It is impossible to look at contemporary Latin America and not be struck by the prevalence of violence, whether in the form of drug cartels in Mexico, criminal gangs in Central America, the long-term conflict in Colombia, or urban violence in Brazil. Further, the headliners of violence from these locations obscure a more complex set of interactions that include not just traditional criminal elements but also various social actors and the state itself. This plural violence in the region is the focus of Violent Democracies in Latin America, the volume edited by Enrique Desmond Arias and Daniel M. Goldstein.

The book takes a multidisciplinary approach to its subject matter and provides mostly case-study material from across the region. The disciplines in question include political science, history, sociology, and anthropology, while the cases derive from specific examples of differing types of violence in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. There are also general essays that take a more comparative approach.

A key point made about the violence in the region is that it is not part of a stark dichotomy of the state trying to keep order in the face of violent counterstate actors, but rather that the violence has multiple sources and many of them have their origins within the state apparatus itself. This argument is well illustrated by case studies of police abuse in Argentina and Mexico, as well as the complex relationship between Colombian paramilitaries and the state (to cite three examples).

Taken individually, the essays are quite strong, and as a group they make a compelling case for a reexamination of the question of violence within democracy in the region. As such, the usefulness of the basic contributions of the volume is clear, as this is a topic that needs substantially more attention. Just as it is clear that neoliberal economic reforms have not brought their promised prosperity for the poor in the region, so, too, formal democratic governance in the region has failed to adequately provide civil liberties and rights to that same population. Indeed, Arias and Goldstein make this connection in their introductory essay.

An important theme raised by this discussion of violence in democracies is how to address the serious question of dissent in the context of violence. This is especially salient given the central role that dissent and opposition plays in democratic governance. Mary Roldán's chapter on Colombia is the one that most directly addresses this issue, although the theme exists within the fabric of the book. Fundamentally, the ways in which vulnerable actors can make their points of view known when there is a threat of violence is a very serious issue if we are concerned about democratic development in Latin America.

Beyond bringing attention to the question of violence in formal democratic settings, however, the editors suggest a critique of prevailing approaches to democratization in the region (and elsewhere, by extension) that opens a debate about how these problems ought to be viewed. Specifically, there is a rejection of two key approaches: 1) the notion that ideal-type democracy ought to be the standard by which these states are evaluated, and 2) that the prevalence of violence in these cases ought not to be understood as instances of state failure.

In their introductory essay, the editors establish this discussion in a way that revives and recasts the classic procedure-versus-substance debate that has often existed in discussions of democratization. Further, they revive old critiques used against developmentalism and apply them to contemporary studies of democratization by essentially stating that those who study formal democratic institutions are engaging in the same sort of errors that Walt W. Rostow and friends did in the 1960s, that is, saying that the solution to development is just a case of being told to “be like us” where the “us” is the United States and Europe. Indeed, they label this a “developmentalist fallacy” in their introduction (p. 12).

While the book provides a worthy critique of the fact that many studies of formal democracy inadequately address such severe violence, it is ultimately unsatisfying in terms of presenting an alternative model. Most specifically, the book's orienting concept of “violent pluralism” is unclear, at least as an alternative approach to looking at this violence as a manifestation of failed democratization. While the notion that there are multiple types and sources of violence is well made, it is unclear that their existence means that the current approaches to the study of democracy or the state are inadequate to address them.

For example, in the concluding essay, Arias notes (I think correctly) that an inability to enforce the rule of law may, in fact, serve the political ends of certain state actors in Latin America. He goes on to state that such facts do not mean “that Latin America's states have failed, nor is ideal-type democracy the most cogent lens through which to understand regional politics” (p. 245). That allegedly democratic states are using decidedly undemocratic means of enforcing their wills (such as police abuse or alliances with paramilitaries) strikes me as being examples of failed democratization by definition (because the states in question are failing to live up to their own constitutional requirements). While the notion of plural violence draws attention to this significant problem, it is unclear from the text what the alternative paradigm for analyzing the problem is to be if not that of ideal-type democracy. In other words, is it not the paradigm of ideal democracy that informs the failing in the first place? The point is taken, however, that such actions may not always constitute state failure since states are often clandestinely using violence as state instruments. This is a key point worthy of further study and elaboration.

How to view state activity is an issue that is somewhat contradictory in the text, however. For although the argument is made that we should look at the violence in the region as an improperly understood failure of states to control their territories, nonetheless much of the case-study material comes across as precisely the inability of the state to act (and in a way that is correctable). For example, Todd Landman's comparative essay starts with a discussion of state capacity, while Lilian Bobea's piece on the Dominican Republic specifically addresses how better policy can lead to improved security for the population. Other examples exist as well, but these seem to point to the notion that improvements to the state can lead to diminution of violence and thereby to improvements in democracy. As such, it seems that these discussions do not reject the focus on states' success/failure or comparisons to ideal-type democracy as completely as the book's introduction seems to do. I am willing to allow that my interpretation may be colored by my own institutionalist eyes. Such an observation is, of course, the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one.

This really does get to the heart of a conservation about the nature of democracy. How much of it is about decision rules and the basic format of governance, and how much is it about the results produced by said system? Further, it raises the legitimate question of what part of the population deserves our attention when it comes to evaluating the quality of democracy. It is one thing to say that the upper and middle classes are experiencing, on balance, the fruits of democracy, but what of the vast poor populations in the region? As Arias writes, “Democracy was expected to improve the conditions of human and civil rights in the region…. The transition, however, did not go as planned” (p. 243). This complexity does raise the question of how to understand and evaluate states that claim the mantle of democracy while not only experiencing violence but also utilizing it as a tool. If a state has free and fair elections, is it still a democracy if the police routinely abuse the rights of its citizens? Is it a democracy if the state clandestinely engages in shadowy alliances with paramilitary organizations? What if its citizens fear violent reprisal for speaking out?

The book ultimately raises a number of key questions that have to be answered, even if one is not fully convinced of how they should be addressed. The essays do leave the reader wondering if the problems described represent a failure of the application of democratic theory or a failure in the theory itself. This is not an insignificant distinction. If the failures of these countries are simply examples of incomplete democratization, then the issue becomes how to remedy those problems on the ground by better application of democratization. However, Arias and Goldstein legitimately question whether our very understanding of these political dynamics is even founded in a proper paradigm. The violence has to be brought into the discussion more prominently in any case.

One thing is for certain, as Arias notes in the conclusion: “[U]nderstanding Latin America today involves developing a much more robust notion of the armed groups that operate there” (p. 253), and not just the obvious criminal organizations but the panoply of such actors who affect politics to an extent greater than studies of formal democratic institutions typically address. At a minimum, I would argue that the exact concept of violent pluralism, as introduced here, needs further elaboration, especially if the goal is to use it as a critique of the formal democracy paradigm. Of course, it may well be asking too much of this one volume to provide the opening salvos of a legitimate critique of current approaches as well as a specific method to solve the problems that it raises.

In short, this is a volume worthy of consideration in that it raises key challenges for the study of democracy in Latin America and addresses blind spots in the existing literature. However, I am left pondering whether it fully made the case for an alternative approach as much as it made the case for a recalibration of existing approaches.