has also published extensively on Latin America and the Caribbean.
We talk about all of these things – advancement of queer rights in Latin America, why these countries seem to be liberalizing in this area when other regions of the world are experiencing significant contractions on queer rights, which characteristics of Latin American societies and politics influence liberalization on queer rights, what makes Cuba unique on this issue and in this region, the role that religion plays in queer rights advancement and contraction, what signs indicate democratic backsliding, and if we in the United States are still vulnerable to the rise of authoritarianism.
And, I also discuss the profound influence that Sinead O'Connor had on my social and political development. RIP.
Recommended:
Telltale Signs of Democratic Backsliding - Javier Corrales
The Politics of LGBTQ Rights Expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean – Javier Corrales
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
Post.news
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
**Artwork: Dovi Design
**Music: Joystock
Dr. Javier Corrales - Latin America Goes Left on LGBTQ+ Rights (and a Tribute to Sinead O'Connor)
[00:00:00] Javier: In countries where conservative religious groups are growing in the electorate, which can be measured in terms of the expansion of the evangelical vote, where they're growing, that's like a new market for votes that the right wing populace have discovered that's available for them to mobilize and notice that it is a sector that can be mobilized into a political coalition without promising to engage in distribution system.
[00:00:31] That's the beauty of the alliance with religion, is that you don't have to promise them that you're going to give them very expansive social programs. Instead, what you promise to give them is a cultural battle. A battle against secularism, A battle against feminism, a battle against radical L G B T Q politics.
[00:00:54] You offer them a Christian conservative crusade of sorts.[00:01:00]
[00:01:05] Shawn: Welcome to Deep Dive with me, Shawn c Fettig. I wanna open today's episode with some of my thoughts about the recent death of someone that's had a profound impact on my life. Sinead O'Connor was pronounced dead after being found unresponsive at her home in London on July 26th. She was just 56 years old. In 1990, Sinead O'Connor released the album.
[00:01:31] I Do Not Want What I haven't got. That's the one that her huge hit. Nothing compares to you was on. I was 14 at the time, and that album transformed me. Every song had
[00:01:42] meaning and resonance in a way that I just hadn't been exposed to in music up to that point. It cracked through the shiny overproduced, eighties pop and power ballad industry that was dominating at the time, and for me, marked a definitive direction change in music, a clear [00:02:00] demarcation between the overindulgent music of the eighties to the alternative moodier, more contemplative music of the nineties.
[00:02:08] The album was enlightening. The idea that music could be used to highlight injustice, to tell tough stories, to be irreverent and confrontational,
[00:02:17] to hold the powerful to
[00:02:18] account. This wasn't a new thing. The music of the late sixties and into the seventies did the same, but I hadn't grown up in that era.
[00:02:26] I had grown up hearing bands like Banana Ram, poison, guns N Roses, wham, Michael Jackson, Madonna, et cetera. I'm not slamming it. They all had great music, but it didn't resonate with me in any social or political
[00:02:40] way. It didn't
[00:02:41] move me. It didn't form me. It was just the sound around me. Sinead and her music changed all of that for me.
[00:02:49] I was just beginning to consider my sexuality and coming off of a pretty involved Christian upbringing. I didn't really know anything about myself, but I knew that the direction I had been taking in my life [00:03:00] wasn't sustainable for me. It couldn't fulfill the things I was curious about, interested in or questioning.
[00:03:07] Sinead embodied a defiance and resistance to destructive social norms and secrets. The very things that were starting to feel intrusive and constraining in my life. Sade's music was sexy and empowering at the same time that it was unassuming and vulnerable. It gave me strength and modeled for me how to embody my own identity without shame or belligerence.
[00:03:30] I was watching Saturday Night Live on October 3rd, 1992 when Sinead ripped up the photo of the Pope, and I didn't even get it in that moment, but nonetheless, it was so powerful and the reaction was eye-opening. It revealed to me something that I had suspected about the quote unquote good and virtuous people around me and influencing me both near and distant.
[00:03:53] The vitriol that came from good, forgiving religious folks, and even creatives, musicians, and actors, and [00:04:00] writers, in response to that moment, pulled back the curtain on the hypocrisy of the narrative that I'd been sold on that religious people and creative people and elders are all wise and kind and forgiving and accepting.
[00:04:15] I saw the charade
[00:04:15] for what it was, lip service that only holds up when we conform. If we challenge that veneer of wisdom and kindness of forgiveness and acceptance, all hell breaks loose. You're not just outta the tribe, but targeted viciously. Sade's career. Never really recovered from that moment on
[00:04:36] Saturday Night Live,
[00:04:37] but I always followed her in her music.
[00:04:40] I worried that due to her unwillingness to conform, to apologize when people demanded it, that it left her isolated and reviled and maybe even in poverty. In recent years, Sinead has talked about having no regrets about the things she said
[00:04:56] and done, that she was
[00:04:57] always true to herself and her values, [00:05:00] and that in many ways the things that she did that derailed her music career were the same things that set her free.
[00:05:07] She never had to compromise herself for the industry. And this has been its own lesson for me decades later, that the security that comes from conformity is miles wide, yes, but inches deep and in end being able to live with ourselves and our choices. Is more important than being able to live with anyone else and their expectations.
[00:05:28] Incidentally, given what we've learned about the Catholic Church in the years following that appearance on Saturday Night Live, the jaw dropping widespread abuse and continuing coverup and evasion of accountability on the part of the church, the entire world, ocean Aid and apology, I hold Sinead O'Connor in the highest regard.
[00:05:49] She was nothing but in addition to this world. Alright, shifting gears.
