3, Social structure

Question 1

Causes of transitions to democracy
Examples

Answer 1

1. Death of dictator
2. losing a war
3. revolutions
4. International pressure
5. economic incentives

Question 2

Causes of stabilisation of democracy

Answer 2

1. new, legitimate institutions
2. a better economy
3. long periods of peace
4. welfare state

Question 3

Long term causes of democratisation

Answer 3

1. Economic development
2. Social heterogeneity
3. Colonial & authoritarian past
4. Geography & resources

Structural can’t change them

Question 4

Mid-term causes of democratisation

Answer 4

1. Power-sharing versus power-concentrating
2. Presidentalism
3. Electoral system
4. Institutional checks and balances

instutional choices, can be changed

Question 5

Short-term causes of democratisation

Answer 5

1. Political actors: incumbents and opposition
2. media and civil society
3. events: economic crisis, conflict
4. international actors

Question 6

Structural explanations for democratisation

Answer 6

long-term factors. Not possible change –> luck or misfortune
1. Structural explanations about structural conditions like: geography/ history
2. A lot of different ethnic groups/ languages lead to more difficulty for democratisation
3. Different structural causes determine if it is easier to democratise or not

Question 7

Process explanations for democratisation

Answer 7

Process explanations is about how democratisation is a process, dependent on actors and institutional factors.

Question 8

Pre-conditionalists

Answer 8

1. Believe democracy emerges from a particular set of conditions and experiences
2. If certain factors are present, successful democratisation is likely, and the other way around
3. Some countries are just not destined to be democracies

being poor, weak states, lots of ethnic groups

Question 9

Universalists

Answer 9

1. Believe democratisation is a process
2. It is triggered by many factors

Question 10

Deterministic view towards democratisation

Answer 10

Certain pre-conditions are needed
* pre-conditonalists

Question 11

Probabilistic view towards democratisation

Answer 11

Certain factors could make it more likely to become democratic, but every country can become democratic
* universalists

Question 12

Problem with pre-conditionalistic view

Answer 12

1. Basically dooms countries
2. Countries without certain pre-conditions have been able to democratise

India is poor, but still democratisation

Question 13

Problem with universalist view

Answer 13

1. Some countries have had setbacks in democratisation
2. Some countries have very stable autocracies where process has not really happened
3. It is important to realise democratisation processes are messy
4. We cannot expect countries to quickly democratise, cause neither did we

Question 14

How do military regimes affect democratisation?

Answer 14

1. More likely to become democratic after breakdown
   –> they have already a sense of strong institutions
2. Break down more easily due to discussion with military
   -> team effort
3. Military regimes are no longer seen as legitimate.
   After copu d’etats they immediately say its for democracy and organise elections

Question 15

How do single party regimes affect democratisation

Answer 15

1. Disagreement is allowed
2. Party elites are trained –> after breakdown there are capable people to take over
3. A well organised party can help you to represent the interests of people who supported autocracy,
   so it can bring them in the new democratic regime
   –> they will still win elections

Question 16

Types of transition

Answer 16

1. Revolutie/ massa –> early revolutions Europe
2. Violent versus non-violent
   - violent –> France Revolution
   - non-violent –> Spain, East Europe.
   –> often work better to stabilze democracy
   –> elites are faster to agree due to no-violence
   –> violent revolutions will always lead to grievances; how do you bring recovery?
3. Pacted versus breuk
   – pacted: elites supporten overgang –> gepacteerd
   Breuk/ Rupture/ Rupture → violent expulsion of incumbent regime/elites: i.e. without agreement.
4. Imposed versus indigenous
   - imposed: Germany, japan etc.
   - indigenous: from the citizens themselves

violent overthrow → leads to stability issue! It is difficult to establish (lasting) peace in a regime.

Question 17

How does colonial history affect democratisation?
3 main-arguments

Answer 17

1. Colonial legacy
2. Settling versus extraction colonist
3. Population density

Question 18

Colonial legacy

Answer 18

Rule of law tradition versus tradition of rule by force
Parliamentary versus Presidential institutions
but also: leave land conflicts + conflicts between different social groups.
Conservation after implementation of institutions, as of British with good laws in established institutions in e.g. India.
→ this preservation of institutions helps with stabilisation
This contrasts with colonies where violence was ruled.
Countries copy the institutions of their former colonisers.

It leaves lands conflicts and clashes between different social groups. A new divided power struggle.
Think of Kenya where UK tribes were given authority over pieces of land,
which was not their land. Now tribes in places that don’t belong, and others that have been relocated.

Question 19

Settler versus extraction colonies

Answer 19

Settlement colonies: people settled. This created need for institutions, schools, transportability, etc. Which was conducive to stabilisation.
colonists left behind state capacity + institutions (india)

Extraction: some institutions served to extract certain resources for own interest.
colonists leave behind predatory state (DR Congo, Angola)
State extremely violent, authoritarian transition more likely.

