LibreOffice/6.1.5.2$Linux_X86_64 LibreOffice_project/10$Build-2 0 0 14099 9999 true $(brandbaseurl)/share/palette%3B$(user)/config/standard.sob 0 $(brandbaseurl)/share/palette%3B$(user)/config/standard.soc $(brandbaseurl)/share/palette%3B$(user)/config/standard.sod 1270 false $(brandbaseurl)/share/palette%3B$(user)/config/standard.sog $(brandbaseurl)/share/palette%3B$(user)/config/standard.soh false false true true false false true false false false $(brandbaseurl)/share/palette%3B$(user)/config/standard.soe false 7 4 false 0 low-resolution false false 1 1 true 113 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 A NEW AUTHORITARIANISM. CORRELATIONS IN THE POLITICAL THEORY OBSERVABLE IN THE GOVERNMENT IN NICARAGUA. UN NUEVO AUTORITARISMO. CORRELACIONES EN LA TEORÍA POLÍTICA OBSERVABLES EN EL GOBIERNO EN NICARAGUA Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado ORCID: 0000-0003-0993-358X Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co Colombia Julie Armenta Calderón ORCID: 0000-0003-2561-2364 Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co Colombia Salvador Cazzato Dávila ORCID: 0000-0003-3255-6700 Universidad de Zulia salvadorcazzato@gmail.com Venezuela DOI: 10.24265/voxjuris.2024.v42n1.10 Recibido: 17 de enero de 2023. Aceptado: 11 de julio de 2023. SUMMARY • Introduction. • Authoritarian and totalitarian government conventions. • Traits of authoritarian regimes. • DifferencesinLatinAmericanauthoritarianisms. • Managing a new kind of authoritarianism. • Reluctances and approaches to authoritarian consolidation. • Inclinations for a new authoritarianism. • Conclusions. • References. ABSTRACT Thispaperisthefinalproductofinvestigationthat seeks to found the discussion on the transformation of democracy to emerging authoritarianism in Latin-American. In which the contributions of three specific authors were correlated: J, Linz; C, Lesgart and O’Donnell, who offer their own concepts on the typologies of determined political governance, as can be seen in the representation ofthecaseoftheRepublicofNicaragua,andthe actions undertaken by its main political actors. In thissense,itemergedfromtheuseofanalysisand descriptive methods typical of political science, that there are new authoritarianisms in the Latin- American States, which will not dissipate, since, according of evidence, on contrary; these will be consolidated. Well, authoritarian regimes have eroded the democratic bases of the initial political system, which served them as means to gain access to political power, as can be seen in the case study, since initially it was based on the mechanismsofcitizenparticipation,tolaterdeviate from the proportions of a democracy, giving rise topersonalistic,arbitraryandradicalpositionsthat redefinetherulerasaleaderwithanauthoritarian inclination,wherepublicliberties,righttodissent and to express political positions are limited. KEYWORDS authoritarianism, governance, totalitarian regime,totalitarianregime,democracy. RESUMEN Este documento es el producto final de una investigación que buscó fundar la discusión sobre la transformación de la democracia al autoritarismo emergente en el contexto Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 114 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 latinoamericano. Donde se correlacionaron las contribuciones de tres autores específicos: J, Linz; C, Lesgart y O’Donnell. Que brindan los conceptos propios sobre las tipologías de gobernanzaspolíticas,comosepuedeobservar en la representación del caso de República de Nicaragua, y las acciones acometidas por sus actores políticos principales. En este sentido, emergió a partir de la utilización de los métodos de análisis y descriptivos propios de la ciencia política,elqueexistennuevosautoritarismosen los Estados latinoamericanos, los cuales no se disiparan,yaque,deacuerdoconlaevidencia, al contrario; estos se consolidaran. Pues los regímenes autoritarios han erosionado las bases democráticas del sistema político inicial, que les valió como medio para acceder al poder político,comoseapreciaenelcasodeestudio, pues en un inicio se fundó en los mecanismos de participación ciudadana, para luego apartarse de proporciones democráticas, dando lugar a posicionespersonalistas,arbitrariasyradicales, redefiniendoalgobernantecomounLídercon inclinación autoritaria, limitando las libertades públicas, el derecho a disentir y a expresar posiciones políticas. PALABRAS CLAVES autoritarismo, gobernanza, régimen totalitario, régimentotalitario,democracia. INTRODUCTION Inthefirstplace,itiscardinaltoestablishwhat is an authoritarian regime?, which from the thoughtofJuanLinz-oneofthecentralauthors of this document-, is determined as a political system with four characteristics that are: not having responsible political pluralism limited; not having an elaborate ideology; not to make anintenseorvastpoliticalmobilization;andthe fact that one of the Chiefs and/or a small political group exercises power (1996, págs. 19-20). In thissense,wemustaddthatatcertainmoments of their development, authoritarian regimes develop a political mobilization and that the exercise of power will have legally defined limits,butalsopredictableones(Vargas,2019). Insuchawaythatanauthoritarianregime,from the thought of Juan Linz, refers to a political system in which power is concentrated in the hands of one or more leaders or a small political group. These leaders exercise absolute control over political decisions and state institutions, without real political competition or effective opposition (Geddes, 2004). From which it is significant to note that J, Linz recognizes that at certain stages of their development, authoritarian mechanisms may experience moments of intense political mobilization and that the exercise of power may have legally defined limits (Linz, 1990). However, these characteristics do not alter the authoritarian essence of the regime, since political control continues to be concentrated in the hands of a leader or small group and there is no true political pluralism or responsible political competition(Linz,1978). Within this axiom, it should be noted that in the context in which the authoritarian political system is produced, the dividing line between State and Society can be demarcated, against whichJ.Linzhimselfhasestablishedaspecific typology for regimes with these autocratic characteristics, being five main and two secondaries. In this sense, the first will be: 1) Themilitarybureaucraticauthoritarianregime; 2) The authoritarian regime of organic states; 3) The post-democratic authoritarian regime of mobilization; 4) The post-independence mobilizationauthoritarianregime;5)Thepost- totalitarian authoritarian regime. While in the characteristics for the secondary typology the following are mentioned: 1) The regime of imperfecttotalitarianismand,2)Theregimeof racialdemocracy(1996,pág.96). In this order of ideas, in the opposite sense, it is significant to clarify what a democracy is in general terms for this author, who affirms that from this orbit the power to form political partiesandthatinturnthevoterscan,through the free and transparent participation (direct or indirect), periodically electing all elected officials.WhichisclearlyexpressedbyJ,Linz, when explaining that in a democratic regime there is the freedom to create political parties, to hold honest and free elections formally established regularly, where also none of the possible political positions are excluded from responsibility before the electorate, either directlyorindirectly(1996,pág.17). As observed in the words of J, Linz, three conditionsmustbemettoaffirmthatthereisa democraticsysteminaState:1)Thefreedomto create political parties; 2) The regular holding of free and fair elections; 3)The effectiveness of the voters in the election of all political offices. From which it can be deduced that these are directly related to the concept of delegativedemocracy:proposedbyO’Donnell, referenced by thinkers A, Chaguaceda and M, Puerta -in context- asserts that delegative A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 115 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 democracies result in serious economic damage and social crisis, in a context where four characteristic elements come together: the crisis of democratic representation; social fragmentation; deinstitutionalization; and social fragmentation (2015). Based on the aforementionedconcepts,fromtheperspective of the two mentioned authors and adding the approachofCeciliaLesgartandDavidCollier, the conceptualization of the authoritarian political system, the democratic system and political personalism located in LatinAmerica willbedeepened(Diamond&Morlino,2004). AUTHORITARIAN AND TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT CONVENTIONS According to what has been said, the term authoritarianism has been a connoted specialized category and of fundamental use for the German political scientist -now deceased- Juan Linz, who since the 1960s characterized this concept. Being one of his starting points the criticism of Francoism, for a