pols 373 foundations of comparative politics

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics

What Makes a Democracy?

May 17, 2007Professor Timothy Lim

California State University, Los Angeles


May 17, 2007Professor Timothy Lim

California State University, Los Angeles

2

What Makes a Democracy?Introduction


First off …First off …

3



… the world is becoming more democratic

This graph shows the number of states with each of three general authority patterns: democracy, autocracy, and “anocracy” (an anocracy is defined as a regime type that has characteristics of both democratic and authoritarian rule).

____________________

Source: Global Conflict Trends

Democracies Anocracies Autocracies

An autocracy is technically a form of governmentwhere power is held by one person; in this case,

it is used more generally to refer to non-democraticpolitical system

An autocracy is technically a form of governmentwhere power is held by one person; in this case,

it is used more generally to refer to non-democraticpolitical system

http://members.aol.com/cspmgm/conflict.htm

http://members.aol.com/cspmgm/conflict.htm

4



The world is becoming more democratic

Another perspective: In 1910, 0 percent of the world’s population lived in democracies; by 1950, 31 percent of the world’s population is democratic

By 2000, according to one source, 58.2 percent of the world’s people lived in democracies; by 2006, this figure had grown to 63% (based on estimates by Freedom House)

_______________________

Source: R.J. Rummel, “Democratic Peace Clock”

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

5



Why Is Democracy Spreading?

The global spread of democracy raises a number of important questions …

Is the expansion of democracy inevitable? Will it necessarily reach all countries in time?

Or, is democracy the product of particular forces and processes that will be forever resisted by some parts of the world, such as the Middle East and China?

Why did the 20th century witness the most major advances of democracy globally? Was there something unique about the 20th century?

What is the best method of promoting democracy? Should the United States be in the business of exporting democracies?

6

Defining Democracy

The definition of “democracy”is subject to great debate, but defining democracy is an essential first step, so …

What is democracy?



A discussion point

A discussion point

7

What is Democracy? A Short Video



This short video from YouTube (click here) poses the question, “What is democracy” to a handful of Americans

Note: We will watch only a portion of the video in class.

Video intentionally removed •Available to download from CourseSite

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QBU_AXPquZo

8

Defining Democracy: One Definition

“I would say democracy exists where you have a multiparty system with political parties competing with one another, free and non-corrupt voting procedures to elect political leaders, and an effective legal framework of civil liberties or human rights that underlie the mechanisms of voting processes”

~ Anthony Giddens



9

Defining Democracy: A “Formal” Definition

Gidden’s definition includes three core characteristics of democracy:

A competitive multiparty system

Free and non-corrupt electionsAn effective legal framework of civil liberties or humanrights

To this list, we might add a fourth characteristic:

(Near) universal and equal suffrage (suffrage is simply the right or privilege of voting)



Are these characteristics enough?

A discussion point

A discussion point

10

Defining Democracy: A Formal Defining Democracy: A Formal DefinitionDefinition

To many people, “formal democracy” is not To many people, “formal democracy” is not democracy at all: it may be a democracy in democracy at all: it may be a democracy in namename, but not in , but not in realityreality

Instead, manyInstead, manybelieve thatbelieve thatdemocracy mustdemocracy mustbe defined inbe defined insubstantivesubstantive termsterms



This cartoon illustrates the problem

with “formal democracies”: people may have the right to vote in free and non-corrupt elections, but

the real power lies with the corporate

elite

11

Defining Democracy: The DebateDefining Democracy: The Debate

How should democracy be defined?How should democracy be defined? Is a “formal” or narrow Is a “formal” or narrow definition adequate?definition adequate?

Or, is a substantive or broad Or, is a substantive or broad definitiondefinition necessary? necessary?



Points ofdiscussion

Points ofdiscussion

12

The Case for a Formal Definition

Substantive definitions of democracy are important, but a formal definition are sometimes necessary …

The appropriateness of a formal definition: “Bare bones” definitions are important to distinguish between two distinct outcomes or phenomena; if the distinction can be justified and supported, it is appropriate

Consider this question:



Is a political system that meets the minimal requirements of a formal democracy significantly

different from an autocracy or dictatorship, such as the one once ruled over by that evil-doer Saddam Hussein?



13


Some Concrete Examples to Consider



Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler or Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel

Chile under Chile under Pinochet (1974-Pinochet (1974-1990) or Chile 1990) or Chile under President under President Michelle Michelle BacheletBachelet

Japan under Prime Minister Hideki Tojo or Japan under Juniichiro Koizumi

14


Key Point: If there is a significant difference between democracies and autocracies (or dictatorships or fascist regimes), then a formal definition of democracy is both appropriate and meaningful: even more, a formal democracy matters

… it matters because it signifies (in contrast to autocratic rule) a real and significant change in society • The establishment of formal democracy invariably supports (although does not guarantee) progress towards greater substantive social, political, and economic equality







15


Analytically speaking, it is also critical that concepts such as “democracy” be operationalized

Quick definition: Operationalization is the process of defining a concept so that it can be ______________ through specific observations.

