liberal and illiberal democracy. readings smith, democracy, chs. 9-11
TRANSCRIPT
LIBERAL AND ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY
READINGS
Smith, Democracy, chs. 9-11
The Rise of Electoral Democracy, 1972-2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Year
N C
ou
ntr
ies
Autocracy
Semidemocracy
Democracy
THE CONCEPT OF ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY
• Distinct Dimensions of Democracy: Free and Fair Elections Citizen Rights
• Systematic Curtailment of Citizen Rights
Democracy, Elections, and Citizen Rights: A Typology
Citizen Rights Character of Elections
Free and Fair Free not Fair None
Expansive Liberal Democracy Liberal/Permissive Semidemocracy
(Null)
Limited Illiberal Democracy Illiberal/Restrictive Semidemocracy
ModerateDictablanda
Minimal (Null) Repressive Semidemocracy
Hard-LineDictadura
Journalists Killed in Latin America, 1990-2010
Country___ __ 1990-99__ __2000-10__Colombia 36 41Peru 12 3Mexico 10 46Brazil 8 12Haiti 4 8Argentina 3 1Guatemala 3 9Venezuela 2 6Chile 1 0Dominican Republic 1 4Honduras 1 12Paraguay 1 2Other 0 5
Total 82 157
Source: Committee to Protect Journalists, Attacks on the Press in 1999 (New York: CPJ, 2000), 23; and cpj.org/killed/americas.
Electoral Regimes and Freedom of the Press, 1990s
_________________Regime____________________ Press____ Autocracy Semi-Democracy Democracy Not Free 1 5 2 Partly Free 1 26 51 Free 0 0 47
Totals 2 31 100
• FH scores of 1-2 = Extensive
• FH scores of 3-4 = Partial
• FH scores of 5-7 = Minimal
CLASSIFYING CITIZEN RIGHTS (Freedom House scales for “Civil Liberties”)
Table 1-2. Electoral Regimes and Civil Liberties, 1970s-2000 1972-79 Electoral Type Status of Civil Liberties* Dictatorship Semi-Democracy Democracy Minimal 22 0 0 Partial 88 3 10 Expansive 0 1 28 Totals 110 4 38
gamma = +.994
*Categorized as follows: Expansive=Freedom House scores of 1 or 2; Partial – Freedom House scores of 3-5; Minimal=Freedom House scores of 6-7.
1980-1989
________________Regime___________________Civil Liberties___ Autocracy Semi-Democracy Democracy
Minimal 15 1 0 Partial 59 30 41 Extensive 1 4 39
Totals 75 35 80
1990-2000
_________________Regime_________________Civil Liberties___ Autocracy Semi-Democracy Democracy
Minimal 3 0 0 Partial 4 53 109 Extensive 0 2 38
Totals 7 55 147
Figure 10-1. The Progression of Illiberal Democracy, 1970s-2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1972-79 1980-89 1990-2000
Period
Per
cent
Partial Civil Liberties
Expansive Civil Liberties
Political Regimes in 1999: Countries and Population
N %Regime Type___ __Countries__ __Population__
Liberal Democracy 3 <5
Illiberal Democracy 11 60
Illiberal Semi-Democracy 5 33
Autocracy 1 2
Liberal and Illiberal Democracy, 1978-2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
N De
moc
raci
es Illiberal
Liberal
AND NOW…?
Liberal Democracy (n=7) Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama,
Uruguay
Illiberal Democracy (n=7) Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru
Illiberal Semidemocracy (n=5) Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela
Authoritarian (1) Cuba
Why Illiberal Democracy?
In case of center and center-right democracies, the illiberal regimes: Protect elite interests Control the popular masses Under the rubric of free and fair elections Thus gaining international approval.
In case of progressive “new left” regimes, the opposition: Has the money Has control of the press Has institutional bastions of power (e.g., congress or
courts) Does not play by democratic rules
SO WHAT? PENDULUMS OF POLITICS
1900-1939: democracy not “dangerous,” orchestrated by elites
1940-1977: democracy becomes dangerous, with mass mobilization and calls for sweeping socioeconomic reform
1978-present: democracy initially “tame” not dangerous, with neoliberal consensus
1998-present: democracy dangerous again, with rise of new Left
LOOKING AHEAD I
Interim Developments:43% “democrats,” 30.5% “ambivalent,” 26.5%
“nondemocratic”Economic growth (reducing poverty + inequality)9/11 and its aftermathThe Problem of Consolidation:Longevity? Of what?DeepeningFrom illiberal to liberal democracy? Or not?
LOOKING AHEAD II
The greater the frustration within the population,The greater the sympathy with anti-establishment
movements,The more extensive the general participation in
elections, The more clearly defined the partisan or ideological
alternatives, andThe more effective the role of representative
institutions…
LOOKING AHEAD III
The more divisive will be debates over policy content in Latin America,
The greater the likelihood of nationalistic and/or anti-establishment policies,
The greater the resistance to demands from the United States, and
The greater the probability of policy conflicts with Washington.
Thus: the greater the degree of democracy in Latin America, the greater the degree of inter-American tension and disagreement.
The End