david.hezy@gmail.

com HE 1

Kaiwei He

Democracy and Markets

Midterm---Question 2

david.hezy@gmail.com

An intelligent discussion that tackles the main issues. The

writing, however, is somewhat unclear at points, which detracts from

the argument you want to make. Be careful in your choice of words.

Also – very important – keep your paragraphs short and focused on a

single point. Long paragraphs make it difficult for the reader to

follow the logic of your argument.

Grade: A-

In recent years, all the pessimism about the global economy and worries for

democratic politics have spread in academia. Violence and coercion from all over the

world seem to be subverting the outcomes of the 1990 Democratic Wave. Therefore,

whether the tide of democracy is retreating has become a hot issue among scholars.

In the article "Facing up to the Democratic Recession", which written by an

American political sociologist and scholar Larry Diamond, the author points out that

from 1974 --- the global third wave of democratization --- to 2007, new democracies

emerged and developed every year and the level of freedom also improved thereupon.

But since 2006, both slightly declined. Diamond believes that "the last decade was a

period of at least incipient decline in democracy" (Diamond, p.142).Should be a new

1
 david.hezy@gmail.com HE 2

paragraph; keep them short. Many scholars distinguish democratic regime via

evaluating continuous key variables, nonetheless such judgments can not assess all the

circumstances thoroughly and comprehensively; because democracy itself is complex,

and it is difficult to draw many of its boundaries. So, the author analyzes the decline

of democracy from four aspects: the first is the "significant and accelerating rate of

democratic breakdown" (p.144). Twenty-five democracies collapsed after 2000. Their

free and fair multiparty electoral competitions disappeared or the quality of the

competitions fell below the minimum standard of democracy, meanwhile the freedom

mostly subsided. New paragraph: The main reason was bad governance, lacking of

the rule of law and transparency, especially in controlling corruption and abuse of

power. Second, the quality or stability of democracy in important emerging-market

countries decreased, stagnating and slipping backward. The third is the deepening of

authoritarianism, especially in great powers such as China and Russia. They used soft

power to resist democracy and to affect other countries, giving other countries

necessary financial assistance and factual support. Their developments and success

are used as weapons and excuses by other dictators. The resurgence of

authoritarianism restricts or even prohibits the spread of democracy. The last and most

terrible aspect was that the established democracies, including the United States and

some European countries, performed poorly on governance as well as economy,

losing the will and confidence to effectively promote democracy to other places.

Therefore, Diamond not only thinks that democracy is in a recession, but also

thinks that this trend was growing. However, he says that democracy has received

2
 david.hezy@gmail.com HE 3

impressive recognition for its achievements from the public and is still supported by

most people because of the popular demand. The authoritarianism is also facing the

threat of its own legitimacy. All in all, it is imperative to reform and consolidate

democracies that emerged in the third wave; and established democracies must

reinforce their democratic beliefs and continue to promote democracy abroad.

In 2015, Steven Levitsky, professor of government at Harvard, and Lucan Way,

associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto, refute the

prevalent "democratic recession" theory in their article "The Myth of Democratic

Recession". First, based on the data, all four authorities mean democracy scores

remained the same or increased during last decade, even with some partial decline

which was extremely modest. So in general, the growth of democracies was greater

than the reduction. In fact, only very few democracies really broke down and some

suspects are still borderline democracies. While democracies in some countries

declined significantly, the regimes of those countries were authoritarian already. The

authors say "claims of a worldwide democratic downturn lack empirical foundation"

(Levitsky, Way, p.48).

Then, Levitsky and Way explore the reason why observers are generally

pessimistic. To determine whether democracy has shrunk around the world, there

must be an identification of reference. They found that what pessimists selected was

the world situation of the last decade second half of the 20th century. Indeed, the

collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the drastic changes in

Eastern Europe once made Western society believe that democracy will be all over the

3
 david.hezy@gmail.com HE 4

world. The transition to democracy in South America, Africa and southern Europe

also nourish the optimism in the West. However, the observers wrongly treated the

temporary weakness and struggled of the authoritarianism as the trend of

democratization; this idea was misguided, leading to a misleading inference that

democratic breakdowns happened. In the opinion of the authors, "If we limit our

analysis to actual democratic regimes......16 of Diamond's 25 ‘democratic breakdown’

disappear" (p.53).

