This post is a summary of a book published with the title above in 2007 by Inter-American Development Bank Office of External Relations and Harvard University at http://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/441/Democracies%20in%20Development.pdf?
Beginning in the late 1970s, a process of transformation, the movement from authoritarian to democratic regimes, was initiated in parallel with economic reforms that changed the previously state-centered and protectionist model. Similar to the previous period, reform design was treated as a technical problem rather than one inherently related to the institutional and political features of the processes through which such reforms were to be adopted and implemented. Democratization has entailed a real redistribution of political power. First, political rights and freedoms have advanced, allowing free elections to become an important factor in the political process. But, free elections, though necessary, are an insufficient condition for democracy to function and responf effectively to the expectations of the majority. It is essential to develop policies and programs that are responsive to the will of citizens. This process, of aggregating preferences and expectations and resolving conflicting interests is affected by the structure of intermediate institutions such as, political parties, legislative bodies and civil society organizations. It is in these institutions that many democracies still face limitations. The weakness of such institutions, as well as of judicial and accountability agencies, is a key factor in the region's continued political instability. Because of their very nature, these institutional reforms are considerably more complex and difficult to implement than typical macroeconomic measure. Enhancing the management of public sector institutions, creating a more independent and effective judiciary, and establishing regulatory framework usually involves coordination and agreement among a wide array of public institutions and societal sectors, as well as a series of legislative and bureaucratic actions. If the benefits of institutional change end up being overly concentrated on relatively narrow interests, then larger societal groups will suffer. For instance, administrative reforms of the public sector, such as enhancing governmental transparency, controlling corruption, and establishing a professional civil service, require incumbent politicians to relinquish instruments of power and to open up their conduct and decisions to more intense public scrutiny. Thus, it is clear that politics matters in the process of creating, implementing, and sustaining sound institutions and adopting public policies that work to the benefits of all citizens. More precisely, however, it is the quality of democracy that matters. Not only is the exercise of democratic freedoms and civil rights intrinsically valuable in expanding the range of possibilities and choices open to citizens, it is also instrumental in identifying and conceptualizing citizens needs and building the policies and institutions that will most effectively address them. Public policies need to be adopted and implemented in a way that fully considers the views of diverse civil society organizations, without falling captive to any particular group or narrow set of interest. This require that citizens have opportunity to express their preferences and influence decision making, and that representative institutions have the capacity to effectively aggregate these preferences into consensual policies with broad bases of social support. Ensuring accountability in practice requires attention to a wide range of capabilities and structures in an array of organizations and legal and procedural areas. Not only must public officials and agencies be compelled to fully and accurately disclose their decisions and budgetary accounts, but a diverse body of independent, motivated, and capable people must monitor the information provided, detect improprieties, determine legal responsibility and impose sanctions when appropriate. At the same time, a participant, vibrant and well-organized civil society, and a pluralistic and independent media are essential to monitor government activities, expose abuse of power and violations of human rights, raise public expectations of state performance, and bring political pressure to bear so that overseeing institutions can take the appropriate remedial actions. An ombudsman is generally an independent investigator authorized to receive complaints from citizens, make the state answerable for its abuses of authority or failures to protect citizens rights, and provide compensation to victim for damages caused by ineffective or unfair governmental actions or human rights violations. The concept of the ombudsman's office has its roots in 19th century in Scandinavia, where was created to monitor public administration and provide citizens with a instrument to defend their rights. In order for democracy accountability to gain legitimacy, the public must see investigations are consistent with ethical and legal standards. In each case, the agency must possess and be capable of exercising the political autonomy required to earn the respect of the citizenry. Similarly, an evenhanded analysis must start with an acknowledgment of the wide gap between Latin America legal authority and their real world performance, independence, and authority. While it is true that these horizontal accountability agencies can help surmount the deficit of democracy, their institutional and cultural context may contribute to their failure. When operating in unfavorable national and cultural context. institutions that are sophisticated from the standpoint will have a limited impact if not accompanied by sistematic civil education and public campaigns against abuse of power, governmental corruption and mismanagement. It must not been forgotten that the importance of accountability institutions lies as much in their contribution to overall democratic development and civil education as in the particular legal outcomes they might achieve.