[00:05:54] Today's guest is not an expert on Sinead O'Connor, but he is an expert on something equally important [00:06:00] and of great relevance to this moment in our global politics. Dr. Javier Corrales is a professor of political science at Amherst College.
[00:06:09] His research focuses on democratization, democratic backsliding, populism, foreign policies, and sexuality. He's also published extensively on Latin America and the Caribbean. We talk about all of these things, advancement of queer rights in Latin America, why these countries seem to be liberalizing in this area, when other regions of the world are experiencing significant contractions, which characteristics of Latin American societies and politics influence liberalization on queer rights?
[00:06:38] What makes Cuba unique on this issue and in this region? The role that religion plays in queer rights, advancement and contraction. What signs indicate democratic backsliding and if we in the United States are still vulnerable to the rise of authoritarianism? Before the interview though, one housekeeping note, if you're following the podcast, don't be alarmed when [00:07:00] Fridays our usual episode drop date goes deep.
[00:07:03] Dive silent. We're not ghosting you. Beginning with the next episode of Deep dive. New releases will occur on Sundays,
[00:07:11] so adjust your
[00:07:11] lives accordingly. If you like this episode or any episode, please give it a like on your favorite podcast platform and or subscribe to the podcast on YouTube. And as always, if you have any thoughts, questions, or comments, please feel free to email me at deep dive with Shawn@gmail.com.
[00:07:30] Let's do a deep
[00:07:31] dive.
[00:07:37] Dr. Corrales, thanks for being here. How are you?
[00:07:40] Javier: I'm well, thank you so much, Shawn.
[00:07:42] Shawn: So let's just jump right in. I'm starting from the premise that large swats of Latin America are liberalizing in the area of L G B T Q rights, but I wanna give you the opportunity to disabuse me of that notion if I'm incorrect, but if I am correct, this is happening at a [00:08:00] time when there's a pretty strong contraction in this area in most other places in the world, the United States being one of those places.
[00:08:06] So first, I guess the question is, am I characterizing this correctly? And second, why do you think this is happening?
[00:08:13] Javier: Well, I think it is true that it is happening. I am not sure yet how much more progress we're gonna continue to get, but there's no question that in the two thousands and especially the two 10, the region experienced a remarkable transformation in the legal environment with, um, many countries becoming champions of L G B T rights.
[00:08:44] Not all of them, and some countries far more than others. But where it happened, it almost happened in ways that were very unpredictable given the starting point and given how far they reached. So yes, [00:09:00] today, some of the most L G B T Q friendly countries in the world, legally speaking can be found in Latin America.
[00:09:09] And this is really a remarkable transformation in a region known for a lot of conservatism and some degree of religiosity.
[00:09:19] Shawn: So you mentioned some countries doing really well and then some not so
[00:09:24] well, and there's something else that you said that I kind of want to dig into, which is
[00:09:28] maybe we've kind of hit a wall.
[00:09:31] So I'm wondering which, which countries are doing really well in Latin America, because I have my idea, but I'm realizing that it's so subjective as to what is considered liberalizing. If it's relative to, you know, European countries, that pool is much smaller, right? Like same-sex marriage isn't, I don't believe it's legal across Mexico, but in some states, right?
[00:09:52] But we do consider that to be liberalizing. So I guess I'm wondering which countries are doing really well and then which are [00:10:00] lagging. And for each of those, maybe why we might see a surge in protection in some places and not in others.
[00:10:08] Javier: So, uh, you're right. We have some countries that I call high achievers where the, at least in terms of the law, and sometimes in terms of uh, number of other policies, they actually rival.
[00:10:23] Some European countries are at the very level, and so that would be countries like Argentina and Uruguay, and even Costa Rica. Then you have countries that are more intermediate, where they may have civil unions approved and have, uh, certain policies that are where you have bureaucracies committed to, to fighting discrimination, including discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual identity, gender expression, and then you have all these laggards.
[00:10:55] They are there, they have mostly decriminalized homosexuality. [00:11:00] But they haven't really expanded the portfolio of rights. So there is that variation. And so I think the most important question that you seem to be asking me is what would be the common element that might help us understand this difference?
[00:11:16] The difference between some countries being fully on board and countries a little bit behind, if not fully behind. Mm-hmm. And you know, I think this is a, I wish I could give you, there is one element that's in common, but I can tell you some of the things that the high achievers have in common. I think the first thing that they have is, Liberal democracy is fairly strong and, uh, the ruling party is not a populist party and faces some degree of competition.
[00:11:46] And this competition drives them to think of ways of mobilizing new voters. And this leads them somehow to try to eventually discover that there is a progressive vote out there that [00:12:00] is worth mobilizing. So that would be the first thing, but that's certainly not enough and not all liberal democracies have.
[00:12:10] Liberalized. So for example, Panama and the Dominican Republic are liberal democracies, but they are among the least achieving countries. So really you need to do go beyond liberal democracy. But there's no question that, just to reiterate point I just made, where you have a populist ruling party, a party that is not really committed to liberal democracy, you normally are not gonna see significant progress here.
[00:12:34] So my answer here is that some degree of liberal democracy seems to be a contributing factor. An element of populism in office seems to be a big obstacle, but it's not enough. It's not enough to think about the orientation of the regime and the orientation of the ruling party. Perhaps the second important characteristic, Shawn, is that, and I think the most decisive is that as in the United States, some of the biggest [00:13:00] wins for the L G B T Q community has come by way of the courts.
[00:13:05] So the hypothesis from this is that you're only gonna see these rights expanding in countries where you have a certain degree of independence of the courts, some degree of professionalism of the courts, some degree of concern with social justice by the courts, in other words, not to conservative courts.
