This essay addresses the changing trajectory of grassroots political activity in Latin America, with special reference to Chile and Brazil, and assesses its impact on the policy and practices of social development. It traces this trajectory through the transitions from authoritarian to democratic rule, and focuses on the responses of grassroots organisations to democratic governance and the rise of neo-liberalism. In particular, it shows that social movements have declined or been transformed (or both), while non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have multiplied and become more visible. It appears that where grassroots organisations interact with the state they may be subordinated to state policy, and where they fail to interact they may be ineffective. Their influence on social development mainly occurs piecemeal through social service delivery, not through the shaping of social policy itself.

The regional impact of the economic integration between Mexico and its northern neighbours remains virtually unexplored for Mexico. This research substantiates what had hitherto been no more than conjectures regarding the impact of NAFTA on the most laggardly Mexican regions. The southern states have been unable to share in Mexico's impressive export-growth and attraction of foreign direct investment (FDI) of the 1990s. Neither the insignificant amount of fdi received by these states nor the increase in their small export-value level can be attributed to opportunities created by NAFTA. The strong linkage between fdi and exports, and the predominance of manufacturing observed at the national level and in other northern states does not exist there. In the state of Oaxaca export growth is largely accounted for by a primary commodity whose production has no foreign investment participation. This local scenario is consistent with the interregional divergence trend observed since the start of the process of economic integration.

The occasion of honouring the memory of John Brooks, a great friend of Latin America, has helped me vanquish my initial reluctance to tackle a topic that is as broad, varied and still open-ended as the present situation of democracy in South America. As a first measure of my limitations, with the exception of some references to Costa Rica and Mexico, I will not discuss Central America and the Caribbean, not because I feel these regions are unimportant but because, simply, I do not know enough about them. However, when I feel that I am on sufficiently solid ground so as to refer to Latin America as a whole, I will do so.

I begin by noting that in contemporary South America some countries satisfy the definition of political democracy. Those countries share two main characteristics. One is that they hold elections under universal adult franchise that, at least at the national level, are reasonably fair and competitive. These are standard criteria in the political science literature. However, having in mind the experience of Latin America and elsewhere in the third world, I believe that we should add that such elections must be institutionalised. By this I mean that all relevant actors expect that elections of this kind will continue being held in the indefinite future so, whether they like or not, it is rational for them to play democracy, not coup-making or insurrection. We should also stipulate that these elections are decisive, in the sense that those who are elected do occupy the respective offices and end their terms in the constitutionally prescribed way; they are not, as it has happened too often in Latin America, prevented from occupying office or thrown out of it because some supra-constitutional power feels that they are the ‘wrong people’.

The second characteristic is the enjoyment of certain political rights, especially of opinion, expression, association, movement and access to a reasonably free and pluralist media. Of course, these and other rights are important per se; in addition, they are instrumental – necessary conditions – for the effectuation of the kind of elections I have just specified.