Just as what Levitsky and Way said, most pessimism came from excessive

voluntarism. Both the collapse of communism and the democratization of some

nations that violated the theory --- in developing and communist worlds, social,

economic and cultural conditions determine the possibility of democratization --- did

not mean that democracy can happen everywhere, so observers' blind expectation had

no theoretical and practical basis. That was why the failure of expectation of

democratization and stability of democracy should not be equal to democratic

recession. New paragraph Based on all the above, in my opinion, Diamond’s

argument is a little superficial and biased because he views the issue under democratic

environment of the West and his understanding of the definition of democracy puts

more focus on form and process. Levitsky and Way's understanding is more in-depth

and comprehensive, viewing from a macro perspective on democracy; they focus

more on causes and effects. So I think Levitsky and Way’s argument is much more

reliable.

Democratic movements are not the killer of dictatorship. The actual terminator

4
 david.hezy@gmail.com HE 5

are economic weakness, termination of external assistance, and the lost control of the

State apparatus. After a brief decline, the regimes of some non-democratic countries

consolidate gradually. Recovery of the world economy can give many political

strongmen power and prestige to return to control the State apparatus, such as

Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, since China and Russia's influence are in the rising phase,

many non-democratic States find their new allies. In addition, in front of the media,

marketing and the opposition, dictators have been master of solutions. Some

politicians were looking for progressive reform, but their "sacrifice" had an ulterior

motive. For Yeltsin's Russia, Hun Sen's Cambodia or Haiti, Bangladesh and other

countries, their competitive elections were as a last resort under many kinds of

pressure. Although the election process was remarkable, without an effective checks

and balances system, newly elected politicians backslided, changing the states back to

the dictatorship.

In summary, the decline of authoritarian regimes in 90s led to "all roads lead to

democracy" illusion in the West. Even if the dictatorship collapses, either democracy

that Western expects or a more highly centralized system may follow. Since the 1990s

is not suitable as a reference, the democratic recession is nonexistent. I think that the

establishment and durability of democracy is not unconditional. So it's better to say

that democracy, in 21st century, is acclimatized in places where conditions are not ripe

rather than declined.

Levitsky and Way dispute the Diamond's "democratic recession" theory, but we

should see the Western scholars do not forget that there are other kinds of regime

5
 david.hezy@gmail.com HE 6

except democracy and authoritarianism. The other kinds of regime are not transitional

products; it is difficult to determine which direction they will go. Political studies in

decades summarize the conditions which are conducive to the transition to democracy,

nonetheless they are not necessary for it; reforms to ease the immediate crisis are not

uncommon. New paragraphHowever, I think that the spread of democracy should

continue, even if it only works on the surface, more or less it will have an impact on

the public. Penetration of democracy into interior of authoritarianism will make more

people realize democracy, preparing and establishing foundation for possible

democratization in the future. China is a good example. Although the Chinese

Government and the Communist Party are seen as the enemy of Western democracy,

with globalization, economic development and technological advancement, more and

more Chinese people come into contact with democracy and pursuit of democracy,

which force the Chinese government to make certain changes and a small amount of

compromise. The development of democracy should be like torrent, being pervasive

in the world. As long as democracy is still spreading, without only focusing on the

form of a regime, there is no "democratic recession".

6
 david.hezy@gmail.com HE 7

Works Cited

Diamond, Larry. "Facing up to the Democratic Recession". Journal of Democracy,

Volume 26, Number 1, January 2015, pp. 141-155. John Hopkins University

Press.

Levitsky, Steven. Way, Lucan. "The Myth of Democratic Recession". Journal of

Democracy, Volume 26, Number 1, January 2015, pp. 45-58. John Hopkins

University Press.