pols 373 foundations of comparative politics

POLS 373 POLS 373 Foundations of Foundations of Comparative PoliticsPolitics

POLS 373 POLS 373 Foundations of Foundations of Comparative PoliticsPolitics

What Makes a Democracy?

Professor Timothy Lim

California State University, Los Angeles

[email protected]


Professor Timothy Lim

California State University, Los Angeles

[email protected]

2


Explaining Transitions to Democracy



QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Democracy and PowerDemocracy and PowerGiven the almost undeniable social Given the almost undeniable social tension that democracy entails, most tension that democracy entails, most analysts agree … analysts agree …

Democracy is Democracy is above all a above all a

matter of powermatter of power

3




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Implications Democracy does not just happen through some automatic

process, but is almost always a product of a political struggle among competing groups with competing interests

Democratization requires an underlying shift in power

The transition to democracy marks a significant political change, but transitions to democracy are never guaranteed:

Indeed, given the nature of democratic change--i.e., its impact of relations of power--opposition and attempts to re-impose a non-democratic system should be expected

4




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: ImplicationsStructuralists, rationalists, and culturalists generally agree on the significance of power, but they differ on several key questions …

Who are the key agents of change? Are they elites, subordinate actors, outside agents or some combination?

How does the struggle for power unfold? Is it the product of elite interaction? Is it a structural phenomenon, a cultural one, or something else?

Do certain “conditions” need to exist before democratization can happen? Or is democracy possible under any circumstances?

5




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Structural ViewTo structuralists, transitions to democracy are shaped and even determined by broad structural changes that reorder the balance of power among different classes and class coalitions in society

For democracy to emerge, subordinate classes must have sufficient power to challenge the dominant classes, but …

How do subordinate classes “get power”? Discussion

question

Discussionquestion

6




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Structural ViewHow do subordinate classes “get power”?

Basic Answer: The power of subordinate classes is a product of capitalist development, which brings unavoidable changes to any society. Specifically …

Capitalism creates subordinate classes with the capacity for _________________________

Capitalism also entails greater dependence of elite groups on subordinate classes: simply put, capitalists rely on workers to work

Capitalism creates tensions between elite groups: landowners, in particular, lose power at the expense of “industrialists,” which weakens the cohesion of the elite

self-organization

SELF-ORGANIZATION: An Explanation

“Capitalism brings the subordinate class or classes together in factories cities where members of those classes can associate and organized more easily; it improves the means of communication and transportation …; in these and other ways, it strengthens civil society and facilitates subordinateclass organization”

SELF-ORGANIZATION: An Explanation

“Capitalism brings the subordinate class or classes together in factories cities where members of those classes can associate and organized more easily; it improves the means of communication and transportation …; in these and other ways, it strengthens civil society and facilitates subordinateclass organization”

7




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Structural ViewThe importance of self-organization is underscored in Marx and Engel’s famous quote (from the Communist Manifesto) …

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but

your chains

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but

your chains

8




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Structural ViewHaving more power doesn’t automatically lead to democracy for subordinate groups

Sometimes subordinate groups are co-opted by the elite

Sometimes subordinate groups, while more powerful, still lack enough power to topple the existing regime--in these cases, alliances with other groups may be necessary

In a similar vein, sometimes the state is “overdeveloped” (i.e., possesses excessive coercive capacity, often as a result of an alliance with major Western countries)

Sometimes “transnational forces” intervene

Co-option refers to the process of being incorporatedinto the mainstream or dominant power structure, but

always in a subservient role. Frequently, thosewho have been co-opted will embrace the interestsof the dominant power structure while neglecting

the interests of their original group

Co-option refers to the process of being incorporatedinto the mainstream or dominant power structure, but

always in a subservient role. Frequently, thosewho have been co-opted will embrace the interestsof the dominant power structure while neglecting

the interests of their original group

9




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Structural ViewIn general, however, structuralists assert that capitalist development is the underlying process through which democracy emerges

This helps explain why democracy is a primarily 20th century phenomenon: capitalist industrialization has made its greatest and most rapid strides in the 100 years or so

At the same time, democracy is an essentially unintended outcome of capitalism; that is, capitalism is not designed to promote capitalism; indeed, it may be antithetical to capitalism

This helps explain why the globalization of capitalism is undermining democracy today instead of encouraging it

This helps explain why the globalization of capitalism is undermining democracy today instead of encouraging it

10




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDemocracy and Power: Structural ViewQuestions for consideration and discussion:

As a rapidly growing capitalist society, is the breakdown of authoritarian, communist party rule in China inevitable?

Can structuralists account for the longevity of authoritarianism in the Middle East, especially among Arab Islamic countries?

Are there any inconsistencies in the structural account that you can identify? How would a rationalist or a culturalist respond? Consider these questions in depth.

They could be part of your final examination!

Consider these questions in depth. They could be part of your final

examination!

