Q: “Democratization is a complex process”. Discuss with the help of examples.

SN: Democracy and democratization

Intro

Theories (include reasons)

Three Waves

Phases of consolidation

-complications

-why dividing consolidation into phases is problematic

Embedded, Partial and Defective democracies

The distinction between democratic and less democratic states is very important when we look at the
rapid growth of democratic states. This growth is often called democratisation and is usually divided into
‘waves’.

 The first wave, from the mid-nineteenth century to the 1920s, coincided with the rise of the
nation-state.
 The second wave, starting after the Second World War and continuing to the early 1960s, was
mainly the result of decolonisation.
 The third wave, from about 1975 to the end of the twentieth century, followed the spread of
democracy in Latin America and Asia, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Reversals post the Third Wave:

Although the third wave was expected by some to flow on irresistibly into the twenty-first century,
transition to democracy is by no means inevitable and some countries have remained firmly against
it while others have created partial, limited or illiberal forms of democracy. Neither North Korea nor
Syria seem to be on the way to democracy at all, China and Cuba deliberately frustrate steps in this
direction, and Zimbabwe and Russia have deliberately abolished some democratic institutions and
practices. At the end of the twentieth century the third wave of the democratic tide seems to have
ebbed away.

The end of the third wave and the appearance of faulty democracies have prompted a shift in the way
that comparative political scientists approach democracy and democratisation.

‘failed democracy’, ‘partial democracy’ and ‘illiberal democracy’

The terms ‘failed democracy’, ‘partial democracy’ and ‘illiberal democracy’ have been introduced to deal
with the fact that democratisation can be reversed and that some states have not become fully
democratic. Some violations of citizens’ rights and other democratic imperfections are, it is argued, so
fundamental that the resulting states are neither democratic nor undemocratic, but form a distinct
category of their own known as ‘defective democracies’.

Meaning of Democracy
In the study of Third World democratization, ‘democracy’ is defined in Western liberal terms. For
example,

Diamond et al.(1990) require a system of government to provide

A ) meaningful and extensive competition between individuals and groups,

B ) highly inclusive levels of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies,

C ) and civil and political sufficient to ensure such competition and participation,

before it is classified as democratic, though they acknowledge that countries satisfy such criteria to
differing degrees, and that rules and principles may be contaminated by practice.

Rueschmeyer et al. (1992) look for realistic possibilities rather than philosophical ideals:

A ) ‘modest’ popular participation in government through representative parliaments,

B ) the responsibility of government to parliament,

C ) regular free and fair elections,

D ) freedom of expression and association,

E ) and an extensive suffrage.

Why democratization is difficult to understand

1. One of the reasons why understanding democratization is so difficult is

the variability of regimes that are labelled democratic, and the nature of the

democratic deficit found in so many.

A ) Regimes may be classified as new or

restored democracies despite the circumvention of parliaments by presiden-

tial decrees (for example, Argentina),

B ) the award of veto powers to

non-elected bodies such as the military (Chile and Thailand) and other devi-

ations from the democratic ideal.

Such variations make it problematic to

relate democratization as a dependent variable

2. Another problem with the analysis of democratization arises from the

contested nature of the concept of democracy.

Definitions often refer to the

presence of different phenomena:

A ) procedures (such as the holding of free and

fair elections),

B ) recognized human rights (such as freedom of association and

speech),

C ) extensive participation, and

D ) material equality (because economic

deprivation leads to political disempowerment). There are both formal and

substantive conceptions of democracy. For some, democracy means ‘mean-

ingful political citizenship’. for others, it can be more substantial considerations. Analysis of
democratization is affected by whatever view of democracy is held by the investigator.

Transition Towards Democracy

there are many different explanations of the process of democratisation. In spite of these complications,
some patterns of transition towards democracy can be seen, enumerated by these theories
Transition Theories
Importance of Eco Dev (later, Modernisation Theory)

For a long time the seminal work of Seymour Martin Lipset focused the debates on the importance of
economic development as a necessary precondition for democracy. Many others authors concluded that
economic development is a necessary (and perhaps a sufficient) condition for democracy.

Some argue that the rise of a property-owning middle class is crucially important for economic
development and democratisation:

 These groups form a middle level between the traditional elites (landowners, the military and
nobility) and the majority of working people (peasants, artisans, labourers, farm workers and
paupers).
 In the struggle to secure their economic position and political power, the rising middle class
demands personal freedom and the right to participate in government affairs.
 They also press for education, health care, improved housing and geographical mobility to
improve the quality of their workforce.
 The middle class forms its own associations and voluntary organisations, which form the
backbone of civil society that further stimulates democratisation
 Finally, the middle class, with an interest in stability and predictability in
economic and social affairs, had a moderating impact on social conflicts,
preferring moderate solutions and rejecting extreme positions. This claim does not presume
that the middle class is necessarily altruistic or concerned with the fate of others – all it needs to
show is that this class favoured democracy for its own reasons.

The more recent focus on modernisation theory takes a broader approach.

