Week 12: The International Development Agenda II: Democratisation and
Development Dae-oup Chang
Exam Questions/Key Questions:
Questions:




Is the current neoliberal development framework compatible with the idea of
liberal democracy?
Can real democracy be given or does it have to be seized?
Does development lead to democracy or is it the other way around?
Has the Good Governance Agenda promoted or undermined postcolonial
democracy?
Essay question: Does capitalist development promote or undermine democracy?
2010:
(a) ‘Strengthening democratic institutions is a necessary, but insufficient, condition
for the deepening of democracy’. Discuss.
OR
(b) ‘The chief problem with mainstream discussions on democratization is that they
do not take into account the roles and effects of social movements.’ Discuss.
2008:
How can democracy be strengthened in developing countries?
2007:
Critically assess the claims that democratisation is a necessary and desirable
component of development.
2006:
(a) To what extent can democracy be strengthened through the creation of ‘new
democratic spaces’ at local level?
OR
(b) Why has the ‘global’ emerged as an arena of social movement politics, and does
this signal the declining importance of ‘national’ and ‘local’ politics?
2005:
What is the relationship between democracy and economic development, if any?
2004:
Discuss the relationship between democracy and human rights (political, civil, social
and economic) in the development process.
Lecture Blurb:
At the ‘end of history’, we seemed to have two ultimate forms of development:
(neoliberal) capitalism and (liberal) democracy. However, earlier enthusiasm for the
so-called ‘third wave’ of democratisation gave way to more sober, if not pessimistic,
views on the future of democracies in the developing world as new ‘neoliberal’
capitalism did not lead to much more democratic development.
Discussions about the ‘quality of democracy’ and ‘democratic consolidation’ reflect
mainstream attempts to try to find obstacles to liberal democracy in the developing
world rather than to identify the contradictions between democracy and capitalist
development. On the other hand, with the emergence of ‘good governance’, the issues
of democratisation and human rights became incorporated into the mainstream
development agenda.
Democratisation and the upholding of human rights are today seen as important
conditions for economic and human development, and as goals in themselves not only
for mainstream development discourse but also for global justice movements pursuing
‘cosmopolitan democracy’ and ‘global civil society’.
The meaning of democratisation and human rights is, however, heavily contested and
contextualized. This session addresses this democracy-development relation that is
one of the most contested areas in development studies. There are many questions
regarding this relation. Does democratisation presuppose economic development?
Does democracy hinder economic development? Does more democratic and
participatory development mean smaller states and bigger societies? The lecture will
outline the main positions and their trajectories, locating them in the context of
development processes.
Definitions:
Democracy Definitions: Electoral/Polyarchal/Liberal
Schumpeterian minimalist concept: defines democracy as the “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
(1947;269). Ie electoral democracy.
Dahl’s Polyarchal Democracy: Dahl identifies the political institutions of modern
representative democratic government as involving:





Elected officials
Free, fair and frequent elections
Freedom of expression
Access to alternative sources of information to those disseminated by the state
and associational autonomy (ie freedom of assembly – the media etc.)
Associational autonomy for example, The right to run for office, form
independent political parties/interest groups
 Inclusive citizenship for example, Inclusive suffrage
Dahl terms this modern type of large-scale democratic governance, with the six
democratic institutions listed above, as polyarchal democracy, meaning: “rule by the
many”.
He distinguishes this polyarchal democracy from representative democracy – for
example that involving restricted suffrage in the 19th Century and older democracies
and republics which lacked many of the other characteristics of polyarchal democracy
(e.g. political parties and the right to form political organisations, oppose the existing
government etc).
Liberal democracy: linked to Dahl’s description of polyarchal democracy and the six
features of democratic institutions. Diamond (1996) emphasises:



Absence of “reserved domains” of power for the military or other social
and political forces who are not directly accountable to the electorate
“Horizontal Accountability” of office holders to one another, in addition to
“Vertical Accountability” of the rulers to the ruled.
Extensive provisions for political and civic pluralism as well as for
individual and group freedoms.
Key themes from the lecture:
What is democracy?
Depends on what democracy means (see the above definitions) – difficult to define as
everyone uses it for his or her own means. Highly politicised and conceptualised.
Defined as good against something bad.
Changing definition of democracy:




Ancient concept (Athens 5th – 4th century BC); rule by the demos, the
‘people’. Obligation to participate, no ‘politicians’ – point to avoid
technocrats.
Negative meaning of democracy in the early modern period – rule by the mob.
1830s/40s democracy became the slogan of the modern social movement –
radical roots (Labour movement/Women’s movement/abolitionist movement
(Denning 2001).
1848 revolutions (France, North America) and the Chartist movement – reemergence of democracy.
Moments of democratisation:


Workers not strong enough to make it its own, but only alliance with radical
bourgeoisie and middle class.
Inclusionary element of democracy only relatively recent: Women’s
movement late 19th/early 20th century, USA African American Civil Rights
Movement 60s/70s.