An Alternative Perspective

Rationalists do not agree that “inert, Rationalists do not agree that “inert, invisible structures make democracies.” To invisible structures make democracies.” To put it very simply, believe that …put it very simply, believe that …people make democracypeople make democracy

People may be political elite or “the people,” as in mass movementsPeople may be political elite or “the people,” as in mass movements

12




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyMaking Democracy: RationalitySome Basic Differences and Assumptions

Rationalists don’t necessarily discount the role of subordinate classes, but they tend to put greater emphasis on the interests and actions of the elite (more on this shortly)

Individual interests and preferences are, as usual, key

Rationalists don’t focus on underlying (economic) structures: they believe that democracy is possible in virtually any economic context

In other words, rationalists don’t consider capitalism to be the key process in democratization

13




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyMaking Democracy: RationalitySome Basic Differences and Assumptions among Rationalists

Rationalists don’t agree on which people matter most

Some rationalists argue that only the elite matter, that they are the key agents in democratic change

Others argue that “the people” (and not just the working class) are the key agents of political change

These differences can be classified

as a top-down versus bottom-up

approaches

These differences can be classified

as a top-down versus bottom-up

approaches

14




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyMaking Democracy: RationalityRationalists don’t agree on the basic process of democratization

Some rationalists argue that democratization is a product of negotiations among the elite, also known as ____________: in this view democracy is a partly a cooperative and very deliberate project--although pacting also involves the threat of confrontation (between elites)

Other rationalists argue that democratization is a non-cooperative project, that is, it is a product of outright coercion, whereby authoritarian leaders are forced to leave office

pacting

15




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyMaking Democracy: RationalityImplications of Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Explanations

Cooperative Explanations: Epitomized by Samuel Huntington’s observation on an ironic feature of contemporary democratization …

Non-Cooperative Explanations: Suggests that democracy is product of people who want it and are willing to risk their lives to “get it”: from a rational choice perspective, the push for democracy changes the strategic environment for political leaders; when mass-movements are strong enough, leaders can see the writing on the wall, they know they have no choice but to leave

Democracy without democrats

16




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyMaking Democracy: RationalityEmpirical Issues

Both cooperative (elite-centered) and non-cooperative approaches (mass-based) have empirical support …

Latin American cases

Supports Elite-Centered Mass-Based approach?

Post-Communist cases (Eastern Europe)

Supports Elite-Centered Mass-Based approach?

17




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyMaking Democracy: Rationality

So where does this leave us?

Can the rational choice approach provide a theoretically coherent and empirically comprehensive explanation of democratic transition?

Fortunately, there are some existing rational choice arguments that we can look at. One particularly interesting one tells us that the answer lies in how we conceptualize authoritarianism

The answer is a definite …

maybe

18




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDiffering AuthoritarianismsFirst off: A little comparative checking will tell us that not all authoritarian regimes are alike …

Some are dominated by military leaders, who may have taken power through a coup d'état

Some are dominated by “personalist” or charismatic leaders: single individuals who dominate the political process

Some are dominated by a highly cohesive, tightly disciplined party structure--so-called single party regimes

Franco (Spain) Park (Korea) Saddam (Iraq) Amin (Uganda) Suharto (Indonesia) Pinochet (Chile) Peron (Argentina) Mao (China)

19




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyDiffering AuthoritarianismsFor a long time, many scholars took these differences for granted; they did not assign any particular causal significance to the different varieties of authoritarianism

One scholar, however, asked the question …Can different types of authoritarianism lead to different outcomes? In other words, is “authoritarian type” an

independent variable?

Her answer was an emphatic YESHer answer was an emphatic YES

20




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyThe Rationality of AuthoritarianismBegin with the premise that different types of authoritarian leaders have different preferences or interests …

Military leaders are less concerned with political power and more concerned with the survival and efficacy of the __________________ itself and with the preservation of ________________________.

Personalist leaders have an overriding interest in staying in power: the “perks” of political power are many, while the costs of losing power are extremely high and almost certain (e.g., imprisonment, death, or, exile). Personalist regimes, however, have a narrow support base

Single-party leaders also have an overriding interest in holding on to political power, but, unlike personalist regimes, their “power base” is more stable, adaptable and enduring than in personalist regimes

militarynational security

21




Explaining Transitions to DemocracyThe Rationality of AuthoritarianismBasic Argument: Different types of regimes arise for different reasons, but, once created, they tend to exhibit similar characteristics regardless of political, social or cultural context

______________ regimes are the most likely to breakdown because the leaders are not interested in political power per se

Moreover, if any internal splits threaten the cohesion and power of the military, their preference is to “save the military” rather than to hold on to political power

Military

Key Implication: Military authoritarian regimes not only tend to have the shortest

life spans, but the transition to democracy is generally negotiated and “cooperative”

Key Implication: Military authoritarian regimes not only tend to have the shortest

life spans, but the transition to democracy is generally negotiated and “cooperative”

22





Saddam and Amin created personalist regimes that broke down quickly once they lost power • Single party regimes in North Korea and China survived

and even thrived, despite the loss of founding leaders (Kim Il Sung and Mao Tse Tung)

The Rationality of Authoritarianism__________________ and ________________ regimes are more resistant to breakdown because the political leaders have more to lose: leaders will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on to power

This means that transitions are often violent and almost always _____________________

In addition, the impetus for a transition to democracy, especially in single-party regimes, will generally come from the outside, that is, __________________ “shocks” are usually needed to trigger a change

Personalist

Single party

non-cooperative

exogenous

CCP

pols 373 foundations of comparative politics

Documents

power of subordinate

societyfor democracy

balance of power

sufficient power

democracy possible

significance of power

different classes

dominant classes