​

Democracies around the world are varied in the level of commitment that political parties dedicate to their citizens needs and rights. In Uruguay, a strong tradition of democracy has made it one of the most stable and politically open countries in Latin America in recent history. Since political parties in a democracy are ideally the executors of public will, they have in this case proven receptive to society’s multifaceted functions. However, the continued reelection of Uruguay’s sitting party or coalition, now the Broad Front, rests on timely policies and the public approval of parties for democracy to be healthy. Uruguay’s high quality of democracy is a product of its versatile political parties, their responsiveness and adaptability to constituent opinion, and democratic tradition.

Uruguay’s quality of democracy has improved since the end of the military regime in 1985, evidenced by the capacity for organization and inclusivity of civil society, through regional and local electoral systems, and in the transparency of national representative leaders and institutions. After the successful return to civilian rule, Uruguay’s current democratic system emerged amid the fallout of a decade-long military dictatorship that had favored stability at the expense of personal liberties. The national election went to Julio Sanguinetti of the liberal Colorado Party, whose only real opposition then was Uruguay’s other traditional party, the conservative National Party (also called the Blancos). Part of the reason for this smooth transfer of power had to do with the institutionalization of the traditional, electoral parties and their centuries-long precedent of alternating party rule that has made democracy more resilient (Panizza, 1997). Procedurally, national elections had been free and fair and were followed by a stabilizing period of economic and social openness, suggesting some consolidation from illiberal to liberal policies. Yet in substantive terms, the Sanguinetti government’s position was for political contingency after the transition had taken place, and both sides agreed via plebiscite to postpone talks of reconciliation on the issues of human rights violations that had occurred under the authoritarian leadership (Roniger, 2011).

The next two election cycles went to the National Party and Colorado Party respectively, furthering democratic consolidation, while inadvertently upsetting the traditional two-party system. Uruguay’s “redemocratization” was solidified over the course of three elections between 1985-2000, suggesting their democratic strength is closely related to political parties with mass appeal (Cason, 2002, 92). The Blancos won in 1990 and continued to expand free market principles, while also increasing sales and income taxes, the latter move being a centrist conciliation in a climate of deregulation of the statist economy. A referendum was held to privatize national industries and the popular rejection of this initiative was upheld by the government, strengthening the democracy by showing real accountability and a cautious executive. However, the Blancos conservative policies made them unpopular, and they lost to Sanguinetti who accepted his second non-consecutive term, per constitutional law. The most important aspect of the 1995 election was the lack of a clear majority, resulting in a coalition victory of Colorados and Blancos, against the opposing leftist coalition known as the Broad Front (Frente Amplio). FA voter turnout increased gradually during post-military elections as each election cycle had produced mixed results for the winners, whose popular support was waning at this point.