Using democracy as an incentive for action – e.g. War.
Democracy vs. Development – Democracy born out of a radical concept,
development born as a violent and antidemocratic concept (see weeks 1 and 3,
invention and imposition of development).
“Economic development is antidemocratic in several ways” – Lummis (1996; 45)
cf Leftwich 2005 – institutional incompatibility between the two. The institutions
necessary for rapid economic development are very different to those required for the
promotion of democracy.
Questions:
-
Does democracy promote development?
Does development promote democracy?
Which comes first? Contrary to modernisation theorists of the 1960s who
regarded democracy as a product of development rather than a pre-requisite,
neoliberals view democracy as a “necessary prior or parallel condition of
development, not an outcome of it” (Leftwich, 1993, p. 605).
No single answer – it all depends, combination of which democracy with which
development.
Return of democracy to the discourse:








Since the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War (‘the end of
history’) two ultimate forms of development have prevailed: (neoliberal)
capitalist development and (liberal) democracy.
According to Fukuyama, as they are the best institutions human society can
possible enjoy, we have reached “the end point of mankind’s ideological
evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final
form of human governance” (Fukuyama (1989).
As a result, ideas surrounding liberal democracy and free-market
capitalism are “inextricably linked” (Leftwich 2005).
Huntington describes the rise of democratisation since this period as a “third
wave of democratisation” in which “between 1974 and 1990, at least 30
countries made transitions to democracy, just about doubling the number of
democratic governments in the world” (Huntington, 1993; 3).
Schumpeterian minimalist concept in which democracies are states where
ruling elites compete for votes in the market place of the election.
Demonstrates an expansion of the market into the political area.
Electoral democracy therefore emerges in this picture as a fundamental step
in the evolutionary process towards more ideal liberal democracy.
However: a wave is defined as “a group of transitions from nondemocratic to
democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that
significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that
period” (ibid.).
It must be noted therefore, that the process of democratisation is not a final
one, and that reverse waves can occur at any point, as Diamond highlights, the
process of consolidation of democracy is therefore an important one see
below (Diamond 1996).
Consolidation Debate:
How do democracies become ‘proper’ liberal democracies? Many democracies did
not become ‘liberal’ or real democracies – many returned to authoritarian regimes or
remained as illiberal democracies. Ending point should guarantee a better standard of
living after democracy but not happening as expected – inequality undermining social
stability.
The proto-science of Consolidology: Linked to Dhalian concept of polyarchy (Dahl
1989), which elaborated on the Schumpeterian minimalist definition; Consolidology
investigates problems hindering the transition of electoral democracy to liberal
democracy.
There are many ways in which the degree of consolidation can be evaluated, for
example:





Moving beyond formal electoral democracy
Removing the reserved domains of power for the military, or other
social/political forces that are not either directly or indirectly accountable to
the state.
Ensuring horizontal accountability of office holders to one another and
extensive provisions for political and civil pluralism.
Idea that if you don’t have an established modern state, cannot have
consolidated democratisation. For Rose and Shin (2001), the growing gap
between electoral democracy and liberal democracy is largely due to the
absence of a modern state, which is presupposed in both Schumpeterian and
Dhalian concepts of democracy – a comparison between first and third wave
democratisation is undertaken. (See further reading).
State building is therefore a necessary element of consolidation – linked to
bringing back the state PWC.
WC (plus) Neoliberals – democracy not a prerequisite for development but a
product of market-based development/synonym of market based development whose
purpose is to fix politics. E.g. IFIs.
However, criticisms of the neoliberal model leading to increased inequality have led
to the rise of the GG agenda (see week 6). Equity promotes growth and even
efficiency through better use of human resources and social and political
sustainability.
Equity Debate:

The combination of electoral democracy and free market economics led to
widening gap between classes and countries, undermining social stability and
therefore hampering development. Transition from the WC to the PWC; focus
on accountability, transparency and anticorruption.



Failings of the markets to work equitably down to bad governance rather than
market-based development (WDR 1997). Got to get institutions right before
prices correct themselves - NIE.
Electoral democracy the key once again – it can tackle the corruption that
distorts the market by holding governments accountable. The market then
brings development and development completes (liberal) democracy.
Represents the reintroduction of democracy into the mainstream development
discourse. The key is not a big state, but a clean, effective and efficient one.
Role to address market failures (providing public goods like education and
health) but promote equity and provide social nets.
PWC: Democracy is a prerequisite for growth – democratic institutions lead to the
rule of law and thus to physical security, because they bring stability and
predictability, they are conducive to investment. E.g. UN agencies.
Democracy is also a pre-requisite for poverty alleviation:
- More responsive to citizens’ needs
- More accountable to citizens, civil society, private sector
- Increasing the ‘voices of the poor’
Key question:
What kind of democracy is promoted by the WC ‘plus’?




Socioeconomic decision-making must be insulated from political power (that
is democratically formed) – to protect individual freedom – neoliberal
democracy is very unlikely to democratise ‘development’.
Hard to challenge core ideas.
No question about the sort of ‘economic development’ – discussion stops at
the emergence of free-market capitalism over communism.
Democracy only there to fix the bad government – market good and therefore
should be left to its own devices – neoliberal democracy limited.
What kind of democracy is promoted by the consolidation debate and PWC?



Both expand democracy beyond electoral democracy (by emphasising
‘liberal’ democracy and equity – soci0-economic democratisation). But at the
same time, they contain democracy within the neoliberal framework and
existing forms of polyarchy – making western polyarchy the model and
single mode of democratic participation.
Irony of the third wave (Denning 2001) – rise of (American/European style)
‘democracy’ accompanied by the decline of socio-economic democracy.
Greater ‘electorate area’ - devaluation of the political ability of democracy
and restriction of powers of the public through the widening of ‘citizenship’
(Denning 2001).
Contradictory nature of modern democracy: Alternative critiques
More mass participation with an increasingly narrow mode of participation.









