Non-Democratic Systems and the Transition to Democracy

Question 1

What is the meaning of democratic transition?

Answer 1

Democratic Transition is a process of democratization where a state undergoes regime change away from a particular type of non-democracy to a more democratic one.

Transition and consolidation sometimes treated synonymously:
- ‘Dem o c r a tic transition and consolidation involve the movement from a nondemocratic to a democratic regime.’ (Linz & Stepan, p.38)

Better to see them as two related but distinct phases of democratisation:
- Transition: regime change; moving away from non-democracy
- Consolidation: entrenchment of already existing regime (‘only game in town’)

Question 2

What is Przeworski opinion on Transition?

Answer 2

.shed light on concept of transition (democratisation);
.bring to the fore its empirical/theoretical complexities;
.demonstrate that outcome of transition processes is always uncertain (one end being consolidated dem, the other authoritarian systems);
.show that that these processes are context-specific – if we can draw conclusions, they remain hypotheses (see later points+subject guide)

Question 3

What can go wrong on the path to transition to democracy according to Przeworski?

Answer 3

‘The strategic problem of transition is to get to democracy without being either killed by those who have arms or starved by those who control productive resources…The path to democracy is mined. And the final destination depends on the path. In most countries where democracy has been established, it has turned out to be fragile. And in some countries, transitions have gotten stuck.’ (p.52)

Question 4

According to Przworski what are three differnt struggles faced by transitioning regims?

Answer 4

Extrications lead to difficult democratization strategies and often to painful compromises with ancien regime.

Contestation will remain a salient feature of new democracies due to continued conflict over the basic institutions

One danger of transitions is to believe that anti-authoritarian force are necessarily democratic forces.

Question 5

Samuel P. Huntington identified waves of democracy , how did he define a wave of democracy and what was the third and last wave?

Answer 5

‘a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite directions during that period of time.’ (1991, 15)

Third wave began in 1974, with pro-democracy military coup that overthrew Portugal‘s dictatorship

Question 6

Discribe Samuel P. Huntington 3 waves of democracy?

Answer 6

First “‘long” wave of democratization began in 1820s, with the widening of the suffrage to a large proportion of the male population in US, and continued for almost a century until 1926, bringing into being some 29 democracies.
1b. 1922 coming to power of Mussolini in ITA marked beginning of a first “reverse wave” that by 1942 had reduced number of democratic states in the world to 12

Triumph of Allies in World War II initiated a second wave of democratization that reached its zenith in 1962 with 36 countries governed democratically.
2b. Second reverse wave (1960-1975) that brought the number of democracies back down to 30

3. Between 1974 and 1990, at least 30 countries made transitions to democracy, just about doubling the number of democratic governments in the world.

Southern Europe in the mid-970s;
Latin America and Asia in the later 1970s and the 1980s;
Eastern Europe in 1989;
and finally Africa in the early 1990s.

Question 7

How can one analyse the future of democracy by looking at huntingtons 3 wave theorsie according to Smauel. P. Huntington?

Answer 7

Inquire if causes that gave rise to the 3rd wave are likely to continue operating, gain in strength, weaken, or be supplemented or replaced by new forces (p.13)
Examine obstacles to and opportunities for democratization where it has not yet taken hold. (p.20)

Question 8

What are the obstecals that democratic transition can face according to Huntington?

Answer 8

1. Lack of experience with democracy (p.21)
   
   2. Lack of support by political leaders (p.21)
   3. Cultural Issues (argues we should not overestimate cultural issues, see page 30: Limits to Cultural Obstacles)
   4. Economic Obstacles (these are be extremely important)

Question 9

What are factors for democratic transition?

