Inglehart

Ronald Inglehart, a professor at the University of Michigan, discusses the solidity of

support for democracy in various countries and how to measure it. He notes that while
overt support for democracy is widespread, it may not accurately reflect the depth of
democratic values within a society. Inglehart suggests that other factors such as
tolerance, trust, political activism, and Postmaterialist values (which prioritize civil rights
and political participation) are stronger predictors of stable democracy.

Inglehart's research utilizes data from surveys like the World Values Survey/European
Values Survey to analyze the link between individual-level responses and a society's level
of democracy, as measured by Freedom House scores on political rights and civil liberties.
He finds that societies emphasizing a syndrome of tolerance, trust, political activism, and
Postmaterialist values tend to have stable democracies. This syndrome, labeled "Self-
expression values," correlates with economic development, which fosters a shift from
Survival values to Self-expression values.

Inglehart argues that economic development alone does not guarantee democracy, but it
contributes to rising levels of tolerance, trust, political activism, and freedom of speech,
which in turn lead to growing demands for liberalization and direct mass participation. He
suggests that while overt support for democracy is necessary, it is not sufficient for
democratic institutions to flourish in the long term. Societies also need a culture of
tolerance, trust, participatory orientations, an emphasis on self-expression, and high
levels of subjective well-being for democratic institutions to thrive.

In summary, Inglehart's research highlights the importance of looking beyond overt

support for democracy and considering broader societal values and attitudes in assessing
the solidity of democratic support and the prospects for democratic governance.

The empirical evidence presented by Ronald Inglehart suggests that there is widespread
support for democracy across the globe, with a clear majority of the population in various
countries endorsing democratic governance. In the World Values Survey/European Values
Survey, covering over 80% of the world's population, an overwhelming majority of
respondents in virtually every society described democracy as either "good" or "very
good." This positive view of democracy is consistent across different cultural and religious
contexts, including predominantly Islamic societies.

However, Inglehart also points out that while overt support for democracy is widespread, it
may not reflect the depth of support or the solidity of democratic values within a society.
For example, he highlights data showing that in some countries, a significant minority or
even a majority of the population expresses support for authoritarian governance by a
strong leader who bypasses elections and parliament.

Moreover, Inglehart notes that the solidity of support for democracy varies across different
contexts and is influenced by various factors such as economic conditions, ethnic
conflicts, crime rates, and perceptions of corruption. In new democracies, where
transitions from authoritarian rule have been accompanied by economic challenges and
social upheaval, support for democracy may be less robust.
Inglehart emphasizes that while positive attitudes toward democracy are widespread, the
extent to which democracy is deeply entrenched and widely supported varies. He
suggests that different indicators of support for democracy should be considered, and the
variation in responses to different questions reflects the complexity of attitudes toward
democratic governance.

Overall, while the empirical evidence indicates general support for democracy globally, it
also underscores the need to examine the nuances and challenges that may affect the
solidity and depth of democratic values within societies.

In analyzing the significance of political culture in relation to democracy, Ronald Inglehart

highlights the following key points:

1. **Linkage between Mass Attitudes and Democracy**: While it has been assumed that
pro-democratic attitudes are conducive to democratic institutions, the empirical evidence
from the World Values Survey/European Values Survey (WVS/EVS) covering over 70
societies indicates that mass responses to questions about democracy are indeed
correlated with democracy at the societal level, although they are relatively weak
predictors.

2. **Impact of Political Culture on Long-term Stability**: Inglehart emphasizes the

importance of considering the long-term impact of political culture on the stability of
democracy. While a society's level of democracy can fluctuate in the short term due to
various factors, political culture, which consists of relatively deep-rooted and enduring
orientations, is crucial in determining whether democracy can survive over the long term.

3. **Surveillance of Political Culture**: Inglehart demonstrates that certain components

of political culture, such as tolerance of out-groups, Postmaterialist values, political
activism, trust, and subjective well-being, serve as strong predictors of stable democracy.
These components, when combined into a multi-item index, exhibit stronger explanatory
power than any single item measuring overt support for democracy.

4. **Materialist/Postmaterialist Values**: The shift from Materialist to Postmaterialist

values, which occurs with economic development, is strongly linked with the emergence
and survival of democracy. Postmaterialists value democratic freedoms highly, and their
support for democracy is not solely contingent on economic prosperity.

5. **Cultural Predispositions towards Democracy**: Inglehart suggests that certain

societies, including some Asian countries, may be more culturally predisposed to
democracy than previously believed. Despite arguments about the unsuitability of
democracy in Asian societies due to "Asian values," the empirical evidence indicates that
the position of most Asian countries on the Self-expression values dimension aligns with
their level of economic development.

