THE THIRD WAVE
DEMOCRACY
THE EMERGENCE OF DEMOCRACY




The concept of democracy as a government existed
already in ancient Greece.
The modern concept, however, emerged in the
Western society at the end of 18th Century.
Joseph Schumpeter’s “Classical theory of democracy”:
- Classified democracy as “the will of the people”
(source) and “the common good” (purpose).
- “The democratic method is that institutional
arrangement for arriving at political decisions in
which individuals acquire the power to decide by
means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”.
Schumpeter’s classification became the accepted one
around the 1970s.
THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY




Studies followed in the footsteps of Schumpeter
and defined democracy as:
- “Collective decision makers being selected
through free, open, fair and periodic elections,
where the candidates can freely compete for the
votes and where most of the adult population are
allowed to vote”.
Central aspect of democracy:
- Government leaders selected through
competitive elections by the people.
Democracy involves: contestation & participation.
Also indicates: civil and political freedoms to
speak, publish, assemble and political
organisation.
WHY DEFINE DEMOCRACY?

Defining democracy in this way makes it possible to:
1) Evaluate to what degree a political system is
democratic.
2) Compare systems.


3) Analyse if the systems are becoming more or less
democratic.
Acknowledged incompatible factors with democracy:
Censorship, rigged elections, harassments of the
opposition, jailing of opponents, prohibition of
political meetings, etc.
With this framework, an evaluation if a country is
democratic or not, and to what extent it is a
democracy can be defined.
ISSUES WITH DEFINING DEMOCRACY

Definition in terms of elections is a limited definition.
According to some people democracy should include:
citizen control over policy, a responsible government,
openness and sincerity in politics, equal participation
and power, etc.

However, according to Huntington, defining
democracy in this way is not useful when analysing.
- ‘Open, free and fair elections’ is the essence of
democracy.
The elected political leaders could be mere “puppets”.
Limitations of power included in the concept of
democracy.
- The power should be shared with other groups of
society.
A puppet government is no democracy.
ISSUES WITH DEFINING DEMOCRACY



Level of stability should be included into the concept of democracy.
- Valuate to what extent a democracy can be expected to remain in
existence.
Should democracy and non-democracy be considered a dichotomous or
continuous variable?
- Compared to most people, Huntington prefer to use a dichotomous
approach.
- Better when analysing transitions from nondemocratic regimes to
democratic regimes.
Nondemocratic regimes don’t have much in common
(except for the lack of electoral competition and widespread
participation)
Totalitarian regimes:
Single party, powerful secret police, strong ideology, government
penetration, control of mass communications and social and economic
organisations.
Authoritarian regimes:
Single leader or small group of leaders, no party or weak party, no mass
mobilisation, no ideology, limited government, limited political
pluralism, no effort to remake society.
THE WAVES OF DEMOCRACY



In 1750 no democratic national institutions existed, but by the end of 20th C
it existed in many countries. These democratic institutions emerged in 3
different ‘waves’.
A wave of democratisation is:
“A group of transitions from nondemocratic regimes to democratic regimes
that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber
transitions in the opposite direction during that period”.
A ‘reverse wave’ followed each of the two first waves of democratisation.
- Some of the countries that had made the transition to democracy reversed
back to a non-democracy.
First wave of democratisation
1828 - 1926
First reverse wave
1922 - 42
Second wave of
democratisation
1943 - 62
Second reverse wave
1958 - 75
Third wave of democratisation
1974 -
FIRST WAVE OF DEMOCRATISATION





1828 - 1926
During this period of around 100years, 33 countries
became democracies or semi-democracies.
The democratisation developed gradually in most of
the countries, which makes it difficult to decide
exactly what date a country became a democracy.
Jonathan Sunshine established two criteria for when
the 19th century countries achieved minimal
democratic qualifications in that period:
1) 50% of adult males eligible to vote.
2) A responsible executive who either must maintain
majority support in an elected parliament or is chosen
in periodic popular elections.
Following these criteria it can be argued that the first
wave started around 1828 in the US.
FIRST REVERSE WAVE





