Comparative politics: democratization
Lecture 1: What is democracy?
The most well-known democracy is the Athenian democracy; direct democracy
without representatives. Every citizen was directly involved in decision-making.
The problem is that it is difficult to come to a conclusion when the group
becomes too large. Also, citizenship was restricted. It only worked because the
ones allowed in decision-making were a small group of people. So in current
nation states, direct democracy is complicated, time-consuming and inefficient.
- There was the idea that only if you’re wealthy, you have time to participate
and think about politics. if you’re poor, you are only focussed on surviving.
Current day democracies are representative democracies that come in
different forms; you can organize it as a two-party or multi-party systems. We
have parliamentary systems, and also presidential systems.
Globally, people when asked about democracy think of liberty (freedom we need
for democracy to work (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to
protest, free flow of information, freedom of assembly), rights), popular
sovereignty (political process, elections etc.), and equality, solidarity (social
benefits, they expect democracy brings equal division of wealth). We students
first think of representation of the people, but globally, we first think about
freedom.
Differences between different regimes
New (eastern Europe, Latin America) vs old democracies (the west)
- In new and old democracies, there is the same preference order. Everyone
prioritizes liberty, then government/elections/rule of the people
But what’s new is that new democracies expect more social benefits from
democracy. People could end up disappointed with democracy when this is not
the case, and end up voting for different regimes.
So the meaning of democracy is different in different regions.
In Eastern Europe (previously repressive communist regimes), institutions
are less important, and most important is liberty. In Africa,
institutions/process are the most important. An explanation could be that
they have experience with military regimes, so they never voted. So voting
is new.
So democracy means different things to different people.
However globally, two dimensions are very important (but more dimensions are
possible)
1. Rule of law/liberalism: division of power, constraints on the executive,
freedom of speech.
2. Rule by the people/democracy: people get to choose representatives in
free and fair elections, pluralist political parties, opposition etc.
But there are many more possible dimensions.
1
,Trends in democracy and authoritarianism
Graph doesn’t capture hybrid regimes.
Moreover, it is an average global trend, so
not every country follows this trend.
The waves of democracy
First wave (1820-1918)
A very long wave, over a long period of time, that involves very few countries. It
is where democracy starts, in the UK with a constitution that limits the power of
the king. So division of power and the king being subject to the rule of law was
revolutionary in that time. So it did not start with elections. Over time, as kings
need more money, the elites want more influence. This leads to the development
of the first proto parliaments (UK, French revolution, Western Europe), where men
with property get a say in policy making. In the early 1900s elections were
already there (but limited to a small group), and we see the topic of suffrage
coming up. Worker movements start to mobilize after the industrial revolution,
and pressure builds to include more people into the voting right. So property
requirement goes away. Elections are therefore the last step in the
democratization process here.
- We only talk about Western-Europe, Oceania, North-Africa.
- We wouldn’t call this democracy in current days, as not everybody could
vote. So the definition of what democracy is shifts over time.
The first reverse wave (1918-1939, the interbellum)
A drop in the proportion of democracies. In between wars, we saw countries
coming out of WWI being post-conflict societies. These societies are very
unstable, with a lot of traumatized men, still having weapons, and a badly
functioning economy. This created in the 1930s support for communism and
fascism (authoritarian regimes), mainly in Europe
Second wave (1945-1960)
We see a flatline, however there is an enormous increase in democracies around
the world. But we see a flatline because after WWII we see decolonization. So the
number of countries worldwide increases, and many of those countries start
democratic. This wave is characterized by the fact that it happens all around the
world, mostly in old colonies. So on the one hand we see the re-democratization
of former nazi regimes in Europe, and on the other hand we see the newly
independent countries that start off democratic. It is mainly outside of Europe, it
is short and it involves many different countries.
Second reverse wave (1960-1974)
When the cold war started taking on more power. So regimes were either drawn
to the west or to the USSR. Both of these regimes support authoritarian regimes,
2
,they don’t care as long as you take their side. So there is pressure to conform,
but no pressure to become democratic. A lot of regimes that are new
democracies, become independent and face many different problems. Many
prioritize building up national unity (like Tanzania, with many different ethnic
groups so they want to create a national identity), and stability over
democratization.
