Third WavePart I/ Regime Types
Lecture 1: Introduction
About DAT
➢ Situated within the subfield of comparative politics
➢ Methodologically eclectic
➢ Global scope
Debates within academic literature
Beyond DAT?
➢ Core Module Comparative Politics (Imke Harbers, Norah Schulten, Joost Berkhout)
➢ The Politics of Difference (Saskia Bonjour and Darshan Vigneswaran)
➢ Various BAWCs and BARPs
Democracy so what?
Amartya Sen – Democracy as a Universal Value
“A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through
democracy.”
The value of democracy:
➢ Intrinsic
➢ Instrumental
➢ Constructive
,“The Lee Hypothesis”
➢ Democracy - Autocracy is a spectrum
➢ Economic development, example of Singapore, Shanghai, Dubai (25 years)
○ Named after Lee Kuan Yew (former prime minister of Singapore)
➢ Democracy is a luxury that you cannot afford unless you start with development first
People will choose bread over freedom,
autocracy allows for such development (with no
interferences with projects, no ecological
opposition, no voters so no public opinion)
Democracy => Growth
Red = democracy and Black = autocracy
On average, it seems like it is not the case that
autocracies outperform democracies
Variance is also lower for democracies, meaning
they offer a more stable economic environment
Democracy => Global health
➢ Countries who went through democratic
transition saw their life expectancy
grow compared to autocracies.
➢ Democracy also helpful for
cardiovascular diseases, transport
injuries and tuberculosis
Democracy => Climate change
,As country become more democratic, their carbon emissions drop whereas when they become more
autocratic, their carbon emissions rise
Democracy as a ‘Western’ concept?
Rule with the consent of the governed, debate essentially depends on conceptualisation of democracy
(the more narrow probably the more Western, and the more broad, the less?)
Teorell, Introduction
Sen, Amartya. 1999. “Democracy as a Universal Value.” Journal of Democracy.
The idea of democracy as a universal commitment is quite new, and it is quintessentially a product of
the twentieth century
Throughout the nineteenth century, theorists of democracy found it quite natural to discuss whether
one country or another was “fit for democracy.” This thinking changed only in the twentieth century,
with the recognition that the question itself was wrong: A country does not have to be deemed fit for
democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy
It was also in this century that people finally accepted that “franchise for all adults” must mean all–not
just men but also women
The Indian experience:
In denying Indians independence, the British expressed anxiety over the Indians’ ability to govern
themselves. India was indeed in some disarray in 1947, the year it became independent. It had an
untried government, an undigested partition, and unclear political alignments, combined with
widespread communal violence and social disorder.
And yet, half a century later, we find a democracy that has, taking the rough with the smooth, 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
India has also survived the tremendous challenge of dealing with a variety of major languages and a
spectrum of religions. Religious and communal differences are, of course, vulnerable to exploitation
by sectarian politicians
Democracy and Economic development
It is often claimed that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development.
This belief sometimes goes by the name of “the Lee hypothesis,” due to its advocacy by Lee Kuan
Yew, the leader and former president of Singapore
There is, in fact, no convincing general evidence that authoritarian governance and the suppression of
political and civil rights are really beneficial to economic development
, Political and civil rights give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to general needs and
to demand appropriate public action.
The exercise of political rights (such as voting, criticizing, protesting, and the like) can make a real
difference to the political incentives that operate on a government
no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively
free press
Functions of democracy
Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include voting and respect for election results, but
it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the
guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment three different
ways in which democracy enriches the lives of the citizens. First, political freedom is a part of human
freedom in general, and exercising civil and political rights is a crucial part of good lives of
individuals as social beings
Second, as I have just discussed (in disputing the claim that democracy is in tension with economic
development), democracy has an important instrumental value in enhancing the hearing that people
get in expressing and supporting their claims to political attention (including claims of economic
needs). Third–and this is a point to be explored further–the practice of democracy gives citizens an
opportunity to learn from one another, and helps society to form its values and priorities. Political and
civil rights, especially those related to the guaranteeing of open discussion, debate, criticism, and
dissent, are central to the process of generating informed and considered choices
Universality of values
it is sometimes argued that not everyone agrees on the decisive importance of democracy, particularly
when it competes with other desirable things for our attention and loyalty know of no value–not even
motherhood (I think of Mommie Dearest)–to which no one has ever objected. I would argue that
universal consent is not required for something to be a universal value
Rather, the claim of a universal value is that people anywhere may have reason to see it as valuable.
Some who dispute the status of democracy as a universal value base their argument not on the absence
of unanimity, but on the presence of regional contrasts. These alleged contrasts are sometimes related
to the poverty of some nations. According to this argument, poor people are interested, and have
reason to be interested, in bread, not in democracy. This oft-repeated argument is fallacious at two
different levels.
First, as discussed above, the protective role of democracy may be particularly important for the poor.
This obviously applies to potential famine victims who face starvation. It also applies to the destitute
thrown off the economic ladder in a financial crisis. People in economic need also need a political
voice. Democracy is not a luxury that can await the arrival of general prosperity.
Second, there is very little evidence that poor people, given the choice, prefer to reject democracy.
The argument from cultural differences
It has been claimed that Asians traditionally value discipline, not political freedom, and thus the
attitude to democracy must inevitably be much more skeptical in these countries
the advocates of “Asian values” have tended to look primarily at East Asia as the region of particular
applicability
