Successful prosecution of political corruption in Latin America is very rare. Democracies in this region are often marked by a weak rule of law that tends to shield the powerful. Nevertheless, in certain Latin American countries, prosecutors have managed to craft anticorruption investigations that shook political systems. What conditions enabled prosecutors to deliver investigations that imprisoned powerful defendants? What consequences does the criminalization of political corruption have on voters?
The book Prosecutors, Voters, and the Criminalization of Corruption in Latin America by Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos, Paula Muñoz Chirinos, Nara Pavão, and Viviana Baraybar Hidalgo tackles those issues by comparing the results of Operation Lava Jato across different judicial systems in Latin America. This book makes a significant contribution to the field of judicial politics in several ways. First, it delves into the analysis of one of the least explored justice-sector institutions: the prosecution services. Second, it addresses the underresearched topic of how justice-sector institutions perform in the criminalization of political corruption. Finally, it examines the intriguing consequences that the judicialization of corruption has on public opinion and the political landscape.
Lava Jato is a widely known political corruption scandal that originated in Brazil in 2014, but its influence later extended to other Latin American countries. In Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru, the investigations stemming from this scandal led to the downfall of presidents and officials, limited the political rights of some politicians, and held both government and opposition party members accountable as they faced legal consequences. Prosecutions in those countries turned into what were called “anticorruption crusades.” However, as the book shows, similar results were not achieved in Mexico and Argentina; more intriguingly, even in cases where initial success was witnessed as in Brazil and Peru, the investigations eventually stalled.
The book emphasizes the pivotal role of justice-sector institutional changes in enabling prosecutors to investigate and bring politically influential defendants to justice. Specifically, reforms that granted autonomy to prosecution services, the implementation of an accusatorial criminal system, and the adoption of international anticorruption standards and strategies were crucial. However, the authors contend that these reforms alone cannot account for the varying outcomes of the Lava Jato operation.
To fully account for how “anticorruption crusades” flourish, succeed, and sometimes stall, the authors focus on three moments, two of which are crucial: serendipity, agency, and backlash. The “moment of serendipity” is an episode in which prosecutors find some sort of suggestive incriminating evidence, by pure chance, that facilitates development of an anticorruption crusade. The argument developed here is less compelling when compared with the moment of agency and backlash described later in the book: it relies not only on the “lucky discovery” made by prosecutors but also on “zealous prosecutors” or “law enforcement agents with a strong anti-corruption drive” (46). This zealousness is more attitudinal or institutional than serendipitous, as demonstrated in the case of Argentina. Additionally, in some cases, such as Mexico, there seemed to be suggestive discoveries—that is, evidence that incriminates politicians—but no zealous prosecutors drove the anticorruption crusade.
The “moment of agency” is key to understanding the rise and fall of anticorruption crusades. Prosecutorial agency has two pillars: a zealous prosecutorial strategy and the creation of task forces. Because prosecuting grand corruption using conventional legal methods proves to be challenging, zealous prosecutors use unorthodox strategies to investigate and litigate corruption crimes. In fact, prosecutors thus need to put in motion creative interpretations of legislation. This includes conceptualizing and framing the crime in such a way as to secure extended periods of pretrial detention, which is sometimes in tension with due process. Zealous prosecutors also use innovative legal tactics like plea bargains, and they cultivate relationships with banks and other international entities to facilitate information sharing. Additionally, they must devise a strategy to effectively communicate the significance of their cases to the public, thereby ultimately enhancing the survival of the crusade. They also obtain information on the defendants and strategically leak it to journalists to produce a snowball effect. Zealous prosecutors are strongly committed and persistent.
The second pillar of the moment of agency is key to the successful implementation of anticorruption crusades: the operation of specialized units or task forces. When a team of prosecutors is assigned to the same case over an extended period of time, it is able to develop specialized toolkits for prosecuting challenging cases like political corruption. Prosecutors in these specialized units do not get sidetracked by routine criminal cases; instead, they focus on unraveling the intricate paths of corruption and have the necessary time to meticulously “follow the money.”
The third pillar, the “moment of backlash,” is the most innovative part of this book’s contribution to the literature on judicial politics. It offers insights into the repercussions of prosecutorial and judicial activism on the legitimacy and, in some cases, the political independence of both courts and public prosecutors’ offices. When facing prosecution, politicians often wield all their power to erode public trust in the courts, judges, prosecutors, and the legitimacy of anticorruption cases. They accuse judges and prosecutors of “lawfare” and the use of justice as a political weapon to destabilize politics, sometimes even democracy. Both scholars and practitioners must pay close attention to these processes of delegitimizing courts and prosecutorial offices in the context of cleansing politics of corruption, because they tend to erode democracy.
The last part of the book deals with Lava Jato’s unexpected consequences on the public and on the political system. How do voters come to understand anticorruption crusades? Despite the criminalization of important cases of political corruption, why do some citizens not fully support the prosecution of this type of crime? Citizens’ reactions to political corruption scandals and prosecutions are not uniform. Optimists tend to focus on the result—justice is being done—whereas pessimists believe that politics will be always an unredeemed and repulsive business. The authors claim that the optimistic view leads to political reengagement, while the pessimistic view drives citizens to political cynicism. Using mixed methods—conjoint survey experiments and focus groups—to evaluate citizen opinions on the criminalization of grand corruption, the authors find varied results. In Brazil, citizens tend to be divided along partisan lines regarding Lava Jato’s outcomes. Supporters of the Workers’ Party (WP) describe the efforts to criminalize corruption as lawfare, whereas non-WP voters are generally content with the judicial outcomes. In Peru, citizens, regardless of their partisan preferences, hold very critical and negative views about the prosecutorial toolkit and discretionary measures, such as plea bargains.
Future research should take seriously the paradox highlighted by the book: the adverse impact of anticorruption crusades on public opinion and their role in destabilizing politics. Public frustration with anticorruption crusades cannot be overlooked, because it often fuels tendencies toward populist authoritarian choices. However, the zealous prosecution of corruption remains necessary to instill hope in a democracy that upholds the rule of law and prevents political impunity.
The book makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the conditions under which the prosecution of political corruption succeeds, particularly in countries with young democracies. Additionally, it reveals the various and unexpected effects that prosecuting corruption has on voters’ attitudes and, consequently, on the stability of democracy.
