General Theories of Democratisation

Question 1

What are the three theoretical approaches and who are their main scholars?

Answer 1

Modernasation theorie:
—S.M. Lipset: Political Man/Some Social Requisites
—A. Leftwich, Two Cheers for Democracy
Comp. Historical Sociology
—B. Moore, Social Origins of Democracy and
Dictatorship
—D. Rueschemeyer, Capitalist Development and
Democracy
Cultural and Ideological Theories
—F. Fukuyama: The End of History
—S. P. Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations

Question 2

What is Modernity?

Answer 2

William Connolly: “Even if modernity is not unique…it is at least distinctive. In its optimistic moments it defines itself by contrast to earlier periods which are darker, more superstitious, less free, less rational, less productive, less civilized, less comfortable, less democratic, less tolerant, less respectful of the individual, less scientific and less developed technically than it is at its best…modernity is an epoch with no well-defined beginning or end…it gives modern articulations to persistent questions of meaning, the relation of human life to nature, the relation of the present to the past and the future, the form of the well-grounded order and the relation to life and death”.

Anthony Giddens: “Modernity refers to modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. This associates modernity with a time period and with an initial geographical location”.

Grugel: Modernity is equated with the processes of change which had occurred in the nineteenth century in the Atlantic societies of Britain and the US and, to a lesser extent, within Western Europe generally. A modern society, then, is essentially a product of capitalism. Lipset presumed that modernity was a single universal experience, leading to essentially similar societies and states. As a theory of change, modernization is functionalist and economistic, in that it sees democracy as an outcome of capitalism. It associates economic growth in a causal relationship with progress. Modernization is also predictive: democracy appears in those societies that are able to ‘replicate the original transition’ to capitalism… and become enmeshed in global economic structures.’

Modernity:
Philosophical (Enlightenment)
Economic (Capitalism)
Social, Cultural, and Political

Question 3

What is modernization theory generally, historically and normatively?

Answer 3

Modernisation theory: links democratisation with globalisation, economic, social, cultural aspects

Modernisation theory is historical and normative

• historical: looking back at Western societies and ask how they have become ‘modern‘
• normative: looking at ‘underdeveloped societies‘ and ask how they can become modern

Answer in both cases is: through economic development – produce economic growth and everything else follows!

Question 4

What are the 4 prongs of modernization theory?

Answer 4

Economic Development: Theory developed in US after WWII. Alternative to European colonialism and Soviet communism: independent countries would gradually increase their national wealth. This would lead to social change, which in turn would bring about both democracy and development.

Literacy: Once societies reach a certain size and sophistication, the ‘written word’ becomes crucial in the communication of information. Link between literacy, development, and democracy is forged.

Urbanisation: Modernisation theorists have argued that the urban voter is less deferential than the rural one. It is possible that the anonymity of urban life can allow greater personal independence, which might encourage greater political activism. Moreover, the greater possibilities for socialisation in urban areas might allow urban poor to appreciate the distinctiveness of their situation rather than defining their interests in terms of a dominant value system.

Diffusion of Power: Economic development diffuses power and therefore undermines position of ‘traditional’ elites. As society became more sophisticated, distribution of power would become broader. Here, a traditional elite no longer holds all the levers of power. Control over resources would be extended to a wider section of the population, with the result being that the middle classes and others would be better able to assert their right to political representation through democratic means

Question 5

Lipsets 1959 article is one of the first to address modernization theory of democratisation in an empirical fashion, what are his core findings?

Answer 5

Lipset analyses the ‘the peculiar concatenation of factors which gave rise to western democracy in the nineteenth century’ – the ‘social requisites of democracy’, which he identifies as
Economic development (pp.75ff)
Legitimacy (and effectiveness) (pp.86ff)
‘Economic development part’ (part II) makes comparison of European, English-speaking and Latin American countries, divided into two groups, ‘more democratic’ and ‘less democratic’, by indices of wealth, industrialization, education, and urbanization (see p.76).

Question 6

What is Lipsets 1959 main arguments?

Answer 6

Quote: ‘Perhaps the most widespread generalization linking political systems to other aspects of society has been that democracy is related to the state of economic development. Concretely, this means that the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.` (p.75).
This is a ‘hypothesis’ to be ‘tested’ (p.75); and to test hypothesis, he draws on ‘various indices of economic development’: wealth, industrialization, urbanization and education’ (p.75).
Central thesis is that ‘wealth, degree of industrialization and urbanization, and level of education is much higher for the more democratic countries’ (p.75).
Similarly, he writes in another passage (p.86): ‘In the modern world… economic development involving industrialization, urbanization, high educational standards, and a steady increase in the overall wealth of the society, is a basic condition sustaining democracy; it is a mark of the efficiency of the total system.‘

Question 7

How do economic indices foster democracy?