Questioning the democratic quality that has been brought in.
More and more people able to participate in politics, but the representative
system becomes the only way of participating – de-radicalising politics.
Attempts to identify democracy exclusively with liberal representative
democracy – an attempt to degrade direct democracy and direct actions by
labeling it non-democratic (occupation, coups?).
McNally (2006): Social movements of working people had to give up more
subversive elements of democracy (rule of people) and accept ‘liberal
representative democracy’ as the only framework for all democracies – “the
liberal transformation in the meaning of democracy” (2006; 272).
Concentration of political power within parliamentary state – “Sovereignty
remained grounded in the state” rather than lay with people who inhabited the
state (Berger 2001; 893).
“Democracy has been emptied of its original content – which referred to
the absolute sovereignty of the people – and refilled with liberal doctrines of
individual (property-based) rights” (McNally 2006; 273).
Transnational structures of power moved from the people to powerful
external agents (Evans 2001).
“The effect is to de-radicalize the movement by proposing merely to change
the ideology that drives government policy, not the system as a whole”
(McNally, 2002, p. 60).
Third wave of democratisation occurred after this transition of the notion of
democracy. New democracies – don’t get international support if they don’t
democratise ‘legally’. The result of the dominance of the “Euro-centric”
liberal democratic model is to eradicate and stifle the emergence of new
visions of democracy (which may involve greater people/citizen
involvement) by labelling them illiberal or undemocratic (Koelble & Lipuma
2008).
Addressing the gap between ideal and existing liberal democracies:


Aims to pursue a more participatory and socio-economic democracy
(Huber, Rueschermeyer & Stephens 1997)
Common theme in this discourse is to focus on ‘civil society’, forces of which
are believed to actively pursue democratisation. However, dedicated to
describing and anticipating the emergence of civil society institutions
resembling those in developed polyarchies. Consists of the usual routes (ie
those in western democracies) through which voices of civil society gain
‘political’ impact – a unilateral path once again? Democracy discourse
resembles development discourse rather than original idea of democracy
as a social movement.
“The expression [economic development] is not universal, but particular. It does not
mean the development of any of the various ways that people have maintained their
livelihood throughout history. Rather, it means the elimination of most of those ways
and their replacement by certain historically specific practices originating in Europe.
“Economic Development” means the development of those practices” Lummis (1996;
45).
Do we first need to “democratize democracy” before democratizing development?
(Koelble & Lipuma 2008).
Literature:
Core Readings:
1. Evans, T. 2001, ‘If Democracy, Then Human Rights?’, Third World
Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 623-642.
This article analyses the link between democracy and human rights and whether it is
actually a “symbiotic” relationship as often assumed. Evan’s conclusion suggests that
“democracy promotion has more to do with global economic interests than with
delivering human rights to the poor and excluded in less developed counties” (2001;
623”.
Liberal Democracy: Four important assumptions from this view of democracy.

The first assumption is that the territorial state is the appropriate
environment for democratisation – it is the basic unit which defines the limits
of democracy and differentiates from insiders/outsiders; however, it does not
suggest that each person living in this state share the rights associated with
citizenship equally.
“the generally held assumption is that the concept of liberal democracy is tied to the
idea a self-governing community, a community of citizens defined by national
sovereignty, the territorial nation-state, self-determination and domestic jurisdiction”
(2001; 624).

The second assumption is that the principle of accountability should be at the
centre of all forms of liberal democracy.
“Accountability is further guaranteed by the practice of holding periodic multiparty
elections to represent assembly, a practice that is widely understood as the single most
important requirement for a government to claim democratic credentials” (ibid.).

The third assumption is that democratic states have a high level of
autonomy and the capability to pursue policies that further the interests of its
citizens.
“Citizens have an expectation that governments can, in fact, fulfil the aims and
objectives of the community as expressed through the ballot box”.
“There is an assumption that the autonomy of a democratic state is unconstrained by
external factors beyond those that arise from its relative power positions within the
international order” (Both 2001; 625).

“The final assumption is that the democratic state acts in the interests of the
whole of the people, not in the interests of particular national or global
groups” (ibid.). This point highlights an obvious tension between the liberal
and democratic elements of liberal democracy; public vs. private, political vs.
economic, state vs. civil society and social demands and vs. the common good
(Beetham 1992).
Evans highlights that because of these dominant assumptions surrounding ideas of
democracy, little attention has been paid to understanding new forms of
democracy, especially in light of this changing age of globalisation – this ‘global
interconnectedness’ raises questions surrounding the ‘relevant community’ for
example in issues such as AIDS, acid rain, or the use of non-renewable resources
(David Held 1992; 22). Evans adds universal human rights to this list, including
economic, social, civil and political.
The effects of globalisation: (pp 625-626)



“The assumption that governments remain in control of state borders cannot
be sustained under conditions of globalisation”.
“The development of new technology enables the formation of new
transnational relationships that challenge the territorial limits of democracy”.
“Globalisation has seen state power decline as transnational decision making
increasingly takes precedence over national decision making”. Rising power
of international organisations such as the WTO, EU, WB etc.
“Given the growing authority of these organisation, the assumption that national
democratic communities ‘make and determine decisions and policies for
themselves’ or that governments ‘determine what is right or appropriate
exclusively for their own citizens’ seems doubtful” (Evans 2001; 626/Held 1992;
21).

