As seen in the previous chapter, a rich literature on new social movements, subaltern groups, and labor and peasant studies shows that movement and protest had not disappeared during Latin America's neoliberal era. These included new social movements (indigenous, environmental, and gender); breakaway, traditional, and new labor movements; and self-help and civic associations (urban services, human rights, democratization). Although they frequently directed action against free-market reforms, this literature emphasized the distinctiveness, fragmentation, and decentralization of movement. What, then, transformed protest by individual movements – frequently localized– into a nationwide concatenation of diverse social actors demanding change on a wide variety of connected issues? What gave them the capacity to force presidents who supported neoliberalism to resign and catapult into office presidents promising to reform neoliberalism?

Part I: Episodes of Contention and Motivation for Anti-Neoliberal Protest

Answering the first question requires, in the first instance, flexible concepts capable of reducing the diversity of protest groups to common denominators. A key common denominator was the fact that the myriad social actors engaged in contentious politics. Their actions were episodic (discontinuous) public challenges to government by politically constituted social actors, who, when successful, affected the interests of opposing social groups and established authority (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001; Tarrow 1998; Tilly 2004). Equally important, in addition to studying movement formation, this approach draws attention to the grievances and demands of protest groups.