Answer 7

A high level of education fosters beliefs in democracy
Reduced potential for class struggle
For the lower strata, economic development, which means increased income, greater economic security, and higher education, permit those in this status to develop longer time perspectives and more complex and gradualist views of politics. A belief in secular reformist gradualism can only be the ideology of a relatively well-to-do lower class. Increased wealth and education also serve democracy by increasing the extent to which the lower strata are exposed to cross pressures which will reduce the intensity of their commitment to given ideologies and make them less receptive to supporting extremist ones. …This process…functions through enlarging their involvement in an integrated national culture as distinct from an isolated lower class one, and hence increasing their
exposure to middle-class values. (p.83)

Fosters norms of tolerance and toleration (p.84)
Leads to presence of intermediary institutions/organisations

Question 8

What are two conclusions that one can draw from Libset 1959?

Answer 8

Lipset’s prescient analysis of ‘post politics’ – later been taken up by Mouffe or Ranciere, who argue that there is no marked difference between left/right parties anymore.

Lipset argues that the struggle of the working class – at least in Western democracies – is over as they are now ‘part of the club’(see p.100)
His final caveat that even though his analysis is largely ‘structural’, we should not overestimate structural determinants and underestimate human agency (p.103).

Question 9

What are 6 conditions for ‘viable and sustained democracy‘ according to Leftwitch 1996?

Answer 9

Identifies 6 conditions for ‘viable and sustained democracy‘:
State legitimacy (p.335)
Secure consensus about rules of political game and loyalty to the democratic process (p.336)
Victorious party exercise restraint when in government (p.336)
Absence of abject poverty societies (p.337)
Absence of sharp ethnic or cultural differences (p.338)
Major transformations of the economic or political order are not easily accomplished under democratic circumstances

Question 10

What should the elites do according to Leftwitch 1996? should they spread democracy for everyone?

Answer 10

‘What the West should do is to support only those dedicated and determined developmental elites which are seriously bent on promoting economic growth, whether democratic or not. For by helping them to raise the level of economic development it will help them also to establish or consolidate the real internal conditions for democracy.’ (p.339)

Question 11

What are the critiques of modernization theory?

Answer 11

A-Historical
historically, there is no direct link btw capitalism and democracy
Ethnocentric
assumes modernisation is a universal experience in which all countries will follow ‘the West‘
Overly structural
Structural factors are exaggerated and do not give room to human agency (see, however, conclusion of Lipset‘s article)

• See Grugel, Democratisation, pp.48-50

Role of Values/Ideas
Modernisation theory downplays role of immaterial factors (counterargument is that structural change will create values/ideas)
Counterexamples
Why does democracy survive in ‘poor‘ countries (see India)?
Economic Dependency Theory
Capitalist globalisation biased in favour of rich countries; goods are produced in poor countries and then flow to wealthy states where they are sold
International Factors
Modernisation theory tends to underestimate the geopolitcal factors that are important for democratisation

Question 12

End of 19th ct, sociology’s founders turned to historical explanation to understand societal change, who are these founders and what did they do?

Answer 12

Weber’s research into comparative development of economy and society
Durkheim’s insights into historical development of religion, law, and division of labor
Marx’s attempt to explain history as class struggle

Question 13

Comp Historical Sociology + Social Class have a similar approach to modernization theory but start differently, where and why?

Answer 13

Belief that democratisation can be understood in structural terms (rejection of behaviouralism) – but starting point is social class

Interested in how changing relationship between state and classes shapes the political system – stress important role for collective actors

Ruschemeyer et al state that the aims of CMS are similar to modernization theory: it is concerned with the relationship between development and democracy and aims to throw new light on the major conditions favoring and inhibiting democracy. (pp.2-3).

Two distinctive traditions of research have come to quite different and as yet unreconciled results. They employed radically different research strategies and methods, so different that scholars in either camp often barely took notice of the work of the other side. Quantitative cross-national comparisons of many countries have found consistently a positive correlation between development and democracy. They thus come to relatively optimistic conclusions about the chances of democracy, not only in the advanced capitalist nations but also in the developing countries of today. By contrast, comparative historical studies that emphasize qualitative examination of complex sequences tend to trace the rise of democracy to a favorable historical constellation of conditions in early capitalism. Their conclusions are therefore far more pessimistic about today’s developing countries.

(Rueschemeyer et al, p.2)

Question 14

Barrington Moor belives there are different routs to modernaty, when driffen by what class does it lead to democracy?