[00:13:23] And this typically works if the country's not too religious. If you see growing rates of secularism happening in this particular country, measured in different ways, and this might be perhaps the winning combination. The totality would be you want to have a liberal democracy with a ruling party that is respectful of, uh, competitive party politics together with strong courts and a certain degree of rising secularism in the country.
[00:13:55] And then that might give you an ability to predict where you're gonna [00:14:00] see some of these rights expanding for the past 20 years.
[00:14:04] Shawn: So you hit on precisely on two things that I wanna talk about that are, at least in the United States, probably in Europe, are studied in tandem with liberalization of L G B T Q rights, and that's how we got there.
[00:14:16] So how were those rights conferred? But then the other is the intersection between support for L G B T Q rights and religiosity. So I wanna dig into that, but before we get there, as you're talking, there's another country that, given what we've just been talking about, I'd be interested in getting your thoughts about Mets, Cuba, because I believe the population, if I, and correct me if I'm wrong, just voted to at least open the door to same-sex marriage in Cuba.
[00:14:43] And I don't think that we would consider this to be a strongly liberal democratic government. So I wonder what you think is happening there.
[00:14:52] Javier: So Cuba definitely seems to be an exception to the part of the argument that says it helps if you have a liberal democracy, [00:15:00] because in Cuba we have a full fledged authoritarian regime, one party rule, and you don't have free and fair elections.
[00:15:08] You just have an election for one party, and you do have legally same-sex marriage. The one aspect about the argument that I deployed earlier that gets confirmed by Cuba is that it is a country that has, you know, where religious actors have never been that influential. It doesn't have a powerful Catholic church, and evangelical churches haven't expanded significantly.
[00:15:34] So that would be one thing. But nevertheless, what is happening in Cuba is that for some reason the regime is interested in expanding same sex ride, same sex marriage rights. Without expanding other rights, without expanding other political and civil rights, and even human rights. So the [00:16:00] expansion, the, the granting of same-sex marriage that has happened in Cuba is somewhat limited because there's so many other rights that are missing and that you would want to have as well.
[00:16:15] And so, yes, this is a case where you do have the approval of same-sex marriage, but at the same time, it comes in a package where some of the great benefits of having such a right are unenjoyable because so many other rights are being violated. The Cuban regime for a while was embracing the following slogan, homophobia, no.
[00:16:44] Socialism. Yes. The idea was that, you know, we're gonna be anti homophobic, but we also want to be supportive of a particular government ideology and the ideology that justifies a non pluralistic [00:17:00] society. And so I always see the expansion of L G B T rights in Cuba sounding far greater than what it really is because of this restriction of other civil, political, and human rights in Cuba.
[00:17:13] Now another aspect of the Cuban case that is really remarkable is that it is one of those cases that produced same-sex marriage rights by way of a referendum. And normally we tend to prefer not to go that route, not to go through the root of asking majorities to determine if minorities should have rights.
[00:17:32] Mm-hmm. But they did it in Cuba. It was kind of risky. I was always wondering if they were hoping that the citizens weren't going to approve it. But, uh, citizens did approve it because they approved a larger, larger reform of the constitution. And this was one of the elements. And in Cuba, people tend to vote yes for whatever the government tells them to do.
[00:17:52] So in the end, it worked out. It had a happy ending. But like I said, this was perhaps my least favorite route [00:18:00] toward same sex marriage rights that I would think of. But they got to where they are and that is worth celebrating.
[00:18:09] Shawn: To an untrained eye and unfamiliar with the, the nuance and individuality of each of the Latin American countries, not only their politics, but their history, et cetera.
[00:18:21] We might look at a place like Cuba and associate it with other places like maybe Venezuela to some degree. Mm-hmm. Maybe there's better, maybe there's better examples. But my question is, is Cuba so unique in this aspect that we couldn't expect this to be modeled in places like Venezuela? Or does this open the door for something similar happening in other countries that are more oppressive?
[00:18:44] Javier: Yeah. This is so interesting because you're right that Inland America, we have other left wing, hard populist, semi authoritarian, or fully authoritarian regimes. That have [00:19:00] not been that open-minded about L G B T rights, and the question is, how come Cuba isn't the bigger inspiration for those countries when Cuba is an inspiration for those countries in other domains?
[00:19:15] That's a, a remarkable questions, and I think here's where you see the difficulty that populist regimes tend to have when it comes to expanding rights more broadly. I think Cuba, because it is such a consolidated dictatorship where there's really no risk to the ruling party, they can sometimes do a few things that are a bit more daring than some of these populous regimes that face a significant degree of opposition and which are somewhat not fully consolidated.
[00:19:54] That might be the answer, but I'm just speculating because this is a, an interesting question and the question the [00:20:00] countries that I'm thinking of are countries like, for example, Venezuela, which you mentioned Nicaragua. Mm-hmm. Uh, one could even mention a very, you know, a liberal democracy, but very much aligned with socialist Cuba's ideology, which is Antigua and Barbuda small Caribbean island.
[00:20:20] And so the question is how common on this front, on the issue of L G B T rights, Cuba has not been so, so inspirational. Uh, again, great question. I don't think that Cuba is in the business of engaging in gay diplomacy. I don't think the Cuban government promotes this when it goes abroad. Right, right. Uh, trying so this isn't really a, a, a top issue.
[00:20:44] So it's not like they're out there promoting this notion. But yeah, no, you are right. The Cuba root toward same-sex marriage has not been replicated by other Cuba followers in Latin America. Mm-hmm.
[00:21:00] Shawn: [00:21:00] So you did mention how Cuba got here, so you know, the referendum and whether or not in a liberal democracy, or I suppose anywhere if we want the majority to be making decisions about the rights of the minority.