Answer 9

1) Deepening legitimacy problems of authoritarian regimes

2) Unprecedented global economic growth of the 1960

3) Shift in the doctrine and activities of the Catholic Church

4) Changes in the policies of external actors, most notably the EC, the US, and the Soviet Union 

5) "Snowballing”

Question 10

According to Whithead what are contributing factors to democratization

Answer 10

Purpose of chapter is to emphasise international pressures (without downplaying domestic pressures; see conclusion)
International dynamics encouraged Moscow to lift its veto on democratisation (pp.367ff)
The Role of ‘the West‘ contributed decisively – see especially the case of human rights (Helsinki Final Act, p.379)

Question 11

What is the purpose of Bernhard et al 2004 articel about The Legacy of Western Overseas Colonialism on Democratic Survival?

Answer 11

Article analyses the ‘enduring effects’ of Western colonialism on the survival and development of former colonies – on the colonial legacy on democracy, as it were.

Empirical background is the ‘continued fragility of some postcolonial democracies’ (p.225).

Article revisits earlier discussions on democratic trajectory of former colonies after independence as ‘colonial legacies have been neglected in the most recent literature.’ (p.226)

They want to test some of the ‘findings’ that have emerged from earlier studies and confirm some of these while they reject or revise others.

Question 12

In Bernhard et al 2004 to consider legacies of colonialism on democratic survival, two sets of comparisons are conducted?

Answer 12

compare former Western overseas colonies to other democracies to understand if colonialism has a general legacy.
compare former colonies of Western colonial powers to see if different national forms of colonialism have different legacies for democracy.

Question 13

What are Bernhard et al 2004 three central factors to disaggregate colonial legacy:

Answer 13

Development
Social fragmentation
State and civil society relation

Question 14

What are Bernhard et al 2004 major findings?

Answer 14

In general, the colonial legacy for democratisation is overwhelmingly negative (p.245)

Advantages of British colonial legacy are real but overstated (p.246)

French colonialism has been overwhelmingly negative for democratisation (p.246)

Former African colonies break down with greater frequency due to social fragmentation (pp.246-247)

Question 15

According to Philip, what is the correlation between colonialism and democratization?

Answer 15

1. Continuity and democratisation
   
   • independent countries adopted democratic institutions from their former colonial powers
2. Continuity and non-democratisation
   
   • independent country threw off the control of a non-democracy, but did not democratise when it did so
3. Discontinuity and democratisation
   
   • collapse of a non-democratic empire led to the adoption of democracy in the newly independent countries.
4. Discontinuity and non-democratisation
   
   • newly independent countries seemed likely to adopt democratic parliamentary systems similar to those existing in their former colonial powers, but in the end did not do so.

Question 16

What is according to Brooker 2014 the relationship between monarchy and democracy?

Answer 16

Monarchy emphasizes the institutional and symbolic aspects of personal rule, with its crown, throne and other regalia, and its rituals of power and deference. Furthermore, monarchy institutionalizes the inheritance of power and office – described by such titles as King, Emperor, Sultan, Shah or Emir – which are inherited through a royal family. And it is this appropriation of power that makes the emergence of monarchy a crucial milestone in the historical evolution of non-democratic rule.’ (see p.41

Calls monarchical and personal rule the ‘ancestral type of non-democratic regime’ (p.41).

Question 17

What are the explanation why many monarchies survived till the current day?

Answer 17

‘A surprising number of ruling monarchies have survived into the present democratic age and become, perhaps, the ultimate examples of evolutionary hangovers. These ruling monarchies are predominantly found in the oil-rich Middle East and so the question of how they manage to survive is of more than merely academic interest.’ (p.41)
2 potential explanations:
- Rentier state (prominent but controversial theory) – pp.52-53
- Dynastic type of monarchy – pp.53-54

Question 18

Bregolat 1999 argues in his article about Spain‘s Transition to Democracy that there are different reasons why it transitioned to democracy, what are these resons?