Answer 14

No Bouguarsy no democracy
The argument is still that there is a link between democracy and capitalism – capitalist class (bourgeoisie) brings about democracy through their capitalist activities (commerce, industrialization)
‘To sum up as concisely as possible, we seek to understand the role of the landed upper classes and the peasants in the bourgeois revolutions leading to capitalist democracy, the abortive bourgeois revolutions leading to fascism, and the peasant revolutions leading to communism. The ways in which the landed upper classes and the peasants reacted to the challenge of commercial agriculture were decisive factors in determining the political outcome. (End of Preface)

Question 15

Barrington moores First Route to Modernity: Bourgeois Revolution leads to? and why?

Answer 15

The first of these leads through what I think deserve to be called bourgeois revolutions… certain violent changes that took place in English, French, and American societies on the way to becoming modern industrial democracies. A key feature in such revolutions is the development of a group in society with an independent economic base, which attacks obstacles to a democratic version of capitalism that have been inherited from the past. Though a great deal of the impetus has come from trading and manufacturing classes in the cities, that is very far from the whole story. The allies this bourgeois impetus has found, the enemies it has encountered, vary sharply from case to case. The landed upper classes, our main concern at the start, were either an important part of this capitalist and democratic tide, as in England, or if they opposed it, they were swept aside in the convulsions of revolution or civil war. The same thing may be said about the peasants. Either the main thrust of their political efforts coincided with that toward capitalism and political democracy, or else it was negligible. And it was negligible either because capitalist advance destroyed peasant society or because this advance began in a new country, such as the United States, without a real peasantry

Question 16

Second Route to Modernity: Capitalist Reactionary Revolution leads according to Moore where and why?

Answer 16

Second Route to Modernity: Capitalist Reactionary Revolution from Capitalism to Fascism
The second route has also been capitalist, but culminated during the twentieth century in fascism. Germany and Japan are the obvious cases… I shall call this the capitalist and reactionary form. It amounts to a form of revolution from above. In these countries the bourgeois impulse was much weaker… But the outcome, after a brief and unstable period of democracy, has been fascism.

Question 17

Moores Third Route to Modernity: Peasant Revolution leasd to? and why?

Answer 17

Third Route to Modernity: Peasant Revolution leading to Communism
The third route is of course communism, as exemplified in Russia and in China. The great agrarian bureaucracies of these countries served to inhibit the commercial and later industrial impulses even more than in the preceding instances. The results were twofold. In the first place these urban classes were too weak to constitute even a junior partner in the form of modernization taken by Germany and Japan, though there were attempts in this direction. And in the absence of more than the most feeble steps toward modernization a huge peasantry remained. This stratum, subject to new strains and stresses as the modern world encroached upon it, provided the main destructive revolutionary force that overthrew the old order and propelled these countries into the modern era under communist leadership that made the peasants its primary victims the old order and propelled these countries into the modern era under communist leadership that made the peasants its primary victims.

Question 18

What is Moore’s general thesis? How do you find out what state system will be adapted in modernity?

Answer 18

Moore claims that organization of ‘pre-modern societies’ can tell us important things about their future trajectory into modernity. While these ‘starting points’ are not decisive, some of them are, nonetheless, more favourable to democratic development than others (p.415):
‘A good case can be made, I think, for the thesis that Western feudalism did contain certain institutions that distinguished it from other societies in such a way as to favor democratic possibilities.’ [these possibilities are, most importantly, rise of bourgeoisie]
And to unpack this statement, he continues (pp.415-416):
‘For our purposes, the most important aspect was the growth of the notion of the immunity of certain groups and persons from the power of the ruler, along with the conception of the right of resistance to unjust authority. Together with the conception of contract as a mutual engagement freely undertaken by free persons, derived from the feudal relation of vassalage, this complex of ideas and practices constitutes a crucial legacy from European medieval society to modern Western conceptions of a free society. This complex arose only in Western Europe. Only there did that delicate balance occur between too much and too little royal power which gave an important impetus to parliamentary democracy.’
He arrives, then, at what is his overarching point and, as it were, the catch-phrase of the book – that the bourgeoisie was instrumental in the development of democracy (p.418):
‘We may simply register strong agreement with the Marxist thesis that a vigorous and independent class of town dwellers has been an indispensable element in the growth of parliamentary democracy. No bourgeois, no democracy. The principal actor would not appear on the stage if we confined our attention strictly to the agrarian sector.’
Democracy presupposes the victory of bourgeoisie, which comes at expense of other classes (see pp.429-430)
‘The taming of the agrarian sector has been a decisive feature of the whole historical process… getting rid of agriculture as a major social activity is one prerequisite for successful democracy… The peasant had to be turned into a farmer producing for the market instead of for his own consumption and that of the overlord.’
‘The landed upper classes either became an important part of the capitalist and democratic tide, as in England, or, if they came to oppose it, they were swept aside in the convulsions of revolution or civil war. In a word, the landed - upper classes either helped to make the bourgeois revolution or were destroyed by it.’