[00:21:13] Leading up to the Supreme Court decision in the United States, in Obergefell in 2015, that recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, there had been a debate for many years prior. As to whether it was more prudent to pursue legalization of same-sex marriage and I suppose the penumbra of L G B T Q rights that are associated via the ballot box or via the judiciary.
[00:21:36] And ultimately that battle was won at the judiciary. But one argument is that the ballot box is a more clear sign that the public is on board with something as opposed to at least a characterization of the court imposing its will on what could be an unwilling public. You bring up a very interesting point that there are also concerns as it relates to the public voting [00:22:00] on who gets rights and who doesn't.
[00:22:02] You know, and I think maybe to some degree we're seeing the fruits of that choice pursuing the judiciary in the United States bearing out a little bit in some of the kind of anti L G B T rhetoric and legislation that we're seeing. It is eroding public opinion, but it does make me wonder how legalization of marriage equality in expansion of L G B T Q rights in Latin American countries.
[00:22:23] Is playing out. So I know that in some places it's judicial. I think Costa Rica is judicial driven. But in other places like Cuba, as we mentioned, this was, you know, a referendum. So I guess I'm wondering if there's something unique about the history of some of these countries that gives more validity to legislatures or judiciaries that's different than in the United States.
[00:22:44] And I guess what I'm getting at here is, does it matter in places like Columbia or in Costa Rica if the judiciary has legalized same-sex marriage versus something like the legislature? Or does it matter inversely in other countries, if it's the legislature which [00:23:00] is representative quote unquote by the people or by referendum versus something like the judiciary?
[00:23:06] Is this making sense?
[00:23:07] Javier: It does make sense and it deserves a, a complex answer because it's a complex issue. I think in political science for many decades now, we have become familiar with the understanding that. Different forms of being Democratic has each its prose and its disadvantages. So we tend to think of three, at least three ways in which countries can be democratic.
[00:23:34] One is, let's decide thing, by majority vote, this is the electoral view of democracy. But we also have the liberal view of democracy, which is that you must make sure that you impose limits on the majority. The winning party cannot rule as they wish. And then you have the participatory form of democracy where you always think of, do you wanna make sure that non-dominant groups are included?
[00:23:58] So you have these three forms. [00:24:00] And the idea is that going too far in each of them, or exclusively on each of them may produce drawbacks. And this is especially true of the first form of being democratic, which is majoritarian rule. Obviously it is the sce equin on of democracy. You cannot have democracy if you don't have a system of majority rule, but you cannot exclusively rely on majority rule for everything that a polity faces, and especially when determining questions of rights, and especially rights of minorities, and especially when the dominant sentiment of the majority is intensely biased against that minority.
[00:24:42] Obviously to use majoritarianism or to even use a representative system that is reflecting that majoritarianism will give you a very un democratic outcome. So we have to imagine ways of enhancing democracy [00:25:00] by going beyond merely electoral or majoritarianism, especially when we face the situation. When the L G B T Q Rights Movement, the L G B T Q legal revolution began in Latin America.
[00:25:16] Most publics, most groups in the electorate were decisively against going in this direction. So you couldn't rely on plebiscite because the outcome was going to be preordained. This is what happens when you have dominant discrimination. Going with elector is simply going to reaffirm forms of discrimination.
[00:25:41] So you need alternative forms. And you know, one form is to perhaps get the judiciary to make this kind of decision. And this is how many countries have done it. I think there are only two countries in Latin America that produced the first round of same-sex marriage through [00:26:00] legislatures voting for it.
[00:26:01] And only one country has done it through plebiscite Cuba. Although the plebiscite in Cuba doesn't quite count as full democracy. So the most common route has tended to be through some kind of judicial ruling, as was the case in the United States. Like I said, I'm very comfortable with that, but I also know that using the judiciary also produces key drawbacks.
[00:26:25] And I think you were referring to, to one potential drawback, and that is that people feel that a small group of elites, these judges who are really, really, really, really minor. Are dictating a change in the legal system that everybody has to accept and this can produce a backlash. Absolutely, that is a risk, but I do think that there was no other way around it because Majoritarianism was going to give you, if you had chosen to use majoritarianism, given where public [00:27:00] opinion was in Latin America in the two thousands and 2000 tens, which was decidedly homophobic and decidedly conservative and decidedly uneducated about many of these topics, then we would have produced sort of like the continuation of the status quo, and that would've been very unacceptable for inclusion of these groups.
[00:27:21] That said, let me just say something more on behalf of having done many of these changes by way of the judiciary, it is not true when we say that many of these rights came by way of the judiciary. It is not true that what happened was that. People in a particular country were not even aware that this debate was happening.
[00:27:42] And one day they woke up and they read the newspapers or, or, or saw their, their Twitter feeds and said, oh, the courts have legalized same-sex marriage. No, many times. These rulings occurred after many years of very public debate [00:28:00] and a significant degree of deliberation in the country, and very technically well prepared legal briefings that were produced by many actors of society.
[00:28:14] So we do say that many of these changes came by way of judiciary, but as was the case in the United States, these rulings were the result of many, many years of debates, mobilization, political activities. The one thing that was skipped was the plebiscite, the electoral mechanism, but. Even the part that is so fundamental to democracy, which is the part about deliberation, discussion, debate, mobilization being out there was also part of the process, even when in the end, the final arbiter was the judiciary that acted in these cases.
[00:28:55] Shawn: So something that strikes me, and again, I'm seeing this through the lens of the experience [00:29:00] that we're having in the United States, and I think this is maybe correlative, but it's hard not to see it this way, which is given this debate that we were having in the United States. Is it a good idea to be relying on the judiciary to do this if at the time, the majority of the public, however you wanna measure the majority, which is in and of itself complicated science, but you know, does that create a potential problem or cracks in that facade in the future?