Answer 18

1. the horror of the Spanish Civil War explains the high level of moderation among those who had endured it and among the generations that followed
2. no one wished to unbury the axe of the civil war. This was possible because forty years had passed since the end of the war.
3. Spain had good luck with the leaders it produced during those years. … Because of these men, a very complex process, characterized by many difficult moments, came to a successful close. It was especially decisive that the king was in favor of democracy and that he acted as its engine.*

Question 19

According to Brooker 2014 Chapter 3, what is the General Relationship btw Democracy and Military Goverment?

Answer 19

Military rule seems incompatible with democracy. Military/part of military takes over and establish their rule
Yet, relationship btw military rule and democracy is complex. Military rule might set country on path to democratisation (see also Intro lecture and subject guide).
‘The military overthrew so many monarchies and dictators during the twentieth century – sometimes replacing them with democracy – that the military coup might well be viewed as a destroyer of non-democratic regimes’ (Brooker, p.69).

Question 20

What happend to military rule in recent decates and why are there not alot of them anymore? According to Brooker 2014!

Answer 20

Claims that military rule has become less frequent (as a non-democratic form of rule) compared to recent past:
‘The military coup and military type of dictatorship have been much less evident since the 1970s–90s global wave of democratization…But, even if military coups continue to be rare and to produce caretaker or short-term military rule, there will still be the need to explain why there are so few military dictatorships being established – especially as, once, they were the most common type of rule “by other means” than democracy’ (pp.69-70).

Question 20

According to Brookner 2014, how does a on party state take over and what are the opportunities that make this procedure easier?

Answer 20

Interest: Ideological and social interests play larger role (pp.89-92)

Means distinction between…
Electoral Misappropriation of Power (p.92) – Nazi Germany
Revolutionary Seizure of Power (p.94) – Russian and Chinese Revolution

Opportunistic situations (p.98):
1. a weakening of the state power of the incumbent regime;
2. a war of liberation;
3. a process of democratizing decolonization

Question 20

what are according to Brooker 2014 motives for the military to intevene in the goverment?

Answer 20

1. national interrest
2. cooperate selfinterrest
3. individual selfinterrest
4. Social (ethnic or class) selfinterrest

Question 21

what are according to Brooker 2014 motives for the military to not interact in the government?

Answer 21

Believe in civil supremacy
Fear of coup failure
Fear of politicization of the military

Question 21

Levitsky and Ziblatt (session 20) argue that since Cold War, democracies do not die with a coup, how according to them do democracies die instead?

Answer 21

Democracies are undermined, hollowed out from within, eroded – not abolished with a bang

Brooker makes similar argument (pp.69-70)

BUT: Wave of coups in Africa in recent years make this very relevant again

Question 21

What does Brookner 2014 think about the connection between one party states and democracys?

Answer 21

One-party rule seems incompatible with democracy as not even most minimal requirement for democracy is present
Historical link between one-party regimes and personal dictatorships (Hitler and Stalin) – p.86

Question 21

What is a dominant party system?

Answer 21

Governing body is all-encompassing party
Lenin and idea of vanguard party
‘Of the world’s remaining non-democracies, the most important are based on dominant party systems run by autocratic leaders’ (Subject guide)

Question 22

For Brookner 2014 democratization is a difficult topic, while he believes that it is the most dangerous thing for non-democratic regimes, he also argues that it does not always lead to a democracy. Why is that?

Answer 22

…‘democratization’ does not mean that it necessarily produces a democracy and therefore an end to rule ‘by other means’ than democracy. A key point of this chapter is that democratization may successfully destroy or change a non-democratic regime but fail to produce a democracy – producing, instead, a democratically disguised dictatorship, or a hybrid regime. (p.206)

Question 23

Phillip suggests two important factors on why or if a system successfully democracyses, what are they?

Answer 23

C
The way in which societies became democratic (or not) depended on their organisation prior to democratisation
Democratisation has occurred in waves rather than as a set of random events – changes in international politics significant

Question 24

What are according to the subject guide the 4 factors that influence democratization?

