The development of the global illicit drug trade has posed significant challenges to democracy throughout Latin America. Scenes of violence and disorder linked to organized crime and the “war on drugs” are imprinted in the popular consciousness. The case of Bolivia, though, shows that the dominant narrative wasn’t the only one. Following decades of authoritarian government, Bolivia democratized in 1982. Its cocaine economy grew rapidly, and the United States made Bolivia a focus of its war on drugs. Such factors are often associated with increased violence in Latin America, yet Bolivia largely avoided a similar fate. State-narco networks—relations of patronage between state actors and Bolivia’s organized crime groups—played an important role in suppressing violent competition in the cocaine trade. These networks were established during the country’s authoritarian period and reflected the historic clientelistic functions of the Bolivian state. As Bolivia democratized, state-narco networks evolved and became bound to a fragile post-transition settlement between the main political actors. Allan Gillies reveals how these networks shaped Bolivia’s political transition while controlling violence, but also limited the function of democracy by reinforcing authoritarian and corrupt practices.

The development of the global illicit drug trade has posed significant challenges to democracy throughout Latin America. Scenes of violence and disorder linked to organized crime and the “war on drugs” are imprinted in the popular consciousness. The case of Bolivia, though, shows that the dominant narrative wasn’t the only one. Following decades of authoritarian government, Bolivia democratized in 1982. Its cocaine economy grew rapidly, and the United States made Bolivia a focus of its war on drugs. Such factors are often associated with increased violence in Latin America, yet Bolivia largely avoided a similar fate. State-narco networks—relations of patronage between state actors and Bolivia’s organized crime groups—played an important role in suppressing violent competition in the cocaine trade. These networks were established during the country’s authoritarian period and reflected the historic clientelistic functions of the Bolivian state. As Bolivia democratized, state-narco networks evolved and became bound to a fragile post-transition settlement between the main political actors. Allan Gillies reveals how these networks shaped Bolivia’s political transition while controlling violence, but also limited the function of democracy by reinforcing authoritarian and corrupt practices.