[00:29:25] And what we saw is, you know, support for L G B T Q rights after that Supreme Court decision in Obergefell only seemed to increase. Yes. But this is still considered an outgroup and we have seen politicians take advantage of that in the past handful of years. And as a result, we have seen an erosion in support, relatively significant, at least for a, uh, a certain portion of the population over the last year and a half or so.
[00:29:52] And the reason I'm, I'm mentioning this is because we then look back, I think, through this lens and question whether or not it has something to do with the fact that this [00:30:00] was judicially sought. But it makes me wonder if the support. Was always maybe a bit fragile because of that. And then I guess to turn this into the direction of our conversation, do you think that the support in Latin America where L G B T rights have advanced in the last handful of years is fragile?
[00:30:18] Or do you think it's durable?
[00:30:21] Javier: Well, I always think, uh, all rights are fragile, but let me nevertheless make a case on behalf of some degree of durability here. Yes, you're absolutely right that the judicial route to L G B T Q rights opened itself to a right wing populist backlash. I mean, right wing, because it is the groups that are opposed to many of these rights tend to be from a certain sector of the right, and they have adopted a bit of a populous discourse in many countries based on the idea that some of these.[00:31:00]
[00:31:00] Very progressive ideas are coming to us by way of elites rather than by way of majorities. And so they organize themselves as an outcry against liberal elites, which includes judges or which includes a small minority of very progressive politicians who are champions of these rights. It is absolutely true that it has, in many ways, one could argue, not created the backlash, but certainly propagated empowered a right-wing populist backlash.
[00:31:31] And this is true, I think it was inevitable the right wing backlash was gonna happen, whether it was gonna adopt a populist discourse or some other discourse. But I think it was to some extent, inevitable that this form of, um, inclusion expansion was going to produce some kind of pushback. But anyway, yes, it is here.
[00:31:51] So now let me turn to the question of has this resistance, this backlash produced, uh, some kind of legal [00:32:00] backlash? Interestingly, Shawn, I do think that in the United States, remarkable, remarkably, we are seeing far more of a backlash than in Latin America. Legally, at least in the United States. We're now back to debating issues of should trans uh, people have rights and issues of being able to discriminate in public accommodations.
[00:32:21] But so far in Latin America, we haven't seen the kind of backlash that we're seeing in the United States. Who knows? Maybe it's just a matter of waiting and it'll happen as well. But I think there has been a certain degree of remarkable resilience of some of these decisions once the courts have, have finally endorsed them.
[00:32:44] That makes me feel like, ugh, perhaps. It was worth the risk, the risk being, the potential for a right wing populous backlash. But you're absolutely right. The pop, the right wing populous backlash is also there in Latin [00:33:00] America as we have it in the United States. I just don't think that they have made us much of an inroad with retreating and pushing back some of those rights as we have seen in the United States.
[00:33:11] So there has been some element of survival survivability that is worth keeping in mind. But do I feel like L G B T rights are absolutely safe in Latin America? Of course not, but so far, so far, there they are.
[00:33:26] Shawn: So this is something that you have researched, which is the marriage between populism and homophobic orientation.
[00:33:32] And you know, we've talked a little bit about right wing backlash, both in the United States, but the potential for it in Latin America, but that, you know, a marriage of convenience between what would be considered maybe, uh, a far right movement in Latin America. Then organized religion, which taken together promote a backlash against the L G B T community, that this is more resilient on the right than it is on the [00:34:00] left.
[00:34:00] And I guess I'm wondering if you've done some research that digs into maybe why this seems to be more durable on the right than it is on the left. And I guess further, is it fair to say that the same backlash potentially exists against the L G B T Q community on the left, but that it just happens to really gain traction on the right?
[00:34:20] Javier: Thank you for asking me about this question. I and many others have observed that the latest incarnation of right wing populism in the Americas, not so much in Western Europe, but you do see it also in, in some parts of Western Europe, that it has come with a political. Alliance with conservative elements of Christianity.
[00:34:45] Mm-hmm. And so I document that whether this is happening, and yes, I have seen it in many countries, not just, uh, the United States with a Trump Pence ticket, but we also see it in Brazil and, uh, many other right-wing [00:35:00] candidates, a very open alliance. And I'm, I asked the question, why is this happening now?
[00:35:05] And here's what I have argued, leaving aside the, oh, and many times, these are alliances forged between politicians themselves who are not very religious, or, uh, who do not seem to conform to conservative, religiously conservative lifestyle standards. And they're forming this alliance. And I argue that what's happening here is that right-wing populists need extra help when they put together an electoral coalition.
[00:35:38] They want to produce an electoral coalition that does not spend a lot of money on distribution programs, so they cannot easily win the masses. The typical way that a left wing populous wins the masses, which is promising large scale distribution, is so they don't have [00:36:00] that tool. They prefer not to use it.
[00:36:02] They don't want to say that they're gonna be using it. They don't think that that is the biggest, most urgent problem that the country's facing. So they don't favor economic distribution. So that means that how can they expand their masses? And so one of the things that they do is they have discovered that if they appeal to conservative religious groups, it's like an extra bonus, an extra group to their alliance that might make them become a little bit more competitive.
[00:36:34] Across the finishing line of say more than 50%. And so therefore, in countries where conservative religious groups are growing in the electorate, which can be measured in terms of the expansion of the evangelical vote, where they're growing, that's like a new market for votes that the right wing populace have discovered that's available [00:37:00] for them to mobilize and notice that it is a sector that can be mobilized into a political coalition without promising to engage in distribution system.