Operationalization is important in the sciences, for if it is not possible to measure (or quantify) a phenomenon, it is difficult if not impossible to evaluate its causes or consequences

For example, how can we know that someone is “intelligent” if we cannot measure intelligence?How can we study “intelligence” if we cannotadequately distinguish it from other aspectsof human consciousness?



measured

16


One last point

Using a formal definition of democracy does not mean that we should ignore substantive definitions

Indeed, depending on the purpose of the research, a substantive definition is sometimes preferred, if not absolutely essential

Example. A study of why some democracies are “strong” while others are weak or a study of how to “improve” democracy …

… both require a substantive definition



17

Explanations of DemocracyExplanations of Democracy

18

Some Questions

There is a tendency--in the West at least--to assume that democracy benefits everyone. But this isn’t necessarily true. To begin a study of democracy, then, it is crucial to begin with some basic questions …

In general, who (or which groups) in society opposes democracy?

In general, who (or which groups) in society favor democracy?

Who benefits from democracy and whose interests are threatened?


Competing Explanations



19

Who Opposes Democracy?

For the dominant groups in society, democracy generally represents a concrete threat to their own interests, since, by its very nature, democracy gives power to the “oppressed” or subordinate classes who constitute the large majority of any society’s population





Historically, the group most resistant to democracy has been the landowning class: this is because landowners, more than any other dominant class, depend on a subservient, oppressed labor class

20


Think of it this way: If the majority of people in a society are poor and exploited would they not be immediately tempted, in a democratic system, to use their new-found and overwhelming voting power to redistribute economic resources and, ultimately, to undermine permanently—if not destroy—the position and privileges of the wealthy (or political and economic elite)?





21


In the 20th century, opponents of democracy have also included states and/or state leaders, especially in poor or developing countries





The 1989 Chinese “democracy movement” in Tiananmen Square represents an example of state-opposition to democracy

______________________________

Leaders of modern states often oppose democracy because their own survival may be at stake once they are out of office; other state leaders believe that democracy will result in too many demands by labor, thus undermining the industrialization process

Video intentionally removed •Available to download from CourseSite

22

Who Favors Democracy?

Simple Answer: Any group or segment of society that would benefit from having a greater voice in the political process





Historically, this has included the “middle class,” the working class, the masses in general, the petty bourgeoisie (e.g., small merchants, craftsmen, and other self-employed groups), and the “intellectual class” (especially university students)

23

Democracy and Power

Given the almost undeniable tension between democracy and social inequality, most analysts agree …

Democracy is above all a

matter of power

24

Democracy and Power: Implications

Democracy does not just happen through some automatic process, but is a product of a political struggle among competing groups with competing interests

Democratization requires some underlying shift in power (among or between different groups)

The transition to democracy marks a significant political change, but transitions to democracy are never guaranteed: indeed, given the nature of democratic change, opposition and attempts to re-impose a non-democratic system should be expected





25

Democracy and Power: Implications

Structuralists, 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?





26

Democracy and Power: Structural View

To 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”?

Discussionquestion

Discussionquestion

27


How 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 wheremembers of those classes can associate and organized more easily; it improves the means of communication and transportation …; in these and other ways, it strengthenscivil society and facilitates subordinateclass organization”

SELF-ORGANIZATION: An Explanation

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

28

The 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

29


Having 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, e.g., during the Cold War, the US helped or abetted to overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Greece, etc.; more recently, some argue that the US attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela





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

30


In 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

In the postwar period, consider the cases of South Korea and Taiwan

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





31


Questions for consideration and discussion:

As a rapid 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? Why, for example, does the quality or substance of capitalism seem to be weakening today, even in well-established democracies, such as the United States?





Hint: Consider how globalizationis weakening subordinate classes,especially the working class

Hint: Consider how globalizationis weakening subordinate classes,especially the working class

32

An Alternative Perspective

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

people make democracypeople make democracy

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

33

Different Processes, Different Actors: Rationality

Some Basic Differences and Assumptions

Rationalists don’t consider capitalism to be the key process in democratization

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)

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





34


Some 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 democracy

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





35


Some Basic Differences and Assumptions among Rationalists

Rationalists 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 cooperative and very deliberate project

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





pacting

36


Implications of Cooperative and Non-Cooperative ExplanationsCooperative 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 democratsWhat does this statement mean?

From a rationalist perspective, how does this statement make sense?

What does this statement mean? From a rationalist perspective, how does this statement make sense?

37


Empirical 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?





38


So where does this leave us?

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





The answer is a definite …maybe

39

Differing Authoritarianisms: An Alternative Rational Choice Perspective

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





40

Differing Authoritarianisms: An Alternative Rational Choice Perspective

For 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?

41

The Rationality of AuthoritarianismBegins 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, at best, exile)

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





militarynational security

42

The Rationality of Authoritarianism

Basic 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

Key Implication: Military authoritarian regimes not only tend to have the shortest life spans, but the transition to democracy is generally negotiated and “cooperative”





Military

43

The Rationality of Authoritarianism

Basic 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

__________________ 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 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 spark a change





Personalist

Single party

non-cooperative

exogenous

pols 373 foundations of comparative politics

Documents

global spread of democracy

major advances of democracy

worlds population

noncorrupt voting procedures

introductionthe world

number of states

discussion pointwhat

worlds people