Answer 24

International Pressure
Domestic Pressure (social, political, economic)
Historical trajectory/path (organisation prior to democratisation)
Willingness of dominant actors (monarch, military, party, etc)

Question 25

What is a primary criterion for democracy according to Huntington, 1991?

Answer 25

‘A primary criterion for democracy is equitable and open competition for votes between political parties without government harassment or
restriction of opposition groups’

Question 26

What are the major 5 factors of the third wave of democratization (Huntington, 1991)?

Answer 26

1. Deepening legitimacy problem of authoritarian regimes
2. Economic growth of 1960s
3. Shift in activities of the Catholic Church
4. Changes of attitudes of external actors
5. Snowballing”

Question 27

Is snowballing effect enough for democratic transitions (Huntington, 1991)?

Answer 27

The “worldwide democratic revolution” may create an external environment conducive to democratization, but it cannot produce the conditions necessary for democratization within a particular country.

Question 28

What factors contribute to the reverse third wave? (Huntington, 1991)

Answer 28

1. ‘The weakness of democratic values among key elite groups and the general public’
2. ‘Severe economic setbacks, which intensified social conflict and enhanced the popularity of remedies that could be imposed only by authoritarian governments’
3. Social and political polarization, often produced by leftist governments seeking the rapid introduction of major social and economic reforms
4. ‘The determination of conservative middle-class and upper-class groups to exclude populist and leftist movements and lower-class groups from political power’
5. ‘The breakdown of law and order resulting from terrorism or insurgency’
6. ‘Intervention or conquest by a nondemocratic foreign power’
7. ‘Reverse snowballing” triggered by the collapse or overthrow of democratic systems in other countries’

Question 29

What obstacles to democratization does Huntington mention (1991)?

Answer 29

1. Political
   - no experience with democracy
   - incumbent authoritarian leaders opposing democratization
   - no commitment to democratic norms among leaders and major power groups
2. Cultural
   - either democracy can be only nurtured in western cultures and thus is inappropriate for non-western cultures OR non-western cultures are hostile to the idea of democracy
   - it is case dependent, cultures have aspects that promote democracy and that doesn’t
   - cultural argument is limited
3. Economical
   - Most wealthy countries are democratic, and most democratic countries –India is the most dramatic exception– are wealthy
   - In poor countries democratization is unlikely; in rich countries it usually has already occurred.’
   - !!! ‘Poverty is a principal–probably the principal–obstacle to democratic development. The future of democracy depends on the future of economic development. Obstacles to economic development are obstacles to the expansion of democracy.’ !!!
   - Economic development makes democracy possible; political leadership makes it real

Question 30

What are the four types of regimes Richard Rose discusses (2018)?

Answer 30

• Unaccountable autocracy: Power is exercised arbitrarily at the will of the few without a pretence of legitimating power through election
• Constitutional oligarchy: Actions of governors are not restrained by a mass electorate, but by the rule of law
• Plebiscitarian autocracy: If a referendum is held in which the government not only decides what the question will be but also what the result will be, it is a plebiscite, in which the outcome represents the will of the regimes —> always has the possibility that the election results go against the government
  (It is the extreme of electoral autocracy: Although there is election, the weakness of rule of law means elections are not free and fair)
• Accountable democracy

Question 31

How is the process of evolution of Democratic regimes for Rose, 2018?

Answer 31

1. Establish rule of law
   
   1. Proto-democratic institutions
      (powers of Monarchs in Scandinavia,
      Netherlands and England were checked by aristocrats, land owners and people of titles)
2. Restrictive franchise needed to be abolished and suffrage expanded
3. Freedom of speech and association and right of political parties and interest groups to organize
   
   1. For electors to have a free choice
4. Election of representatives with the power to control government

Question 32

What is the ‘chief obstacle to democratization’ for Rose, 2018?