period that he himself lived in the Iberian Country. As is wellknown,Francoismasadictatorialregime had its own features in its bowels, a situation that Linz studied, from which he reasoned in depth the differences with other authoritarian regimesofthetime,forwhichreasonheargued that Francisco Franco was, his own European political experience and of a different origin than Chinese communism, Soviet Stalinism or fascism in decline, paraphrasing it (Linz & Stepan,1978). Thus, Linz and Stepan did not classify authoritarian regimes with specific surnames, butratherexpresslyauthoritariansituations,so the author did not lose track of the circumstances (1978, pp. 219-220), but was sharpening his critical lens on politics, establishing certainties with comparative studies well known to scholars of political science. His comparisons that are classic -if you will- were always in search of terms to adopt and insert to understand, as well as to explain the different authoritarian political situations, destined for thelaudablepoliticalanalyzesofhistime.His vision also pointed out that these situations wereprocurersofsomeaspects,prerogativesor pre-established requirements that allowed him to operationalize said regimes that he pointed out,thesecontributions,aspectsortheoretical- operative prerogatives of both Linz (1996, pp. 221-264), O’Donnell (1997, pp. 287-304) from Lesgart (2020, pp. 341-358) and other thinkers, who contributed their approaches to the development of the concept. TRAITS OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES Analyzing the current Latin American context, one of the problems of growing authoritarianism in the region lies not only in the accurate repression of freedoms as a central characteristic, nor in the fact that it is a regime contrary to the well-known precepts of political systems. democratic, nor to the different oppressive forms that these protagonists and leaders adopted or disguised, with which they would print their own stamp of governing, earning the stigma of an authoritarian dictatorship (Bassols & Mendoza, Gobernanza, págs. 272-273). Rather, from the sociological-historical perspective, viewed from a time continuum, these regimes tend to change their form during their rule. Its essence may remain intact,buttheformsadoptedareparticularly varied, so that repression -strong or not- entails the dissonances of the voices and wills not shared with the biased criteria of the autocratic protagonist are biased according to the collaborative analytical approach. Fromthisorientation,inordertobeconsidered an authoritarian system, some minimum requirements are required for its operation, which indispensably depends on essential internal rules that empower them in the political arena, which entails the degradation of the rules of the democratic board. From where it is affirmed that their nuclear essences are not deformed,sincecontemporaryauthoritarianisms are now a distinctive alloy that is consolidated or reinforced punctually through institutional coercion or particular political personalities that energize contemporary politics. Said alloy is contained in that governability or despicable democraticformsofgoverning,itisherewhen one of the authors previously analyzed on the subjectofdelegativedemocracyisintroduced, who is the Argentine Guillermo O’Donnell; Regarding these regimes, the underlying rules are not fickle, and at the same time they are necessary prerogatives for an authoritarian political system to sustain itself, function, or begin its political expansion without contracting it (1997). Therefore, a delegative democracy willalwayshaveawell-formulatedcurriculum, with defined premises, precepts and practices, which have been cataloged and weighed by this Argentine author. Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 116 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 In contrast, C, Lesgart mentions that this categorization runs through Latin America, although with surprising forms of access to politicalpower,butthatfullyexpresstheanalysis of its peculiarities. In this orientation, Ella tells us about a series of varied authoritarianisms because they have oppressive forms that J. Linzalsodetectedpreviously.Theseoppressive forms -of authoritarianism- can include forms of government (States or authoritarian bureaucratic regime, military regimes, dictatorships, new authoritarianism) like many others, which are not in parentheses (2020, pp. 357-358). Therefore, Lesgart specifically expresses those authoritarian regimes, therefore, they are a modern voice that refers to a repressive and oppressive way of exercising political power, without resorting to temporarily available concepts such as totalitarianism in the past. and fascism. But neither does it fall into categories that characterize a certain type of personalism and its expansion to a form of exercise of politicalpower,liketheclassicfiguresoftyranny and tyrant, dictatorship and dictator, despotism anddespots.Thatistosay,thatwiththecategory of authoritarianism the political system can be understood, which wants to build a certain typology that comes from the daily personality oftheruler,fromwheretheapproachofthestate orsystemisformulated(2020,págs.355-356). For this reason, it can be said from Linz that the political change of a regime is a distinction that resizes thatArgentina that Cecilia Lesgart perceives,consideringthat,forher,adistinctive analytical dimension is first needed that is capable of describing the different ways of exercising political power as pointed out by the second author. Because authoritarianism and totalitarianism are autocratic forms of the exercise of political power, and Linz distinguished their characteristics, sometimes ambiguous.ButLesgartreliesonthis,andpoints out how in totalitarianism the differentiation betweentheStateand(civil)societyiserased, wherethespacesofthepublic,andtheprivate and intimate, of the state and of the apolitical public are not perceived. clearly without proper analysis. For both authors, authoritarianism has a heterogeneous and even plural base, but always being a totalitarian system, it presents an immovable monism of the individualist ambition of the regime leader. In all cases, it is necessary to address authoritarianism as a political model, which creates a type of regime that degrades the masses, limiting, repressively controlling and persecuting - if necessary - even eliminating specificgroupsandinstitutionsthatmayoppose it.Totalitarianismalsomobilizesthemassesand, at the same time, penetrates and destroys pre- existing institutions and sociopolitical groups, creating new institutions that have no origin in civil society (Lesgart, 2020, pp. 353-354). These features are evident if we pay attention to thecriticalobservationsofbothauthors,onthe characteristicmilitaryregimes-forexample,of the Southern Cone during the seventies- called authoritarian regimes or new authoritarianisms accordingtoCollier(1985),aswellasindicated byO‘Donnell(1972,2008). This is possible thanks to the approaches to contemporary comparative politics developed by both O’Donnell and Juan Linz and others in stages of the 1960s and 1970s, since the contributions of both cannot be ruled out due to the fact that they were made in less modern times. recent to the current date. Because in order to explain and dismantle the authoritarian ornon-authoritariancontextsinLatinAmerica, both thinkers offer keys and basic categories that were the product of the analysis of the emergence of autocratic periods and various authoritarian forms of government from the 1950s. Said autocratic political contexts they demand basic theoretical-conceptual tools of these, with the purpose of dismantling in an explanatory way the sui generis institutional and state development and functioning of the new governmental or governance systems from the 1970s. As the concept of authoritarianism is inferred, it has evolved over time and has acquired different meanings in different historical and cultural contexts, therefore, according to what was mentioned from thought C, Lesgart, it can be argued that the author emphasizes the importance of understand authoritarianism as a complexandmultidimensionalconcept(2020), because his conviction is that the intellectual left in the region has gone through various theoretical and political transformations over timeandthesechangeshavebeeninfluencedby historicalcontexts,socialmovements,political struggles and intellectual debates (2000). At thesametime,forC,Lesgart,authoritarianism refers to a form of government or political system in which power is concentrated in the handsofacentralauthority,generallyaleader orsmallgroup,andisexercisedcoercivelyand withouttheconsentorsignificantparticipation A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 117 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 of the population. In an authoritarian system, political decisions and control over society are exercised unilaterally by the leader or group in power,withoutaclearseparationofpowersor protection of individual rights and