1922 - 1942
New trend: A move away from democracy.
- Return to traditional forms of authoritarian
governments, or
- Change into new forms of totalitarianism.
Occurred mostly in countries that had adopted
democracy just before or after WWI.
- New democracies, and many also new states.
Greece was the only country which established
democracy before 1910 that reversed.
Only 4 of the countries that introduced
democracy between 1910 and 1931 maintained it
throughout the 1920s and 1930s.
SECOND WAVE OF DEMOCRATISATION



1943 - 1962
Around 40 countries established national
democratic institutions.
Started during WWII.
- Allied occupation promoted establishment of
democratic institutions in:
West Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan and Korea.
- Turkey and Greece, as well as several countries
in Latin America also became democracies.
- The beginning of the decolonisation resulted in
new states, and in many of them there was an
effort towards democracy.
SECOND REVERSE WAVE






1958 - 1975
22 countries reversed during this period.
1/3 of 32 democracies became authoritarian in
mid-1970s.
The majority of the reverse took place in Latin
America.
Decolonisation of Africa led to the largest
addition of authoritarian governments in history.
The second reverse wave involved several
countries which had maintained democratic
institutions for a longer period of time (a quarter
century or more).
- E.g. Chile, Uruguay, India and the Philippines.
THIRD WAVE OF DEMOCRATISATION
1974 - ?
 Since 1974 around 30 countries has
established a democracy.
- And a few others have had a considerable
liberalisation.
 The third wave started in Southern Europe,
then moved towards Latin America, Asia,
the Soviet bloc, etc.


Will there be a third reverse wave?
WHY DEMOCRACY?




Democracy is closely related with freedom of the
individual.
Political Stability.
- Democracies are rarely politically violent.
- Tends to use far less violence against their
citizens than nondemocratic regimes.
- Provides stability by giving regular
opportunities for change of political leaders.
Significant to international relations.
- Democracies are less likely to fight each other.
The future of democracy important for the US.
- The US is committed to liberal and democratic
values.
~HUNTINGTON’S THIRD WAVE: WHY~
HOW WAVES PROPAGATE
1. Single cause development

Example: WW2
HOW WAVES PROPAGATE
2. Parallel development

Example: a= economic development, x= democracy
HOW WAVES PROPAGATE
3. Snowballing
HOW WAVES PROPAGATE
4.
Prevailing nostrum (zeitgeist)
WHY DO SOME COUNTRIES DEMOCRATIZE?
Many factors (economic, military, strong middle
class, respect for law, low levels of violence….)
 But democratization involves multiple factors
 Different waves of democratization caused by
different combinations of causes

PATTERNS OF REGIME CHANGE
Cyclical pattern (Argentina, Brazil, Turkey etc)
 Second try pattern (Germany, Japan, Colombia
etc)
 Interrupted democracy (India, the Philippines,
Chile etc)
 Direct transition (Romania, Taiwan, Guatemala)
 Decolonization (Papua New Guinea etc)

THIRD WAVE: FACTORS
Declining legitimacy and performance dilemma
 Global economic growth
 Changes in Catholicism/ religious changes
 Changes in the policies of external actor
 Snowballing effects

FACTOR 1: DECLINING LEGITIMACY

Legitimacy of most regimes decline over time
Military failure
 Poor economic performance etc
 Frustration builds  regime support disintegrates
and power change occurs

Communist regimes in 1970s faced such problems
FACTOR 1: DECLINING LEGITIMACY

How to overcome legitimacy issues in a current
regime?





