3, Social structure Flashcards
Causes of transitions to democracy
Examples
- Death of dictator
- losing a war
- revolutions
- International pressure
- economic incentives
- Mass protests ( Arab Spring, Eastern Europe 1989)
- Military defections ( army refusing to support dictatorship)
- Elite negotiations (pacted transitions e.g. Spain)
Causes of stabilisation of democracy
- new, legitimate institutions
- a better economy
- long periods of peace
- welfare state
+ surviving 2 peaceful alternations of power (Huntingtons two turnover test)
Acceptance of democracy as ‘‘only game in town’’ (Linz & Stephan)
+ STRONG CIVIL SOCIETY + free press
Long term causes of democratisation
- Economic development
- Social heterogeneity
- Colonial & authoritarian past
- Geography & resources
Structural can’t change them
Mid-term causes of democratisation
- Power-sharing versus power-concentrating
- Presidentalism
- Electoral system > Strong party competition fosters democracy
- Institutional checks and balances
instutional choices, can be changed
Political party system –
Judicial independence.
Short-term causes of democratisation
- Political actors: incumbents and opposition
- media and civil society
- events: economic crisis, conflict
- international actors
Structural explanations for democratisation
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
Process explanations for democratisation
Process explanations is about how democratisation is a process, dependent on actors and institutional factors.
Pre-conditionalists
- Believe democracy emerges from a particular set of conditions and experiences
- If certain factors are present, successful democratisation is likely, and the other way around
- Some countries are just not destined to be democracies
being poor, weak states, lots of ethnic groups
Universalists
- Believe democratisation is a process
- It is triggered by many factors
Deterministic view towards democratisation
Certain pre-conditions are needed
* pre-conditonalists
Probabilistic view towards democratisation
Certain factors could make it more likely to become democratic, but every country can become democratic
* universalists
Problem with pre-conditionalistic view
- Basically dooms countries
- Countries without certain pre-conditions have been able to democratise
India is poor, but still democratisation
Problem with universalist view
- Some countries have had setbacks in democratisation
- Some countries have very stable autocracies where process has not really happened
- It is important to realise democratisation processes are messy
- We cannot expect countries to quickly democratise, cause neither did we
How do military regimes affect democratisation?
- More likely to become democratic after breakdown
–> they have already a sense of strong institutions - Break down more easily due to discussion with military
-> team effort - Military regimes are no longer seen as legitimate.
After copu d’etats they immediately say its for democracy and organise elections
How do single party regimes affect democratisation
- Disagreement is allowed
- Party elites are trained –> after breakdown there are capable people to take over
- 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
Types of transition
- Revolutie/ massa –> early revolutions Europe
- 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? - Pacted versus breuk
– pacted: elites supporten overgang –> gepacteerd
Breuk/ Rupture/ Rupture → violent expulsion of incumbent regime/elites: i.e. without agreement. - 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.
How does colonial history affect democratisation?
3 main-arguments
- Colonial legacy
- Settling versus extraction colonist
- Population density
Colonial legacy
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 n ot their land. Now tribes in places that don’t belong, and others that have been relocated.
Settler versus extraction colonies
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
Population density
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.
Institutional choices of new democratic regimes very often influenced
by the coloniser and/or the main donor:
- 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
(long-term cause democratisation) : Social Structure
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
Social Structure –> Spreading idea: no valuation, without representation’’
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).
Social structure creating conflict + instability
Differential of resources → distribution of resources
Identity + visions
mobilisation
Ways to deal with diverse social groups
Equal rights
political influence
Minimise difference in resources/resources
Create common identity
Find ways to share power
Examples of ‘‘modern’’ solutions:
- 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
Difference between structural and process
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
Berman compares universalists with pre-conditionalists
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.
Berman critique both universalist, pre-conditionalsts.
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.
Are there even universal causes?
No, every history of a country has its own issues, only part of democratisation may be universally applicable.
The idea that democratisation is not peaceful:
- 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.
What is the difference between democratic transition, stabilization, and deepening?
Transition: Shift from autocracy to democracy (e.g., fall of a dictator).
Stabilization: Ensuring democracy does not revert to autocracy (e.g., institutional consolidation).
Deepening: Improving the quality of democracy (e.g., strengthening rights and participation).
What are authoritarian legacies?
Authoritarian successor parties: Former ruling parties continue to play a role in politics.
Authoritarian constitutions: Laws that reflect the previous authoritarian rule.
Sub-national authoritarian enclaves: Local authoritarian structures remain intact.
Examples: Spain, Chile, Mexico, India, U.S. (Southern states after the Civil War).
How do authoritarian legacies affect democratization?
Can hinder democracy: Old elites retain power, institutions remain weak.
Can aid democracy: Trained elites provide political continuity.
Example: Chile’s democratic transition kept aspects of Pinochet’s constitution.
What are the differences between violent vs. non-violent transitions?
Violent transitions (e.g., French Revolution) → Can cause instability, grievances, and long-term unrest.
Non-violent transitions (e.g., Spain, East Europe) → More likely to lead to stable democracy.
What are examples of democratic backsliding?
Hungary: Erosion of judicial independence and media freedom.
Poland: Weakening of checks and balances.
Turkey: Increasing executive power, repression of opposition.
What is Democratic backsliding?
The gradual erosion of democratic institutions, often by elected leaders.
includes:
* undermining judicial independence
* attack on press freedom
* manipulation electoral rules
* repression of oppossition.
Examples Hybrid regimes
(regimes mixing democratic _ autocratic elements)
examples:
* Competitive Authoritarianism (elections exist but unfair) –> Russia
* Electoral autocracy (manipulated elections, restricted opposition / fraud) –> Belarus
Role of international actors in democratizations
- Democratic promotion
(e.g. EU membership is conditional on democratic reforms) - Sanctions against authoritarian leaders
- Military invention
*Foreign aid supporting democratic institutions
Political culture affecting democratization:
- Civic engagement (high participation strengthens democracy)
- trust in institutions (low trust = instability)
- democratic norms + values (support for free speech, rule of law)
