In this book Roberto Gargarella provides a comparative view of the history of Latin American constitutionalism from independence to the present. In line with his previous work The Legal Foundations of Inequality: Constitutionalism in the Americas, 1776–1860 (Cambridge University Press, 2010), Gargarella contends that historically there were three models of constitutionalism in the region: liberal, conservative and radical. In this new book he continues his analysis until the last wave of constitutionalism at the end of the twentieth century. Gargarella claims that in the last part of the nineteenth century a pact existed between liberals and conservatives that enshrined ‘limited political liberties and ample civic (economic) liberties’. To a great extent, that pact still holds today. There were, according to the author, two waves of significant reforms in the twentieth century: the inclusion of social rights in the first half of the century, and later, in the last decades, the adoption of multicultural rights. The problem with these expansions, Gargarella claims, is that such reforms were concentrated in the ‘rights’ section of the constitution and left the organic part (the ‘engine of the constitution’) virtually untouched. This inconsistency rendered many of the progressive reforms ineffective. For Gargarella the main problem of the region since independence has been social and political inequality and a presidential constitutional tradition. The book can be read, in part, as an egalitarian critique of the constitutional tradition in Latin America.

The book is an ambitious work and there is much to commend the author for. It provides a rich and controversial account of the development of constitutionalism in several countries. Yet the flaws of the book are as important as its virtues, if not more so. There are two significant problems. The first concerns the scope of the analysis: such an ambitious undertaking would have required a much deeper and sounder knowledge of the history of the different Latin American countries than Gargarella commands. Often his facts (historical and contemporary) are wrong; this is not a new criticism, since his earlier book was not well received by many historians, particularly those based in Latin America. For example, Catherine Andrews asserted that ‘Gargarella's work has a number of shortcomings, which severely undermine its credibility. In the first place, his analysis shows little or no historical awareness … [T]he quality of Gargarella's research is far from uniform’ (Estudios de Historia Moderna y Contemporánea de México, 44 (July–Dec. 2012), pp. 198–200). It is evident from this book that Gargarella is not well acquainted with recent developments in the literature, let alone primary sources. Another criticism is that the three ‘models’ (particularly the ‘radical’ one) have a flimsy historical grounding, as several historians have pointed out. There is a pervasive lack of proportion throughout the book, and the impact and significance of the examples Gargarella discusses seem overblown; hence, the importance of radicalism is magnified. Some figures are exaggerated while others are minimised without due explanation – for instance, the book ignores the different understandings of the separation of powers that existed in Mexico and elsewhere. ‘Currents’ of thought are created with reference to one or two authors, and authors are used as if their ideas had not changed in the course of their lives; the writings of Mora, Alamán and Rabasa, for example, are taken out of historical context. From Gargarella's account one would not know that there were important differences in the evolution of ideas during the first 50 years of independence. Contrary to what this account suggests, there was no simultaneity between political ideas in Latin America, and the way in which such ideas evolved is a story that this book does not tell. A harsh reviewer, Roberto Breña, concluded that Gargarella's previous book did not help the reader to know ‘more or better about the political and intellectual history’ of Latin America or of the United States during the first decades after independence (Política y Gobierno, 19: 2 (2012), pp. 384–9). Yet Gargarella has not paid much attention to these critiques, and he repeats the same historical account in this new book. This is not a minor flaw, since half of the book is devoted to historical analysis.

Political scientists will have similar reservations about several of Gargarella's main arguments. Throughout the book, the author makes weighty empirical assertions: he claims that constitutional ‘grafts’ between different models ‘failed’, for example, yet he provides no empirical evidence to support this claim. The contention that throughout the region presidentialism became stronger almost everywhere is challenged by recent and not-so-recent scholarship, such as Gabriel Negretto's Making Constitutions: Presidents, Parties and Institutional Choice in Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 2013). The shifting balance of power between executives and legislative assemblies in the countries of the region has been a more complex affair than the author claims, and defies a simple explanation. Gargarella is well aware of this position but does not offer empirical evidence to challenge it. He argues that such studies start from mistaken assumptions and that they do not account for the dynamic aspect of the constitutions (p. 159). Yet, empirical studies cannot be rebutted solely on the basis of constitutional theory.

The second problem of the book is its ideological bias. The book provides a rigid and doctrinal reading of constitutionalism, and it thus obscures rather than enlightens the phenomenon. Gargarella's neat ideological scheme might work in the realm of analytical ideas but it fails in explaining the messy history of constitution making, and unmaking, in the region. The historical record is made to fit a clean-cut ideological scheme, and in order to do so, Gargarella magnifies and minimises authors and trends. The failures of interpretation of this understanding of constitutionalism are significant. For instance, Gargarella does not see that the problem with Venezuela during the Chávez era was not that it had a ‘hyperpresidential’ constitution, but that the regime had become authoritarian. It is very telling that Gargarella omits from his account one of the most remarkable traits of early constitutionalism in Latin America: the naive belief that constitutions by themselves would change reality, almost as an act of magic. Alas, even the ‘engine room’ of the constitution can be imagined as a magical box.