Terminology on
Democratization
1) Liberal Democracy:
We can define liberal democracy by referring to its two components (the democratic
institutions and the liberal civic and political rights):
a. The institutional component: 1) Fair and institutionalized elections, 2) selfinitiated and controlled interest groups, 3) autonomous and strong multi-party system,
3) autonomous and self-regulated means of mass communication, 4) mutual balances
and checks among the three major branches of government (and check over
bureaucracy), 5) Peaceful and periodic alternation of power, and 6) Constitutional and
legal system that guarantees equality and rule of law.
b. The liberal rights and freedoms entail: the freedoms of thought, speech, press,
access to information, association, petition, expression, participation, run for offices
and other personal freedoms such as the right of abortion, homosexual practices, (non)religious beliefs…etc.
The two types of components are germane to each other in liberal societies to
guarantee that democracy is not one-shot event.
Note: You are not asked to think of why Islamic political theory accepts all the
democratic institutions and has some reservations on the liberal rights and freedoms
mentioned above. This would require a separate class on politics and religion and how
different religions respond to worldly philosophies such as liberalism, Marxism,
existentialism, logical positivism and so forth.
2) Democratization:
It is a political process that moves the political system into democracy. It is a complex
historical process, consisting of several analytically distinct but empirically
overlapping stages. Empirically, it involves the (1) destruction of the nondemocratic regime, the (2) inauguration (institutional engineering) of and of the
democratic institutions and then the (3) (cultural and social) consolidation of the
democratic regime. Thus it is a process by which "democracy becomes so broadly
and profoundly legitimate among citizens that is very unlikely to break down"
(Diamond, 1995).
Consolidation of democracy as used by Diamond differs from "deepening of
democracy" as used by Robert Dahl in his book Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy.
The former is a process that takes place in countries that is transmitting toward
democracy. Yet the latter is a concept that is used to refer to the expansion of the level
and scope of democracy in the countries that already have political democracy. Dahl
considers that there are some institutions, departments, corporations, firms, farms even
families that are more democratic than others in the same society.
The United State, for instance, is witnessing a process of de-deepening of democracy
due to the apathy that is eroding the US social capital as Robert Putnam characterizes
it in his famous article: Bowling alone.
3) Majoritarian and Consensual types of Democracies:
Scholars differentiate between types of democracies according to the shape of the state
(republic or monarchy), the pattern of the relationship between the legislative and
executive powers (presidential, parliamentary or combination), and the concentration
of authorities (federal and unitary systems). A fourth way to look at democracies is to
think of the ratio of political powers (parties) that take place in the process of
government. This is one of the contributions of Lijphart who develops five factors
(minimal winning cabinets, executive dominance, effective number of parties, number
of issue dimensions, and electoral disproportionality) to differentiate between the most
consensual and most majoritarian democracies. Anderson and Guillory draw an
empirical study to examine the attitudes of citizens in the minority and the majority
sides toward the institutional structures of their political systems.
The overarching principle that distinguishes majoritarian and consensual forms of
democracy is the answer to this question: "Who rules?" The answer given by
Majoritarian systems is the "majority of the people" whereas in Consensual systems it
is "as many as people as possible." At the extremes, majoritarian government is about
unfettered rule by the majority on the basis of an unwritten constitution without
provisions for minority veto (Britain is a classic example of this type), whereas a pure
form of consensus democracy is organized on the basis of a rigid, written constitution
with formal veto powers for minorities. The Netherlands and Belgium typically are
mentioned as prototypes of consensual model as they give the minority parties the
right to participate in multi-party coalition government, balanced bicameralism,
federalism and decentralization, electoral rules based on proportional representation,
and written constitutions that include minority veto power and opportunities for
referendums.