Question 19

What are for moor 5 conditions in a state to develop democracy in modernity?

Answer 19

The development of a balance to avoid too strong a crown or too independent landed aristocracy

A turn toward commercial agriculture of landed aristocracy and/or peasantry

The weakening of the landed aristocracy

The prevention of an aristocratic-bourgeois coalition against peasants and workers

A revolutionary break with the past

Question 20

Rueschemeyer et al also links capitalist development to democracy but rejects modernaízation theory and Moore. So why is capitalism liked to democracy and who is responsible if a system survives democratically?

Answer 20

Why does capitalist development foster democracy? Their answer to this is because of capitalism’s paradoxical nature of being based on inequality and resulting in (more) equality (p.271).
Why is the working class the most reliable promoter of democracy? Their answer to this is because the working class has most to gain from democracy (see p.57).

Question 21

What roles do class interrest play when it comes to democratization? according to Rueschemeyer et al

Answer 21

‘Within this guiding premise, there are three “power configurations” that determine outcomes. By far the most important of these power configurations is ‘the balance of power between classes and class coalitions’ (p.5). In their words, social class is ‘a master key to understanding the social structuring of interests and power in society’

‘It is a central thesis of our theoretical framework that democratization was both resisted and pushed forward by class interest. It was the subordinate classes that fought for democracy. By contrast, the classes that benefited from the status quo nearly without exception resisted democracy. The bourgeoisie wrested its share of political participation from royal autocracy and aristocratic oligarchy, but it rarely fought for further extensions once its own place was secured.’

Question 22

What is the relation between Democracy – Power - Equality according to Rueschemeyer et al

Answer 22

Democracy – Power - Equality
‘Our most basic premise is that democracy is above all a matter of power. Democratization represents first and foremost an increase in political equality. This idea is the ground upon which all of our work stands. The central proposition of our theoretical argument virtually follows from this: it is power relations that most importantly determine whether democracy can emerge, stabilize, and then maintain itself even in the face of adverse conditions.’ (p.5

Question 23

How does economic development connected to the working class creates democracy according to Rueschemeyer et al

Answer 23

Capitalist Development and Democracy
‘Capitalist development is associated with democracy because it transforms the class structure, strengthening the working and middle classes and weakening the landed upper class. It was not the capitalist market nor capitalists as the new dominant force, but rather the contradictions of capitalism that advanced the cause of democracy.’ (p.7)
The Role of the Working Class
‘We found that social classes behaved in a quite systematic manner across our historical cases and in accordance with our expectations. The working class was the most consistently pro-democratic force. The class had a strong interest in effecting its political inclusion and it was more insulated from the hegemony of dominant classes than the rural lower classes. Exceptions to the pro-democratic posture of the working class occurred where the class was initially mobilized by a charismatic but authoritarian leaders or a hegemonic party linked to the state apparatus.’ (p.8)

Question 24

When looking at Rueschemeyer et al 1992, what is the inequality paradoxon…and why does the big inequality between workers and bouguarsy lead to democracy?

Answer 24

‘The contrasting posture of the landed upper class and the working class contains the core of our argument of why capitalist development and democracy are related: capitalist development weakens the landed upper class and strengthens the working class as well as other subordinate classes. The respective positions of the bourgeoisie and the working class show that capitalism creates democratic pressures in spite of capitalists, not because of them. Democracy was the outcome of the contradictory nature of capitalist development, which, of necessity, created subordinate classes, particularly the working class, with the capacity for self-organization. Capitalism brings the subordinate class or classes together in factories and cities where members of those classes can associate and organize more easily; it improves the means of communication and transportation facilitating nationwide organization; in these and other ways it strengthens civil society and facilitates subordinate class organization. Though the working class has not proved to be the gravedigger of capitalism, it has very frequently been capable of successfully demanding its own political incorporation and an accommodation of at least some substantive interests. No other subordinate class in history has been able to do so on anywhere near the same scale.’ (pp.271-272)

Yes, by necessity, capitalism creates inequalities and a class-based system. Precisely because this is so, though, working class had the potential for self-organisation, which it used to demand incorporation into political system

Question 25

What are the differences between Moores and Rueschemeyer et al 1992 class based explanations of democracy?

Answer 25

Moore:
Social class as central forces in democratisation

Success of transitions to democracy depends on character of agrarian capitalism

Emphasises role of bourgeoisie: ‘no bourgeois, no democracy’ (p418).

