Democracies, Autocracies, and Transitions (73220021FY)
Summary
Democracies, Autocracies, and Transitions: Extensive summary
5 views 0 purchase
Course
Democracies, Autocracies, and Transitions (73220021FY)
Institution
Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
This is an extensive summary of both the readings and lectures of the course democracies, autocracies, and transitions. I had an end grade of 8 in this class, using this summary. Good luck studying!
Democracies, Autocracies, and Transitions (73220021FY)
All documents for this subject (25)
Seller
Follow
PoliticalScienceUvA
Reviews received
Content preview
Week 1
Introduction
- democratization had 3 waves
1) after WWI
2) after WWII
3) at the end of the 20th century
- 4 theories of democratization
1) modernization theory
a) democratization in the last three decades is the upshot of a general trend
toward furthered economic development, deepened industrialization, and
educational expansion
b) with knowledge of these structural parameters, movements toward and away
from democracy should be easy to predict
2) transition paradigm
a) democracy has been brought about from above through the strategic skills,
and at times sheer luck, of elite actors maneuvering under profound
uncertainty
b) idiosyncratic factors playing such a decisive role
c) our understanding of the general factors driving democratization is severely
limited
3) social forces tradition
a) democratization during the third wave has been triggered by mass
mobilization from below, most notably by the working class
4) new economic approach
a) democratic institutions have been granted by the rich as a concession to the
poor
b) made possible through weakened fear of redistribution resulting from eroding
economic inequality
- the author argues that these approaches contain some truth but are incomplete and in some
aspects, at fault
- this book’s added value:
a) big range of explanatory variables
b) novel findings pertaining to factors hitherto untested on a global scale
c) testing for variation in how determinants affect movements → separating the effects
on movements
d) effects + overall predictive performance of determinants
e) assesses intermediary links in the causation chain
f) combination of the statistical case with case study evidence
Factors driving and not driving the third wave
- modernization affects regime outcomes by hindering authoritarian reversals rather than
promoting transitions toward democracy
, - if democracy is a ladder, modernization does not help countries scale upwards; it
helps them avoid falling downwards (confirming Przeworski’s argument)
- the most effective component of the syndrome of modernization is not education nor
industrialization, but it is media proliferation
- media proliferation helps explain the asymmetric nature of modernization
- for the media to work as a safeguard of democracy, some freedom of the press has to
be established → the effect of media proliferation on democratization increases with
the level of democracy already achieved
- widespread access to media outlets defers backsliding from these achieved levels
rather than triggering movement toward more democracy
- long-term economic development helps sustain democracy, short-term growth has an
opposing effect on democracy
- economic upturns help sustain autocracies, whereas economic crises trigger transitions toward
democracy (Latin America, Philippines)
- deteriorating economic conditions
- make economic elites distance themselves from authoritarian rulers
- help fuel the mobilization of mass protest against the regime
- only peaceful demonstrations are effective in promoting democratization
(Philippines, South Africa, Nepal), whereas the use of violent means such as
rioting or even armed rebellion proves largely ineffectual
- democratization is rooted in economic and social conditions nationally and internationally
- authoritarian regimes during the third wave behaved like falling dominoes = neighbor
diffusion
- colonial past has to systematic effects
Institutions under authoritarianism
- military dictatorships are more prone to democratize than single-party regimes
- non-democratic regimes that still allow multiparty elections – termed multi-party autocracies
– are more prone to democratize than other species of the authoritarian brand
- assumption here: competition in multiparty autocracies is a dual battle, where the incumbent
elites and the opposition simultaneously compete for votes in the electoral arena and struggle
over the very rules that shape this arena
- Multiparty elections, however controlled, rigged and unfair they may be, thus fuel intra-
regime divisions, a condition favorable to democratization
- these divisions may improve the incentives for what may be divided opposition parties to join
forces and challenge the ruling party
- These two processes – divisions within the incumbent regime and unification of the
opposition forces – reinforce one another
- multiparty autocracies are significantly more likely to democratize as a response to exogenous
shocks such as economic downturns, popular mobilization and even foreign interventions
Theoretical implications
- structural theories are not very successful at explaining short-term democratization
- structures explain a whole lot more over the longer time horizon
- processes of socioeconomic modernization played a role during the third wave, but not in the
way originally conceived by Lipset → media proliferation did not lead to democracy but it
merely hindered countries from sliding back
