Lecture 7: International Explanations
Waves of democratization
This graph is a different display of a type of autocratic
breakdown
Dark red color – most autocratic on a spectrum
Dark blue – most democratic
An important aspect is the white space from the 19 th
century to about the middle of the 20th century:
o It refers to the proportion of the countries that
were colonies, so countries not independent but
part of empires.
Moreover, in the 2000s we now have this rather slim
dark blue color. So, a lot of world regimes are still not
democratic in the sense that we want them to be.
3 waves of democratization
This is a graphic depiction of Huntington’s waves of
democratization (wave of increase in democratization in the world)
1) First Wave: 1828 – 1926
o Increase in level of
democracy across countries
is weak, gradual over a long
period of time.
2) Second Wave: 1945-1962
o First during WWII, you see a
sort of autocratic wave
o Following WWII, you have a
democratic wave, including a
re-democratization of some
of western Europe and Japan
o A lot of decolonization,
mostly in African states that
became more democratic
compared to what they had been
3) Third Wave: 1974-2008? (unclear where it stops)
What is diffusion? (Seva Gunitsky, Democratic Waves in Historical Perspective)
What is diffusion?
Teorell: “The spread of democratic ideas across countries.” A rather vague definition because we do not know who is spreading it,
where exactly, how it is happening. For this, Gunitsky helps clear the process.
Gunitsky: He lays out a historical framework of democratic waves that focuses on recurring causal mechanisms across time.
Democratic waves vary immensely in their origins, reach, and success rates, and the prevalence of waves highlights the key role of
the international system in shaping domestic institutions.
,Regime Diffusion has 2 key dimensions:
The origins of external influence (External source)
o Vertical hegemonic transformations : geopolitical (international system) shifts, shocks
Moments of abrupt rise and fall of great powers that stem from major wars, economic crises, or imperial
collapses, they originate from sudden disruptions to the structure of global hegemony, whose effects
propagate through the international system and create powerful if temporary opportunities
So, they create waves of domestic reforms that sweep across national borders and deeply alter the paths
of state development. In cases of vertical diffusion, an exogenous shock creates a wave of transitions by
shifting the institutional preferences and incentives of many domestic actors simultaneously.
In the nineteenth century, for example, the Napoleonic Wars (namely, the outcome of the Peninsular
War) loosened Spain’s hold on South America, provoking the Latin Wars of Independence
o Horizontal cross-border linkages: neighborhood linkages (much more diffused in its origins, neighboring
countries experiencing similar things, with no relation to any big shift in the international system)
Some begin as local sparks of revolt, spreading via cross-border ties and neighborhood contagion.
These cascades are often driven by shared grievances, cultural commonalities, and thick communication
linkages that allow protests to sweep across borders.
The process then becomes self-reinforcing—as more countries experience upheaval, opposition leaders
and embittered masses elsewhere update their beliefs about the possibility of success, or simply become
inspired by the efforts of others, and join in the wave.
Strength of external influence: How much to domestic actors control this sort of push from the external forces?
o Contagion: Intense external international forces temporarily overwhelm and dominate domestic, short sweeping
waves that override domestic constraints and the result is a rapid burst of contention
The wave lasts on average three years
Democratization in one country increases the immediate likelihood of democratization in other states,
producing diffusion that rapidly sweeps across borders in a matter of months or even weeks.
This is the so-called epidemiological, quasi mechanistic model of diffusion as commonly conceived in
social science.
o Emulation: domestic factors remain crucial in shaping the timing of national reforms, acting as focal points for
mobilization
Domestic actors are taking a sort of inspiration from other countries, networks, but are controlling how
they react, and also the timing of when they react
The wave unfolds slowly, with external linkages reliant on propitious domestic opportunities. Such waves
stretch out over many years (thirteen on average), rather than months
In these cases, cross-border linkages continue to play an important role, as later attempts draw upon
earlier precedents for learning, support, and inspiration.
o Difference between the two:
In contagion driven diffusion the wave itself, rather than domestic windows of opportunity, serves as an
international focal point for protest groups
But in processes of emulation driven waves, domestic opportunities continue to determine the timing of
each outbreak.
o The strength of diffusion within a wave always depends on the relative weight of external and domestic factors.