freedoms (2020).Forthisreason,anauthoritariansystem is characterized by the lack of accountability mechanisms and the suppression of political opposition, where the leader or group in general has the power to exercise absolute control over government institutions, the media, and other sectors. society key (2008). According to which, political repression, censorship,violationofhumanrightsandlack of civil liberties are common characteristics in authoritariansystems.Since,inanauthoritarian system, decision-making is based on the will and interests of the elite in power, without considering the participation or consent of the population (2012). So political plurality, open debate and democratic competition are often limited or completely absent in these systems. On the other hand, similarly, Guillermo O’Donnell, who was one of the most outstanding political scientists in the field of Latin American political science; recognized for his multidisciplinary approach and rigorous analysisofpoliticalsystems(1986),especially in relation to authoritarian systems and democratization processes. However, in relation to our categories of analysis,G,O’Donnellexploredtheinteractions between the modernization process and the riseofauthoritarianregimesinLatinAmerica, arguing that economic and social development nonetheless led to democratization, and highlighted the importance of political elites and institutionsintheconfigurationofauthoritarian systems.Likewise,O’Donnellmadeimportant contributions to the study of political transitions and democratic consolidation (2010). But, he focused on the challenges and obstacles that countries face on their way to democracy, such as institutional weakness, lack of accountability, and the persistence of authoritarianpractices(2021).Thus,hestressed the importance of citizen participation and the strengthening of civil society as fundamental elements for the construction and sustainability ofdemocracy,forwhichhehighlightedtherole of social movements and non-governmental organizations in promoting accountability. accounts and political inclusion. In addition to this, O’Donnell also addressed the issue of inequality and poverty in Latin America and its impact on political and social stability (O’Donnell, Quiroga, Acosta, Lazzetta, & Seminara,1998).Exploringthewaysinwhich socioeconomic inequality can create tensions and conflicts in political systems and policies to address these problems. What generated an important contribution from his ideas about the transition processes to democracy, through the development of the concept’s micro democracy and delegative democracy (O’Donnell, Quiroga, & Iazzetta, Democracia delegativa, 2011). For this reason, unlike J, LinzandC,Lesgart;O’Donnellhasexamined the phenomenon of authoritarianism from the perspective of the authoritarian bureaucracy. In his work on bureaucratic authoritarianism (1988), where authoritarian regimes in Latin America are explored, finding that they are characterizedbythedominationofapowerful, but also repressive state bureaucracy. Inaccordancewiththeaforementioned,atable is presented below showing the positions that each of the three authors Juan Linz, Cecilia Lesgart and Guillermo Alberto O’Donnell proposeandshowaccordingtoalloftheabove, alloftheabovecommented,andfromwhatthey say about authoritarianism and authoritarian systems,inthreedifferentpositions,likethis: Table No.1. Comparison of the authors Juan Linz, Cecilia Lesgart and Guillermo Alberto O’Donnell. Juan Linz Cecilia Lesgart Guillermo O´donnell Similarities - Study of authoritarianism -Focuson contemporary authoritarianism - Analysis of LatinAmerican authoritarianism Differences -Focusmore focused on authoritarianism in Europe -Broaderfocus that includes LatinAmerica -Focusmore focused on the LatinAmerican context Theory - Theory of transitions to democracy -Nospecific theory mentioned -Competitive authoritarianism theory Contributed concepts - Transitions to democracy -Contemporary authoritarianism -Competitive authoritarianism Birthand death -Bornin1927 and died in 2013 -Bornin1970- in good health -Bornin1936 and died in 2011 Period - Second half of the 20th century - Currently in development - Second half of the 20th century Source: Self made. As can be seen in the previous table, the previous table presents a comparison between thethreeauthors:JuanLinz,CeciliaLesgartand Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 118 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 GuillermoAlbertoO’Donnell,inrelationtotheir positions on authoritarianism and authoritarian systems. The table consists of three columns for eachauthorandfiverowsthataddressdifferent aspects.Thefirstrowhighlightsthesimilarities betweenthethreeauthors,sinceitishighlighted that they all share an approach in the study of authoritarianism and authoritarian systems. In addition, all have made relevant theoretical contributions in the field of political science and have carried out comparative case analyses. In the second row, the differences between the authors are exhibited, that each author uses specific theoretical and methodological approaches in his work, which implies differencesintheirstudyapproachesandareas ofemphasiswithinthefieldofauthoritarianism (Schmitter&Lynn,1991).AccordingtowhatJ hasshown,Linzisrecognizedforhistheoryof transitions and democratic consolidation and has worked on concepts such as authoritarianism, totalitarianism, authoritarian regimes and democratic transitions. he has worked extensively on the study of authoritarianism and has developed related concepts. Although a specificdefinitionisnotprovidedintheabove box, Linz has addressed authoritarianism as a political system in which power is concentrated in a leader or small group, without effective control mechanisms and without respect for individual rights and liberties. Linz has also analyzed authoritarian mechanisms and has studied transitions from authoritarianism to democracy. Ontheotherhand,G,O’Donnellhasgenerated theoriesonauthoritarianbureaucracy,delegative democracyandpoliticaltransitions,havingalso developed concepts related to authoritarian bureaucracy, delegative democracy and the comparative analysis of authoritarian systems. he has made important contributions to the study of authoritarianism and has developed relatedconcepts.Althoughaspecificdefinition isnotprovidedintheboxabove,O’Donnellhas addressed authoritarianism as a political system characterized by the concentration of power in one leader or group, the absence of effective checks and balances, and the suppression of freedoms. and individual rights. O’Donnell has also analyzed authoritarian bureaucracy anddelegativedemocracyasspecificformsof authoritarianism. Cecilia Lesgart, it is noted that she has also worked in the field of authoritarianism and authoritariansystems,butherapproachandher definition of authoritarianism differ from the other two authors. The introduction presents the term “authoritarianism” as a fundamental concept in comparative politics since the 1960s.ItwasusedbyJuanLinztocharacterize Francoism in Spain and differentiate it from other European and Soviet political experiences. Throughout history, the concept of authoritarianism has been associated with oppressiveformsofexerciseofpoliticalpower, such as dictatorships and military regimes. In Latin America, the interest in studying the surprising forms of access to political power and the oppressive forms of exercise of power has led to the consolidation of the concept of authoritarianism. It has been used to analyze coups, military regimes and dictatorships in the region. However, in recent years new approaches have emerged that seek to distinguish authoritarianism from other forms of government. Terms such as “competitive authoritarianism”, “electoral authoritarianism” and “authoritarian electoral regimes” have been introduced to describe contemporary political situations in which authoritarianism is combined with electoral processes (Maxwell, 2018). DIFFERENCES IN LATIN AMERICAN AUTHORITARIANISMS From the perspective developed, this section shows a margin of the importance that resides in the first two American thinkers already mentioned, since the new authoritarianisms had already been warned by both J, Linz and O’Donnell, but with the passage of time, authoritarian cases have suffered, first, from institutionalrupturesandadhoccharacteristics, which will allow their rulers to gradually demobilize the massive sectors of Latin American civil societies.And, secondly, these are clearly exposed by A, Chaguaceda and A, Caldera (2016). In this way, it is worth highlighting an aside, where A, Chaguaceda managed to summarize the basic and practical precepts of a delegative democracy that tends tobeamarkedlyauthoritarianpoliticalregime; thusneitherO’DonnellnorLesgartareeligible forsystematicstudy.Indeed,fromthisreflection, the authoritarian political experiences compiled by the literature of O’Donnell and Linz and many others, guide us through the thematic transit, assumed by Lesgart, who asserts with conviction that these