I have made references to “banana republics” in several recent posts. What exactly does that term mean?
A “banana republic” is a country with a liberal democratic constitution that is not, in practice, a liberal democracy, because its politicians do not observe unwritten norms and practices that are essential for liberal democracies. In a banana republic, the government of the day does not recognize the legitimacy of opposition, the judiciary, media, and law enforcement are highly politicized, and power is based on proximity to the leader, not institutions. Politics are a zero-sum game. The government does not accept any obligations to respect the legal rights of the opposition, which, in turn, is determined to take power at almost any cost. The system is consequently both tyrannical and unstable. Economic growth is limited as a result.
You can think of a banana republic as a sort of halfway house between a liberal democracy and a fascist state. It can become a liberal democracy if the politicians decide it is in the country’s interests for them to observe the spirit, not just the letter, of the constitution; on the other hand, if the leader of the day is strong, talented, and ruthless enough to completely crush the opposition, the country can become completely fascist.
Think about this the next time you read a column defending Trump’s violations of unwritten norms because they are not enshrined in the constitution.