As the nations of the western hemisphere meet in Chile for a second "Summit of the Americas," there is bound to be much talk of the way the states of the region have moved away from authoritarian rule and toward democracy. But even a casual look at the real situation shows these shifts are more a matter of veneer than deep change. Pacific News Service associate editor Andrew Reding directs the North America Project, a joint venture of the World Policy Institute and the Bay Area Institute.

President Clinton may find himself in an awkward position when he arrives in Santiago, Chile, for the second "Summit of the Americas."

He will no doubt reiterate the stock phrase that -- for the first time in history -- all of the Americas except Cuba have elected governments. But to do that, he will have to gloss over the fact that most of these governments are hardly democratic.

And he must studiously avoid any mention of the American Convention on Human Rights, lest one of the 25 countries that have ratified it should ask what is holding back the country that most frequently speaks of human rights, but is among the last to support treaties that could make a practical difference.

This summit is not getting anything like the buildup that preceded the 1994 meeting in Miami -- and for good reason.

Back then, hemispheric leaders envisioned a trading bloc extending from Canada to Chile that would become an economic colossus. With NAFTA as a cornerstone, the United States was to bring new countries into the club -- beginning with Chile. But Chile is still outside the fold, and Congress has refused to give Clinton the "fast-track" negotiating authority he needs to proceed.

To accentuate the positive, this year's focus will be on issues such as democracy and human rights. But the picture here is not so rosy either. Despite Clinton's sound-bites about elections, democracy and respect for human rights is only skin deep in much of the region.

In Bolivia, former dictator General Hugo Banzer was elected president last year. In Paraguay and Venezuela, two former military officers who tried to stage coups are leading in the polls. In Argentina and Peru, strongmen nearing the end of their second presidential terms are seeking constitutional changes that will to permit them to stay on. When a court in Peru ruled that president Alberto Fujimori could not succeed himself, he simply fired the judges.

Fujimori's action highlights a central flaw in Latin American democracy: there is no working system of checks and balances on arbitrary rule. Genaro Arriagada, the Chilean in charge of summit preparations, says, "today, the main problem of Latin America is not the transition to democracy, but the problems that have come along with democracy" such as the weakness of institutions.

This weakness led the Organization of American States to develop the American Convention on Human Rights. But this effort has been floundering. The United States played a key role in drafting and promoting this convention, but -- more than two decades after President Carter signed it -- has yet to ratify. Canada is also dragging its feet, although the Convention has been ratified by every Latin American country active in the OAS.

In effect, Latin American countries acknowledge the need for transnational human rights guarantees to bolster their weak internal institutions. More than half have gone a step further, accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San Jose, Costa Rica -- a court of last resort for individuals seeking redress for human rights violations. Families of death squad victims, for instance, have obtained judgments against their governments, and received compensation. In this way, the court can compel national governments and judges to consider international human rights norms.

As the United States and Canada have not ratified the American Convention, they are not represented on the Inter-American Court, and take no part in the selection of judges. Their absence also means the Court is severely under funded, and its decisions lack political clout. Neither Mexico nor Brazil -- the two most important Latin American countries -- recognize its jurisdiction. The U.S. and Canada could use their ties to Mexico to persuade it to join, but only if they were to do so themselves.