are associated with the different national forms in each State of the A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 119 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 oppressiveexerciseofpoliticalpower(2020,p. 350).Inthisway,hegoesfurtherinhiscritical review of the dissonant and compartmentalized opposition of the pendular thinkers of the Cold War who coordinated their premises on the axes of the authoritarianism/democracy binomial, understood as indissoluble opposites from almost all points of view (Borgonovi & Silva, 2016). Forthisreason,hereisoneofCeciliaLesgart’s contributions when she points out that this axis argument blurs the theoretical productions of third wave political science, and the pompous global resurgence of democracy (Huntington, 1991; Diamond & Plattner, nineteen ninety six). cited by Lesgart, 2020 p.355), evidently discrediting -by antonym- authoritarian systems or those contrary to the mentioned resurgence. For the rest, it is opportune to point out that the phenomenon of the erosion of democracies in Latin America is not a recent historical fact, but permanent forms that are typical of its development. This undeniable erosion highlights conceptual notions and distinctions of certain authoritarianisms in Latin America that have governed under oppressive forms of exercise of political power (civil, military or civic-militarydictatorships),andwithsurprising formsofaccesstopoliticalpower,asinthecase ofcoups(Lesgart,2020,p.351).Indeed,oneof her contributions will revolve around a type of authoritarianismthatorbits,whichis based on elementsindicatedbyO’Donnell(1972,2009), where C, Lesgart indicates that, since the late ninetiesanduptothepresent,authoritarianism does not necessarily arise from the force of a military coup, because military intervention or action by military forces is not required today (Lesgart, 2020, p. 351). Undoubtedly, it is necessary to examine the respective authoritarian systems in more detail, since the apparently contradictory combination between the emergence of authoritarian political forms and the holding of periodic open elections, outlinesusonanelectoralauthoritarianism,or authoritarian electoral regimes, or competitive autocracies (Schedler, 2004; Diamond, 2004; Levitsky&Way,2004;Corrales,2006;Frantz, 2018).ThisishowtheyrevealitandO’Donnell himself with the category of delegative democracy. Therefore,theexaminationofthedifferentpre- characterized systems makes it necessary to delimit how diversification is shown in terms of the classification of hard regimes, which are effectively sui generis political models because, on occasions, they do not respond to local theories or explanations contained. in political science. Although it is true, one of the theoretical arguments is that some models present hybrid or combinatory political forms that move away from the central canons of a traditional democratic system. It should be noted that, simply or complexly, certain regimes are supported by institutionally democraticformsormethods(forexample,the holding of free and direct elections sponsored by agents who figure in political power at the time, but who can imperatively be classified within of a liberal democratization), which is perfectly feasible from O’Donnell’s analytical argument.Forthisauthor,authoritarianismsare configured because they do not fully comply with the combinatory formula of the basic premisesofwhatisunderstoodbydemocracy; and is understood by her. Thus, a democracy is understood as a government elected by the people through open and competitive elections -perhaps not always free or fair- but where the liberal component of the rule of law, the separation of powers and individual liberties are not corroded (Zakaria, 2007 referenced by Lesgart). Inthisway,whenaffirmingthatthereareorbital regimesinthedemocratic,thisthinkerhasnot ceded any validity, since there are still rulers who have masked or distorted this formula of traditional and institutional premises guided by Zakaria, which are maintained under the formalities of a democracy without being, really.Likewise,itisappropriatetoregisterthe case of the Republic of Nicaragua, in Central America. Where presidential elections were formally organized and held on November 7, 2021, ominously supporting this characteristic model of a hypothetical democracy for him and hiswayofgoverning(ChaguacedaN.A.,2020). Asfarassheisconcerned,itisnocoincidence that Daniel Ortega and his wife hold elections with the absence of the main agents or loyal opponents,feeding-inordertocomply-within thesystemicformalityofthedemocraticorbit, its inconsistency lies in the analytical criteria from the factual because those who openly opposed that Sandinista revolution were imprisoned, execrated, disappeared or exiled and could not contend (Fernández, 2022). In fact, for many foreign diplomacies, D, Ortega is a thematic contingency that has provoked resounding rejections of democratic foreign policies, whether of the European Union or Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 120 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 theUnitedStates.Therefore,D,Ortegameans a political contingency to what a democracy borrowed from Zakaria represents. Although it is clear that Daniel Ortega did not reach the presidency by forceful military action as authoritarianismistraditionallyconceived.So, the case of Nicaragua, at present, challenges us to understand its political dynamics with an adequate analytical approach of what are the democratic characteristics of a regime. Given that the superficial characterization of what is conceptualized as authoritarianism must be overcome,thefullunderstandingofaproblem around the limits of presidential power is also sought, even more so when political scientists have neglected the edges of complexity. of political phenomena such as that of Nicaragua that represents the personalization of political power, observing a concentration of political power in the person of the leader (Soriano de García-Pelayo,1996,pp.48-49). Insuchawaythat,apoliticalpersonalismlikethe onepresentedinthefigureofOrtegaexercises, forexample,necessarycontrolsormechanisms over the executive power or the rest of them, until reaching the essential concentration of power through institutional submission, in the national media or the Judiciary, to mention some works of control or political subjection generally framed in a delegative democracy (Moreira, Raus, & Gómez, 2008, p. 247). This could be the case. Thus, the fact that electoral processes are carried out often does not ensure that the essential codes or premises of a democracy are not affected. Therefore, the periodic holding of formally democratic elections does not always motivate their real representation, since it can become the ramificationofademocracyinastateoferosion inthewordsofJ,Linz.Therefore,electionscan be fraudulent or manipulated in an apparently competitive process, even in a double count system or with the presence of international observers(1996,p.223). This is how a democracy in permanent or critical erosion can be part of a furtive authoritarian denomination, as O’Donnell, Schmitter and Whiteheadhavealreadyargued.(1988),authors who began an analytical effort to systematize the various forms of authoritarian domination that have occurred in different geographies. Orientation from which they theorized about explanations at a casuistic level. For although certain authoritarian denominations border on political forms described as a series of new authoritarianisms (Collier, 1985), in reality they retain many of the features of the authoritarianism that appeared in Europe in the thirdandfourthdecadeofthepreviouscentury, which coincides with O’Donnell’s position, withthedifferencethatIcallthemsubtypesof authoritarianism.Thus,itcanbeobservedthat these are dominant authoritarian denominations or forms according to the typology of analytical criteriawithwhichtheyaredelimited;itisnot attached to a formal normative denomination or definition in the democratic sphere. Consequently, these new democratic forms, instead of supporting a true democratization process as Manuel Garretón would express it, misrepresent or misrepresent under the description of particular political forms, as presented in the specific case: the Nicaraguan Country. Although at the same time, these specific political forms represent a particular typeofgovernance(2011,pp.34-35)thatdoes not endorse or contain the conceptual premise of a representative, participatory and liberal democracy,regardlessofhowitisapproached. All in all, the political behavior of Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo distorts the features of the democratic nucleus, approaching more to anauthoritariandomination,sinceitsformsare opposite and contrast with the aforementioned features of the well-known liberal democracies. Likewise,theirpoliticalmethodsofimprisoning opponents, around the time of elections, really belie institutional support for inclusive suffrageortheinterdependenceofcivilliberties (Schumpeter, 1983; Dahl, 