The Story of Democratization: Institutional Endowment v. Modernization Theory INTRODUCTION The growing prevalence of democracy throughout the past century has been one of the most studied and analyzed political phenomena ever. Throughout this study of democratic transition, many theorists have attempted to isolate the most important factor in dictating a country’s success or failure at transitioning to democracy. I will argue that the cases of both China and India clearly demonstrate that institutional endowment is not only the most consequential factor in a democratic transition, but that institutional endowment is significantly more consequential than economic development in influencing whether a country will transition to a democracy. I will first use that case of India to argue that institutional endowment can lead to democracy with little to no economic development. I will then use the case of China to argue that strong economic development will not lead to democracy without an endowment of democratic institutions. INDIA The sustained existence of India as a democracy is an excellent representation of the disconnect between economic development and democracy. In fact, “Except for 18 months in 1975-1977”, India has maintained and thrived under strong “democratic institutions even since it became independent of Britain in 1947.”1 This impressive feat is a direct consequence of India’s endowment of democratic institutions prior to 1947. Although India has only qualified as a democracy since 1947, the British introduction of local experiments in the 1880s gave India “years of invaluable seasoning under its belt” and “an advantage unknown to many other decolonized nations” in the ways of democracy.2 With years of practice in democratic institutions, Indian leaders for independence arose with the vision of self-rule and a fervent 1 2 Varshney, Ashutosh. “Why Democracy Survives.” Journal of Democracy 9, no. 3 (1998): 1. Varshney. “Why Democracy Survives.” 3. passion for self-determination. Therefore, the democratic institutions implemented by the British in the colonial period did not allow the India citizens to receive a democratic institution on a platter, but the institutions inspired Indian leaders to fight for democracy. In addition, the emergence of democratic institutions as the root cause of the movement for independence ensured that the Indian leaders would establish a democracy when independence was achieved, even with extremely poor economic circumstances. Throughout the entire transition to democracy in India the economic development remained nonexistent. During the transition to democracy, the citizens of India experience widespread poverty, relied on an agricultural economy, and only 8% of Indian’s were literate.3 According to modernization theorists that would identify economic development as the most important factor in determining a countries success at transitioning to democracy, these measures of development would constitute “inhospitable conditions for the functioning of democracy.”4 Even still India transitioned to a democracy that met all necessary “criteria commonly accepted as constituting the core of democraticness.”5 Although economic development still may be an important factor in a democratic transition, it cannot be the single most important factor when India has successfully maintained its democracy for years without any significant economic development. The lack of economic development in India through the entire transition to and maintenance of democracy isolates institutional endowment as the most important factor at shaping India’s success at transitioning to democracy. Given that the democratic transition of India is such an important and studied case in democratic theory, there are two main counter arguments that conflict with the argument that has 3 Bellin, Lecture 7, Feb. 9. Varshney. “Why Democracy Survives.” 1. 5 Richard Sisson, ‘Culture and Democratization in India’, in Larry Diamond (ed.), Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), pp. 37–51. 4 been presented. The first counterargument attacks the claim that India has not had significant economic development by claiming that the Green Revolution, a period that saw a significant increase in productivity of the Indian agriculture industry in the late 1960s, constituted significant economic development and is the cause of continued India democracy. However, “India had been a democracy for two decades the time the Green Revolution arrived.”6 Furthermore, the Green Revolution arose partly because Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's prime minister in the 1950s, recognized that industrialization and democracy were contrasting forces in India. As Ashutosh Varshney argues, “Nehru chose democracy over development” by slowing down the process of industrialization by abandoning state-led industrialization programs.7 Clearly the Green Revolution is not the cause of India’s democratization. The second counter argument attacks the claim the India’s institutional endowment was the cause of democracy by claiming that the British institutions that practiced Indians in democratic techniques had no impact on the transition to democracy. However, Myron Weiner clearly noted in 1985 that “an impressive number of erstwhile British colonies including India, “have maintained British style democratic institutions” while also noting that “not a single former Dutch, Belgian, or French colony currently has democratic institutions.”8 The isolation of the link between British colonialism and countries that have successfully transitioned to democracy furthers the argument that institutional endowment is the single most important factor in democratization even more. In addition, the fact that there is a clear link between democratic institutions in India, and a transition to democracy that took place in terrible economic conditions Varshney. “Why Democracy Survives.” 