Third wave (1974-2008)
The start of the third wave, some early initiatives to move towards democracy.
This started with the collapse of dictatorships in Europe (Portugal, Spain, Greece).
Franco died. He raised his follower to maintain an authoritarian regime. But this
new king announced Spain is moving towards a democracy. This also has a big
effect on Latin America, so there we also see imposing dictatorship and moving
towards democracy. Then the USSR falls, which changed the whole logic
worldwide. So Eastern European countries become independent again and go for
democracy, because they hope to get support from Europe and the US. Moreover,
the conditionality of the cold war evaporates. The west previously accepted
dictatorship, but the moment the USSR falls, they start pressuring regimes
around the world to democratize.
- So what do these countries do? They hold elections to appear democratic,
but they are rigged elections, or appoint judges themselves. So they adopt
institutions that look democratic, but don’t work democratically (we know
who wins beforehand). Like Russia and other hybrid regimes that have the
form, but not the substance.
So the end of the cold war adds to the third wave and increases the number of
democracies.
Also, the international environment matters. The third wave was backed up by
Europe and the US’ commitment to support democratic change and pressure
authoritarian regimes.
New democracies knew that generous flows of Western aid, investment,
and diplomatic support depended in part on them respecting democratic
norms-free elections, presidential term limits, judicial autonomy, and space
for independent media and civil society organizations.
Nondemocracies knew that they would fare better with the West if they at
least gestured toward these democratic values and restrained their
authoritarian tendencies.
So in former communist states, western assistance and conditioning of EU
membership on adherence to liberal democratic norms reinforced democratic
movements.
We are currently in a third reverse wave.
In this graph, liberal democracies have the rule of
law and the rule of the people. So we see division
of power, good elections, and the people in power.
In electoral democracies, the elections are also
good, but the protection of the people is not good.
- Efforts to democratize the last years, like
Ukraine, the Arab spring, and green wave
movement, have failed.
3
, We see liberal democracies becoming less liberal, and many electoral
democracies descending into competitive authoritarianism, and authoritarian
regimes becoming more intensely repressive. These days democracies don’t die
via coups, but more step by step, through the degradation of political pluralism,
civil liberties and the rule of law. But the outcome is the same; opposition parties,
independent institutions and no option to depose the ruling individual or party
through free elections.
Only 6/15 most populous countries are democracies, that also go toward
illiberal populism and power-concentrating of the executive.
Autocrats tend to shut down opposition media, arrest critics, and impose new
electoral rules that make it impossible for opponents to win office or even run for
parliament. Elected presidents or prime ministers sometimes manage to take
over the institutions that are meant to constrain them. These institutions are then
used as weapons against opponents.
- Civil society then joins the autocrat to sustain their careers, enrich their
families, or to simply stay out of harm’s way. Democrats that fight are
often outgunned.
However, still some countries are in the process of becoming democracies, like
Armenia.
Populism is a popular means to diminish democracy. Elected rulers use populist
appeals that polarize, and marginalize their opponents, who they depict as self-
serving elites or undeserving minorities who do not understand or care about the
deserving majority. So populist leader uses the excuse that if other ‘corrupt’
politicians are not bending to the will of this populist leader, they are not serving
the people.
This is illiberal populism; comes with demonetizing critics and minorities,
hostility against pluralism, and putting the leader above all other
democratic institutions.
We see a rise of illiberal populism based on a backlash against governments seen
to be corrupt, even if they were also relatively tolerant and democratic. Then
populists come in to serve the people rather than the ruling elite, promote the
dominant religion/culture, and make the country great again. This was also the
case in India. Eventually such leaders seek political/cultural dominance. In
Poland, pressure is put on independent media and courts; so pressure on liberal
democracy. However the difference between Poland and India, is that polish
liberal democrats are backed up by the EU.
- So what begins as an electoral revolution in the name of the forgotten
people, ends in misrule.
In polarized electorates, even voters who value democracy will be willing to
sacrifice fair democratic competition for the sake of electing politicians who
champion their interests. When polarization is big, people are ready to overlook
democratic misdeeds of a candidate in order to avoid handling over power to the
dreaded alternative. So democrats need to bridge polarization to avoid this.
- The more core features of electoral democracy remain intact, the easier to
bring an end to the populist project.