[00:37:11] That's the beauty of the alliance with religion, is that you don't have to promise them that you're gonna give them very expansive social programs. Instead, what you promise to give them is a cultural battle. A battle against secularism, a battle against feminism, a battle against radical L G B T Q politics.
[00:37:34] You offer them a Christian conservative crusade of sorts, and this does the job, and so it doesn't turn right wing populism into an overwhelming electoral force, but it is the extra bonus that the coalition gets that might make them competitive enough to win in an election. That is why I think the [00:38:00] Coalition with conservative religiosity on the part of the right becomes so important for the right, something that they cannot let go because they need it far more than the left wing populace needed because left wing populists tend to rely mostly on promises of distribution.
[00:38:21] So if you have a lot of poor people and you're promising a lot of distribution, this can give you a solid electoral majority. But the right wing doesn't take that electoral strategy. It therefore falls short of having an electoral majority that covers all the masses. And that's when the alliance with religion becomes so important.
[00:38:42] That is the marriage of convenience between secular, right-wing populist leaders and movements with conservative religion. We saw it in in Brazil, and like I said, we have also seen it with many other [00:39:00] right-wing candidates who are coming close to winning in Latin America.
[00:39:04] Shawn: I've always wondered if there's something unique about the presidential two party.
[00:39:08] First pass the post system that makes cobbling together a marriage of convenience between conservatives and the religious right, easier than in a parliamentary system where you have a number of parties that allows people that might be within the electorate might be conservative, but not particularly religious, and so they can still vote conservative without having to tip their hand or take a position on far right religious, conservative positions that keeps those parties, it makes it harder for them to cobble together what might be unsavory for some people, a winning coalition than it is in the United States.
[00:39:49] So I guess my first question is, do you think there's a, there there second. How would that play out in Latin America, which I think is largely parliamentary systems, at least in liberal democracies, if [00:40:00] I'm correct.
[00:40:01] Javier: Yeah, very interesting question. I agree that if you have a purely parliamentary system with fragmented parties, you're probably likely to see a small party that becomes the party that represent conservative religious folks.
[00:40:16] And there are minority parties and they're there, but there are other parties that don't have to bother with that electorate and they just have to work out alliances in parliament. And sometimes they are strong ally members. Sometimes they can be excluded. And when you have a presidential system and you do not have a unified base, you have to somehow bring them into your coalition.
[00:40:38] And this magnifies the power of smaller factions if you have to engage in some kind of summation of of different groups. And while the United States absolutely remains as a two party system, and very few Latin American countries are anymore bipartisan this way, Many Latin American countries have the [00:41:00] runoff system, which essentially changes countries in a span of a couple of months from a multi-party democracy to a two party democracy.
[00:41:10] Because in a runoff, inevitably you get the two polls to compete. Mm-hmm. And yeah, I think what that ends up doing is that because when you have a runoff or when you have two parties, there is such a premium placed on getting past the 50% that the little guys that you bring into your coalition are especially important.
[00:41:31] 'cause you need it for the 50%. And so yes, that explains why in presidential systems and where you have runoff elections, the extra power of. Joining your, your electoral coalition can be a little bit stronger than you'd see elsewhere. What this argument doesn't explain, perhaps the limitation of this argument is that you would think that after winning the president [00:42:00] who turned to a small faction, in this case we're talking conservative religious factions.
[00:42:05] There really is no reason for keeping them on board. You know, there is no reason for them to once in office treating them with so much importance that it wouldn't be the case that an electoral coalition once in office ignores one of its factions. And we are seeing that the right populist movements when they do come into office, continue to place significant value on the demands of the conservative religious faction.
[00:42:38] That is something that we still need to be able to explain why uh, once they're in office we see right-wing populist politicians pandering so much to the demands of the conservative religious groups.
[00:42:52] Shawn: I know in the runup to the election in Italy, brothers of Italy is the far right. Yes. You know, there was a lot of [00:43:00] discussion that, you know, if Brothers of Italy managed to kabb a coalition together and then run the government that they would moderate and move to the center that they didn't, they didn't have to pander to that far right anti L G B T position.
[00:43:12] And it turns out that they, you know, they took a few months off, but then they kind of are full steam ahead on that. And then it raises the question as we still wait to see what happens in Spain after the most recent election with the potential that Vox will play a role. And they are definitely an anti L G B T party in Spain.
[00:43:27] Javier: Yes. Right. Look, I think there's a debate at the moment on this question. I think Rightwing populist politics in in Europe are in Fluxx at the moment. There are some folks who are arguing that in Europe, the far right is actually becoming more extremist on, definitely on questions of their stand on feminism and sexual minority rights and gender ideology.
[00:43:51] I have also read arguments that are saying that, you know, there are still moderating influences that the discourse is [00:44:00] far more extreme than the actual policies once they're in office. We're all, uh, of course focusing on Italy and yes, uh, Georgia Maloney, the head of the Italian government did campaign on a pro family, very conservative agenda, but she hasn't turned into an OR ban, which is the Prime Minister of Hungary, and he has become one of the most anti L G B T presidents in, uh, the world, or even a Putin in Russia.
[00:44:29] So there, I think the jury's still out on whether the parliamentary system that is so important. Many European movements end up moderating populism. In part because there, what happens is that if the small extreme party wins, it actually needs to be able to form coalitions with the moderate groups. And this could be moderating them, but again, I think it's too early to tell.
[00:44:54] I think we haven't seen this story play out fully yet. [00:45:00] There is definitely a debate about what's happening to right wing populism once it comes to, to power in Europe. Is it moderating, at least on the question of L G B T rights, we know that they're not moderating on the question of immigration rights on that issue.
