DEMOCRACY AND
DEMOCRATISATION
PRESENTATION
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
18 March 2010
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Summary of readings
Huntington
Schmitter & Karl
Sen
Taylor
2. Discussion of key themes
3. Case study
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON,
‘How Countries Democratize’ (1991)
• Focused on the ‘3rd wave’ of democratisation (1974-90)
• Concerned with the how not why question: ways in which
political leaders and publics in the 1970s/80s ended
authoritarian systems and created democratic ones
• DEFINITION of ‘democracy’:
Principal officers of government chosen through competitive elections in
which the bulk of the population can participate
• Democratic systems defined by a ‘common institutional core’
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON,
‘How Countries Democratize’ (1991)
• Establishes a typology of:
(i) authoritarian regimes
One-party systems / military regimes / personal dictatorships
(ii) democratisation processes (agent-centred)
(1) Transformation – elite led
(2) Transplacement – joint action between regime elites and opposition groups
(3) Replacement – opposition groups led
(4) Intervention – foreign role
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON,
‘How Countries Democratize’ (1991)
• Reduces democratisation processes to ‘three crucial
interactions’:
(i) between government and opposition
(ii) between reformers and standpatters in government
(iii) between moderates and extremists in opposition
• Contends relative importance and conflictual/cooperative
character of interactions varied with overall nature of
transition process
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON,
‘How Countries Democratize’ (1991)
‘Guidelines for Democratizers’
• On the basis of comparative (anecdotal) case evidence,
outlines common ‘phases’ in the life cycle of each category of
transition process
• Draws broad-based instrumental ‘lessons’ from these
generalised patterns, ostensibly implementable as proven
strategies across generic regime types
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON,
‘How Countries Democratize’ (1991)
• Key criticisms:
– Focus on how over why underpinned by an implicit normative judgement in
favour of democratic regimes as taken-as-given, though varying in ‘quality’,
developmental end-points (link to democratisation agenda)
– Definition of ‘democracy’ imprecise and ‘electoral’ in focus; that is,
institutional rather than systemic, value-based and participatory
‘Genius’ of the Brazilian transformation being that it was ‘virtually impossible’ to say at what point
stopped being a dictatorship and became a democracy
– Comparative case analysis agent-centric and elite-focused, downplaying
structural and social influences on transition processes in favour of focus on
‘strategic interactions’ and disregarding any sense of historic particularity
Implications for the notion of ‘importing’ democracy through top-down approach
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SCHMITTER & KARL,
‘What Democracy is… and is not’ (1991)
• Democracy as a catchword: what is democracy?
• Joseph Schumpeter:
Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers
are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens and
acting indirectly through the competition of their elected representatives
•
Regime or system of governance, rulers, the public realm,
citizens, competition, elections, cooperation
• Electoralism and the role of civil society as “diverse units of
social identity”?
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SCHMITTER & KARL,
‘What Democracy is… and is not’ (1991)
• Democracy as a procedure and procedures that make
democracy possible
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
control over government decisions about polity is
constitutionally vested in elected officials
elected officials are chosen in frequent and fairly conducted
elections in which coercion is comparatively uncommon
practically all adults have the right to vote in the election of
officials
practically all adults have the right to run for elective offices
in the government
citizens have a right to express themselves without the
danger of severe punishment on political matters broadly
defined
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SCHMITTER & KARL,
‘What Democracy is… and is not’ (1991)
vi.
Citizens have a right to seek out alternative sources of information.
Moreover, alternative sources of information exist and are protected by
law
vii. Citizens also have the right to form relatively independent associations
or organizations, including independent political parties and interest
groups
viii. Popularly elected officials must be able to exercise their constitutional
powers without being subjected to overriding opposition from unelected
officials (reference to the military control on politics, ie Central America)
ix.