Answer 32

The chief obstacle to democratization today is not the absence of elections but the failure of regimes that hold elections to govern by the rule of law

Why?
- Plebiscitarian autocracies: oppositions parties face an uphill battle to compete with the party of power, for the law offers critics of the regime and their supporters little protection from intimidation by government
- Unaccountable autocracies: governors do not need to worry about elections and have little regard for the rule of law
- Constitutional oligarchies: public officials act in accord with national laws but without the need to be accountable to the electorate

• Resilient authoritariansim
  In much of the world today, the critical issue is not whether a regime is democratizing, but whether it will persist or be replaced by another

Question 33

Are consolidated regimes strong states? (Rose, 2018)

Answer 33

‘A consolidated regime is not necessarily an effective, strong state, for survival is the first priority of governors under pressure’

‘In developing and low income countries, lack of administrative and economic resources constraint government’

Question 34

How may an unaccountable autocracy step on the road to democratization?

Answer 34

• Suppression of feedback means unaccountable government doesn’t know what their subjects really think
  
  • To maintain monopoly of power is to find out what subjects really think —> pressure to satisfy local population and/or paint a ‘rosy picture’ of local affairs
    
    • It can set them on path to liberalize and democratize

Question 35

‘The longer a party is in government, the less it is at risk of loosing the next election’ (Rose, 2018). Is this quotation correct?

Answer 35

No.
‘The practice of government re-enforces electoral competition, because the longer a party is in government, the > more < it is at risk of losing the next election’

Question 36

How did Argentina transition from a democracy to a military regime?

Answer 36

Katherine J. Worboys, 2007: Menem, reinventing the military
Gabrielle Esparza, 2016: Raúl Alfonsín era

The dirty war
- Military coup 1976 –> ‘Process of National Reorganization ‘ –> 95% support from Argentinians
- War against Montonero guerillas and ERP
- The guerillas (Montoneros) were against US interest, thus eliminating them was favourable –> US support of coup

Falklands
- Military regime invades Falklands in 1982
- First invasion seems successful, then British counterattack pushes them back
- Military lost prestige after this defeat and the atrocities during the dirty war

Back to democracy
- General Reynaldo Bignone appointed to organize 1983 elections
- Peronist and Radical parties competing
- Question: would the military interveene? (think back to Rose!)
- Radicals have been known to throw out military –> danger to the major conservative group (think back to Lipset!)
- 1983 –> Raúl Alfonsin won, Radical party

Alfonsin era (1983-1989)
- 1985 –> the new CONADEP (National Commission on the Disappearance of People) leads to trials in the National Criminal Court of Appeals
- 1986 –> Asssasination attempt against Alfonsin
- Alfonsin enacts Full stop policy (putting an end to accusations) and due obligation policy (hierarchy-based judging of war criminals)
- 1988 –> Alfonsin enacts national defense law, restricts militaries access to power

Alfonsin era summary: eroding of the militariy’s image, which almost lead to a democratic breakdown. However, it provided a strong fundation for democracy

Carlos Menem era (1989)
- redirecting military’s focus
- Urged to exclude military from domestic arena
- Rebranding military: international peacekeeping rather than war-mongering
- Reformed military education
- CAECOPAZ –> institutions to educate military officers

Summary of transition:
- Basis for democracy: internal, external pressures
- Catalizator: Excluding military and restricting its power
- Consolidation: integrating and rebranding military

Question 37

What is Brooker’s calculus for party usurpation of power (2013)?

Answer 37

1. Motives:
   - National interest
   - Ideological interest
   - Social (especially class) self-interest
   - Individual self-interest
   - Organizational self-interest
2. Inhibiting motives
   - Belief in democracy
   - Fear of failure
3. Means
   - Electoral method
   - Revolution method
4. Opportunities
   - Weakening of state power
   - War of liberation
   - Democratizing decolonization

Question 38

What is usurpation (Brooker, 2013)?

Answer 38

both military intervention in politics and also a party’s electoral misappropriation of power or revolutionary seizure of power.