4
Lecture 1: What is democracy?
The most well-known democracy is the Athenian democracy; direct democracy
without representatives. Every citizen was directly involved in decision-making.
The problem is that it is difficult to come to a conclusion when the group
becomes too large. Also, citizenship was restricted. It only worked because the
ones allowed in decision-making were a small group of people. So in current
nation states, direct democracy is complicated, time-consuming and inefficient.
- There was the idea that only if you’re wealthy, you have time to participate
and think about politics. if you’re poor, you are only focussed on surviving.
Current day democracies are representative democracies that come in
different forms; you can organize it as a two-party or multi-party systems. We
have parliamentary systems, and also presidential systems.
Globally, people when asked about democracy think of liberty (freedom we need
for democracy to work (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to
protest, free flow of information, freedom of assembly), rights), popular
sovereignty (political process, elections etc.), and equality, solidarity (social
benefits, they expect democracy brings equal division of wealth). We students
first think of representation of the people, but globally, we first think about
freedom.
Differences between different regimes
New (eastern Europe, Latin America) vs old democracies (the west)
- In new and old democracies, there is the same preference order. Everyone
prioritizes liberty, then government/elections/rule of the people
But what’s new is that new democracies expect more social benefits from
democracy. People could end up disappointed with democracy when this is not
the case, and end up voting for different regimes.
So the meaning of democracy is different in different regions.
In Eastern Europe (previously repressive communist regimes), institutions
are less important, and most important is liberty. In Africa,
institutions/process are the most important. An explanation could be that
they have experience with military regimes, so they never voted. So voting
is new.
So democracy means different things to different people.
However globally, two dimensions are very important (but more dimensions are
possible)
1. Rule of law/liberalism: division of power, constraints on the executive,
freedom of speech.
2. Rule by the people/democracy: people get to choose representatives in
free and fair elections, pluralist political parties, opposition etc.
But there are many more possible dimensions.
1
,Trends in democracy and authoritarianism
Graph doesn’t capture hybrid regimes.
Moreover, it is an average global trend, so
not every country follows this trend.
The waves of democracy
First wave (1820-1918)
A very long wave, over a long period of time, that involves very few countries. It
is where democracy starts, in the UK with a constitution that limits the power of
the king. So division of power and the king being subject to the rule of law was
revolutionary in that time. So it did not start with elections. Over time, as kings
need more money, the elites want more influence. This leads to the development
of the first proto parliaments (UK, French revolution, Western Europe), where men
with property get a say in policy making. In the early 1900s elections were
already there (but limited to a small group), and we see the topic of suffrage
coming up. Worker movements start to mobilize after the industrial revolution,
and pressure builds to include more people into the voting right. So property
requirement goes away. Elections are therefore the last step in the
democratization process here.
- We only talk about Western-Europe, Oceania, North-Africa.
- We wouldn’t call this democracy in current days, as not everybody could
vote. So the definition of what democracy is shifts over time.
The first reverse wave (1918-1939, the interbellum)
A drop in the proportion of democracies. In between wars, we saw countries
coming out of WWI being post-conflict societies. These societies are very
unstable, with a lot of traumatized men, still having weapons, and a badly
functioning economy. This created in the 1930s support for communism and
fascism (authoritarian regimes), mainly in Europe
Second wave (1945-1960)
We see a flatline, however there is an enormous increase in democracies around
the world. But we see a flatline because after WWII we see decolonization. So the
number of countries worldwide increases, and many of those countries start
democratic. This wave is characterized by the fact that it happens all around the
world, mostly in old colonies. So on the one hand we see the re-democratization
of former nazi regimes in Europe, and on the other hand we see the newly
independent countries that start off democratic. It is mainly outside of Europe, it
is short and it involves many different countries.
Second reverse wave (1960-1974)
When the cold war started taking on more power. So regimes were either drawn
to the west or to the USSR. Both of these regimes support authoritarian regimes,
2
,they don’t care as long as you take their side. So there is pressure to conform,
but no pressure to become democratic. A lot of regimes that are new
democracies, become independent and face many different problems. Many
prioritize building up national unity (like Tanzania, with many different ethnic
groups so they want to create a national identity), and stability over
democratization.