1989). It should be noted that all the authors -including Shumpeter- consider that the possibilities, impossibilities and difficulties of following a two-way path: authoritarianism or political democratization, presenttheconceptoftransition,whichacquires gradual elements of processes that oscillate on one side. the other. to another. However, the difference in the aforementioned is that according to J. Schumpeter and R. Dahl, they consideredthepossibilitiesofacoupd’état,and insteadJ.Linzraisedtheruptureofthepolitical regime or the rupture of democracy. Just as, sometime later, O’Donnell, Schmitter and Whitehead carried out a detailed political study of thirteen cases, in two different geographies,verifyingfivesituationsinEurope and eight in LatinAmerica, where these three authors verified that not always validating the denominations of what could be the new authoritarianisms (1988). This is particularly A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 121 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 so because they are also specific forms of governance (Bassols & Mendoza, 2011), since not all authoritarian regimes always have the decisive presence of the legitimate Armed Forces of a State, or of the military as a central actor; while some are defined by the hegemony of a political party, and several are personalist.Which is the same as stated by C, Lesgart (2020, pp. 350-351). That is why, in the exercise of political power -paraphrasing O’Donnell-themodesofpoliticalorganization can have subtypes of authoritarianism, which can involve too many denominations used such as: military populism, despotism, personalized dictatorships, military autocracies, etc. many others(2008). In an accessory way, the case of Nicaragua with the culmination of the electoral process in 2021,demonstratedtheemergingdisplacement of contingent processes that are aimed at generatingthenewdenominations,whichlater became authoritarian dominations, which is whatreallyhappened,regardlessofwhetheritis focusedinonewayoranother,whichisrelated to what was stated by O’Donnell, Schmitter & Whitehead (1988), and Lesgart (2020). Where this last author rightly points out that a new reflection has emerged on political forms that are not fully democratic or authoritarian, in such a way that they are presented and are hybrid forms using a term proposed by Overy (2006). In the same way, to talk about the CentralAmerican C political regimes, Lesgart uses this term (Lesgart, 2020, pp. 351-352), and to explain the expansion with the so-called authoritarianenclaves,whichisaconcepttaken fromGarretón(1988),alsoagreeingthatthese enclaves are generated for certain periods. Thus, according to what has been mentioned, wecanaffirmthattheproposedideaallowsusto affirmthattherearetransitorytransitionperiods that have residues clearly proposed to become institutionalized political regimes in another way,ordelegativedemocracies(Lesgart,2020). Therefore, the theorizing about the nuclear inflection of the limited Nicaraguan political dynamics up to this point is sustainable. MANAGING A NEW KIND OF AUTHORITARIANISM Thissectionwillanswerthequestionofwhether, according to the classification constructed by O’Donnell and Lesgart, the case of the Republic of Nicaragua in Central America can beclassifiedasanewtypeofauthoritarianism. This hypothesis wants to express in the first placethatbothO’DonnellandLesgartpointout that democracies intrinsically and occasionally can exhaust the democratic systems that they have built and that are formally established, which are not subtypes, neither old nor new like Lesgart. points out, but that, through comparative politics, ensures that electoral and/or competitive authoritarianisms emerge (Lesgart, 2020, pp. 361-362). Since, in these subtypes where the periodic holding of elections and the presence of certain parties reflect the turning point of the new authoritarianism, particular and ad hoc. Consequently, the following eight paragraphs will explain the points that determine this relationship. Therefore, first of all, there is an emerging hybridization of political changes within the regimesthatclaimtobedemocratic,themixture of their political governance leads to the frequent holding of elections that do not always guarantee individual rights and/or civil liberties. Said political mix enables reflections of a theoretical andconceptualnaturethatC,Lesgartabbreviates into conceptual networks of eight types such as: semi or pseudo democracy; virtual democracy; electoraldemocracy;partlyfreedemocracy;semi- authoritarianism; soft authoritarianism; electoral authoritarianism; competitive authoritarianism (Lesgart,2020,pp.361-362). Inanycase,secondly,whenindicatingthedifferent variablesaroundthetermdemocracy,thevariations adjusted to the categories indicated or registered by the author are denotative; Based on Diamond (2004), she points out how there are democratic electoral regimes, authoritarian electoral regimes or electoral authoritarianism, which occupies our scientific attention when referring to the identity difficulties found between democratic systems and the elective processes of their rulers. , hence the permanent adjectives of both democracies and authoritarianism contribute to the tirade of political scienceresearcherssofar(2004). Here the third point is presented, so that the Nicaraguan political system is pigeonholed or moveswithintheidentificationofwhatanadhoc democracy is, which is a neo-authoritarianism or also called new authoritarianism, in correlation with the carrying out of processes adjusted elections. to the contextual conditions oftherulingparty.Thus,thisstatementisfound in a variety of variables exposed by Lesgart (2020), Diamond (2004), among others. Well, in recent years the State of Nicaragua and its rulers have carried out universal suffrage with Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 122 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 a secret ballot for all people with the right to vote, accompanied by periodic elections that support the regime within a political democracy, but there is no democratization. But, on the contrary, there has not been or has been promoted organizational freedom within the political system of Daniel Ortega. Because most unions and union movements have been restricted, unless they are experts in government interests. Furthermore, there is currently no free competition between political parties sympathetic to or politically opposed to the Nicaraguan regime headed by the president. Since, in this last-mentioned election, there are known numbers of arrests of opponents of it or political parties disqualified by the State electoralbody(OEA,2021). However, as a fourth point we can mention that in the Nicaraguan case there is no real and adequate separation of the political powers of the State such as the Judicial or the electoral, whichwasnotimposedbyitsleadersonduty, yearafteryear,untiltothecurrentstateofthings. The mere fact that the Nicaraguan judicial body hascaptured,prosecutedandsentencedpolitical actors opposed to President Daniel Ortega (in thelastfiveyears)isanegativeindicatorofthe response.Therefore,thenecessarysovereignty is not granted to individuals so that the democraticcharacterstandsout,obviouslynot. Whichbringsustothefifthpoint,whichisthat in reality in Nicaragua the civil liberties of the individuals that make up the political society of the Nation and the State are not respected. What comes to be another negative point that contradicts what is understood by democracy, but that gives rise to and accounts for a type or subtype of authoritarianism. Let us explain that, with characteristic results such as these, a non-democratic regime or political system is designed, becauseand becauseitbreaks the chain of democratic election (Cadena, 2004), therefore, the necessary links in the chain of a true electoral democracy are not meet in the case studied. In other words, if it is assumed that the last electoral process in the State of Nicaragua sought the presidential succession, for example, that chain of democratic elections is broken from above. This can be called electoral authoritarianism or a semi- authoritarian political regime. Succinctly, it remains to mention in the sixth point that due to the reach of the parliamentary level in the case of the leader Daniel Ortega and theStateofNicaragua,thepopularparliamentary representation has been decreasing and very reduced, since it is worth mentioning the importance represented in it expresses the plurality of representative voices of the people and is a space for the audibility of minorities (Lesgart, 2020, p. 362). In other words, in Nicaragua, the numerous minorities opposed to the ruling party were silenced, banned or censored, many others were persecuted or captured for their political activity and some wereimprisonedforthecrimeoftreason(Díaz, 2010,p.704). For its part, in reference to the seventh point, on the dimension related to the actions of social organizations and non-governmental organizations, whose access, mobility and right