[00:45:17] There's no moderation. But in the question of L G B T rights and sexuality and feminism, people are, as we speak, debating what's the current direction of the trends?
[00:45:28] Shawn: So you touched on this a little bit earlier. There is a narrative, and maybe it's a myth, but I don't think it is, that the United States sets an example on policy that has global implications for other countries, not just on, you know, a direct impact, but as an example that we set that other countries model then for their own domestic and foreign policy.
[00:45:47] And so as the United States is experiencing this contraction on L G B T Q rights, especially in the last couple of years, do you expect this to have an impact on how these same rights evolve in Latin America? And if so, in what ways?
[00:45:59] Javier: Right. [00:46:00] Um, the United States is a premier focal reference point for so many politicians in the world.
[00:46:07] They either wanna do exactly what some groups in the United States are doing, or the exact opposite. So it's a focal point, both as a model as well as an anti model in so many ways. And, you know, the conservative backlash against L G B T Q rights in the United States is definitely being observed by other conservative groups abroad, and it does have an influence, but I also want to make sure that there is an element here that is a little bit more direct than, uh, simply others watching and emulating.
[00:46:38] I think enough research has been done by journalists and some scholars, but definitely journalists who have been able to document that what is happening is that very conservative political groups in the United States many times. Working very closely with very conservative religious [00:47:00] groups have developed a true foreign policy of expansionism on this idea that they are not just doing things at home and others are imitating what they're doing.
[00:47:12] Others are abroad, are imitating, but that they have actually set out on an international mission, international campaign. And in many ways some people have described it as. They, these groups face trouble at home advancing their very conservative agenda. But they have found that going to some other countries, they find a much more receptive audience, more politicians who are amenable to these ideas, and that therefore they can become more influential abroad.
[00:47:43] And so these journalists have been able to show that, for example, in Africa, where we're seeing some of the most vicious forms of, uh, homophobic and transphobic legislation being considered and sometimes approved that many times you have. [00:48:00] American actors, not government officials of course, but definitely high level secular politicians with the collaboration of religious groups behind the political movement that's supporting these changes.
[00:48:15] So yes, the homo and transphobic sector of the United States has a very aggressive and assertive foreign policy right now, and that I think is actually being more influential than simply the power of emulation as we speak. Now, by the same token, it is also true that progressive forces on the other side of the debate also have their transnational networks.
[00:48:43] But I don't think that the transnational forces that are working on behalf of progressive rights are as surgical and therefore successful at some of the interventions that I have seen by the conservative right transnational [00:49:00] forces.
[00:49:00] Shawn: I can't let you go without asking you about another area of your research and your work that I find really fascinating and it's particularly relevant today, and that is your work in democratic backsliding and rising autocracy and authoritarianism.
[00:49:14] You wrote a piece in persuasion last year, I think. Gosh, time flies, right? Yes. Time flies when democracies eroding. Yes. It's called telltale signs of Democratic backsliding. And in this this piece, you differentiate between signs that democratic backsliding is likely to happen and signs that this democratic backsliding is already underway.
[00:49:36] And I have to say, it was really difficult for me to read that piece and then not layer it over what's happening in the United States. And so I'm wondering if you could help define what you mean by democratic backsliding and tell me a little bit about your arguments, and then I suppose how you score the United States when you look through this lens.
[00:49:53] Javier: Democratic backsliding has become a catchy phrase among comparative para political scientists to [00:50:00] describe a particular form of democratic erosion. There are many ways in which can decline, but there's one in particular that we're focusing on, which is when a democratically elected president who comes to office through free and fair elections in a legitimate and fairly democratic way, uh, once in office begins to undermine the system of checks and balances, and in the process, of course, reduces the rights of citizens and the degree of pluralism and creates an uneven playing field.
[00:50:32] And so it becomes very difficult to defeat the ruling party over time. And there's no question that this is the latest trend in democratic erosion. It's not the only way, as I said, but it's happening a lot. And what's also true about this trend is that we're also seeing it. In countries where we never thought we were gonna see this.
[00:50:56] Countries that had a long tradition of [00:51:00] democracy with solid institutions, established political parties, some degree of economic wealth, and a middle class, we have seen this process happening. Now the question is, when is it gonna happen? And secondly, how far will it go once, once it begins? And the essay is a little bit about this.
[00:51:19] And so, yes, you're absolutely right. I do think that the United States has had significant. I think under the Trump year, the issue about the Trump administration is that, on the one hand, it had many extreme right wing policies associated with it. But on the other hand, this represented the strongest effort, uh, on the part of the executive branch to defy the system of checks and balances and undermined a degree of pluralism.
[00:51:50] And while the process was contained and in the end defeated, what the experience shows is that, oh my God, even the United [00:52:00] States could catch this virus, sorry, to, to make a reference to a public health issue about viruses that we don't wanna, uh, remember. Mm-hmm. But that, yeah, they, we could still talk, talk about strong and established democracies, but with this particular problem, with this particular pathology, democratic backsliding, all democracies are susceptible.
[00:52:20] And yeah. Uh, political scientists who are studying this are spending a lot of energy trying to understand what are the conditions that would make a democracy more susceptible than others. And once the virus comes in, once you get a president who is intending to move in this direction, which democracies are more likely to contain it and which democracies are less likely to contain it?
[00:52:43] And the piece is, uh, is my latest thinking on, on, on what are the telltale signs that secular folks can use to determine how far this process has. Moved or can potentially move and yes, [00:53:00] it is no doubt. You know, if you read it and you were thinking about the United States, that makes me feel good because it made me feel horrible.
[00:53:10] Yeah, right. I know, I know, I know. But yes, I think it is written so that anyone in any democracy can use that and make diagnosis about their own countries. And so it's applicable to even the United States.