The polity must be self governing, it must be able to act independently
of constraints imposed by some other overarching political system (neocolonial arrangements and ideological influence)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SCHMITTER & KARL,
‘What Democracy is… and is not’ (1991)
• Principles that make democracy feasible : the consent of
the people and the normative structures (ie constructional
guaranties of private property)
• How democracies differ
• What democracies are not:
– Democracies are not necessarily economically more efficient
– they are not necessarily administratively more efficient
– they are likely to appear more orderly, consensual, stable or
governable than the autocracies they are replacing
– will have more open societies and polities than the autocracies
they replace, but not necessarily more open economies
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
SCHMITTER & KARL,
‘What Democracy is… and is not’ (1991)
• Key criticisms
• Their analysis is on the descriptive level and they don’t
elaborate much on the explanatory level
• It is (a little) ahistorical
• It does not give much importance to the structural/systemic
influence on the way we perceive the meanings.
AMARTYA SEN,
‘Democracy as a Universal Value’ (1999)
• Concerned with examining the case for democracy as a
‘universal value’ (people anywhere may see it as valuable)
• Views ‘democracy’ as the ‘normal’ form of government to
which any nation is entitled (claim to universality)
– linked to changing notions/discourse: ‘fit for democracy’ versus ‘fit
through democracy’
– shift accommodating varying histories and cultures, disparate levels of
affluence
• Article a rebuttal of ‘developmentalist’ discourses challenging
the universality of democracy on economic and cultural
grounds
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
AMARTYA SEN,
‘Democracy as a Universal Value’ (1999)
• DEFINITION of ‘democracy’:
– not just majority rule, voting, elections
– requires the protection of liberties/freedoms (especially speech/press), rule of law
• Democracy as a ‘demanding system’, not just a ‘mechanical
condition’ taken in isolation (contrast Huntington)
• Distinguishes three ‘enriching’ functions:
(i) political/social participation as intrinsically valuable to human life, well-being
(ii) instrumentally valuable in providing political incentives for government
accountability
(iii) constructive value in helping society form values/priorities (‘needs’, rights, duties)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
AMARTYA SEN,
‘Democracy as a Universal Value’ (1999)
• Asserts ‘developmentalist’ critique of democracy on economic
grounds based on ‘sporadic empiricism’
– Plausibility of no clear relation between economic growth/democracy in either
direction (also, correlations versus causal processes in research)
• Argues consideration of economic development must go
beyond economic growth (need for economic/social security)
– Looks at connection between civil/political rights and prevention of major
economic disasters (famine); link to instrumental creation of incentives
(‘protective power of democracy’)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
AMARTYA SEN,
‘Democracy as a Universal Value’ (1999)
• Asserts ‘culturalist’ critique of democracy on values grounds
(loyalty to family, obedience to state) unsustainable upon
historical scrutiny
– Political claim rather than scholarly claim (‘Asian Values’ debate)
– Case for democracy not regionally contingent, influenced by imagined
cultural taboos or assumed civilisational predispositions
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
AMARTYA SEN,
‘Democracy as a Universal Value’ (1999)
• Can view Sen’s article (and the more comprehensive
exploration of these ideas in his 1999 book Development As
Freedom) as an attempt to re-align debates over
democratisation, human rights and economic development
• Regards freedom (and hence democracy) as both constitutive
of, and instrumental to, development (viewed as capabilities)
• Crucially, however, Sen’s democracy is a system of both rules
and processes and practices
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
CHARLES TAYLOR,
‘The Dynamics of Democratic Exclusion’ (1998)
• Democratic inclusion versus democratic exclusion
• Democracy as deliberation and a need for strong collective
identity
• Juxtaposing Schmitter and Karl’s notion of civil society as
“diverse units of social identity” which is contributing to the
democratization process with Taylor’s approach to diversity
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
CHARLES TAYLOR,
‘The Dynamics of Democratic Exclusion’ (1998)
• Varieties of exclusion
• ‘Inner exclusion’: the creation of a common identity based
upon a rigid formula of politics and citizenship, one that
refuses to accommodate any alternatives and imperiously
demands the subordination of other aspects of citizens’
identities
• Are democracies really exclusive? Who they are excluding ?
CHARLES TAYLOR,
‘The Dynamics of Democratic Exclusion’ (1998)
• Two models proposed against democratic exclusion
– Kantian procedural model: uniting on the procedures
– Herder/Humboldt’s model: uniting on the differences
– Suggestions for contemporary challenges of integration
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
KEY THEMES
• Difficulty in applying a common definition of democracy
– Institutional mechanisms (Huntington) versus system of governance
(Schmitter & Karl), bundle of rights/protections (Sen)
• Normative judgements underlying discussions of democratisation
– Consider context at time Huntington, Schmitter & Karl writing
– Instrumentalisation of research: scholarly articles as policy ‘roadmaps’
– ‘Developmentalist’ discourses: economic development/cultural difference
replacing ideological conflict
• Questions of agency and exclusion (democracy for whom?)
