Democratization and Autocratization PDF

Democratization and authocratization Democratization: definition ▪A "movement towards an outcome" (democracy) (Whitehead 2002) ▪A «transition to a democratic regime» ▪A «political changes moving in a democratic direction» Democratization is both ▪ a «movement towards democracy» (i.e. quantitati...

Democratization and authocratization Democratization: definition ▪A "movement towards an outcome" (democracy) (Whitehead 2002) ▪A «transition to a democratic regime» ▪A «political changes moving in a democratic direction» Democratization is both ▪ a «movement towards democracy» (i.e. quantitative approach) and... ▪ a transition «from autocracy to democracy» (i.e. qualitative approach) Double standards are inherent in applying universal principles. States can't judge other states by the same way because there is always an interest 'conflict **First wave dem (1828-1926**) the French and US Revolution, which inspired democratic movements globally. **first wave autho (1922-1942)** apparition of faschisim **Second wave of demo (1943-1962)** end of faschisim **second wave of autho (1958 -1975)** military pushes in south America Third wave demo (1974 -- now) - The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe = peak of democratization - Carnation Revolution in Portugal Alternatives like the V-Dem dataset offer more nuanced insights into regime types Measures used in Huntington's analyses often lack transparency and justification. Democracies and autocracies can change in their levels without completely switching categories, and a common way to measure these changes is by using a continuous scale like the Electoral Democracy Index. 1945-1980 transition's period before massive democratization Latin America's cases Since the 1970 s : **democratization** , but Cuba remains authoritarian Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have recently **become closed autocracies** **Progressive democratic development** → (e. g. , Chile, Uruguay, Panama, \... ) Electoral democracies (e. g. , **Ecuador**, **Paraguay**, **Colombia**, **El Salvador**, **Guatemala**, **Mexico** ) Today : \"**second most democratic region in the world**, despite recent setbacks \" (Mainwaring and Pérez - Liñán , 2023 ) Sub-Saharian Africa Closed **autocracies** were **dominant** until the late **1980** s. **Democratization** **process** from the **1990** s to around **2006**: approximately **50 %** **electoral democracies** and **some liberal democracies** Liberal democracies: **Cape Verde**, **South Africa,** **Ghana** Electoral democracies: **Botswana**, **Kenya**, **Malawi**, **Senegal** Multi -party autocracies: **Rwanda,** **Nigeria,** **Cameroon** **Recent** autocratization process: **Military coups** (Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso) No deep global democratization; many fragile regimes (grey zone) Western Europe 1970s: Autocratic regimes: Portugal, Spain, Greece Today: Liberal democracies, no regime changes in Western Europe but worrisome signs about the state of liberal democracy Central Asia and eastern Europe Democratic shift **Communist regimes** (late 1980s) **1989-1991** turning point Increase in the number of independent countries: 8 → 29  Diverging dynamics Asia and Pacific Consolidated democracies: **Japan, South Korea, Taiwan** Democratization process (late 1980s -- around 2018) In global comparison: still relatively many non-democratic regimes Closed autocracies: **Afghanistan, China, Myanmar, North Korea** Multi-party autocracies**: Bangladesh, Thailand, Singapore** Middle East and North Africa Few changes during the third wave of democratization Closed autocracies → multi-party autocracies (since 1990) Lebanon: electoral democracy → civil war Turkey: interrupted electoral democracy, recent autocratization  Arab Spring (2011): no real democratization Libya: democracy → civil war Egypt, Syria Tunisia: electoral democracy → presidential self-coup (2021) *Structural approaches: classic modernization theory (Lipset)* **Symour M. Lipset** (1959, 1960) "Some Social Requisites of Democracy"; "Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics" Democracies are the results of **economic development** → Economic development precedes democracy The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy" (Lipset 1959) **Core idea**: **Economic development creates social** and **political progress**, transforming **traditional societies** into **modern societies\...** **Democracy** is the logical **endpoint** of **social** and **economic** **development** Developing countries will eventually become democratic as they undergo the modernisation process - Condition to transition in modern society from traditional, **adaptation's capacities of the people** Key mechanism: ** Higher education** → citizens are more informed and cultivated. They value more democratic rights, are equipped to mobilize for their rights, have more political and social tolerance - They had now an alternative to violence and repression between head of power and them **Redistribution** →Economic development ultimately decreases economic inequality; when this happens, the masses have lower demands for redistribution, elites are less hostile towards redistributive policies and will not mobilise against democratization. Criticisms HYPOTHESES OF ADAM PREWORSKI (2000): Democracy and Development. Political Institutions and Well Being in the World 1950-1990" The initial postulate (**reaching a certain threshold of development = democracy**) Is not always true Actually, it is very hard to set a threshold -\> no automatic mechanisms Deterministic nature of