Settlers need education → institutions are established for their flourishing

Question 20

Population density

Answer 20

Denser population easier to set up systems of slavery/forced labour in different ways Spanish in Latin America vs Dutch in Indonesia, Africa
Less dense population must make democratic concessions in exchange for labour. (US)
In areas where there were denser populations living together, it was easier to set up slavery.

Settlers wanted to make money: resources + farmland. Need workers.
Where population was dense → easy to find people → no need to import slaves.
In the United States, people lived scattered → so import prisoners were made slaves.
When people were more dispersed there was need for concessions to obtain workers.
So eventually replaced by working class people → but the had to be paid.
Workers came from modern countries; so wanted rights → this led to now more stable democracies.

Question 21

Institutional choices of new democratic regimes very often influenced
by the coloniser and/or the main donor:

Answer 21

• Majoritarian electoral systems with parliamentary government in almost all British colonies
• Semi-presidential regimes in almost all French colonies
• Afghanistan and Iraq: presidential and federal systems after US

Question 22

(long-term cause democratisation) : Social Structure

Answer 22

Different social groups/classes can form alliances to push democratisation (or autocratisation)
The 1st Wave of power distribution
primarily over citizens (Urban middle class, independent peasants providing economic + military power)
Retaining power of monarchs, mobility and the church

Question 23

Social Structure –> Spreading idea: no valuation, without representation’’

Answer 23

In context, it was better for democratisation in places where it is harder to dominate civic conditions. (e.g. Spanish silver mines in Latin America versus English experiences with Native Americans in US).

Question 24

Social structure creating conflict + instability

Answer 24

Differential of resources → distribution of resources
Identity + visions
mobilisation

Question 25

Ways to deal with diverse social groups

Answer 25

Equal rights
political influence
Minimise difference in resources/resources
Create common identity
Find ways to share power

Question 26

Examples of ‘‘modern’’ solutions:

Answer 26

• Independence
  India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, former Yugoslavia
• Devolution?
  Catalunya, Scotland

*Power sharing?
South Africa, Nepal

*Forge new common identity?
France, United States?

*Agreeing to live together with different identities?
Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland

Question 27

Difference between structural and process

Answer 27

Process → is about human behaviour
actors involved in democratisation. Process is about what happened in Portugal when the dictator was deposed, you describe the whole transition process in depth.
Structural → individual actors have no influence
Builds on post-Marxist theory and is about explaining the first wave of democratisation. Some regimes in the European Union became democratic, while others became authoritarian. This can be explained with class structures → in countries with workers; came revolution. In a middle-class society, democracy emerges.
Political actors have little to say. Structural is about a larger perspective and is deterministic → A leads to B, or : if you don’t have a middle class; you will never get one ‘’
→ this is relevant to Berman’s argument

Question 28

Berman compares universalists with pre-conditionalists

Answer 28

Preconditionalists → certain conditions are necessary for a democracy to ‘‘flourish’’. it is a modern variant of structuralists.
In the 1990s, some countries changed as the world changed. Dictators got elections but remained in power. There are scholars who say these ‘‘democratic’’ countries have many problems. . It is necessary: to have boundaries of states, and a middle class. When these conditions are not there, you should not even try.

Universalists say: there are different ways. It may be less likely if you have a poor country, for example. But it is possible. Democracy is always possible. Like India: it is very diverse, poor people etc.

Question 29

Berman critique both universalist, pre-conditionalsts.

Answer 29

Look at history of France:
much political turmoil, tumultuous changes
Off king, attempted democracy, civil war, dictator, back king, revolution, democracy
Berman says: guys, if we take United Kingdom as an example, and the first wave; then democratisation seems gradual and peaceful. But, France is good example that democratisation can take a long time, and does not have to be peaceful. Conflict is part.
Structuralists and precondtionalists see democratisation as nice, easy clear path with clear dividing lines. However is not true, there is no straight line towards democracy.

Question 30

Are there even universal causes?

Answer 30

No, every history of a country has its own issues, only part of democratisation may be universally applicable.

Question 31

The idea that democratisation is not peaceful:

Answer 31

• it is accompanied by regression (towards authoritarianism).
• Two steps forward, one step back.
• Often first experiments with democracy leave a mark
• After relapse, do stand better on next attempt (French revolution → it is revolutionary that people are equal, which spurred revolutions in other places)
• Ideas change thinking → elites/king not supermen, so need to limit influence. → influencing thinking about power
  as after Naples, when monarch was brought back, however now with limited power.
  revolution → brought moral changes, not going back to past mistakes.
• Getting revolution leading to democracy is nice, however, stabilisation proves more difficult.
  getting rid of a dictator is easy, stabilising system is difficult.