6. **Islamic Societies and Democracy**: Despite the strong overt support for democracy
found among Islamic publics, Inglehart notes that Islamic societies generally fall below
the midpoint on the Survival/Self-expression dimension. However, he argues that there is
not an unbridgeable gap between Islamic societies and the rest of the world, as their belief
systems align roughly with their level of economic development. For example, Turkey, the
most developed Islamic country, is transitioning toward democracy.
Overall, Inglehart's analysis underscores the importance of considering political culture,
particularly its long-term impact, in understanding the dynamics of democracy and its
sustainability in diverse societies.

In examining the relationship between democratic political culture and democratic

institutions, Ronald Inglehart proposes the following causal sequence:

1. **Economic Development**: Economic development and historical factors lead to a

growing emphasis on Survival/Self-expression values within a society.

2. **Higher Levels of Self-expression Values**: As societies develop economically, there is

a shift towards valuing self-expression, which includes tolerance, trust, political activism,
and emphasis on freedom of expression.

3. **Higher Levels of Democracy**: The emergence of self-expression values, in turn,

shapes a society's prospects for democracy, as democratic institutions offer opportunities
for self-expression and participation in governance.

Inglehart suggests that economic development contributes to the emergence of self-

expression values, which create a cultural environment conducive to democratic
institutions. Empirical evidence supports the idea that economic development precedes
the rise of self-expression values, which, in turn, influence the level of democracy in a
society.

Some key points highlighted by Inglehart include:

- **Cultural Influence on Democracy**: Culture seems to play a significant role in shaping

democracy, with self-expression values exerting a strong influence on the level of
democracy within a society.

- **Causal Relationship**: While there is evidence to suggest that economic development

precedes the rise of self-expression values and, subsequently, the level of democracy, the
causal relationship between these factors is complex and requires further empirical
analysis.

- **Elite Bargaining vs. Cultural Influence**: Alternative theories, such as elite bargaining,
which posit that democratization is mainly driven by elite negotiations, may not fully
account for the role of culture in shaping democratic institutions.

Overall, Inglehart's analysis underscores the importance of considering the cultural

context in understanding the emergence and sustainability of democratic institutions.
Economic development contributes to the evolution of political culture, which, in turn,
influences the trajectory of democracy within a society.

Segundo texto

El texto proporciona una introducción detallada sobre el estado actual de la investigación

en la medición de la calidad de la democracia. Se señala un cambio en el enfoque de las
mediciones clásicas de democracia hacia un análisis más profundo de las democracias
consolidadas. Se mencionan varios índices y proyectos de medición de democracia,
indicando que el campo está en constante evolución con múltiples mediciones que
reclaman evaluar la calidad democrática. Sin embargo, existe una falta de consenso
sobre los modelos subyacentes de democracia, los conceptos, variables y métodos
utilizados en estas mediciones.

Se destaca que medir la calidad de la democracia busca clasificar si un régimen es

democrático y determinar en qué medida lo es. Se discute la dificultad de establecer un
estándar que permita gradaciones en la calidad democrática y se señala la controversia
sobre qué definición de democracia utilizar como base. Se menciona que la
conceptualización de la democracia es un tema básico y controvertido que no se puede
resolver fácilmente debido a la naturaleza disputada del concepto.

El texto aborda tres principales desafíos que enfrenta la investigación sobre la calidad de
la democracia. Estos incluyen los cambios en las democracias reales debido a factores
como la globalización, la mediatización y la digitalización, así como la falta de
comunicación entre la comunidad de medición de calidad democrática y otras áreas de
investigación democrática. Además, se menciona la falta de intercambio entre las
diferentes ramas de la comunidad de investigación sobre calidad de la democracia, lo
que resulta en una imagen fragmentaria del campo.

La cuestión de qué atributos son parte de las propiedades definitorias del concepto de
democracia es destacada como central en los debates actuales. Se discuten
dimensiones como la participación, la competencia, los derechos políticos, el estado de
derecho y la efectividad estatal, así como la inclusión social de los ciudadanos y la
importancia de considerar las perspectivas individuales de los ciudadanos al medir la
calidad de la democracia.

Se mencionan controversias en torno a si se deben incluir dimensiones de rendimiento

(output) en las mediciones de calidad de la democracia, y se discute la importancia de
considerar la democracia desde una perspectiva más amplia que no se limite únicamente
a los procedimientos formales. También se abordan temas como el impacto de los
medios digitales en los procesos democráticos y los posibles conflictos entre
dimensiones de democracia, como la libertad y la igualdad.

En resumen, el texto proporciona una visión general exhaustiva de los desafíos y

controversias actuales en la medición de la calidad de la democracia, así como los
objetivos y enfoques de un número significativo de investigadores en el campo.