Growing economic power of the transnational corporations also challenges the
dominant conception of democracy:
“In the scramble to attract inward investment, the demands of TNC’s often take
precedence over the needs of the community as a whole”, for example in areas of
trade unions, environment, taxation, human rights regulation.
“the state is losing its autonomy because of decisions made from above at the global
level, raising questions that challenge the generally held assumptions about
democratic representation and the accountability of government”.
With respect to Human Rights, Evans highlights that “although international law
presents the state as the main guarantor of human rights, the state may not possess the
capabilities to fulfil its obligations”.
Democracy and universal human rights:
This section highlights the link between human rights and democracy, highlighting
that the perceived symbiotic nature of the relationship between them should be treated
with caution.
“While all theories of democracy include a concern for rights, historically such rights
were never extended to all the people sharing a common territory”.

Evans highlights that under the conditions of globalisation, “governments are

unable to exercise the necessary authority to secure democratic outcomes or
offer protection for human rights” p.628. As a result, enhancing the
institutions which uphold human rights and practices of liberal democracy on
a national level will not be sufficient.
UN therefore is perceived to play an important role in this respect, however,
although it has played an important part in the global reach of the idea of
human rights, the mandate of the UN (based upon non-intervention and
sovereign equality) limits its ability to act.
Democracy and global order:
This section highlights the use of democracy as a legitimising tool, appeasing critics
from within, and externally.




Cf tactics during the Cold War: “the threat of social unrest, which would
disrupt the supply of raw materials, restrict investment opportunities and
severely damage prospects for exploiting low cost labour, cannot be avoided
by using coercive policing and military suppression as it was during the cold
war period… This left those with repressive regimes or those who want to
maintain cordial relations for political reasons, with the dilemma of promoting
a new rationale that justified continuing economic and political relations”.
In these respects, Evans argues that the promotion of democracy is not
necessarily concerned with Human Rights and social justice but instead, “with
the need to create an appropriate global order that provides a stable
environment for future economic planning and investment”.
If a country can be perceived to be championing democracy and human rights,
it is a legitimate partner to do business with. These types of democracy are
important for maintaining the conditions of globalisation and, as such, are
supported by aid and the IFIs.
“In support of this aim, developed states have sought to promote democracy in
its procedural guise: as a set of democratic institutions rather than as a means
of achieving social and economic transformation that would have empowered
the poor and the socially excluded” – Gills et al. term this type of democracy
promotion as ‘low-intensity democracy’.
The question is therefore, what kind of democracy, and for what purpose?

The result of challenging the limitations set by ‘low-intensity democracy’ by
the promotion of “popular democracy that includes social reform and justice”
can however, result in the withdrawal of support for that country – for
example Central America (Chomsky, 1998).
“In short, democracy often means little more than a ‘thin veneer of Western
concepts’, including national sovereignty, statehood, parliamentary institutions and
the ‘rule of law’, all of which are intended to subdue ethnic, cultural and religious
tensions in the effort to secure an order fit for economic growth and development” pg.
631.

Critics of this approach to democracy therefore look for something more than
the introduction of formal institutions “which often do nothing to provide for
social, economic and political reforms of the rights of people and peoples” to
justify the claim of democratisaiton.
“Although some commentators defend the introduction of ‘low-intensity democracy’,
arguing that it is the first stage in a journey that ends in full democratic participation
and social reform. Gills et al. (1993), argue that it is more accurate to understand it as
an end in itself – as a way of maintaining an order that supports the interests of global
and national capital” pg. 631.


Links here are made to the idea that democracy is a human right; see e.g.
Frank, (1988). However, Frank’s argument remains embedded in the idea of
national democracy – limited now due to the rise of globalisation, which in
turn systematically undermines the autonomy of the nation state.
The key now, Evans emphasises, is to democratise the institutions of global
governance and take a more inclusive view of the global political economy,
including our understanding of democracy.
Development, democracy and human rights:
Evans therefore urges caution with respect to equating the language of democracy
with that of human rights, “More particularly, it has attempted to demonstrate that the
effort to promote the dominant version of democracy has more to do with maintaining
an order that serves particular economic interests, rather than the interest of those
whose human rights and security are threatened” pg. 633. He then undertakes an
examination of the domestic and global context to argue that capitalist economic
development and growth is ‘profoundly anti-democratic’”.
Domestic:





“Within the domestic context, the right to development is defined as the right
of ‘every human person and all peoples to participate in, contribute to, and
enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human
rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized” (Declaration on the
Right to Development 1986).
The current understanding of development tends to ignore all but the goal of
economic development at the expense of social, cultural and political
development. Following this dominance of economic development over all
others, “development becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end”.
This focus on the economic goals draws attention away from political goals
such as the demand for human rights – and the importance on the economic
has given many governments an opportunity to plead for tolerance of their
human rights record. C.f. arguments that economic development comes before
democracy vis-à-vis the western democracies. Are development and
democracy compatible?
There is also an assumption that full economic development is a realistic goal
for all.
“It is difficult to see just how the promotion of democracy can be achieved
through a model of development that is demonstrably failing to achieve a
reduction in inequalities”.
Global:





The argument that the majority are excluded form participating in the current
drive to liberalise global markets focuses on the WTO; critics highlight that
greater attention given to interests of transnational capital rather than to rights
and human security. On an international level, democracy does not prevail.
For example, “The [World] Bank often supports projects aimed at certain
types of development that do not necessarily benefit the majority”.
“Liberalisation is ‘imposed’ upon people who are excluded from full
participation in the decision-making processes that directly affect their ability
to claim human rights”. Cf critics of SA.
“Although liberalisation often leads to a denial of economic and social rights a
decline in the ability of the state to act autonomously in the interests of its
people and a denial of democratic participation, developed economies
continue to press for further deregulation”
“In effect, this means that the interests of the majority of the world’s peoples
are denied a voice in important negotiations and decision-making processes
that shape their lives and provide the conditions for securing human rights”.
Evans concludes that “the image of democracy is used to legitimate forms of
behaviour supportive of particular economic interests associated with globalization”,
and as a result, democracy and human rights cannot be seen to share a symbiotic
relationship. The global scene suggests that democratic participation and
representation are less achievable in the post-war/neoliberal world than many
commentators argue, and that the creation of new global institutions and a global free
market “favours the interest of capital above the interests of all others”.
2. Huber, E., Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J. 1997, ‘The
Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy. Formal, Participatory, and
Social Dimensions’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 323-342.
In this article Huber, Rueschemeyer and Stephens divide democracy into three key
types: formal, participatory and social democracy. They identify that democracy is
a matter of power sharing, and therefore undertake an analysis of the promotion of
each form of democracy in Latin America by the three types or ‘clusters of power’
which shape the conditions and maintenance of democracy: class power, state and
civil society, and international/transnational structures of power.
Previously, the authors have argued that the same historical conditions which
promoted formal democracy – ie a shift in the balance of class power in civil society –
would aid the advancement of social and economic equality; however, this has not
happened – “the current historical conjuncture strides toward introducing and
consolidating formal democracy in Latin America and eastern Europe appear to be
combined with movements away from more fully participatory democracy and
equality” p. 323. The purpose of this article is to analyse why this promotion of
social and economic equality has not occurred alongside democratisation.
Formal democracy: is defined as a political system which combines the four features
of: “regular free and fair elections, universal suffrage, accountability of the states
administrative organs to the elected representatives and effective guarantees for
freedom of expression and association as well as protection against arbitrary state
action” pg 323. However, they do highlight that the label of democracy is often used
more loosely to represent “any country that has held an election roughly free of
fraud”.
The highlight that formal democracy does not mean equality – “even if all four
requirements are met, a country may still be far from equality in the process of
making collective decisions” – or an equal distribution of political power.
Participatory democracy: therefore entails these first four criteria plus the addition
of high levels of participation without systematic differences across social categories
(e.g. class, ethnicity, gender).
Social democracy: denotes a political system that incorporates the first five criteria
as well as increasing equality in social and economic outcomes.
The authors highlight that although “formal democracies fall far short of the ideals
associated with this conception of social democracy”; the establishment of formal
democracy is a useful starting point in the progression towards social democracy
nevertheless. “Above all, however, formal democracy opens up the possibility of, and
is a requisite for, advances toward participatory and social democracy”. Vs. Gills
‘low-intensity democracy’ (in Evans above).
However, this is not a fixed progression – “formal democracy may remain formal” –
and in some cases, can spiral into vicious cycle or reverse wave of democratisation
(see Huntington). This is particularly relevant for new and transitional democracies –
links to the importance of strengthening the democratisation process (see Diamond).
The authors highlight that changes in the balance of class power link democracy to
development (although the outcomes differ between countries and are dependent
upon the conditions in each individual country, e.g. politics of mobilisation and class
alliance). However, contrary to other authors, they argue that this finding negates
other explanations of the capitalist development/democracy link and subsequently
reject the claim made by liberal and Marxist theory that democracy is a creation of the
bourgeoisie.
They do however highlight that the structure of state and state-society relations
are critically important to the chances for democracy:





Any policy-based advance towards social democracy requires significant
instrumental state capacity
The state needs to be strong and autonomous enough to ensure the rule of
law/avoid capture by elites
The power of the state needs to be counterbalances by the organisational
strength of civil society ie civil society must not be overpowered by the state
so that it can rule without accountability
International power relations are also equally important as changes in
world politics and the world economy can impact on the structure and capacity
of the state, the constrainsts faced by state policy-makers, state-society
relations and even the balance of power within society.
Transnational structures of power also play an important role – although
quite favourable for the promotion of formal democracy – especially regular
elections – it can be vey unfavourable for participatory and social democracy.
The authors give examples of the international market, and multilateral
institutions dominated by core countries and bilateral relations as two features
of transnational structures of power and highlight the small democracies of
Europe as an example of the affected areas.
“Thus, the political side of current transnational structures of power, while
supporting the expansion of formal democracy, has worked against the promotion of
participatory and social democracy because it has closed of consideration of
alternative social democratic policy and, by closing off alternatives, has made
popular mobilisation and participation less meaningful” pg 330.
The authors highlight Latin America as a place where the consolidation of democracy
has failed to occur. “The international community generally regards countries as
democracies when they meet the test of regular free and apparently reasonably fair
elections with universal suffrage”.
However, many countries in LA fail to meet the other criteria of formal democracy
defined at the start:


Weak accountability (for example overpowering presidents and weak
legislature and judiciaries) – continued fragmentation and weakness of state
institutions made it hard to enforce accountability.
Unevenly protected civil society and political rights across classes– lack of
strong organisations of the subordinate classes; breaking up of the work force.

Public/private interwoven rather than saying separate. However, some
positives did emerge from SA rolling back of the state in LA – reduction in the
opportunities for corruption etc. Nevertheless, continuing debt pressure due to
the imposition of SA reinforced the tendency to concentrate power in the
executive, insulate economic policy makers and rule by decree – cf Argentina
President Menem.
Determinants of the strengthening of participatory democracy:

Importance of political parties for the representation of lower class
demands. However, reduced mobilisation seen in LA with the threat of
authoritarian rule removed. Political parties failed to establish/maintain ties to
subordinate classes and articulate their demands effectively – previous links
not upheld once power obtained e.g. Argentina’s Peronists under Menem.
“Voter turnout among subordinate classes has been kept high in many cases, in a way
that does little to effectively translate lower class interests into policy”.