When linkages are weak, domestic conditions are unpropitious, and the organizational capacity of
incumbents (that is, their ability to pre-empt, co-opt, or suppress protest) is high, the wave proceeds
slowly, with clear links among the cases but with their timing shaped by domestic crises or focal points.
When outside influences are powerful, and external linkages are strong, the force of a democratic wave
can overwhelm domestic conditions and spread through a process of contagion. (Even under these
conditions, domestic factors remain important, by shaping which countries are excluded from the wave or
buffeted from its consequences.)
Dimensions of diffusion
,This gives us a way to classify completely newly democratic waves of diffusion.
Huntington defined it only in terms of clusters of democratization over time.
Gunitsky:
o He says it is not enough that they are happening at the same time, but they have to be similar to define them as
democratic waves:
DEFINITION Democratic waves: “…temporally-bound cluster of mass contention and regime change,
with linkages among the cases that cluster.”
o So, we have different types of waves happening in overlapping time periods, because we classify it also by the
nature of the external source and the strength of the external source.
The linkages that bind individual cases into a wave can take a variety of forms
They can be material or geopolitical, as when a decline of a regional hegemon undercuts its
ability to sustain and support the regimes of its dependencies
They can be informational, where in previous precedents reveal useful information about both
the hidden preferences of citizens and the chances of revolutionary success
, They can be socio-cultural, as in the Arab Spring, where mass media and cultural ties between
the countries facilitated the spread of protest across borders
They can be organizational or tactical, as in the Color Revolutions
Or they can be ideological, wherein previous examples serve as inspiration for subsequent
attempts
Thus, in vertical diffusion, waves propagate through relations of asymmetric power created by linkages
between great powers and other states; in horizontal diffusion, waves propagate through linkages marked
by regional connections and neighborhood ties.
o “Third wave” comprised of 4 distinct waves
The post-Soviet Wave (1989 -1994)
The Arab Spring
The [real] Third Wave (1974 – 1988)
Color Revolutions
Despite their underlying differences, what unites the vast majority of waves is the presence of failure—the tendency for
democratic cascades to crest, collapse, and roll back. In fact, there is good reason to think that failure is built into the very process
that creates waves.
This rollback can be total (as in the post-World War I wave), or partial but persistent (as in the African wave following the
Soviet collapse).
The impulses that drive democratic waves create extremely powerful but temporary incentives for regime change. In the
short term, the euphoric and seemingly immense possibility of revolutionary change produces immense pressures for
democratization.
The strong but vaporous pressures that allow a wave to spread also ensure that at least some of these transitions take place
in countries that lack domestic conditions needed to sustain and consolidate democracy.
As the initial phase of the wave passes, and the difficult process of democratic consolidation moves forward, domestic
constraints reassert themselves and contribute to the failed consolidations that often follow waves
Moreover, different kinds of waves may be associated with particular types of democratic failure
o For example, elite adaptation designed to stymie and co-opt protests may be especially prevalent in waves
driven by emulation, for two reasons
First, emulation-based diffusion centers around predictable domestic events like elections; and second, it
operates on a longer time scale than contagion based diffusion.
Both factors allow autocratic rulers to anticipate and co-opt for any potential rebellions.
The Second Constitutional Wave (1905-1912)
Period in the early 20th century
o Offers an illustration of how hegemonic disruptions, working through material and ideological linkages, can create
bursts of democratic reform.
o This wave included Russia and several of its imperial dependencies (1905), as well as Iran (1906), the Ottoman
Empire (1908), Portugal (1910), and China (1912)
These countries were bound by concrete linkages—in the form of organizational tactics, material
influences, and ideological inspiration—through which earlier cases shaped the attributes, opportunities,
and expectations for later episodes of contention.