- This argues that economic and technological developments are closely linked and result in
fundamental changes in every area of society, including the ways that people think about themselves
and the social, economic and political world around them.

- Modernisation theory stresses the interactions between social, economic and political factors, rather
than the primacy of economic development.

- Usually, the rise of the middle class is seen as crucial for democracy – and a large and strong middle
class is the result of the manifold processes called modernisation.

Criticism of importance given to eco development

 1. Deviating cases are easy to find and cast doubts on the general validity of the relationship.
Germany was economically highly developed, but succumbed to Nazi dictatorship in 1933.
Several poor countries are democratic and democratisation preceded industrialisation in India.
Apparently, economic development is conducive to democracy, but it is certainly not
the whole story.
2. A close correspondence of economic development and democracy does
not mean that the former causes the latter. There might be a common
background variable such as Protestantism or capitalism that causes
both democracy and economic development.
For eg, Protestantism has been
picked out for its special role in promoting both economic development
and democracy
3. Economic development is an ambiguous concept which covers a large
number of complex processes (such as industrialisation, urbanisation,
stratification, bureaucratisation and rising levels of wealth, literacy and education). It is unclear
how each of these contributes exactly to democracy or to specific aspects of democracy.
4. Even if economic development is conducive to the early stages of democ-
ratisation it does not mean that economic factors count for the consolida-
tion of democracy.

Criticism of theory: the theory relies heavily on European experience and is too broad and general to
provide us with exact explanations for democratisation.

Cultural Theories

The basis for this approach has been laid out by Gabriel Almond (1911–2002) and Sidney Verba (1932–)
in The Civic Culture, published in 1963.

A ) In their view, the social and political orientations of citizens are crucial for democracy. These include,
for instance pride in one’s government and the expectation of being treated correctly by it.

B ) A democracy will survive with a mixture of pragmatism and commitment – not with the requirement
that average citizens are expected to be involved in politics all the time, but with the idea that citizens
can always participate if they wish and that their opinions will be heard by government if and when they
express them.

Criticism

Cultural theories have been criticised for neglecting the institutions of society.
Institutional Theories

Institutional theory argues that citizens do not develop their attitudes and behaviour in a vacuum or by
sitting down and working them out for themselves. They respond to the possibilities, opportunities and
restrictions created by the institutional framework of government and politics.

A ) If the civil rights of freedom of assembly and association are protected, then citizens can form groups
and political parties, voluntary associations.

B ) If courts are independent of government and the rule of law is applied, citizens will be more likely to
form peaceful opposition parties and to develop a sense of allegiance to the state.

C ) If government and its institutions are free of corruption, then citizens are more likely to engage with
civic affairs, to participate in political life and to trust each other and their elected representatives.

Criticism: States with perfectly good constitutions, and even those with an array of democratic
institutions, have failed to sustain democratic practices.

Three Waves:
In the book The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century published by the American
political scientist Samuel P. Huntington (1927–) in 1991.

He shows that democratisation proceeds not as a continuous process, but in surges and reversals – a
kind of ebb and flow or two-steps-forwards, one-step-backwards process. In each ‘wave’ a relatively
large number of non-democratic states make their first moves towards democracy:

1 ) The first wave is very long and covers the second half of the nineteenth and the first part of the
twentieth century.
In this period many western nation-states were transformed into mass democracies. Yet even in this
period a general pattern is not easy to detect – apart of the common processes of economic
development and nation building, many peculiar historical factors are needed to explain the differences
between, say, democratisation in Britain, Germany and Sweden.

How did it end: The first wave ends with the fascist reversal in Italy in the 1920s.

2 ) The second wave is much shorter and starts with the end of the Second World War.

In the direct aftermath of the war many states were newly founded (for instance Yugoslavia, West and
East Germany), a large number gaining independence with the collapse of colonial rule (for instance
Indonesia, India and Algeria). Quite a number of these newly founded states plus post colonial states
tried to implement democratic rule, but not all survived as democracies, although India did.
 How did it end: The second wave ebbed away when some places reverted to authoritarian rule in
the 1960s (Greece and several countries in Latin America).

3 ) The third wave started in the mid-1970s.

In this period, some of the non-democratic countries of Latin America and Asia were democratised,
frequently on the basis of mass movements opposing ruling cliques and autocrats (for example in South
Korea or the Philippines). The disintegration of the Soviet Union resulted in an additional growth of
democratic states in Central and Eastern Europe. Here, too, mass pressure and opposition groups played
a decisive role (for instance in Poland, Ukraine and Hungary).

How did it end: faded away at the end of the twentieth century

Whereas democracy was a minority phenomenon until recently and mainly limited to north-western
Europe and North America, the third wave changed this situation. By the end of the twentieth
century democracy had reached every part of the world, South America, all of western Europe and
considerable parts of Asia included.

Phases of consolidation
1. Meaning

It is important to note that the difference between transition and consolidation. Transition refers to
the movement towards democracy. But the process of consolidating democracy entails

a ) strengthening democratic institutions (especially the rule of law and protection of civil rights),

b ) extending democratic processes and

C ) preventing authoritarian reversals.