Third wave (1974-2008)
The start of the third wave, some early initiatives to move towards democracy.
This started with the collapse of dictatorships in Europe (Portugal, Spain, Greece).
Franco died. He raised his follower to maintain an authoritarian regime. But this
new king announced Spain is moving towards a democracy. This also has a big
effect on Latin America, so there we also see imposing dictatorship and moving
towards democracy. Then the USSR falls, which changed the whole logic
worldwide. So Eastern European countries become independent again and go for
democracy, because they hope to get support from Europe and the US. Moreover,
the conditionality of the cold war evaporates. The west previously accepted
dictatorship, but the moment the USSR falls, they start pressuring regimes
around the world to democratize.
- So what do these countries do? They hold elections to appear democratic,
but they are rigged elections, or appoint judges themselves. So they adopt
institutions that look democratic, but don’t work democratically (we know
who wins beforehand). Like Russia and other hybrid regimes that have the
form, but not the substance.
So the end of the cold war adds to the third wave and increases the number of
democracies.
Also, the international environment matters. The third wave was backed up by
Europe and the US’ commitment to support democratic change and pressure
authoritarian regimes.
New democracies knew that generous flows of Western aid, investment,
and diplomatic support depended in part on them respecting democratic
norms-free elections, presidential term limits, judicial autonomy, and space
for independent media and civil society organizations.
Nondemocracies knew that they would fare better with the West if they at
least gestured toward these democratic values and restrained their
authoritarian tendencies.
So in former communist states, western assistance and conditioning of EU
membership on adherence to liberal democratic norms reinforced democratic
movements.
We are currently in a third reverse wave.
In this graph, liberal democracies have the rule of
law and the rule of the people. So we see division
of power, good elections, and the people in power.
In electoral democracies, the elections are also
good, but the protection of the people is not good.
- Efforts to democratize the last years, like
Ukraine, the Arab spring, and green wave
movement, have failed.
3
, We see liberal democracies becoming less liberal, and many electoral
democracies descending into competitive authoritarianism, and authoritarian
regimes becoming more intensely repressive. These days democracies don’t die
via coups, but more step by step, through the degradation of political pluralism,
civil liberties and the rule of law. But the outcome is the same; opposition parties,
independent institutions and no option to depose the ruling individual or party
through free elections.
Only 6/15 most populous countries are democracies, that also go toward
illiberal populism and power-concentrating of the executive.
Autocrats tend to shut down opposition media, arrest critics, and impose new
electoral rules that make it impossible for opponents to win office or even run for
parliament. Elected presidents or prime ministers sometimes manage to take
over the institutions that are meant to constrain them. These institutions are then
used as weapons against opponents.
- Civil society then joins the autocrat to sustain their careers, enrich their
families, or to simply stay out of harm’s way. Democrats that fight are
often outgunned.
However, still some countries are in the process of becoming democracies, like
Armenia.
Populism is a popular means to diminish democracy. Elected rulers use populist
appeals that polarize, and marginalize their opponents, who they depict as self-
serving elites or undeserving minorities who do not understand or care about the
deserving majority. So populist leader uses the excuse that if other ‘corrupt’
politicians are not bending to the will of this populist leader, they are not serving
the people.
This is illiberal populism; comes with demonetizing critics and minorities,
hostility against pluralism, and putting the leader above all other
democratic institutions.
We see a rise of illiberal populism based on a backlash against governments seen
to be corrupt, even if they were also relatively tolerant and democratic. Then
populists come in to serve the people rather than the ruling elite, promote the
dominant religion/culture, and make the country great again. This was also the
case in India. Eventually such leaders seek political/cultural dominance. In
Poland, pressure is put on independent media and courts; so pressure on liberal
democracy. However the difference between Poland and India, is that polish
liberal democrats are backed up by the EU.
- So what begins as an electoral revolution in the name of the forgotten
people, ends in misrule.
In polarized electorates, even voters who value democracy will be willing to
sacrifice fair democratic competition for the sake of electing politicians who
champion their interests. When polarization is big, people are ready to overlook
democratic misdeeds of a candidate in order to avoid handling over power to the
dreaded alternative. So democrats need to bridge polarization to avoid this.
- The more core features of electoral democracy remain intact, the easier to
bring an end to the populist project.
4