[00:53:23] Shawn: It was really digestible. I think it took some very complex concepts and really distilled it down.
[00:53:29] So, uh, I appreciate that.
[00:53:31] Javier: Yeah. And if I may highlight for your audience, you know, it's sort of like I focus on the party system and so you know, some things that can happen in your party system that will make a democracy very susceptible. And I think the first thing to think of is, you know, whether the ruling party wins big and the opposition collapses.
[00:53:49] That's a very, very, very scary condition. And the United States has never experienced that. It hasn't experienced this asymmetrical collapse of its party system. But the other thing [00:54:00] that I discuss is what we would call the demise of the legal system. If a ruling party succeeds in turning the judiciary into essentially another branch of the ruling party that condones most actions of the executive branch and never rules against the executive branch.
[00:54:20] If you get that. Mm-hmm. That the game is over. In many ways, it's sort of like the arbiter of the system of checks and balances has been fully coopted. And at that point, there are no limits to what the executive branch can do at that point. And so definitely assigned to watch anybody in any country listening to us pay attention to how often the judiciary rules against the executive branch or the ruling party.
[00:54:48] And if you're not seeing a lot of adverse rulings, then I would worry, Hmm.
[00:54:55] Shawn: Maybe this is me wish casting, but have you seen any signs in the past two years that the US has taken [00:55:00] steps to rebound from any precarious position?
[00:55:03] Javier: Well, I think that there are political changes that need to happen and legal changes that need to happen.
[00:55:10] And I have seen some political changes that are positive, but I have not seen as many legal changes. That are positive happening. And so let me talk about the political changes that I think are positive when Trump became president and the process of democratic backsliding began, I think there was a rediscovery of the values of liberal democracy.
[00:55:38] Not across the electorate, definitely not across Trump supporters, but certainly among many other groups that were on the left and on the right and in between. We were prior to Trump in an era of enormous disappointment with liberal democracy, and nobody wanted to say anything positive about it. But I think, uh, under [00:56:00] Trump there was a bit of a.
[00:56:07] They haven't won the day, this group, but this is very important and I think that's a good sign in the United States, we're seeing it in other countries. For example, the protests that we're seeing currently in Israel is an example of a wide spectrum of society from different parts of the ideological spectrum and sectors of society coming together on behalf of defending the system of checks and balances.
[00:56:34] So the United States did experience a bit of a revival. It was nice to see the Democratic Party and other groups, even, even conservative groups, return to an appreciation of a system that in the end was actually pretty much invented in the United States. So that's the political change that for me has been comforting.
[00:56:56] But legal changes in terms of [00:57:00] legal reforms. That would make it harder for authoritarian practices to continue to stay in place there. I have seen very few changes. The only thing that we're doing is to try to stop Trump legally with personal legal actions, but we haven't seen a transformation of political reforms throughout the country.
[00:57:27] If anything, it's Republicans in state legislatures who are producing most reforms, many of which are adverse to liberal democracy. So, um, the answer to your question is politically I have seen some positive changes, but legally I haven't seen that many.
[00:57:48] Shawn: Okay. Final question. What's something interesting you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing lately?
[00:57:54] Javier: All right, so with reading, I've been doing a lot on polarization. I [00:58:00] cannot think of a specific book, but I am working with the idea on, yes, we do know that we're living in a world where most democracies are polarized, but I am trying to learn a little bit more about when is it that politicians decide to intentionally exacerbate that polarization, take it to another level, elevate the temperature, rather than to deescalate.
[00:58:24] And so I'm reading a lot more on the rise of extremism and to some extent, uh, ideological dogmatism, significant degree of work in that direction. Also, and this has nothing to do with, uh, our conversation tonight, but I have been doing far more reading on the question of do democracies have any advantage in generating development?
[00:58:49] We are living in an era where we think that the only country that is worth imitating, if you wanna think about economic growth, it would be China and liberal democracies, uh, [00:59:00] not seen as having any more advantage when it comes to development. So I'm, I'm reading a lot more on the question of is there an advantage to being democratic when it comes to promoting some issues of economic development?
[00:59:12] Those are some of the things I've been reading about this summer, big topics. So I haven't been as exhaustive in my reading as I think I should be. Mm-hmm. But that's has been keeping me busy.
[00:59:23] Shawn: Have you heard of the organization Open for business? The reason I mention this is I'm actually interviewing someone from this organization.
[00:59:30] It's an L G B T Rights organization, but they focus on develop business and development and make the argument that there's an intersectionality, that democracy and you know, an expansion of L G B T Q rights is good for business.
[00:59:42] Javier: And so that's, oh, okay. I'm familiar with that argument. Yes.
[00:59:45] Shawn: Yeah, that's, that's gonna be perfect timing 'cause that's an episode that's coming out soon too.
[00:59:49] Javier: So, yes, it's a happy combination because if you have democracy with L G B T Q rights, that means that you have a democracy that is also very [01:00:00] interested in questions of diversity, inclusion, pluralism define the norm going beyond traditionalism, and that could be a truly winning combination for entrepreneurship because it's a way of infusing democracy with some degree of risk taking.
[01:00:17] And to me, that seems to be a recipe for, for business innovation. So I'm familiar with the hypothesis. I hope they, they develop it and that they can prove it empirically.
[01:00:28] Shawn: Dr. Corrales, thanks for being here. You're doing really great work. I'm excited to see what comes next for you.
[01:00:33] Javier: Thank you very much, Shawn.
[01:00:34] It was a pleasure to speak with you.
[01:00:37] Shawn: Alright, that's it for us today. Check back soon on Sundays for another episode of Deep Dive Chat soon folks.[01:01:00]