2. Several phases can be discerned between the breakdown of an old system and the
consolidation of the new one:

A ) Initial phase

Opposition towards undemocratic arrangements are mobilised; demands for more liberty are
broadly accepted and generally seen as the main goal of political reform.

B ) Emerging phase

The old undemocratic arrangements no longer function and new ones are set up;

A ) a new constitution is declared and

B ) general elections are introduced for the first time;

 C ) return to the old system is no longer easily feasible.

C ) Advanced phase

Liberty is now taken for granted and attention shifts towards the achievements of the new
democracy; providing liberty is no longer sufficient; group interests have to be satisfied;

A ) economic and

B ) public service performance become important;

C ) there is increasing stress on equality of rights and opportunities.

D ) Phase of consolidation

A ) The new arrangements are institutionalised and the system is able to meet the demands and
expectations of large parts of the population.

B) A balance between liberty and equality is reached and broadly accepted.

3 ) Varying importance of factors at each stage of consolidation

Moreover, the important factors prompting consolidation change at each stage.

Whereas formal rights, especially voting rights, are decisive in the early phases, the satisfaction of
material demands is more important later. For the endurance of democracy, then, economic
development appears to be an important factor once again.

That is not to say, of course, that people forget about political principles in favour of economic
performance. On the contrary, even if material and economic conditions are poor, citizens may
defer gratification and maintain their support for democracy, as they did in many central European
countries which managed to consolidate their democracies in the face of economic hardship in the
1990s.

4 ) Why consolidation may take a long time:

Even if the starting point of democratisation can be easily identified – the end of a war, the
expulsion of a dictator, a popular uprising – consolidation can take a long time, for nothing can be
taken for granted until democratic principles are widely supported and entrenched in daily political
life.
 A ) Many aspects of the old non-democratic practices may live on during transition: senior positions
in the bureaucracy may remain occupied by the same people who served the undemocratic system;

B ) continuing corruption is often a problem; and social and economic problems may persist in new
democracies.

C ) Citizens may evaluate their political system in terms of its performance and if it fails over the long
run they may turn into ‘unsatisfied democrats’ who retain a strong belief in democracy but believe
that their own system of government fails to meet their expectations. In the long run, no system can
survive if many people are seriously dissatisfied.

5 ) Why dividing the consolidation process into phases is problematic (critique of the
consolidation argument)

1 ) concentrating in this way on how countries eventually reach a state of advanced and stable
democracy runs the risk of assuming that this is an inevitable and preordained development that all
countries will naturally follow.

2 ) It assumes that democracy is the ‘highest’ and ‘most sophisticated’ form of government and that
everything else is a deviation or a corruption of the ‘normal’ state of affairs. Undemocratic and
unconsolidated systems are treated as not sufficiently developed, but it is assumed that, like small
children, they will eventually grow up and become properly mature.

Embedded, partial and defective democracies

there are different attempts to measure democracy using different indicators

A ) When democracy is highly developed and consolidated it can be labelled as an ‘embedded

democracy’.

B ) At the other extreme, some countries are not democratic on any of the scales because they do not
have any of the necessary basic characteristics. These are the totalitarian dictatorships and autocracies

C ) Diminished Sub-types or partial democracries: (please make the diagram)

There is a third group of countries that appear to be democratic but are not completely so. some
countries seem to be neither embedded democracies nor fully-fledged autocracies. In this way,
undemocratic systems can be seen as ‘partial democracies’ or ‘diminished sub-types’ of democracy.

( 1 ) These ‘partial democracies’ or ‘diminished sub-types’ have been differently labelled as Illiberal
democracies, pseudo-democracies, limited democracies, electoral democracies. How they are labelled
depends on which particular feature is missing. the main examples covering:
(a) absence of full suffrage for the population – where some groups are excluded from voting rights (e.g.
Switzerland until 1971, when women were given voting rights, and Northern Ireland until recently, when
all ethnic and religious groups were given voting rights).

(b) absence of free electoral competition – where one or more political groups is excluded from
elections.

(c) absence of protection of civil liberties – where political liberties such as freedom of speech or
association are limited, and where the rule of law is not firmly established or observed in all cases.

( 2 ) These ‘partial democracies’ or ‘diminished sub-types’ have been differently labelled as ‘guarded
democracy’ and ‘tutelary democracy’: In other cases, democracies are flawed because while they take
seriously the procedural rules for elections, the rule of law, civil rights, and so on, the government is
unable to perform its proper role because anti-democratic forces are powerful. Sometimes this is the

- army
- church or religious group

- traditional group of aristocrats, business interests or landowners.

D ) Defecective Democracies: Flawed democracies (mentioned above) suffer from relatively minor
problems that can be cured in time with some reforms and improvements. But it can also be argued that
many countries suffer from such serious problems that they cannot be regarded as the diminished sub-
types.

Their failings undermine the whole arrangements of democracy, and therefore they constitute a special
sub-set of systems that have been labelled defective democracies. It should not be assumed that
defective democracy is a temporary and transitional stage on the way to fully developed liberal
democracy.