Democratisation Flashcards
Democracy define
Collier and Levitsky
‘procedural minimum’ definition of democracy.
1) Fully contested elections with full suffrage and absence of massive fraud;
2) Effective guarantees of civil liberties including freedom of speech and association etc;
3) effective power to govern
Schmitter and Karl
There cannot be unelected officials exercising power eg. militarised polities of Central America
Moore
‘no bourgeoisie, no democracy’ - a growing middle class wants representation
Huntington (Third Wave)
Third Wave of democratisation, where more than 60 countries have undergone some form of democratic transition since the 1970s:
- Decreased legitimacy of authoritarian regimes from a) increased expectations of competitive elections, b) military failure, c) economic crisis in 70s which decreased their legitimacy
- Global economic growth - a) urbanisation, b) education, c) rising middle class
- Religion - changes in the Catholic Church by Vatican II emphasised individual rights and opposition to authoritarian rule. Important for Catholic countries of Southern Europe, Latin America, Philippines, Poland, Hungary
- Regional contingency factor (snowball effect or demonstration effects) - success of democracy in one country causing others to democratise. a) As the wave swept through Eastern Europe, African leaders began to see ’the winds of change’ and subsequently redrafted their constitutions to allow for multiparty elections, fearing that any resistance to reforms would lead to an emboldened opposition. b) once it was clear that the reformist Solidarity in Poland would come to power, reformists in other eastern European countries gained energy to push for change
- US and EU - a) Carter had critical approach towards communist countries and foreign policy based on human rights, b) EU required democracy to join after 1989 (pushed Portugal, Spain and Greece)
Huntington (democratisation)
- Transformation – A top-down (elite-controlled) change from within government
- Transplacement – Negotiated reform of regime and government.
- Replacement – Regime breakdown (rupture) and the collapse of authoritarianism.
Huntington believed transition was based on elite choice and perceptions, with consolidation based on elite pacts and consensus
Lipset
- Economic development drives socioeconomic changes eg. industrialisation, urbanisation and higher levels of education, creating the conditions for democracy.
- Cultural factors are more important because democracy needs supportive culture and acceptance by the citizenry
- Protestant countries more likely to democratise when there is clear separation of religious and political beliefs (lacking in Catholic countries before third wave), also explains why Muslin countries have not seen democratisation
Barro
Education. Growth is conditional; if growth were caused by an increase in education (especially primary education) instead of a discovery of oil, it has a strong impact of democratisation
Przeworski and Limongi
Strong correlation between higher levels of development and democratic stability, so democracies are less likely to backslide. BUT economic development can boost public support for authoritarian regimes in the short-to-medium term
Przeworski et al
141 countries - economic development does not cause democracy but does sustain it. Countries with higher levels of GDP per capita more likely to remain democratic because it reduces the likelihood of democratic breakdown and increases political stability; rich democracies are ‘impregnable’ and unlikely to collapse and return to dictatorship
Boix and Stokes
Responds to Przeworski et al - economic development increases both the chance of transition and the chance of sustaining a democracy after transition in period 1850-1950, but only has a small though statistically significant effect post-1950. Use a trichotomous measure of democracy rather than Przeworski’s dichotomous
Epstein et al
Trichotomous measure - development is a strong proxy for transitions into and out of ‘partial democracy’. Less effect on transitions from full autocracy to full democracy
Acemoglu and Robinson (inequality and revolt)
- Non-motonic relationship. Increased inequality when initially at low levels increases threat of revolution and chance of democratisation; But at high levels of inequality elites repress fearing redistribution.
- average voter’s tax preference would be less ‘confiscatory’ if income distribution is relatively equal, which usually happens when countries reach a higher level of development; and elites would rather give up some measure of power than to risk suppression causing a revolution
- Democracy only way to ensure credibility
People have less incentive to revolt in an egalitarian society (for example, Singapore), so the likelihood of democratization is lower. In a highly unequal society (for example, South Africa under Apartheid), the redistribution of wealth and power in a democracy would be so harmful to elites that these would do everything to prevent democratization. Democratization is more likely to emerge somewhere in the middle, in the countries, whose elites offer concessions because (1) they consider the threat of a revolution credible and (2) the cost of the concessions is not too high
Boix
Income equality and capital mobility reduce elite fears of democracy:
a) reduces expected redistribution by popular governments
b) provides capital holders with an exit option if taxes become confiscatory
Evidence: income inequality has a substantial effect on the likelihood of democratisation in dataset in 1950-90, hence excludes most African democratisations.
Rogowski
Negative correlation between ‘trapped’ physical capital and democracy
Capital mobility (usually rises with development) contributes to democratisation
Bollen and Jackman
- Mixed evidence of more equal income distributions in democracies
- Dictatorships which survived longer post-WW2 had more equal income distributions
Hermansen et al
Growth may not lead to higher equality. Labour productivity growth contributes to rising market income inequality
Ansell and Samuels
- Two-actor model is too simplistic, need to add the bourgeoisie to the model
- Bourgeoisie pushes for democracy. Financially independent from the state and wish to protect their property
- Middle class group may be dependent on non-democratic state and oppose democratisation
Rosenfeld
Prospects of democratisation depends on the composition of the middle class and its ties to the state, not that there exists a middle class. middle class is not homogenous - there are middle-class citizens who are financially tied to the state eg. pensioners and state employees who are beholden to the incumbent autocrat and hence inhibit democratisation. It is only those who are financially autonomous who are more in favour of democratisation
Andersen and Ross
Resource curse fuels authoritarianism.
Mechanisms:
1) buy off potential opponents;
2) pay for repression;
3) resources lead to unequal and unbalanced economic growth without ‘development’
Collier
Resource curse.
Too much money means leaders 1) embezzle, 2) spend on large pet projects, 3) buy votes through contracts, so corrupt win elections.
Resources reduce the need to tax - 1) undercut public scrutiny and 2) leaves electoral competition unconstrained when parties compete for votes by patronage
Huntington (resources)
Resource increases authoritarianism. Oil revenues increase power of state bureaucracy and reduce need for taxation. Lower taxation means less reason to demand representation
Dunning
Natural resource rents eg. oil can increase democratisation because it provides another source of revenue for redistribution. Eg. Ecuador in the 1970s re-democratised because of oil rents, which 1) allowed a surge in public spending and b) placated fears of redistribution among the elites. Government could implement price and wage policies that benefited citizens at no cost to the elite and allowed for a smooth transition and growth of democratic institutions