Rueschemeyer et al 1992:
Social class as central forces in democratisation

Explains democratisation through three sets of variables:
class formation and alliances
international factors
the role of the domestic state

Emphasises role of the working class

Question 26

What is Fukuyamas centeral argument in the end of history in 1989?

Answer 26

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This is not to say that there will no longer be events to fill the pages of Foreign Affairs’s yearly summaries of international relations, for the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run.
(Article, p.4)
There is no more stage beyond liberal democracy (pace Marx)
Liberal democracy has no more serious ideological competitors as fascism and communism have turned out to be unacceptable
The end of war of big states over competing ideologies

Question 27

Fukuyama as a Modernisation Theorist?

Answer 27

Fukuyama as a Modernisation Theorist?

The social changes that accompany advanced industrialization, in particular universal education, appear to liberate a certain demand for recognition that did not exist among poorer and less educated people (xviii-xix, Book Preface)

Question 28

The End of History as Tragedy?

Answer 28

The End of History as Tragedy?

The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period, there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come. Even though I recognize its history, I have the most ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in Europe since 1945, with its north Atlantic and Asian offshoots. Perhaps this very prospect of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again (conclusion of article).

Question 29

What is Huntington 1993 and the Clash of Civilisations main argument?

Answer 29

‘It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.’

Question 30

What does End of Cold War Signify according to Huntington 1993?

Answer 30

End of ideological conflict (sounds familiar?)
Entering ‘latest phase in the evolution of conflict’
‘Reentering’ a more fundamental level
Centerpiece of int politics becomes ‘interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations’ (p.23)
Interaction not clash? Note that Huntington has more to say on ‘civilizations’ than on the form of the ‘clash’

Question 31

What is a civilization according to Huntington 1993?

Answer 31

‘What do we mean when we talk of a civilization? A civilization is a cultural entity…A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people, and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people’ (pp.23-24)

Question 32

What are reasons for the posibility for a potential clash of civilizations in the future according to Huntington 1993?

Answer 32

Civilisational differences are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes
Increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness
Local identities weakened by economic modernization and social change
Dual role of the West enhances civilization consciousness
Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.
Us vs them character of identity clashes

Question 32

Why is the West vs the rest mentality to simplified to summerize Huntingtons’ 1993 argument?

Answer 32

Huntington very much aware of cultural differences and dangers of universalism (see p.40)
Huntington acknowledges the history of ‘Western colonialism or imposition‘ (p.41)
But see the ambiguous conclusion where he sets forth policy recommendations – between imposition of Western values and accommodation

Question 33

What are Crituiques to Huntingtons’ 1993 clash of civilizations?

Answer 33

Racism: ‘Islam has bloody borders‘ (see Ukraine war shows it’s time to do away with the racist ‘Clash of Civilizations’ theory (theconversation.com)
Labels like ‘the West‘ or ‘Islam‘ obscure more than they clarify (The Clash of Ignorance | The Nation)
Reifying differences (Ban Wang, The Clash of Civilization and World Community: The West and China – PhilPapers)
Non-dynamic notion of civilisations (ibid)
Underestimates universal values (ibid)
Predictions are wrong (Ukraine-Russia, China – Taiwan)
Multicultural societies – torn countries (?)
Civilisational conflicts are minority throughout history (Ethnic Minorities and the Clash of Civilizations: A Quantitative Analysis of Huntington’s Thesis on JSTOR)

Question 34

What is the main finding of Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. baker, 2000?

Answer 34

• Industrialization promotes a shift from traditional values to secular-rational values
• Post-industrialization brings a shift towards more trust, tolerance, well-being and post-materialist values (Think of Lipset!!!)
  
  • Economic collapse tends to push in opposite direction
• Continued economic development leads to a decline of institutionalized religion
• Influence of traditional values is unlikely to disappear
  
  • Values change, however they continue to reflect a societies cultural heritage
• For modernization theorists
  
  • Rise of industrial society is linked with coherent cultural shift
  • Rise of post-industrial societies is linked with move from absolute norms and values toward increasingly rational, tolerant, trusting values
  • Traditional values seem to be path dependent
• ‘We doubt that the forces of modernization will produce a homogenized world culture in the foreseeable future’
• ‘The world views of rich societies differ markedly from those poor societies’

(Useful quote :
‘A rise of post-industrial society leads to growing emphasis on self-expression (Inglehart, 1997)’ )

Question 35

What changes do Inglehar and Baker (2000) propose to modernisation theory?