Little room for popular participation beyond the act of voting
In many cases, political decentralisation implemented by the IFIs strengthened
the position of local elites and their clientalistic networks.

In contrast to the positive effects of the international system on the promotion
of formal democracy, “the international system has had a depressing effect
on citizen participation”. Criticism of neoliberal model – loss of income, job
security, government supports and political voice (although the rise of the GG
agenda and PRSPs has more recently helped in theory, the practical benefits
are often still yet to be seen).
“Economic problems rooted in the international system, most prominently continuing
debt pressures but also growing internationalization of capital, have also weakened a
critical part of the infrastructure of participation, political parties and party
systems”.
In contrast to Argentina, Peru and Brazil, Chile is the exception, having undertaken
early macroeconomic reform, enabling greater progress in the area of social spending
and real wages during this period.
Determinants of Social democracy:

Strong organisation of labour and electoral strength of pro-labour parties
has been crucial to the effective implementation of redistributive policies in
advanced industrial democracies. However, the shift of power away from
labour and towards capital - partly due to neoliberal reforms, weakness of
political parties in the new democracies and the effects of military and dictator
rule – have resulted in a failure to address the issue of redistribution in a
meaningful way. If anything, neoliberal adjustment policies have
significantly aggravated socioeconomic inequality. For example, financial
liberalisation, privatisation of state owned enterprises, internationalisation of
production chains.
“The beneficiaries of neoliberal reforms, then, have become very powerful
constituencies and obstacles to the pursuit of social democratic policies”.


Importance of state intervention to correct the inegalitarian consequences
of the market, which originally declined during the period of
neoliberalisation but has now re-entered the discourse with the PWC.
Reduction in government room to manoeuvre with the rise of globalisation.
E.g. Pressure to increase trade openness/liberalisation and the speed in which
these types of reforms are implemented. Problem of increased power of
capital therefore not only over labour but also over governments – cf
Evans.
“Increasing internationalization of financial operations and production chains has
reduced government’s room to manoeuvre even more in developing than in advanced
industrial countries” Pg 337.
“In other words, the dominant mode of integration of the new Latin American
democracies into the world economy deprives governments of some of the crucial
traditional policy instruments to increase employment, raise real wages and finance
redistributive social policies”.
Conclusion:





Huber, Rueschemeyer and Stephens highlight a contradiction between
advances in formal democracy and the increasing obstacles appearing in the
way of deepening democracy towards a more participatory and socially
orientated democracy.
They argue that the balance of class power is unfavourable to advancing
participatory democracy, but mildly favourable to the survival of formal
democracy as the organisational basis of the subordinate classes - crucial to
mobilisation into political participation - has been undermined by the rising
power of capital (caused by neoliberal reforms).
Weak political parties representing the interests of the subordinate classes
have resulted in weak accountability and deficiencies even in formal
democracy.
State Structure/society relations have not developed in a favourable direction
for participatory and social democracy either. Weakened state autonomy due
to the rise of external actors, weakened judiciary etc due to the shrinking of
the state – parallel negative effects on accountability, incentives for citizen
participation and social democratic reform.
International power structures – in general, opposite effects on formal and
participatory/social democracy.
“They encourage formal democracy, while virtually blocking a deepening of
democratic decision making and policies aimed at a reduction of social and
economic inequality… Market orientated economic policies supported by
international pressures and by local constituencies gaining from them tend not
only to undercut social democratic reform policies, but also to threaten the
foundations of even formal democracy”
3. UNDP 2002. ‘Deepening Democracy by Tackling Democratic
Deficits’ in Deepening democracy in a Fragmented World, Ch.3, pp.
63-83.
“In earlier ties there were lengthy discussions on whether one country or another was
yet “fit for democracy”. That changed only recently with the recognition that the
question was its wrong headed: a country does not have to be judged to be fit for
democracy, rather it has to become fit through democracy. This is a truly momentous
change.” - Amartya Sen
This is the opening quote of the chapter and highlights changing ideas surrounding the
stages of development and democracy. Part of the UNDP HDR, this chapter
highlights the importance of deepening democracy and the ways in which this can be
achieved. It signifies the acknowledgment that ‘democracy’ means more than just
electoral representation in government, at that this is a fundamental stumbling block
in the process of democratisation; links to Dahl and consolidology. The article then
systematically analyses the things that effect democracy and areas in which greater
democratisation can take place.



In the opening section, the authors highlight that the process of
democratisation in terms of “making it work for the people” has barely begun.
Instances of limited political competition, abuse of political and civil rights
and the spread of “illiberal democracies” (where elected governments act as
their authoritarian predecessors did) are numerous.
Assumption that ‘democracy’ would bring more effective development – as
this has not happened, it has resulted in a lost confidence in government. The
problem is therefore what type of democracy has been promoted – often, the
capability of states has not improved.
Links between democracy and human development are not automatic.
“history also teaches that democracy, in itself, does not guarantee greater social
justice, faster economic growth or increased social and political stability”.
“Accountability is about power – about people having not just a say in official
decisions but also the right to hold their rulers to account”. However the meaning of
accountability also differs between people and contexts.