of reply or complaint do not enjoy the independence, ease of competition or popular sovereignty that they should enjoy is almost non-existent if one examines the roles of the executive, judicial and electoral branches. If attention is paid to the plan and the role that the media and social networks play in the issue ofgenuinefreedomofexpression,thescenario is further complicated as the former have been banned, censored, closed and vilified., the journalistic union has been the object of this mechanical scheme of political and repressive actions, against the national media led for a long time by Daniel Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo (El País, 2021). Precisely on thisparticularsituation,theprofessionalCarlos Martínez de la Cerda, testified as a journalist, of the coercive experiences at the beginning of November of last year, at the time when the presidential elections were held, which were called and labeled of being a farce, after President Daniel Ortega imprisoned dozens of opponents of his government and potential presidential candidates. In addition, added to this, the independent press has seen in recent months how attacks against it have increased with raids on newsrooms, harassment and persecution of journalists through laws that seek to silence critical voices. In such a way that, according to known data, there are currently more than one hundred and fifty political prisoners in the country, among them the sports journalist Miguel Mendoza, or also MiguelMora,formerdirectorofthetelevision channel “100% Noticias.” who had become an opposition candidate; and Juan Lorenzo Holmann Chamorro, general manager of the newspaper“LaPrensa”(ElPaís,2021).Forthis reasonitcanbeaffirmedthatsincetheprevious year in Nicaragua there has been a systematic A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 123 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 attack on all possible opposition leaders, and on the media, which to a certain extent was decisive in the elections of November 7, 2021, to dismantle and destroy the press Just as there are dozens of journalists in exile as a result of this and many of them in the country under surveillance or with their activity highly restricted for different reasons (Martínez de la CerdacitedbyLorenaArroyo,2021). Finally, as an eighth point, regarding the use of social networks through information and communication technologies, they have been surrounded, besieged in relation to their main functions and competencies for which they were promoted, their rights have been cut off liberties in their negative expression about the management or responsibilities of the official government is a clandestine and counterrevolutionary task to their desire to perpetuate themselves in power. That is to say,itisnotreallyfortuitousthatthisseriesof undeniable facts are indications or indicators of the permanence of an authoritarian or perhaps semi-authoritarian political regime without overshadowing or tarnishing the repressive mechanisms through which the autocratic personalism of Daniel Ortega dissipates essential nuclei and guidelines of a system that tends to be democratic or that gives way to a process of democratization. RELUCTANCES AND APPROACHES TO AUTHORITARIAN CONSOLIDATION Given this context and at that historical moment forNicaragua,thelackofpremisesandspecific canonsindemocraciesisevident,whichiswhy expertssuchasOctavioPescadorinmediasuch as CNN en Español, in the program “Choque de Opiniones” establish how in the In the case of Daniel Ortega, deprives the freedom through the State media of all those who express themselves badly about him and his government, since dissent in Nicaragua is not viewed favorably by them, precisely because the vision is closed and obtuse when declaring the marked features of ideological ideology. polarization that this Central American country is going through (2021). Therefore, as O, Pescador affirms, the authoritarian regime of Nicaragua will seek to persecute and silence by the means at its disposal those who speak ill of the government and the government leader, as well as his management, being classified as enemies, which is truly different from the considerationsgiventoapoliticaladversary,as is often the case in governments that abide by democratic rules. Where, although dissenting voices and opinions contrary to the government cannotbeexpressed,neithercanitbeaffirmed and interpreted that there is a war in progress. Where at the same time we can add that Ortega andhiswifehavestrippedthefigureofhisnew authoritarianism of an essentially democratic character, therefore, these two; president and vicepresident,theysubscribetobeingactorsor figuresthatpolarize,whichbringsthetypeof: either you are with me or you are against me. What limits us is the teacher from the California region(Pescador,Octavio,2021). In any case, the States of Law and the Social and Democratic States of Law in Latin America must primarily consider the perverse interference in Human Rights in regimes such as the Nicaraguan one.Where even today, the media are being permanently attacked, as is the case of the Country’s newspapers, which gives authoritarian nuances like those that are reflected in this Nation. In this sense, this type of regime builds a political enemy that is necessary, so if that political enemy is not present,itisinvented,butitmustalwaysexist to feed a degree of ideological polarization that intoxicates the ability to tolerate dissent. the voices and criteria that go against the interests of those who are enthroned, such as the aforementioned media and people who use social networks for these purposes. In the same way, not only in developing countries,butalsoinfirstworldcountries,there are recent classic cases of semi-democratic governments that feed ideological polarization in a plurality of ways, as can be seen in the political phenomenon of Donald Trump or the claims and actions to judge him regarding the notorious attack on the United States Capitol in January of the year (2021). On this detail, it can be noted that politics is emotional, and sometimes lacks substantive ideas adopted through visceral positions that turn their backs on political rationality, which is why some political leaders are often branded as circus clowns.inthepoliticalarenaOnceagain,andin relation to the attack and looting of the Capitol of a so-called first world nation, it is no less important that it could even be interpreted as anattemptedcoupd’étatthatturnedU.S.policy upside down United (S, Canton on CNN in Spanish,2021). But, above all, at no time is it intended to make comparisons between the two American Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 124 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 political events, but rather to underline the deeply rooted role that social networks have in current politics, essential due to the emotional and subjective aspect that prevails in historical milestones or facts that define a historical process of a Country (S, Cantón on CNN in Spanish, 2021), since the emotional is what prevails in social networks, the dissemination of propaganda, categories and emotional discourses on platforms through communication technologies information and communication, will be increasingly a determining element in politics.Forthisreason,likewise,thisresearch variable in current politics focuses on the ramifications of social networks that have yet to be thoroughly examined, as in the case of the aforementioned assault on the United States Capitolin2021,aswellasonthedemonstrable restrictions that are imposed. in that. they have been imposed from the government power occupiedbyPresidentDanielOrtega. Therefore, some experts such as the Chilean Rodrigo Gil assert that the political complexities of the modern world go so far as to say that it is actually a welfare state based on the diversities of polarization, which intersects levels of connected processes as the unprecedented fact. of the assault on the capitol; or also from the comfort of social networks assumed by social sectors or Nicaraguan individuals (Gil on CNN is Spanish, 2021). Since communicational political situations that veto the functions for which they were given accentuate the pendulum of polarization of the political wills that set the course of a nation, whose rank has not been respected by the words and actions of the main agent of Nicaragua, according to because you cannot lose the center of democracy, which allows you to restore or restore the forces of tolerance criteria so necessary in any category of a democratic regime. Given that it is probable that we are facing a novel and highly dangerous scenario in the political sphere when the depth and background of the proposals and ideas exposed in the phenomenon of social networks during political processes are addressed through the analytical method. In which digital phenomena have changed perspective where there are no content or concrete ideas to offer the new (Gil on CNNisSpanish,2021).Well,althoughweare witnessing a constant transformation