Answer 35

• Modernization does not follow a linear path
  
  • Probabilistic trends, not iron laws
• The secularization thesis is oversimplified
  
  • Religious beliefs persist, and spiritual concerns, broadly defined, are becoming more widespread in advanced industrial societies
• Cultural change seems to be path dependent
  
  • Depends on which ‘cultural zone’ the society is in
• Cultural change is not “Americanization”
  
  • Industrializing societies in general are not becoming like the United States
• Modernization is probabilistic, not deterministic
  
  • ‘Economic development tends to transform a given society in a predictable direction, but the process and path are not inevitable’
  • ‘Prediction must be contingent on the historical and cultural context of the society in question’

Question 36

What is democracy the politics of according to Adrian Leftwich (1996)?

Answer 36

‘Democracy is the politics of accommodation, compromise, consensus and incrementalism’

Question 37

What are the main arguments of Adrian Leftwich summarized (1996)?

Answer 37

• Problems with emerging democracies1) Legitimacy of states is weak2) inadequate consensus about the rules of the game3) Inadequate consensus over the limits of policy change4) inequalities between regions or social groups are deep5) ethno-cultural and religious conflicts are sharps and acrimonious6) Kind of economic reforms required to promote urgently needed growth are impossible under democratic conditions
• Suggestion to the West
  • ‘Instead of insisting blindly on democracy, what the West should do is to support only those dedicated and determined developmental elites which are seriously bent on promoting economic, whether democratic or not’

Question 38

What does Leftwich mean by ‘Democracy: an alien plant?’ (1996)?

Answer 38

‘Is it possible to insert democracy into any society at any stage of its history irrespective of its social structure, its economic condition, its political traditions and its external relations?

Are there certain conditions without which stable and sustainable democracy is improbable?

Is it not clear that there are many countries in the world where these conditions simply do not exist as yet?

Question 39

What are some Western-centric critics of modernisation?

Answer 39

Thomas Dunn, 2013

• ‘Modernisation theory can quite obviously be criticised from a neo-modernist or Marxist viewpoint as Western-centric.’
• ‘Scholars such as Rostow and Huntingon could be criticised for attempting to enforced upon African, Latin American and Middle Eastern nations the liberal-democratic, capitalist values of the West’
• ‘India, which has been a constitutional democracy since its independence, seems to have become less democratic as it has modernised. the Western world has increased and Gross Domestic Product increased from $37.6785 billion in 1960 to $1.848 trillion in 2011 (Google Public Data 2013), its politics have become ‘less tolerant, less secular, less law-abiding, less liberal’ (Zakaria 2003: 30).’
• ‘By establishing the US model of democracy and liberal-capitalism as the end product of modernisation, modernisation theorists completely disregard other paths to development’

Campbell, 2013:
-US needed a vision of the future, by which America could identify with the aspirations of developing nations, as well as a blueprint for economic and political development to blunt the appeal of Marxism
- ‘Before they can industrialize, though, they must overcome their traditional structure by shifting from traditional values to ones more congenial industrialization’
- ‘Modernization theory becomes merely an “ideological smokescreen” for Western neo-imperialism.’
- ‘Observers noted the high price of American-style development, as it meant the wholesale destruction of countries deemed backward, the uprooting and killing of millions.’

Bubaker, 2015:
- Both Modernisation and Globalization Theories identify the major category of development as the one defined by the U.S. and Europe. According to these two theories, to achieve more practical tools of communication and achieve a faster rate of closing the knowledge gap (Stiglitz 2004, p. 467), it is imperative to adopt the practices of these developed regions. This ethnocentric approach (Reyes, 2001a, p. 8) means that, to follow the way of development, every country should obey the patterns of the U.S. and European countries.
- Haque (1999) refers to what Preston explicitly states about this issue, pointing out that the U.S. presents Modernisation as an attack on the former USSR’s widespread socialistic belief. Thus, Modernisation Theory is a by-product of a political reaction against the communist ideology

Huntington, 1971:
Huntington (1971), “It is false to believe that tradition and modernity are ‘mutually exclusive’. Modern society is not simply modern; it is modern and traditional. The attitudes and behaviour patterns may in some cases be fused; in others, they may comfortably coexist […]. In addition, one can go further and argue not only that coexistence is possible but that modernisation itself may strengthen tradition. It may give new life to important elements of the pre-existing culture, such as religion.”