Upon the cross-sectional survey data for eleven European democracies, Anderson ad
Gullory concludes that: the losers of democratic elections show lower levels of
satisfaction than do those in the majority. Moreover, losers in systems that are more
consensual display higher levels of satisfaction with the way democracy works than do
losers in systems with majoritarian characteristics. Conversely, winners tend to be
more satisfied with democracy the more a country's political institutions approximate
pure Majoritarian government. The following figure would illustrate these findings:
4) Wave of democratization:
In his book The Third Wave of Democratization, Huntington identifies a wave of
democratization as a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes
that occur within a specified period of time that significantly outnumber transitions in
the opposite direction.
5) Partial Liberalization:
It means the partial opening of an authoritarian system short of choosing governmental
leaders through freely competitive elections.
Summary of Huntington's Waves of Democratization
First wave of
democratization
Second Wave of
Democratization
(1942-1962)
Third Wave of
Democratization
During this long period:
USA, Britain, France, Italy
and Argentina became
democracies.
During this short period:
West Germany, Italy,
Japan, India, and Israel
moved to democracy.
Portugal, Spain, and most
Asian, African East
European and Latin
American countries.
First Reverse Wave (19221942): Italy, Germany and
Argentina backed down to
totalitarianism (the first
two) and authoritarianism.
Second Reverse Wave
(1958-1975): Brazil,
Argentina and Chile.
1- Huge number of
democratizing countries.
(1828-1926)
(1974- date)
2- Mostly preconditions of
democracy do not exist.
3- The future is uncertain.
The Boom of Democratization: (the Political Face of
Globalization).
1975
1995
Authoritarian
Partial
Democracy
Liberal
Democracy
Authoritarian
Partial
Democracy
Liberal
Democracy
West Europe,
North America,
Australia
2
0
22
0
0
24
Latin America
15
2
5
2
5
15
Asia
18
4
3
11
5
9
Sub-Saharan
Africa
43
2
3
12
16
20
Middle East and
Persian Gulf
14
3
2
13
3
2
East Europe and
ex. USSR
9
0
0
5
14
8
68.7%
7.5%
23.8%
% 1975 N= 147
26.2%
% 1995 N= 164
26.2%
47.6%
Source: Potter el al (editors), Democratization, 1997: 9.
6- Definition of Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism:
The English language is congested with terms that are usually used to describe very
similar phenomena. Terms such as tyranny, despotism, absolutism, dictatorship,
monocracy, autocracy, oligarchy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are
exchangeablly used to describe non-democracies.
One of the most important attempts to conceptualize these terms was made by Carl
Friedrich and Zbingiew Brzezinski's in their book Totalitarian Dictatorship and
Autocracy. They identified six characteristics of totalitarianism:
(a) an official ideology directed to perfectionist end which is required for mobilization
of masses.
(b) a single mass party led by an individual, sor enmeshed in the state apparatus,
(c) a technically assisted monopoly of control of weapons,
(d) monopoly of the means of mass communication which is used for mass
mobilization,
(e) the sysapplication of terror as a means of police control,
(f) and the central direction of the economy.
With some modifications and additions, I am using five of these characteristics (after
omitting the monopoly of control of weapons) to differentiate comparatively between
authoritarian, totalitarian and democracy political systems as it is presented in the
following table:
Major Differences among the three major political systems
1) Ideology
Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism
Democracy
An official
encompassing
ideology.
Not necessarily
No one official
ideology
(pluralism)
2) Party System
One mass party
No parties or one
party that is not
mass party
At least two
competing parties
(no frozen majority)
3) Interest Groups
Corporatist
Corporatist
Neo-corporatism
and pluralistic
4) Mass
communication
means:
Total monopoly for
mass mobilization
purpose
Total monopoly for
apathy purposes
No monopoly
5) Systematic
application of terror
* Very Possible
against "traitors"
Very possible.
Less possible
The do not rely
totally on terror for
obedience but
through
manipulation of
beliefs (the myth of
mobilization)
6) The central
direction of the
economy
Very possible.
Hitler had a guided
market system.
Very possible
Less possible.
7) Foreign enemy
Important tool for
integration and
energization of
masses
Not necessarily
Not necessarily
8) Mass
participation
Required: German
and Soviet cases:
there were elections
and representative
institutions. To give
the citizenry the
sense of
participation.
No
Not determined