Uruguay’s Laboratory of Democracy
What Can the US Learn from Uruguay’s Democracy?
This is the second essay of Civic Way’s series on other democracies. The author, Bruce Anderson, is an advisor to Civic Way. Bruce has an MBA and over 45 years of management experience with private entities like Price Waterhouse and public sector entities like the Cleveland Public Schools. He has managed a wide variety of projects with numerous other agencies, including colleges, schools, cities and counties. Bruce also served in the Peace Corps and visits South America on a regular basis.
Civic Way’s Comparative Democracy Series
The world’s democracies come in many flavors. Some have strong central governments while others have federated structures. Some have an independent chief executive and some a parliamentary model. And they use different methods for allocating, electing and removing public officials.
Some of these variations are embodied in a nation’s legal framework, such as constitutions. Others spring from historical, cultural or demographic factors. In any event, learning about these different approaches, and the risks they were designed to address, can yield promising ideas for improving our own democracy.
An Introduction to Uruguay
Uruguay is the second smallest country in South America in both size and population. It abuts two larger neighbors, Brazil to the north and Argentina to the south.
Uruguay has been independent since 1825, but its current democratic system is less than 40 years old. During the 19th and 20th centuries, autocratic rule periodically dominated, usually via military intervention. Constitutions were frequently replaced, often to suit the group in power.
In 1968, the democratically-elected president, in response to widespread violence and a deteriorating economy, declared a state of emergency. In 1972, as conditions worsened, the next democratically-elected president abolished the legislature and established a civilian-military regime. Until the early 1980s, autocracy prevailed with human rights suppressed and dissidents punished.
The military then overreached. It sought to solidify its position with a referendum on a new autocratic constitution. After the public rejected the proposed constitution, Uruguay began its return to democratic elections. In 1984, it held national elections and elected a new president and vice president.
In 1996, Uruguay amended its constitution to reform the electoral process, apportion legislative seats, extend term limits and separate national and local elections. Two consecutive presidents from different political parties supported these reforms and the new democracy enjoys strong public support. Laws protecting human rights, legalizing abortion and decriminalizing marijuana have been enacted.
An Overview of Uruguay’s Government Structure
The President and Vice-President lead the federal government. The President appoints the 14 ministers (subject to legislative approval) who run the federal agencies. The federal legislature is bicameral. The General Assembly comprises a 31-member Senate and a 99-member Chamber of Representatives. The federal Supreme Court has five justices elected by the General Assembly. The Supreme Court nominates appellate judges subject to General Assembly approval.
Uruguay has 19 states (departments) each with a separately elected chief executive (intendente municipal) and legislature (department board). The intendente municipal, who serves as both the department governor and mayor of the departmental capital, manages essential public services like healthcare, public health, education and public safety. The state department board sets budgets. Local governments control such services as zoning, fire, safety and sanitation.
An Overview of Uruguay’s Democracy
Many Uruguayans are old enough to appreciate the fragility of their democracy and most are highly supportive of their democracy (per 2010 poll). Here are some of its distinctive features:
Voting – Registration and voting are considered citizen obligations, but penalties for non-participation are generally not enforced.
Political parties – Uruguay has three major political parties, the Rojos/Reds (liberal and urban-oriented), Blancos/Whites (conservative and rural-oriented) and Frente Amplio/Broad Front (a collection of minority parties).
Presidency – Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates run together on the same ticket with a Council of Ministers. If no candidate receives at least 50 percent of the votes, the two highest vote getters must face each other in a runoff election.
Campaign finance – Presidential elections are publicly funded.
Legislative representation – Legislature seats are allotted to parties based on each party’s share of total votes in the prior national election.
Term limits – The President, Vice-President and General Assembly may only serve for one five-year non-consecutive term. The federal Supreme Court and appellate judges serve 10-year terms.
Removal process – The General Assembly may conduct a two-step impeachment process against the President, Vice-President, General Assembly member or Supreme Court justice, but the Senate can only remove an officer with a 2/3 vote. The departmental governor and municipal board may remove the mayors and other local officials of non-capitol municipalities.
Despite its prior economic problems and military interference, Uruguay enjoys a solid reputation as a democracy. In 2012, Uruguay was ranked 18th highest of 167 nations in the Economist’s Democracy Index (the US was ranked 21st). In 2013, Uruguay was ranked 27th most free in the Reporters without Borders’ Press Freedom Index (the US was 32nd). For both indicators, Uruguay was ranked first among Latin American nations.
Uruguay’s Current Political Landscape
The federal elections were last held in 2019. This session, the legislature includes members from seven political parties including the big three. While the three major parties won the majority of the seats, four smaller parties gained at least one legislative seat with one to two percent of total votes. The local elections were conducted one year later in 2020.
Uruguay’s top two parties—the Rojos and Blancos—have held their own for some time. The third major party—the Frente Amplio—is a more recent coalition of smaller left-wing groups. Other minor parties have maintained their independence. Each major party has won Presidential elections over the past 30 years. Together, they have helped ensure the peaceful transition of power.
Possible Lessons for the US
Uruguay’s democracy has some interesting features that may be relevant to the US, such as:
Voting – The voter participation rate for national elections was 92 percent in 2014 and 2019. The potential causal factors include the multi-party system and proportional legislative representation. Another factor may be that so many Uruguayans are old enough to remember military rule and appreciate their democracy.
Parties – The consistent engagement of three major parties and ongoing presence of several minor parties seems to have promoted partisan collaboration and discouraged single- or two-party dominance during the last three decades.
Legislative representation – Uruguay’s proportional method for allocating legislative seats ensures fairer representation, gives minority parties a greater legislative voice and forces the larger parties to collaborate more with minority parties on closely-contested matters.
Elections – The runoff election process frequently encourages collaboration among parties failing to survive the runoff. The separation of federal and state/local helps voters make more informed decisions and provides an indirect referendum on prior year national elections.
Campaign finance – The public funding of presidential elections appears to have limited the impact of private funding of candidates.
Term limits – The term limits for federal offices appear to discourage political excess, patronage and corruption and, at the same time, provide an infusion of new blood.
Removal process – With five-year term limits for administrative and legislative positions, and ten-year term limits for judicial positions, the impeachment procedure has not been invoked during the last four decades (one vice-president resigned before the impeachment process could be initiated.
We cannot perfect our union without perfecting our democracy. This will require us to not only learn from our own successes and setbacks, but the feats and failures of other nations. Our belief in American exceptionalism should not blind us from the achievements of other nations.