Galland and Yemmel 2008
The eldest Europeans seem to move away from traditional values more rapidly than the youngest, and among the latters, we even notice the beginnings of a return to traditional values

Question 40

Why is fostering social supports such as literacy important according to Lipset? (1959)

Answer 40

‘Democratic systems gather momentum and creates social supports (institutions )to ensure its continued existence (p29)’

‘Premature democracy which survives will only do so by (among other things) facilitating the growth of other conditions, such as universal literacy or autonomous private organisations’

Footnote, p85:
’The government of Pakistan was overthrown peacefully on October 7, 1958, and the new self-appointed president announced that “Western type democracy cannot function here under present conditions. We have only 16 per cent literacy. In America you have 98 per cent” (Associated Press release, October 9, 1958)”

Question 41

Does Lipset have his own notion of democracy (1959)?

Answer 41

First he claims he is not dealing with the question what is democracy:

‘In this chapter, I am primarily concerned with the social conditions like education which serve to support democratic political systems, and I will not deal in detail with the internal mechanisms like the specifics rules of the political game which serve to maintain them’ (p29)’

He claims he is abstracting from Schumpeter and Weber
- 1) Political formula or body of beliefs specifying which institutions are legitimate
- 2) One set of political leaders in office
- 3) One or more sets of recognized leaders attempting to gain office

However, throughout the book, he sometimes drops breadcrumbs to his ideas:

1) Conversion both ways, in and out of government is possible p(75) –> Przeworskian notion

2) Parties should give up integrational emphasis –> leaving populism

3) Conditions which serve to moderate the intensity of partisan battle are among key requisites of democratic government (p.71) –> Competition within limits

Question 42

What categories of countries does Lipset use for the research on economic development? Should it be criticized? (1959)

Answer 42

• Stable democracies
• Unstable democracies / dictatorships
• Democracies and unstable dictatorships
• Stable dictatorships

Question 43

How does poverty of a country affect its capabilities for democracy? (Lipset, 1959)

Answer 43

Demagogues and populism
‘Where poverty is low can population intelligently engage in politics and develop self-restraint necessary to avoid demagogues (p31)’
‘The different types of extremism, based on the small entrepreneurial classes (both urban and rural), has emerged in the less developed and often culturally backward sectors of more industrialized societies’ (p57)’

Long term views
‘Economic development permits the lower strata to develop longer time perspectives and more complex and gradualist views of politics (p.45)’

Scarcity of resources
‘Where there is a dearth of goods, the sharing of such goods must inevitably be less equitable than in a country in which there is relative abundance’ (p50)’
If there is enough wealth and some redistribution does not hurt anybody —> it doesn’t matter who has the power (p51)
‘If loss of office means serious losses for major power groups, they will seek to retain or secure office by any means available’ (p51)
‘The poorer the country, the greater the emphasis on nepotism’ (p52)

Class struggle
‘Poorer the country, the more the upper class will treat the lower class as inferior (p51)’
‘There is relatively little difference between the standards of living of adjacent social classes and that even classes [in the US, Canada, or to a lesser extent, Sweden or Australasian dominion] which are far apart in the social structure will enjoy more nearly similar consumption patterns than will comparable classes in Southern Europe’ (p50)’
‘The wealthier a country, the less is status inferiority experienced as a major source of deprivation’ (p50)’
‘Increased wealth changes the shape of the stratification structure from an elongated pyramid with large lower-class base to a diamond with growing middle class (p51)’

Question 44

How does the sense of opportunity relate to poverty (Lipset, 1959)?

Answer 44

‘Individuals whose experience limits their significant communications and interaction to others on the same level as themselves will, other conditions being equal, be more conservative than people who may be better of but who have been exposed to the possibilities of securing an other way of life’ (p47-48)
‘The dynamic in the situation would seem to be exposure to the possibility of a better way of life rather than poverty as such’ (p48)

Karl Marx, 1933; Wage-Labour and Capital (Lipset: p48) : ‘A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling’

• ‘One may find stable poverty only in tradition-dominated societies’ p48
  
  • Due to the modernization-induced improvement of means of communication and transport

Question 45

What indicies does Lipset use to measure economic development?

Answer 45

Wealth, industrialization, urbanization and education

Question 46

Can the lack of self-governance and democracy be present within the same country (according to Lipset, 1959)?

Answer 46

No.

Footnote p33:
‘All countries examined in this chapter, however, were chosen on the assumption that a characterization as “democratic” is meaningless for a nonself-governing country and therefore, presumably, all of them, whether democratic or dictatorial, would fall within Shannon’s “self-governing” definitions’.
(Underdeveloped Areas. Lyle W. Shannon, 1957 | Is level of development related to capacity for self-government. Lyle W. Shannon, 1958)

Question 47

How does participant society evolve according to Daniel Lerner, 1958?