Just hold on and deny…
Become repressive
Provoke foreign conflict and appeal to nationalism
Restore some democratic legitimacy
Introduce a democratic system on their own accord
FACTOR 2: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Correlation between wealth and democracy





Wealth shapes value of citizens
People become more educated
More resources  people are more willing to share
(not so dog-eat-dog)
Wealth in 1970s was created by open trade, and
therefore more flow of ideas
Expansion of middle class
FACTOR 3: RELIGIOUS CHANGES
As of 1988, Christianity was the dominant
religion in 39 out of 46 democratic countries.
 Western Christianity emphasize dignity of
individuals and separation of Church and State
 This gives a plausible reason for the
democratisation of countries where Christianity
expanded.
 Example during ‘60-’70: South Korea

FACTOR 3: RELIGIOUS CHANGES
After WW II South Korea was predominately
Buddhist and Confucian. Only around 1 percent
were Christian. By 1980, 25 percent.
 Christianity gave surer doctrinal basis for
political repression.

FACTOR 3: RELIGIOUS CHANGES



1st wave countries were mostly protestant countries.
2nd wave were religiously diverse.
Many Catholic countries were not democratic.
- Protestantism stressed on individual relation,
Catholicism stressed on the role of the church as
intermediary.
- Protestant churches were more democratically
organized, Catholic church was an authoritarian
organisation.
- Weber thesis.
All of those ideas were challenged during the 1970
and 1980; most democratised countries were Catholic.
FACTOR 3: RELIGIOUS CHANGES
Why Catholic?
 Beginning of 1950 Catholic countries had higher
rates of economic growth than Protestant
countries.
 The change that was happening in the Catholic
Church; Second Vatican Council and local priest
activity.
FACTOR 4: NEW POLICIES OF EXTERNAL
ACTORS
External actors also influenced democratisation
of countries.
 Allied victory in WW I changed many not yet
stable countries into democracies.
 Soviet intervention after WW II prevented
socially and economically ready countries
becoming democracies.
 Major source of power of the third wave:
- Vatican
- European Community
- United States
- Soviet Union

FACTOR 4: NEW POLICIES OF EXTERNAL
ACTORS
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
 To become a member, country must become a
democracy.
 Membership of the community also reinforced
commitment to keep democracy.
 CSCE, Helsinki Final Act, and the beginning of
Helsinki Process.
FACTOR 4: NEW POLICIES OF EXTERNAL
ACTORS
The United States
 Late 1960s-1970s: Was not US main interest;
focused on Vietnam War.
 1974: the United States made the promotion of
human rights a major foreign policy goal
 1977: Carter administration; Even more
emphasize on Human Rights.
 Reagan administration: First reduced the
attention in non-communist authoritarian
countries and focusing more in Communist
countries. 1983-1984, Focusing on both.
FACTOR 4: NEW POLICIES OF EXTERNAL
ACTORS
The US methods to promote democratisation
during the third wave:
 Statements by presidents, secretaries of state,
and other officials endorsing democratisation.
 Economic pressures and sanctions
 Diplomatic action
 Material support
 Military action
 Multilateral diplomacy
FACTOR 4: NEW POLICIES OF EXTERNAL
ACTORS
Soviet Union
 Changes of Soviet policy in the late 1980s
 Greatly impacted Eastern European countries to
democratise.
FACTOR 5: DEMONSTRATION EFFECT OR
SNOWBALLING
Many countries that faced similar problems or
saw democratisation might be a cure for their
problems were also trying to democratise
themselves.
 Demonstration effects demonstrated:
- The ability of leaders or groups from another
society to remove authoritarian regime with a
democratic system.
- It showed how it could be done.
- Taught the democratisers the dangers to be
avoided and the difficulties.

FACTOR 5: DEMONSTRATION EFFECT OR
SNOWBALLING
Why demonstration was really important on the
third wave?
 Tremendous expansion in global communications
and transportation
 Countries that were closer geographically, or
culturally similar had greater impact.
 The change over time in the relative importance
of the causes of the wave.
FROM CAUSES TO CAUSERS
Many factors contributed to the third wave of
democratisation.
 These factors only created favourable condition to
democratisation.
 The people were also needed in this change.