, - failure to recognize the mode of mobilization, and why it matters, as the key to explaining
democratization is a serious flaw in the social forces tradition
- author argues that a successful future theory of democratization needs to incorporate
elements from all these three approaches:
a) structural conditions
b) strategic interaction among elite actors
c) and popular mobilization from below
- economic approach is the integration of these elements into a coherent theoretical model
- but he economic approach appears too preoccupied with conflicts over income distribution
Policy implications
- in countries that have already made some progress toward democratization, these reforms
may be safeguarded by widening media access through the spread of radio, TV and
newspapers among the population
- in more authoritarian settings, by contrast, efforts to mobilize non-violent popular
insurgencies against the incumbent regime should be promoted
- promoting economic development under authoritarian regimes would not be an advisable
strategy for fostering democracy
- democratization is spurred on by short-term economic crises, not growth
- long-term development does not affect the prospects for democratization, but the
chances of sustaining democratic reforms that have already been enacted
Democracy as a Universal Value – Amartya Sen
- Rise of democracy as most important development of last century
- the idea of democracy now as ‘normal’ form of government
- Ideal of democracy as a universal commitment quite new
- Instead of asking whether a country is fit for democracy, it is understood that a country has to
become fit through democracy extended potential reach of democracy to many countries
- Universal suffrage extended to women
- Democracy now considered right unless proven otherwise recognition of democracy as a
universally relevant system
The Indian Experience
- How well has democracy worked? his answer: well enough
- In India: major battleground, political struggles after independence
- and still: 50 years later, democracy has worked remarkably well
- Political differences have been largely tackled within the constitutional guidelines, and
governments have risen and fallen according to electoral and parliamentary rules
- also survived the tremendous challenge of dealing with a variety of major languages and a
spectrum of religions
- Still challenges by sectarian politicians, leading to violence but the fact that this is condemned
by all section of country provides democratic guarantee
Democracy and Economic Development
, - Lee hypothesis (coined by former president of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew): nondemocratic
systems are better at bringing about economic development
- And some disciplinarian states have indeed had faster rates of economic growth than many
less authoritarian ones
- But: Lee hypothesis based on very sporadic empiricism (drawing on very selective and
limited information, rather than on any general statistical testing over the wide-ranging data
that are available)
- general relation like this cannot be made based on selective evidence
- no convincing general evidence that authoritarian governance and the suppression of political
and civil rights are really beneficial to economic development
- If all the comparative studies are viewed together, the hypothesis that there is no clear relation
between economic growth and democracy in either direction remains extremely plausible
- Economic policies and circumstances that led to the economic success of countries in East
Asia are by now reasonably well understood
- helpful list of policies: openness to competition, the use of international markets, public
provision of incentives for investment and export, a high level of literacy and schooling,
successful land reforms
- no reason to assume these would be inconsistent with democracy
- economic development does not only mean economic growth, but also economic and social
security connection between political and civil rights, on the one hand, and the prevention of
major economic disasters
- Political and civil rights give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to general
needs and to demand appropriate public action
- no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a
relatively free press
- in authoritarian regimes: defected policies (that killed millions every year) went uncriticized
because there were no opposition parties in parliament, no free press, and no multiparty
elections
- famines are often blamed on natural events, but many countries with similar natural problems,
or even worse ones, manage perfectly well, because a responsive government intervenes to
help alleviate hunger
- The positive role of political and civil rights applies to the prevention of economic and social
disasters in general
- recent problems of East and Southeast Asia bring out, among other things, the penalties of
undemocratic governance:
1) financial crises have been linked to lack of transparency in business
2) the people that are suffering do not get the hearing they need
- protective role of democracy is missed when it is most needed
The Functions of Democracy
- what is democracy?
a) voting and elections
b) protection of liberties
c) respect for legal entitlements
d) guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news
- merits of democracy: very distinct virtues that go along with its unfettered practice
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller PoliticalScienceUvA. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.65. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