Public accountability of democratic institutions: People in democracies can
hold their governments to accountability in two ways: action by civil society
and through structure of representation and delegation. However, many
institutions in many developing countries are weak, overburdened and
inadequate – link to GG rhetoric.
Resource constraints are one weakness, but also in many cases, national
institutions are ineffective because real powers lie elsewhere – transnational
corporations, aid donors etc. Rising influence of globalisation cf Evans.
Often even though mechanisms for accountability exist, they do not function
well, the reasons given for this are 1) subversion of democratic institutions by
elite capture and corruption and 2) inadequate reach of democratic
institutions/gaps in democratic practice. For example the 1997








Cameroonian elections.
Problems can be seen in Europe, not just late democracies – “Flick Affair”
Germany 1980s.
Strengthening the separation of powers and the independence of the
legislature and judiciary. The authors highlight judicial systems as an
important part of accountability, however these systems are often inaccessible
and, in many cases, corrupt. Professionalising the bureaucracy and military are
also key steps.
The authors stress the importance of democratising local politics. And
highlight that one solution given to the problem of corruption and
marginalisation of minorities is decentralisation; however, this can also
paradoxically lead to reinforcement of elite power. Decentralisation has to
happen democratically – requires more than just decentralising and devolving
power. For example the panchayati raj in India. In Bolivia, grass-roots
organisation played a key role.
One main element to the strengthening of formal democratic institutions is
the need to restore public trust in them – cf OECD dropping voter turnout. For
example, ensuring that there are open, competitive elections for political party
leaders.
One way to do this is through developing stronger vehicles for formal
participation and representation. Cf GG agenda/PRSPs. Promoting
participation of minorities and women, building electoral systems and limiting
the distorting influence of money in politics.
Developing free and independent media very important, it has a role as a civic
forum, a mobilising agent and a watchdog.
“Informed debate is the lifeblood of democracies. Without it, citizens and
decision makers are disempowered, lacking the basic tools for informed
participation and representation” – c.f. imperfect information arguments.
“Widely available information is crucial to democratic governance because it
helps challenge government authorities and provokes more balanced debate on
problems and policies”. However, self-regulation is also an important element
in this – ensuring standards of journalism, quality, training etc.
Participation key element of democracy – c.f. GG agenda “An alert citizenry
is what makes democratic institutions and processes work”.
Influence of global actors: c.f. Evans – e.g. IMF/WB, WTO and TNCs.
“These global institutions and their rules govern important aspects of national
economic policies and have enormous impacts on people’s lives – creating a
global-national gap in democratic participation and accountability”.
In conclusion, the article stresses the importance of strengthening accountability to
the process of embedding democratic values, practices and principles. It highlights
that the gap between ideal and actual democracy exists in older democracies as well
as newer ones. Key issues such as inequality of rights, a neglect of women and
minorities, and transparency of the military and civil service still remain.
However, is this to be expected from representative democracy? The authors highlight
that its purpose is to exist as a system of political competition, not one intended to
exclusively empower citizens, ensure participation in government or produce
economic and social justice; “democratization does not guarantee social justice any
more than it guarantees economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency,
political harmony, free markets or the end of ideology”.
4. Koelble, T. A. and Lipuma, E. 2008, ‘Democratizing Democracy:
A Postcolonial Critique of Conventional Approaches to the
Measurement of Democracy’, Democratization, Vol.15, No. 1, pp. 128.
Summary:
Koelble and Lipuma provide a critique of conventional measures of ‘democracy’.
They argue that current debates represent the dominant ‘Euro-American’ view of
‘democracy’ and ‘governance’, which, due to their differing experiences and histories,
are not necessarily the same as in the postcolony. Their solution is that the process
should be democratised itself to incorporate visions and values of democracy held by
those who are governed by it.
Main arguments:
 Criticise the idea of a linear development path, and therefore the
assumption of a singular goal of western democracy and modernity.
 Current ways of measuring democracy are ahistorical and acultural. It is
argued that the colonial state has had a lasting legacy on the way that
democracy develops in the postcolony therefore ‘democracy’ here cannot
and will not be the same thing as western democracy. Idea of ‘path
dependence’.
 Domestic capacities of postcolonial states limit what they are able to
achieve and provide e.g. provision of public goods.
 The current global framework undermines the ability of postcolonial
governments to represent their electorates. e.g. constraints of financial
architecture, freedom of economic policies, undermining of national
sovereignty.
 Western views built upon assumptions associated with the rationally
behaving individual. Relationship between the community and the
individual very important in many postcolonial countries but not
represented in western views of democracy.
 Differences in institutional forms are not linked to undemocratic
weaknesses as assumed by the west.
Strengths:
 Highlights the fact that there is not only one model of ‘democracy’ historical
and cultural aspects can shape the democracy just as they shape the
development process.
 Those being governed are in the best place to say whether what they are
experiencing can be called ‘democracy’.
 Critique of the dominance of Neoliberalism, the impact that this has on
emerging market nations and therefore the impact on ‘democracy’.
Weaknesses:
 Assumes there is one ‘Euro-American’ democracy.
 If a new analytical measure of progress, dependent upon electorate
understanding of democracy, were to be implemented, would a different
interpretation of the fundamental aspects of democracy arise? Is it more a
problem of implementation and capability?
Additional literature:
Cornwall, A., & Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004). "Putting the 'Rights-Based Approach'
to Development into Perspective". Third World Quarterly, 1415-1437.