~THE FURTHER EXPANSION OF
DEMOCRATIZATION~
OUTLINE
 Does
democratizations continue and make
the whole world democratized?
 If
the third wave came to a halt, would it
be followed by a significant third reverse
wave?
1. Third Wave Causes: Continuing, Weakening, Changing?
2. The Possibility of the Third Reverse Wave
3. The Obstacles to and Opportunities for Democratization that
may exist in those countries that as of 1990 had not democratized.
1. THE CAUSE OF THE THIRD WAVE
~CONTINUING, WEAKENING OR CHANGING?~
①Change in doctrines and Activities of the Catholic Church


In 1960s and 1970s
By 1990
The spread of Christianity
in Korea and Africa
The Catholic impetus to
Democracy had largely
exhausted.
To what extent would the Catholic Church continue to be the
potent force for democratization that it had been in the 1970s?
Were the attitudes of the Vatican concerning birth control,
abortion, women priests, and other issues consistent with the
promotion of democracy in the broader society and polity?
②EXTERNAL FACTOR
1. European Community


Turkey wanted to reinforce modernizing and democratic
tendencies and isolate the forces supporting Islamic
fundamentalism.
Should EC expand its membership? If so, should priority go
to European Free Trade Association members, or to
Eastern Europeans, or Turkey?
2. Soviet Union

There seemed little more the Soviet Union could do or was
likely to do to promote democracy outside its borders.
3. THE UNITED STATES
Direct
exercise of
American
Power
Force
Obstacle
Bush - “our new mission
to be the promotion and
consolidation of
democracy.”
1.“The end of the Cold war and of the
ideological competition with the
Soviet Union could remove one
rationale for propping up
anticommunist dictators.”
2. The American impetus to
Democracy had largely exhausted.
As a
Winning
Model
It stood for freedom and it 3. US faced major problems: crime,
drugs, trade deficits, budget deficits,
conveyed an image of
low savings and investment,
strength and success.
decreasing productivity growth,
inferior public education, decaying
inner cities.
③SNOWBALLING EFFECT



The impact of snowballing on democratization was clearly
evident in 1990 in Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia,
Mongolia, Nepal, Albania, some Arab and African countries.
In the absence of favorable conditions in the affected
country, snowballing alone is a weak cause of
democratization.
The economic and social conditions favorable to the
existence of democracy did not exist throughout the world.
SHORT SUMMARY

By 1990 many of the original causes of the third
wave had been significantly weakened or
exhausted.
2. THIRD REVERSE WAVE?
~THE PROBLEM OF CONSOLIDATION~
①The causes of shifts from authoritarianism to
democracy in the first and second reverse wave.







The weakness of democratic values among key elite groups and
the general public
Economic crisis or collapse that intensified social conflict and
enhanced the popularity of remedies that could only be imposed
by authoritarian governments
Social and political polarization often produced by leftist
governments attempting to introduce or appearing to introduce
too may major socioeconomic reforms too quickly
The determination of conservative middle- and upper-class groups
to exclude populist and leftist movements and lower-class groups
from political power
The breakdown of law and order resulting from terrorism or
insurgency
Intervention or conquest by a nondemocratic foreign government
Snowballing in the from of the demonstration effects of the
collapse or overthrow of democratic systems in other countries
②MILITARY COUP OR EXECUTIVE COUP

Transitions from democracy to authoritarianism
were almost always produced by those in power
or close to power n the democratic system.
The first reverse wave
Military
The second reverse
wave
Eastern Europe, Greece,
Latin American
Portugal, Argentina, and Japan. countries, Indonesia,
Pakistan, Greece,
Nigeria, and Turkey.
Executive Uruguay (through a mixed
executive-military coup)
Korea, India and the
Philippines
③NEW FORMS OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE

Democratic systems were replaced by historically
new forms of authoritarian rule.
- fascism and bureaucratic-authoritarianism
1.Systemic failures of democratic regimes to operate effectively
could undermine their legitimacy.
- international economic collapse
2. Snowballing effect
3. A lack of precondition for democracy
4. Developments of nondemocratic regime
5. New forms of authoritarian rule
- Authoritarian nationalism, Religious fundamentalism, Oligarchic
authoritarianism, Populist dictatorships, Communal dictatorships,
Technocratic electronic dictatorship
3. FUTURE DEMOCRATIZATION
~OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES~
4 regions that did not have democratic regimes.