of political phenomena located in the permanent changes of thedigitizationofmodernpolitics,wearealso witnessing a different and novel scenario: the trivialization of value messages and background content that guide educationally, anyone who is observing or looking at the screen of your personal device or television. To conclude, the network of adjectives with which authoritarian regimes in Latin America canbeclassifiedissurprising,notonlybecause it connotes and captures the features of the new authoritarianisms according to J, Linz andanotherrangeofauthors,butalsobecause it represents reengineering or reconstructed repowering. of regimes with formalities of electoral calls and other brief characteristics of democracies and semi-democracies. In this sense, coincidentally both J, Linz, O’Donnell and Lesgart offer a spectrum of elements of analysis and connections that cannot becollectedhere,butwhich,nevertheless,point out rays of light to explain the complex approach of political regimes such as the Nicaraguan. On the onehand,theconstantelectoralprocesses,open consultations,callstoofficialsocialmovements arepartofcertainelements.Ontheotherhand, theineffectiveseparationofconstitutivepowers oftheState,thearbitrarydetentionandcapture of those who opposed or launched into the presidentialpoliticalarenalastyear,thevetoand closure of political communication spaces that oppose or issue critical judgments. against the peculiargovernanceofOrtegaandhiswife,the formulation and promotion of positions that orbit and are ideologically polarized with reference to the axes of the governance of the day he championed(Bataillon,Gilles,2019,pp.1-3). Giventhattheadoptionofretrograde(pendular) positions by Nicaraguan “Sandinismo” in the senseof:hewhoisnotwithmeisagainstme, translates as my enemy, which are just some of the connections and variables of political dynamics who are complexly involved and change their social greenness to the astonished lookofsome,totheimpassiveandsatisfiedlook of others in the face of the latest eventualities that have come together in the Central American territory dominated by this so-called “Sandinista” Nicaraguan revolutionary leader. INCLINATIONS FOR A NEW AUTHORITARIANISM The “Sandinista” Daniel Ortega has demonstrated with forceful facts the development of guidelines for a Delegative Democracy linked to actions and reactions of authoritarian bases that declined or injured the A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 125 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 democratic characteristics that barely remained in Nicaragua. Recently, various media outlets have expressed that this way of governing is arbitrary and, above all, a violation of human rights, and above all of political rights. Like the five mayors that passed into the hands of the Nicaraguan opposition by popular vote, they were democratically and arbitrarily assumed by councilors from President Daniel Ortega’s party, who in turn appointed new official mayors. Therefore, the aggrieved denounced restrictions and violation of rights and guarantees when there were four months to gobeforethemunicipalelections(AFP,2022). In that order, it is known that the occupied municipal governments belong to the municipalities of “El Cuá”, “San Sebastián de Yali”and“SantaMaríadePantasma”,jurisdiction of“Jinotega”(north);inadditionto“Murra”,in thedepartmentof“NuevaSegovia”(north);and “ElAlmendro”,in“RíoSanJuan”(south)(AFP, 2022). Given that their authoritarian forms of government account for the abuses committed against Nicaraguan democracy, it is clear that these mayors were removed from their posts and replacedbyforcebyfivecapablemayorsplaced at the discretion of the central government. Thus,fourmonthsafterthemunicipalelections (November 6, 2021), the regime arbitrarily occupied five opposition mayoralties that were inthehandsofthe“CiudadanosporlaLibertad political” party, who publicly denounced these events (AFP, 2022). Thus, it can be clearly inferred that the political regime goes from a delegative character to a discretionary and autocraticexercise,hardeningitsanti-democratic position,inthecaseofaneo-authoritarianism. By the way, the Nicaraguan newspaper “La Prensa”referstohowbetween2008and2012 thirty-three mayors were dismissed by this same political actor (2016), which suggests that it was and is a novel political practice, recent in its political credit. former. This in terms of the political dynamics that are taking place in Nicaragua, and although its arbitrary relationship with the Catholic Church also has edges that deny effective democratic governance by the revolutionary ex-guerrilla. Because the Catholic Church, only through certainpoliticalactors,contradictsandopposes the marked authoritarianism that is increasingly accentuated in this country. Being that here the accusations of the sociologist Oscar René Vargas are obvious when he declared how the autocratic regime wants to exile Bishop RolandoÁlvarez.Then,theNicaraguanregime pursues a negotiation with the Vatican or with the Nicaraguan Episcopate that will culminate intheexileofBishopRolandoÁlvarez,acritic of Daniel Ortega and who is detained by state authorities(Vargas,Oscar,2022). Asmentionedsofar,itisarepressivecampaign whose ultimate goal is to negotiate with the Vatican, given that since August 25, 2021 Monsignor Álvarez has been detained together withfivepriestsandsixlaymenintheEpiscopal Palace, which is located besieged by Special ForcesoftheNicaraguanPolice.Since,forthe police,thesepeoplewereaccusedofhavingthe purpose of destabilizing the Nicaraguan State (DeutscheWelle,2022). CONCLUSIONS The transitions between democracy and autocratic modalities and mechanisms are presentwithscientificclarityinthedevelopment of this article, where three authors were taken who offer us fundamental guidelines and premises on how a delegative democracy works -O’Donnell’s conception- since it can modify to become a personalist regime with consolidated authoritarian traits. In such a way thattheregimesinLatinAmericahavehadtheir own descriptions that make them particular. And the case of Nicaragua and its leader Daniel Ortega are not exempt from this framework of polyetiological affirmation. Indeed, the New Authoritarianisms are also renewed with the passage of the XXI century; without leaving aside the conceptual contributions such as those of Delegative Democracy or those of semi- authoritarian regimes that can be replaced or subjected to reengineering in the political sphere. In short, Daniel Ortega and his controversial political leadership in the last two decades represent part of the substrata and substantial edges of the emergence of a type of governance worthy of being analytically refocused, if you will, with these assumed characteristics and mechanisms. by the Nicaraguan president. Wherewefaceindistinctscenarios,despitethe repressive and coercive undertakings against those who become enemies and traitors to the revolution and the homeland, with which AugustoSandinodreamed,atthebeginningof the “Sandinista” revolutionary movement. Based on what has been said, it is possible to argue that Nicaragua has experienced an increase in authoritarianism under the government of Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 126 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 Daniel Ortega, since, although it is important to consider that the model of authoritarianism can vary in its form and degree in different contexts,thereareseveralaspectsthatsuggest the presence of a new type of authoritarianism inNicaragua.Wellyes,alimitationofpolitical pluralism is observed, where the opposition faces significant restrictions and measures have been implemented to weaken it. This includes actions such as manipulation of the electoral system, control of key institutions and the repression of dissent. Therefore, a lackofanelaborateideologycanbeidentified. Although the Nicaraguan government calls itselfsocialist,itsapproachappearstobemore pragmatic and oriented toward staying in power thanpromotingacoherentideology.Inwhich, the Nicaraguan government has used political mobilization tactics to maintain support and control over the population, including the use of propaganda, co-optation of social groups, and the promotion of an image of charismatic leadership. So, you can see a concentration of power in the hands of Daniel Ortega and his close circle. This is manifested in the control of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, as well as in the manipulation of control and accountability mechanisms. While a more detailed and exhaustive analysis is necessary to fully understand the nature of authoritarianism in Nicaragua, the elements suggest the existence of a new type of authoritarianism in the country. This new type of authoritarianism is characterized by the combination of traditional elements of authoritarianism with strategies adapted to contemporary challenges and contexts. Lastly,itwasverifiedthatthesocialsectorssuch astheCatholicChurch,aswellasthesocialand civilactorsoftheMayor’sOfficesthatdisagree and repudiate the mechanisms of that autocratic ruling party, will allow the regime to be less and less libertarian and less guaranteeing. of the principles of autonomy and democratic sovereignty that protect or should protect the women and men who individually make up the socialstrataofademocraticcountry;Itishere where the intellectual contributions of Linz, O’Donnell and Lesgart deserve a reflective approach that can be analyzed, in order to have the ability to explain and understand the complex processes that contradict each other in a delegative democracy with each popular election. The systemic system is more like a political system that transgresses the minimum guarantees that a democracy itself should have. INFORMATION SOURCES Bibliographical sources Bassols,M.,&Mendoza,C.