– Elites versus popular movements in democratic transitions
– Deeper link between democracy, citizenship and identity
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Revisiting Authors and Analysis
• Contextualizing the concept
• Huntington's democratization manual fails to grasp specific
conditions of most countries, thus ultimately it is
inappropriate for any practical implications
• Schmitter&Karl’s analysis of what democracy is and is not lays
out the pros and cons of democratization and prescribes
democratization as best option.
• Sen’s investigation of universality of democracy brings out a
legitimate point (is democracy a really universal value) and
questions our presentism.
• Taylor’s concern over exclusive nature of democracies is a
novel approach to look at democratization.
Case Study: Zimbabwe
• Situation in brief:
– Ongoing crisis dates to 1965 when Ian Smith, leader of Southern Rhodesia,
issued Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain, imposing whiteminority rule (prompting sanctions and guerrilla war)
– 1979 peace deal (including ZANU and ZAPU parties) set out steps towards
legal independence, including Constitution guaranteeing majority rule
– Following 1980 elections, Robert Mugabe (ZANU) became Zimbabwe’s first
Prime Minister (huge popular mandate)
– In 1987, ZAPU coerced into a merger with ZANU creating ZANU-PF, paving way
for constitutional change giving Mugabe executive presidential powers and
turning country into de facto one-party state (attempts to create de jure oneparty state failed in 1990, but Mugabe re-elected in 1996)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Case Study: Zimbabwe
– Mugabe lost February 2000 constitutional referendum – first time people voted
against regime in clear protest; responded with repression and violence
– Mugabe defeated newly-formed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
opposition in June 2000 parliamentary elections; flawed elections held March 2002
(presidential) and 2005 (parliamentary), featuring use of state machinery, war
veterans and youth militias to intimidate, suppress dissent, gag media
– In March 2008 combined presidential and parliamentary elections (pre-poll
manipulation), ZANU-PF lost control of parliament to MDC for first time
– Outcome of presidential poll heavily disputed, with MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai
claiming outright victory; electoral commission withheld results for over a month,
while ZANU-PF launched countrywide campaign of violence and intimidation
– Presidential run off of June 2008 won by Mugabe after Tsvangirai, having been
arrested 5 times during the month, withdrew due to election conditions
– Power sharing deal signed in September 2008, with Mugabe retaining position of
President and Tsvangirai becoming Prime Minister (both to lead cabinet bodies)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Case Study: Zimbabwe
• Case demonstrates:
– the variability of democratisation processes (backsliding, elite-driven)
– the need for conceptual clarity over what constitutes a democracy
(apply, for example, Huntington versus Sen’s interpretations)
– the implication of foreign judgements concerning the ‘quality’ of
developing world democracies (tied development assistance, donor
pariah status)
– pursuit of democracy, or developmental outcomes (challenge to Sen)?
– quasi-democracy (stalemate)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Questions
1) Thomas E. Skidmore’s explains the liberalization of Brazil as
the product of an intense dialectical relationship between
the government and the opposition. (Huntington, 601)
Looking at the various examples of countries which swing
back and forth from democracy and authoritarianism, is it
possible to deduct that such a relationship should be seen a
natural part of democratization efforts or is it an anomaly? If
it is an anomaly does it undermine the value of the
outcome?
2) Should democracy be a universal value, especially for the
regions which need stabilization? (you can focus on
empirical examples)
Questions
3)
Considering the policy implications of democratization theories
(ie. In the form of democracy promotion) how do you
contextualize Huntington’s views?
4) Can you compare Schmitter& Karl views and Taylor’s view
regarding the effect of various “diverse units of social identity”?
Which argument is more plausible to you?
5) In Taylor’s view democracy is a form of deliberation which is
created by the active participation of people. To what extent such
an active participation is significant in achieving a democratic
model? Can you correlate any experiences from your own
countries?