In this book on Peruvian politics, Charles Kenney leaves few stones unturned in analyzing the various factors that led to the suspension of the country's constitution and the disbanding of the legislature by President Alberto Fujimori in April 1992. While I am not entirely convinced that this particular episode in Peruvian politics warrants the book-length treatment that it has received here, Kenney has done a commendable job of locating Peru's “autogolpe” (or civilian-inflicted coup) within the broader literature on the breakdown of democratic regimes in Latin America.

Given that the book sticks closely to this literature, rather than deepening our understanding of the determinants of democratic breakdown in this region, there is nothing new or compelling here. Instead, Kenney's main contribution is that of a thoughtful, if telescopic, analysis of one developing country's struggle to construct and defend a democratic regime under highly adverse domestic conditions. In remaining true to the literature from which he has drawn, the author focuses on the design and nature of the country's political institutions and, in particular, on the difficulties that Peru's presidential system and volatile multiparty organizational structures posed for Fujimori when he took office in 1990.

The gist of Kenney's argument is that within this dicey political context, Fujimori's lack of a loyal majority coalition in the legislature proved fatal for the survival of democracy as Peruvians had known it since the transition from military rule in 1980. As he argues, “certain institutional features of democratic presidential regimes are associated with their survival and demise. In Peru, minority presidencies were an important risk factor for the survival of democratic and semi-democratic regimes during the twentieth century” (p. 262). Conversely, democracy has done better when elected executives within a presidential system like Peru's are able to forge and control a majority support coalition in the legislature, such as under the two separate administrations that were elected there during the 1980s.

The author advances this thesis via a three-part discussion of the collapse of Peru's multiparty political system and the quixotic rise of Fujimori to the presidency in 1990; those institutional rules and political coalitions that underpinned the executive office and the relationship of the executive vis-à-vis the Peruvian congress; and a detailed analysis and interpretation of the autogolpe itself. A final chapter offers a dozen or so brief country sketches that basically describe the conditions under which democratic regimes collapsed in Latin America in the time span between 1960 and 1997. Ostensibly meant to lend concluding insights with a comparative angle, this final chapter is ill advised in that it accomplishes neither of these goals.

With respect to these three main themes, let me highlight some of the book's stronger points. Kenney's analysis of the complex cluster of factors that contributed to the unraveling of Peru's political parties in the late 1980s is both sophisticated and convincing. On this count, he skillfully shows how the dark-horse victory of Fujimori in the 1990 presidential race was intricately linked to the failures of the traditional political establishment. Moreover, Kenney aptly observes that although “Fujimori was initially the product of the collapse of support for the 1980s parties, once in office, he did much to undermine public support for parties, and the complete collapse of the party system came only as a consequence of his success as an antiparty president” (p. 77).

As for the complicated contingencies that both preceded and provoked the 1992 autogolpe, Kenney offers a synthetic portrait of the factors that led to the breakdown of democracy in Peru at this time. In doing so, he avoids a simplistic cause-and-effect explanation and instead tackles the coup's origins in their entirety. Although the analysis hinges on the ineffective design of political institutions and the growing stalemate in executive/legislative relations, he incorporates other important contributing variables into his analysis. For example, the incipient signs of economic recovery in early 1992, the still-raging guerrilla insurgency that had plagued the country since 1980, and Fujimori's growing preference for military advisors are all factored into Kenney's explanation.

In approaching the actual outbreak of the coup, the author sharpens his explanatory focus on the tensions between Fujimori and the legislature, which he portrays as erupting in a series of stages between July 1990 and April 1992. During this period, the following dynamics took a cumulative toll on Peru's fledgling democratic regime: “Elected to the presidency in a highly polarizing election, with a minimum of organized party support in a fragmented legislature, Fujimori faced what some analysts considered an almost impossible game” (p. 248). In other words, Fujimori's autogolpe was both preemptive and proactive in that his failure to rein the situation in could have led to his own downfall.

Overall, although Kenney has readily accomplished the goals he sets forth at the outset, his microlevel treatment of Peruvian politics makes it tough to wade through some parts of the book. Moreover, in his effort to thoroughly situate these themes within the ongoing academic debates, Kenney does too much equivocating and weighing of the explanatory options. When he does take a firm stand, the book's own detail towers over the main punch line: “minority presidencies are associated with higher levels of democratic instability than are majority presidencies, both when the economy grows and, especially, when the economy fails” (p. 268).

For those interested in the reform options and political path forward for Peru and other countries similarly plagued with suboptimal political institutions, these larger debates are not taken up here. Neither does the author offer a concrete sense of those institutional contingencies or combination of rules and norms that might qualify a developing country's political regime as a “success.” In the end, I suspect that Fujimori's Coup and the Breakdown of Democracy in Latin America will appeal mainly to those area specialists and policy analysts with a keen interest in Peru.