(2011). Gobernanza Teoría y prácticas colectivas. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa. Bassols,M.,&Mendoza,C.(s.f.). Gobernanza. Borgonovi,&Silva,L.(2016).Ligerezapesada: lapoéticadelconflictoeneldiseñoestructural de João Vilanova Artigas y Carlos Cascaldi. ETHZúrich. Cadena,J.(2004). Transiciones a la democracia: visiones críticas . Universidad Autonoma de México. Chaguaceda, A., & Caldera, A. (2016). Democracia en América Latina y el Ideal Utópico y las Realidades políticas . Editorial Fontamara. Collier, D. (1985). El Nuevo Autoritarismo en América Latina. FondodeCulturaEconomica. Dahl, R. (2005). Poliarquia: Participação e Oposição. Colección “Clássicos”. Editora da UniversidadedeSãoPaulo. Diamond,L.(2004). Elecciones sin democracia. A propósito de los regímenes híbridos . Estudios Políticos. Díaz, L. A. (2010). Nicaragua: gobiernos, gobernantes y genealogías . Federacion Internacional de Contadores. Fernández,G.(2022). Algunos elementos para comprender mejor lo que ocurre en Nicaragua. CLACSO,JSTOR. Linz,J.(1996). El quiebre de las democracias . Alianza Editorial. Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1978). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post- Communist Europe. John Hopkins University BaltimoreUSA. Moreira,C.,Raus,D.,&Gómez,J.(2008). La nueva política en América Latina: rupturas y continuidades . Edición Trilce. O’Donnell, G. (2008). Tensiones en el Estado burocrático-autoritario y la cuestión de la democracia. Prometeo. A new AuthoritAriAnism . C orrelAtions in the politiCAl theory observAble in the government in n iCArAguA . U n nUevo aUtoritarismo . C orrelaCiones en la teoría polítiCa observables en el gobierno en n iCaragUa . 127 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 O’Donnell, Schmitter, P. C., & Whitehead, L. (1988). Transiciones Desde los Gobiernos Autoritarios .Paidós. O’Donnell, G. (1972). Modernización y autoritarismo .Paidós. O’Donnell, G. (1997). Contrapuntos. Ensayos escogidos sobre autoritarismo y democratización. ¿Democracia delegativa?. Paidós. O’Donnell, G. (2010). Democracia, agencia y estado: teoría con intención comparativa. Prometeo. O’Donnell, G. (2021). El estado burocrático autoritario 1966-1973. Triunfos, derrotas y crisis.TraverseCity,Independentlypublished. O’Donnell,G.,&Schmitter,P.(1986).Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. PrensadelaUniversidadJohnsHopkins. O’Donnell,G.,Quiroga,H.,Acosta,R.,Lazzetta, O., & Seminara, E. (1998). Hacia un nuevo consensodemocrático.HomoSapiensEd. Overy,R.(2006). Dictadores. Tusquets. Schumpeter, J. (1950). Historia de las teorías económicas. Nueva sociedad. Soriano de García-Pelayo, G. (1996). El personalismo político hispanoamericano del siglo XIX: proposiciones y criterios metodológicos para su estudio . Monte Ávila Editores. Newspaper sources AFP. (2022). Cinco alcandías ocupadas. AFP Associated Press Managua . 1-3. Bataillon, G. (2019). Claude Lefort, pensador de lo político. Revista Nueva Sociedad . 281, 1-10. Chaguaceda, A., & Puerta, M. (2015). Quo Vadis Venezuela: De la democracia delegativa al autoritarismo del Siglo XXI. Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública . 161-188. Chaguaceda, N. (2020). Autoritarismo, política localyparticipaciónciudadanaenLatinoamérica: miradas cruzadas a los casos de Nicaragua y Venezuela. América Latina Hoy ,113–133. Diamond,L.,&Morlino,L.(2004).Lacalidad de la democracia: una visión general. Diario de la democracia ,20-31. El País. (3 de Noviembre de 2021). Encarcelamiento de candidatos opositores en Nicaragua.PeriodicoElPaís,pág.3. Garretón, M. (1988). Problems of democracy inLatinAmerica:ontheprocessesoftransition and consolidation. International Journal. 43 (3),357-377. Geddes, B. (2004).Authoritarian breakdown.” Manuscript. Department of Political Science, UCLA(2004).DepartmentofPoliticalScience, UCLA. Lesgart, C. (2000). El tránsito teórico de la izquierda intelectual en el Cono Sur de América Latina. Revista internacional de filosofía política ,19-41. Lesgart, C. (2008). Ciencia política en Argentina: Trazos históricos e historiográficos en perspectiva comparada. Revista legislativa de estudios sociales y de opinión pública ,227- 268. Lesgart, C. (2012). Las metáforas y los conceptos: Ensayo en honor a Guillermo O’Donnell. Temas y Debates ,49-58. Lesgart, C. (2020). Autoritarismo. Historia y problemas de un concepto contemporáneo fundamental.RevistaPerfileslatinoamericanos. Revista: Perfiles latinoamericanos . 55. Linz, J. (1978). Una interpretación de los regímenes autoritario. Papers: revista de sociologia ,11-26. Linz, J. (1990). Transiciones a la democracia. NewHaven,Connecticut:UniversidaddeYale. Maxwell,C.(2018).Darsentidoalautoritarismo competitivo:LeccionesdelosAndes . Política y Sociedad Latinoamericana ,1-22. O’Donnell, G., Quiroga, H., & Iazzetta, O. (2011). Democracia delegativa. BuenosAires: Prometeo. Revista POSTData: Revista de Reflexión y Análisis Político ,17(1),213-215. Schmitter, P., & Lynn, T. (1991). Qué es la democracia... y qué no es. Diario de la democracia ,75-88. Vargas, M. C. (2019). La construcción del sentido común por parte del Gobierno Nacional de Colombia favorecedor del proceso de paz con las Farc-ep (2012-2016). Universidad Catolica de Colombia. Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado | Julie Armenta Calderón | Salvador Cazzato Dávila 128 camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co, julie.armenta@campusucc.edu.co, salvadorcazzato@gmail.com VOX JURIS, Lima (Perú) 42 (1): 113-128, 2024 Electronic sources AFP.(2022).Portalinformativo. Arroyo,L.(2021).DeNicaraguaaElSalvador: los ataques a la prensa oscurecen cada vez más las democracias en la región. https://elpais.com/ internacional/2021-11-03/los-ataques-a . Cantón,S.(2021).CNNenespañol,Programa Choque de Opiniones. CIDH.(2021).LaCIDHexpresasupreocupación por la reforma a la Ley Electoral aprobada en Nicaragua y llama al Estado a garantizar elecciones libres y justas. Más derechos mas gente. https://www.oas.org/pt/CIDH/jsForm/?File=/ es/cidh/prensa/comunicados/2021/122.asp CIDH.(2021).LaCIDHexpresasupreocupación por la reforma a la Ley Electoral aprobada en Nicaragua y llama al Estado a garantizar elecciones libres y justas. Más derechos mas gente. https://www.oas.org/pt/CIDH/jsForm/?File=/ es/cidh/prensa/comunicados/2021/122.asp CNN en Español. (2021). Regresa “Choque de opiniones” analizando el momento político de Trump. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/pandemia- coronavirus-choque-opiniones-politica-trump- elecciones-eeuu-choque-de-opiniones-show-cnne/ CNN.(2021).Exministrohabladelfraudeyla abstención en Nicaragua. https://cnnespanol.cnn. com/tag/elecciones-nicaragua/ CNN. (2021). Minuto a minuto: elecciones presidenciales en Nicaragua son calificadas de “farsa”. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2021/11/07/ elecciones-presidenciales-en-nicaragua-minuto-a- minuto-daniel-ortega/ Deutsche Welle. (6 de Agosto de 2022). Nicaragua: investigan a obispo por “ejecutar actos de odio”. pág. 2. https://www.dw.com/es/nicaragua- polic%C3%ADa-investiga-a-obispo-%C3%A1lvarez- por-ejecutar-actos-de-odio/a-62728692 El país (2021). La pareja tóxica que domina Nicaragua: historia de Daniel Ortega y Rosario Murillo. https://elpais.com/ideas/2021-12-12/la-pareja- toxica-que-domina-nicaragua-historia-de-daniel-ortega- y-rosario-murillo.html Gil, R. (2021). CNN en español, Programa Choque de Opiniones. Infobae (2022). El régimen de Daniel Ortega quiere exiliar al obispo nicaragüense Ronaldo Álvarez. https://www.infobae.com/america/america- latina/2022/08/10/denuncian-que-el-regimen-de- daniel-ortega-quiere-exiliar-al-obispo-nicaraguense- rolando-alvarez/ Infobae (2022). El régimen de Daniel Ortega quiere exiliar al obispo nicaragüense Ronaldo Álvarez. https://www.infobae.com/america/america- latina/2022/08/10/denuncian-que-el-regimen-de- daniel-ortega-quiere-exiliar-al-obispo-nicaraguense- rolando-alvarez/ La prensa (2016). Ortega ha destituido 33 ediles desde el 2008. https://www.laprensani. com/2016/01/21/politica/1972954-ortega-ha- destituido-33-ediles-desde-el-2008 Pescador, O. (2021). CNN Programa Choque de Opiniones. Pescador, Octavio. (2021). Brazilian lawmakers debate Rousseff’s fate. https://www.octaviopescador. com/