theory e.g.1 Russia; Iran → reaction to democratization or persistence of previous institutions and political cultures Often there is no causal connection between development and democracy e.g.2 Singapore → no causal connection between development and democracy Rentier states → resource-rich countries. Negative effect of democracy of an **unequal** distribution of resources There are three explanations: 'Dutch disease': revenues from a natural resource in high demand in the global market undermine the competitiveness of other export industries. Price volatility that can have a negative effect on investments. Clientelism: little interest in providing public goods, low dependence on taxation, tax rates and low investments. ▪ **Theory of dependency**: importance of international economic context Ex: crisis of Latin American democracies in the 60s and 70s) *Structural approaches: social classes theory* **Barrington Moore**, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: **Lord** and **Peasant** in the Making of the **Modern World**, 1966. ▪ **no single causal factor**, democratization **depends** from the **interaction** among **social classes.** ▪ Three key actors: peasantry / bourgeoisie / land aristocracy Interactions produce **three outcomes**: ▪ **Bourgeois Revolutions**: **Clash** between **aristocracy** and **new bourgeoisie** that leads to liberal democracy (England Glorious Revolution, French revolution, American Independence war) ▪ **Revolution from above**: Alliance between landed nobility and bourgeois middle class that leads to Fascism (Italy, Japan, Germany) ▪ **Revolution from below**: Weak bourgeois middle class and dominant landed aristocracy that leads to communist regimes (Russia, China) - Moore : "No bourgeois, no democracy " Two main criticisms **▪ Too much** importance given to structures, as in the theory of modernization ▪ Cannot explain 20th century democratization: The bourgeoisie plays a decisive role in the first process of democratization (18th and 19th century), but other classes and other types of interaction should be considered. **Therborn, G. (1977)** The rule of capital and the rise of democracy **Role of the bourgeoisie** → minimal democracy (XVII and XIX centuries, civil liberties and political rights) **Role of working class** → contemporary democracy (XIX and XX centuries, universal suffrage, economic and social rights) **Acemoglu & Robinson** (The Economic Origins of Dictatorships, 2005). ▪ Transition to Democracy in Times of Threat of Revolution and Economic Recession in Unequal Land-based Societies = Transition vers la démocratie en temps de menace de révolution et de récession économique dans des sociétés foncières inégales ▪ Transition to more gradual democracy in richer and more egalitarian societies **Carles Boix** (Democracy and Redistribution, 2003) Democracy more likely when income distribution is more egalitarian *Strategic approaches* *(opposite to modernization approaches)* **Dankwart Rustow (1970)** Transition to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model No structural preconditions for democracy It happens in three phases: Preparation (during the autocracy). Decision (to change regime). Habituation (to the new rules). **O'Donnell & Schmitter** (Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, 1986) ▪ Democracy as the result of the strategic interactions between elites and masses ▪ No preconditions ▪ Three phases: Liberalization, Transition, Consolidation ▪ Democratic transitions are characterized by their u**ncertainty** and **indeterminacy**. It is a **nonlinea**r, open-ended process. Strategic approaches: modes of transitions (Karl & Schmitter 1991) Strategic approaches: democratic consolidation **Linz and Stepan**: Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, 1996. "A political situation in which, in a phrase, democracy has become 'the only game in town" ▪ In terms of **behaviour**: no group is engaged in a process of secession/revolt ▪ In terms of **attitudes**, most people accept democracy as the best form of government ▪ In **constitutional terms**, all major institutions of the state act in accordance with democratic norms Five arenas in interaction for an effective consolidation: ▪ The existence of a functional state ▪ An autonomous and competitive political society ▪ Rule of law that guarantees the freedom and rights of citizens ▪ functioning state bureaucracy ▪ An institutionalized economic society 3 actors: citizen, political actors and civil society **O'Donnell's** criticism on consolidation (1996) ▪ A non-linear process ▪ An open process ▪ A **consolidated democracy** ≠ A **quality** democracy LEONARDO AND MORLINO (2001) : Consolidation démocratique : theory de l'ancrage "The consolidation process is characterized by a bottom-up process - legitimization - and a top-down process - the anchoring of civil society". Legitimation: development of positive attitudes towards democratic institutions. o Anchors: actors involved in the top-down movement in the consolidation: partisan organizations, civil society, employers \'and trade unions\' organizations, religious organizations, interest groups, private companies, intellectuals. Theory and hypothesis: When the legitimacy of democracy is limited (exclusive), the \"anchors\" become crucial to explain why a regime is consolidated.\ If democracy is widely accepted from the outset (inclusive legitimation), or if a process of legitimizing democracy is able to develop rapidly, \"anchors\" play a less important role. E.g.: Italy and Germany after 1945: consolidation through political parties Spain: consolidation through the elites