Political Development in Bolivia, Paraguay, Zambia, and Mozambique

Political development includes state development, rule of law, and accountability (Fukuyama 2011/2014; Huntington 1968). Bolivia, Zambia, and Mozambique are nation states challenged as late developers (Wallerstein 1974) with some advantages (Gerschenkron 1966). Two have extractive industries with theoretical institutional disadvantages (Acemoglu/Robinson 2002). All opened politically in Third Wave (Huntington 1991; Polity IV). All have mass education (Mwanakatwe 1968; Klein 2003) though Mozambique's war destroyed 58% of schools (Azevedo 2002). Protestantism expands in Mozambique (Premawardhana 2018) and Bolivia (author). Differences existed. Bolivia's MAS was single-party, while Zambia had equal-matched PF and UPND (Electoral Commission Zambia) and Mozambique equal-matched FRELIMO and RENAMO (Newitt 1995/2017; Manning 2002/2010). Zambia's newspapers were state-controlled (Kasoma 1986), Bolivia's independent, and Mozambique intermediate. Differences include Kaunda in non-democratic time (Macpherson 1974; Tordoff 1974) contrasted with Morales in democratic zeitgeist. Mozambique leadership of Mondlane (Marcum 2018), Machel (Christie 1989), Dhlakama, and Nyusi (Azevedo-Harman) indeterminate. LeBas (2011) posits “pre-existing mobilizing structures transcending ethnic cleavages” underpinning parties, while surveys suggest Zambia Bemba, Losi/Tonga political parties. Contrastingly, Bolivia's ayllus/tribes were fragmented (author). External organization of FRELIMO (Mittelman 1981) only partial explanation. Zambia research, 22 interviews in fieldwork (8/17). Fieldwork in Bolivia 1997-2008. Mozambique fieldwork (7/18), 40 unstructured snowballing interviews, all sources, qualitative, small-N