Homegrown Marxist-Leninist regimes

Sub-Saharan African countries

Islamic Countries

East Asian countries
①POLITICS
 The
absence of experience with democracy
 The
death or departure from office of long-term
dictatorship leaders
“Were the obstacles to liberalization in these countries the origins
and nature of the regime, the long duration of their leaders in power,
or their poverty and economic backwardness?”
 The Lack of Political Leadership
One serious impediment to democratization was the absence
or weakness of real commitment to democratic values among
political leaders in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
“These leaders won power through the electoral system and then
used their power to undermine that system.”
②CULTURE

The Restrictive Version
・・・Democracy has a relatively narrow base both in time and in
space. Democracy, in short, was appropriate only for
northwestern and perhaps central European countries and
their settler colony offshoots.
 Less Restrictive Version
・・・One or more cultures are peculiarly hostile to it.
ⅰ. Confucianism
ⅱ. Islam
CONFUCIANISM

Confucian societies lacked a tradition of rights
against the state; to extent that individual rights
did exist, they were created by the state.
Group over the individual, authority over liberty,
responsibility over rights.
China – “new authoritarianism”
 Taiwan

・rapid economic growth and social development
・fundamental change in Chinese political culture,
・the emergence of substantial entrepreneurial class
 Korea
In the late 1980s, urbanization, education, the development of a
substantial middle class, and the impressive spread of
Christianity all weakened Confucianism.
EAST ASIAN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Democracy without turnover –more dependent on
performance legitimacy
-Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia-

What happens if and when eight percent GNP growth rates
disappear; unemployment, inflation, and other forms of
economic distress escalate; social and economic conflicts
intensify?
-Western democracy ・・・ turn the incumbents out
-dominant-party democracy ・・・ revolutionary change in a political system based
on the assumption one party would always be in power and other parties always out


To what extent does the East Asian dominant-party combination of
Western procedures and Confucian values presuppose sustained
substantial economic growth?
Can this system last during prolonged economic downturn or
stagnation?
ISLAM

To the extent that governmental legitimacy and policy flow

Exceptions



from religious doctrine and religious expertise, Islamic
concepts of politics differ from and contradict the premises of
democratic politics.
Turkey – interrupted by occasional military intervention
Lebanon - oligarchy and Christianity
Whatever the compatibility of Islam and democracy in
theory, in practice they have not gone together.
Would the existing governments continue to open up their politics
and hold elections in which Islamic groups could compete freely
and equally?
Would the Islamic groups gain majority support in those elections?
SOME COUNTER-ARGUMENTS TO
CULTURAL OBSTACLES



Similar cultural arguments have not held up in
the past.
Great historic cultural traditions, such as Islam
and Confucianism, are highly complex bodies of
ideas, beliefs, doctrines, assumptions, writings,
and behavior patters.
Even if the culture of a country is at one point an
obstacle to democracy, cultures historically are
dynamic rather than passive.
③ECONOMICS

Transition zone at the upper-middle levels of economic
development
“Poverty is a principal and probably the principal obstacle to
democratic development. The future of democracy depends on the
future of economic development. Obstacles to economic
development are obstacles to the expansion of democracy.”

the Middle East and North Africa?
Economic vs. Culture
SHORT SUMMARY

In China, the obstacles to democratization in 1990 were
political, economic, and cultural; in Africa, they were
overwhelmingly economic; in the rapidly developing
countries of East Asia and in many Islamic countries, they
were primarily cultural.
CONCLUSION

“Economic development makes democracy possible;
political leadership makes it real.”
1. Economic development
2. Political Leadership

Democratic Consolidation
Cautions
1. the difficulty of economic development by late developing countries
2. New forms of authoritarianism

Modernization – industrialization and interrelated economy -(Ch. 2)
Human rights come along with modernization.

Universal Modernization (Jack Donnelly)