Type: Vertical (shock, defeat of Russia) emulation (what people were doing on the ground with that)
Spark: Russia’s humiliating defeat by Japan
o Japan at the same time was still governed by its dictator
o Russia decided to have a military confrontation, but were defeated
, o The prosecution and outcome of the war generated enough discontent to ignite the first largescale uprisings in
Russia’s history
The Russian defeat thus forged a broad anti-government coalition that succeeded in mounting a powerful
challenge to the Tsarist regime.
Then, opportunity for the Russian satellite states to lunch their own mass uprisings and become sort of independent
o For hopeful democrats in Iran, the Ottoman Empire, and the imperial peripheries, the war had temporarily
undermined the Empire’s ability to suppress regional revolutionaries
o As in 1989, hegemonic decline and volatility left Russia unable to suppress democratizing movements around its
borderlands, enabling a cascade of regime reforms throughout the region
Evidence of diffusion
o Shared ideology of those countries
The pro-democracy movements of this wave drew upon earlier episodes for ideological inspiration, and
explicitly exchanged tactics and protest repertoires that shaped their anti-regime strategies.
It “encouraged revolutionaries by showing how strong the revolutionary movement was, even in the
world’s most powerful autocracy
o Influence of Russia
o Possibility of success: If it can happen in Russia, then it can happen int hose countries as well
o Shared tactics: People were trying to mobilize in the same way, for example were refusing to pay taxes, or
something similar
After the initial vertical catalyst of (temporary) Russian hegemonic decline,
the wave also propagated through horizontal diffusion, with linkages that
extended beyond
For the Ottoman Empire, the Iranian precedent established the
viability of Islamic constitutionalism, demonstrated the value of
religious rhetoric, and served as “the ideal proof that a constitutional
revolution could be at once popular and bloodless.”
In turn, Chinese reformers drew upon the lessons of Iran and the
Ottoman Empire both as sources of inspiration and as models of
revolution.
Waves by linkages (Kurzman 1998: 52)
Different type of listing, from Kurzman (a historian who has looked into the connections across different movements and
different time periods). Some exactly the same as Gunitsky, others are somewhat different.
The first wave is the Atlantic wave
Then there is the wave mostly in Latin America, with many countries relatively more democratic than what they were
previously
At the same time as the Second Constitutional Wave, there was also a revolution happening in Mexico. And Gunitsky does
not connect the revolution in Mexico to the other mass movement
, o It is completely possible that what happened outside in Russia had no connection to Mexico, so it was really
different from other revolutions. But this might not be the case and Mexico might have actually been influenced.
Documenting the linkages requires in-depth study.
Horizontal Contagion
The Arab Spring 2010-2012
How did the protests spread?
o What was the mode of diffusion?
Mostly social media, videos
Many more people can come out to protest than would come without social media. You may
have both people that want to be violent or people that do not have a grievance directed
towards the regime, or something else, but they come together.
o The main point of the horizontal contagion is that they were not very unlikely to succeed because of the nature of
the horizontal contagion
Unlike in 1989, diffusion in the Arab Spring occurred in the absence of a broader geopolitical shift. The
role of the international environment has been either negative or ambivalent.
The wave did not stem from the equivalent of a Soviet collapse; on the contrary, regional powers like
Saudi Arabia assisted their autocratic peers in suppressing protests
The United States, meanwhile, at times reinforced the wave by aiding popular uprisings, most
notably in the case of Libya.
But in other cases like Bahrain or Yemen, it vacillated about promoting regime change or
countering the suppression of protests
And unlike the Color Revolutions, the timing of transitions in the Arab Spring was not conditional upon
domestic focal points
The closest familiar analogy to the Arab Spring is the 1848 Spring of Nations —both instances of horizontal
contagion
As an instance of horizontal contagion, the Spring of Nations was intense, swift, far-reaching, and
ultimately unsuccessful, defeated by the concerted efforts of the region’s autocratic rulers.
At the same time, it left a deep footprint on the subsequent evolution of European states. Given
these similarities, the Arab Spring is increasingly likely to meet the same fate.
o Perhaps contemporary period affects strength
