- James Malloy surveys the different views on the social and governmental structure that is characteristic of Latin America. He writes that according to Douglas A. Chalmers, the political parties in Latin America struggle to offer legitimate backing for the authority of their country's rulers because the hierarchic, elitist and bureaucratic nature of these parties prevent them from reflecting class struggles and revolutionary changes. They even lack strong connections with the masses. Malloy also cites the opinion of Howard J. Wiarda who claims that the political parties lack any real power in Latin America, and that it is the private corporations and economic elites that wield the real power. Without disputing either of these opinions, Malloy claims that in Latin America there are two hierarchic institutions - corporatism and clientilism (patronage). Latin America, he maintains, differs from Europe, the US, and parts of Asia and Africa in that in Latin America class based unions did not form, but rather corporatism and patronage. The Latin American system eschews free market competition, instead granting monopolies to bodies involved in the single government bureaucracy controlling the country. This stands in stark contrast to the competition that developed between autonomous unions in America and other countries. The corporative method suited the colonial system and it served the central government well, even later, in places like Mexico, Brazil, and Chile, by producing unions of workers that served the government more than the unions themselves. Malloy cites Eric Wolf's opinion regarding the symbiotic relationship between corporatism and patronage, in which the patronage tempers the formal rigidity that typifies corporatism. Corporatism and patronage are two central components in the Latin American political arena, both sources of power and support for elected officials, and as such, substitutes for political parties. Alongside these, stands the institution of the 'statesman', a deep-rooted Latin American institution, from which parties developed. Regarding the power of the corporations, Malloy writes that in Brazil and Mexico the corporations have no power over the government. The government can do as it sees fit, even disbanding parties it disapproves of, though in Brazil there are select brokers who have methods of influencing the government, and businessmen who wield influence either directly or by means of these brokers. In general, in comparison to Latin America, in countries in which a political arena exists, workers' unions attach themselves to parties from the understanding that support for a victorious party will benefit the union. Thus the relationship between workers' unions and the parties resembles a patronage of sorts. Regarding the power of workers' unions, Malloy writes that in Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile, workers' unions managed to stand up to a dictatorial government. In general, he writes, collaboration and partnerships encourage greater political activism, which in turn promotes greater democracy. Based on this, Malloy expresses his hope and belief that democracy will develop in Latin America. The question is how realistic Malloy's optimism in fact is. Democracy is an institution based on the equality of citizens, not on the efforts of the lower ranked individual to curry favor with a higher ranked individual. Democracy is a system in which social forces meet and struggle with each other on a level playing field, where no team has any unfair advantage over the others, other than size. The Latin American playing field isn't level and the rules of the game do not award victory to the will of the majority. Whoever is on top rules, even if he is an insignificant minority, and whoever is on the bottom bows his head in submission, even if he is the majority. Thus, there can be no talk of replicating the democratic system from the British parliament in Latin America, as long as it doesn't divest itself of its culture predicated on hierarchy, an unlikely possibility, and not even necessarily a desirable one. Democracy in Latin America can be compared to a man dressing in a bear-skin or a bear wearing a dinner jacket - it depends on one's perspective. The same can be said for the adoption of the principles of faith and reliance on one another that characterize Latin America by their North American neighbors. While this could take place on the official formal level, these attitudes are unlikely to be imbued by the average citizen. Americans do not possess a deep faith in man's fundamental goodness and honesty. Their constitution, in fact, was based on an underlying distrust of man's fundamental nature, and therefore incorporated a system of checks and balances.