Negotiation and deliberation in Mexico's democratization process : six cases of legal reform

Abstract

This dissertation identifies political practices that increase negotiation effectiveness and democratic legitimacy simultaneously, as key enabling factors for democratization from within a hybrid regime. This finding runs against the Habermasian idea that success-oriented negotiations run counter to the logic of reason-based deliberations that are necessary to produce democratic legitimacy. I present six cases of political negotiation and deliberation that led to major democratic reforms in Mexico, during the period 2006-2009, and offer multiple examples of how negotiation effectiveness and democratic legitimacy reinforced each other or, as predicted by Habermas, entered in tension. Finally, in a comparative analysis of overall levels of democratic legitimacy and negotiation effectiveness across all cases, I find a positive relationship between these two dimensions and trace it to the use of a set of complementary political practices that further both dimensions and, together, may offset the tensions that do emerge when some of the practices are used in isolation. I conclude that reform champions in Mexico need to engage in action that is both strategic and communicative in order to move beyond hybridism into full democracy.