Answer 47

• Secular evolution of participant society has three phases1) Urbanization: makes space for the next to phases (cities lead to characteristics of the modern industrial economy)2) Literacy: first few people, but necessary to perform tasks of modernized society
  3) Media: Technology of industrial development gets distributed, society produces newspapers, radios, motion pictures on mass scale
  - Literacy and media are mutually reinforcing
• ‘Out of this interaction develop those institutions of participation (e.g. voting) which we find in all advanced modern societies’

Question 48

Empathy is conducive democracy (Lipset, 1959). Is this quotation correct?

Answer 48

No. Whether empathy is conducive of democracy or antidemocratic tendencies is a question.

BUT

Footnote p44: ‘According to [Lerner], the physical and social mobility of modern society requires a mobile personality, capable of adoption to rapid change. Development of a “mobile sensibility so adaptive to change that rearrangement of the self-system is its distinctive mode” has been the work of the twentieth century. Its main feature is empathy, denoting the “general capacity to see oneself in the other fellow’s situation, whether favourably or unfavourably”.
Whether this psychological characteristic results in a predisposition towards democracy (implying a willingness to accept the viewpoint of others) or is rather associated with the antidemocratic tendencies of a “mass society” type of personality (implying the lack of any solid personal values rooted in rewarding participation) is an open question. Possibly empathy (a more or less “cosmopolitan” outlook) is a general personality characteristic of modern societies, with other special, conditions determining whether or not it has been the social consequence of tolerance and democratic attitudes, or rootlessness and anomie.’

Question 49

High literacy is sufficient for democracy (Lipset, 1959). Is this true?

Answer 49

No.

‘If we cannot say that a “high” level of education is a sufficient condition for democracy, the available evidence suggests that it comes close to being a necessary one.’ (p40)

Footnote p85: ‘ ‘’The government of Pakistan was overthrown peacefully on October 7, 1958, and the new self-appointed president announced that “Western type democracy cannot function here under present conditions. We have only 16 per cent literacy. In America you have 98 per cent” (Associated Press release, October 9, 1958)”

Question 50

How does Lipset think about Effectiveness and legitimacy?

Answer 50

• Effectiveness - actual performance (p64)
• Legitimacy - existing political institutions are the most adequate ones(p64)

‘A crisis of legitimacy is a crisis of change’ (p65)

Types of regimes:
- Eff + Leg = Stable
- No Eff + No Leg = Unstable
- If only effectiveness erodes —> remains democratic
- If No legitimacy and effectiveness also erodes —>breakdown

Legitimacy and effectiveness are dynamic. How Lipset presents it, effectiveness has more of an influence over legitimacy than legitimacy over effectiveness.

Dangers of legitimacy and effectiveness

Legitimacy
- ‘One main source of legitimacy lies in the continuity of important traditional integrative institutions during transitional period in which new institutions are emerging’ (p66)
- Whenever new groups become politically active (..), easy access to the legitimate political institutions tends to win the loyalty of the new groups to the system, and they in turn can permit the old dominating strata to maintain their own status’ (p67)
- ‘Political systems which deny new strata access to power except by revolution also inhibit the growth of legitimacy by introducing millennial hopes into the political arena’ (p.67)
- Major test of legitimacy is to what extent do nations create ‘secular political cultures’ (p68)
- E.g. national rituals and holidays —> national identity!

Effectiveness
- Breakdown of effectiveness, repeatedly or for a long period, will endanger even a legitimate system’s stability’ p(68)
- Prolonged effectiveness may lead to legitimacy
- For Lipset, ‘in the modern world, such effectiveness means primarily constant economic development’ p(70)

Question 51

There is a major difference between the democractic essence of two party systems and multiparty systems according to Lipset. Is this true?

Answer 51

No.

‘Two party systems should be better than multiparty systems, although it doesn’t matter much (p 80)’

Question 52

How does the salience of the middle class affect the left-right political orientation continuum? (Lipset, 1959)

Answer 52

‘Once a politically active middle class is in existence, the key distinction between “left” and “right” political tendencies no longer suffices as a means of differentiation between supporters and opponents of democracy’ (p 86)’

Question 53

Is Lipset optimistic about the democratization of new democratic governments of Asia and Africa?

Answer 53

No.

‘With pressure for rapid industrialization and the immediate solution for chronic problems of poverty and famine, it is unlikely that many of the new governments of Asia and Africa will be able to support an open-party system representing basically different class positions and values’ (p.84-85)

Question 54

Some religions are more compatible to democracy than others (Lipset, 1959). Is this true?

Answer 54

Yes.

• Some religion is more compatible with democracy than another (p73)
• ‘Catholics may accept the assumptions of political democracy, but never those of religious tolerance’
  
  • Dutch Calvinists —> ‘They insist there is but one truth, as the Communists and fascists do in politics’ (p76)