6. Varshney. “Why Democracy Survives.” 6. 8 Weiner qtd. in Varshney. “Why Democracy Survives.” 2. 6 7 where modernization was a contrasting force to democracy, clearly displays that institutional endowment is the most important factor in democratization. CHINA Over the past two decades, China has emerged as one the largest and most powerful economies in the world. In fact, China’s GDP reached an impressive $10,370.4 in 2020 (in 2015 dollars).9 According to modernization theorists, this GDP per capita significantly exceed the threshold in which countries normally go democratic. However, China remains an authoritarian country under the controlling Chinese Communist party. In fact, political reform in China has “not only not progressed, it has in fact backslid.”10 With the contrast between the economic development and lack of democratization, it not only shows that economic development is not the most important factor in democratization, but that the key factor for democratization is missing in China. One key element of democracy that is missing in China right now is institutional endowment. Since 1989 the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ruled China with an iron fist and continued the communist traditions of previous leaders like Mao Zedong. In fact, the CCP has further shifted governmental institutions away from democracy with “greatly improved procedures governing political succession, defined functional responsibilities, and promoted elites on the basis of merit.”11 The strengthening of antidemocratic institutions has quashed any significant pushes for democracy, and made any transition in the coming years seem very unlikely. Even throughout one of the most rapid periods of economic development of all time, China’s authoritarian government has not waivered at all. The case of China not only shows that 9 “World Development Indicators.” DataBank. Accessed February 28, 2022.https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators. 10 Liu, Yu, and Dingding Chen. “Why China Will Democratize.” The Washington Quarterly 49. 11 Pei, Minxin. “Is CCP Rule Fragile or Resilient?” Journal of Democracy 23, no. 1 (2012): 31. the link between economic development and democratization is weak, but more importantly it shows that democratic institutions are specifically important to inciting pushes for democracy, like the one seen in India, that are so important for democratization. As with the case of India, there are many different takes on a possible Chinese transition to democracy. The one main counterargument that attacks the claims already made questions the resilience of the CCP. Minxin Pei mentions that theorist have argued the strengthening of authoritarian institutions in China has not made the country more authoritarian but has only served to offset the democratic pushes cause by economic development. However, Minxin Pei also lays out a clear plan in which the CCP can maintain its authoritarian rule and quash any chance of democracy. In fact, the authoritarian policies implanted since 1989 have served to maintain the authoritarian rule of the CCP and quash any pushes for democracy.12 Therefore, the idea that the toppling of the authoritarian regime in China is inevitable completely contradicts precedent set by the CCP. CONCLUSION The evidence and arguments provided so far clearly display the importance of institutional endowment in democratization, and the lack of importance of economic development. The case of India shows that economic development is not necessary to sustain democracy, and that modernization can even serve as a contrasting force to democracy. The case of China uses a different case to further the same argument by showing that rapid economic development will not necessarily lead to a transition to democracy. Therefore, the institutional endowment of a country is the single most important factor in determining a countries success or 12 Pei. “Is CCP Rule Fragile or Resilient?” 32. failure in transitioning to democracy. In addition, the endowment of democratic institutions of a country is significantly more important than the economic development in the country in influencing a transition to democracy. Works Cited Bellin, Lecture 7, Feb. 9. Liu, Yu, and Dingding Chen. “Why China Will Democratize.” The Washington Quarterly 49. Pei, Minxin. “Is CCP Rule Fragile or Resilient?” Journal of Democracy 23, no. 1 (2012): 31-32. Varshney, Ashutosh. “Why Democracy Survives.” Journal of Democracy 9, no. 3 (1998): 1. “World Development Indicators.” DataBank. Accessed February 28, 2022.https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators.