Dahl, R. A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
After giving the history of democracy and characterising the differences of ideal and
actual democracy, Dahl identifies the reasons why market-capitalism does and does
not favour democracy.
Why Market-Capitalism Favours Democracy: (pages 166-72)
1) “Polyarchal democracy has endured only in countries with a predominantly
market-capitalist economy; and it has never endured in a country with a
predominantly nonmarket economy”.
2) “certain basic features of market-capitalism make it favourable for democratic
institutions” – such as private property rights, information exchange, a
decentralised economy – a centralised economy has more opportunities for
resource capture – and a reduction in political and social conflict. “in the
long run, market-capitalism has typically led to economic growth; and
economic growth is favourable to democracy”.
Why Market-Capitalism Harms Democracy: (pages 173-179)
1) “Democracy and market-capitalism are locked in a persistent conflict in which
each modifies and limits the other” – the inequality of market capitalism or its
“two-faces”. Markets are not self-regulating, therefore the role of the state is
key in the management of the markets – even in the US there are huge social
protection mechanisms.
2) “Because market capitalism inevitably creates inequalities, it limits the
democratic potential of polyarchal democracy by generating inequalities in the
distribution of political resources’ – citizens are not all political equals.
3) “Market capitalism greatly favours the development of democracy up to
the level of polyarchal democracy. But because of its adverse
consequences for political equality, it is unfavourable to the development
of democracy beyond the level of polyarchy” KEY POINT – only certain
types of democracy promoted by market-capitalism.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
Dahl identifies in his books, the difference between ‘ideal’ and ‘actual’ democracy.
He describes the polyarchal democracy as a polity that entails certain democratic
institutions and principles such as:
 Free and fair elections
 Elected officials
 Inclusive suffrage
 The right to run for office
 Freedom of expression
 Alternative sources of information to those disseminated by the state and
associational autonomy (ie freedom of assembly – the media etc.)
Diamond, L. (1996). "Is the Third Wave Over?" Journal of Democracy, 7 (3), 2037.
Diamond addresses conceptualisation questions surrounding the meaning of
democracy in this article. He then examines how liberal democracy moves beyond the
minimalist definitions provided by Schumpeter, identifying nine key features of
liberal democracy in line with Dahl’s vision of polyarchal democracy. For those
democracies that lie in between “electoral” and “liberal” democracy, he adopts the
term semi- or “pseudo-democracy”.
Diamond then undertakes an analysis of democratisation during the third wave, and
makes the observation that the number of new democracies is stalled and the quality
of many third wave democracies is deteriorating. He argues that the main problem is
therefore now one of consolidation of democracy “the overriding imperative in the
coming years is to consolidate those democracies that have come into being during
the third wave” (1996; 33).
He concludes that “The overriding imperative for the long-term global advance of
democracy is to prevent its near-term recession into a new reverse wave” (1996; 35),
and that there are three main challenges:
1) Consolidation
2) Deepening of democracy – “merely electoral democracies must be deepened
and liberalised politically so that their institutions wil become more broadly
and intrinsically valued by their populations” (1996; 35).
3) Continuing levels of democracy in the established democracies of the world –
“the established, industrialized democracies must show their own continued
capacity for democratic vitality, reform and good governance” (1996; 35).
Faundez, J. (2005). "On the State of Democracy: Introduction". Democratization,
615-624.
“the quality of governance in many regimes currently classified as electoral
democracies is poor” (2005; 615).
Huntington, S. P. (1993). "Democracy's Third Wave". In L. Diamond, & M. F.
Plattner (eds), The Global Resurgence of Democracy (pp. 3-25). Baltimore and
London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Both of the above articles highlight the observation made by Huntington that
democratisation occurs in waves. Democratisation is not a fixed process, and
backwards democratisation can occur at any stage, however, a wave is characterised
by the transition of more countries in the forwards direction of democratisation than
the backwards. The ‘third wave of democratisation’ can be characterised by the end of
the cold war, and rapid democratisation of developing countries since the 1980s;
notably, this transition has also occurred alongside the rise of neoliberalism.
“between 1974 and 1990, at least 30 countries made transitions to democracy, just
about doubling the number of democratic governments in the world” (Huntington,
1993;3).
Leftwich, A. (2005). "Democracy and Development: Is There Institutional
Incompatibility?" Democratization, 12 (5), 686-703.
Leftwich highlights in this article that “Democratic polities on the liberal model are
inextricably linked with capitalist or mixed economies” (2005; 687) however, “there
are also very complicated and potentially compromising structural tensions between
the institutions required for stable and consolidated democracy and those required for
rapid, effective and sustained growth and development” (2005; 686). The article takes
an institutional perspective to analyse both development and democracy to further this
argument.
“In short, the institutions and systems of power which democratic politics both require
and represent seldom promote the politics of radical change in the control,
accumulation, distribution or use of wealth which is normally vital, early on, for
establishing developmental momentum, especially in late developing societies, where
the problems are most acute” (2005; 699).
Leftwich, A. (1993). "Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third
World". Third World Quarterly, 14 (3), 605-624.
A key question addressed in this article is whether democracy is a necessary prior or
parallel condition of development, or whether democracy is an outcome of
development.
Lefwich highlights four main influences on the promotion of good governance and
democratic politics:
1) The experience of SA lending
Highly political nature of these reforms however, the WB could say little about the
politics of adjustment – argues that this explains the focus on the apolitical technicist
notion of governance. Effective adjustment in practice therefore required both a
strong and relatively autonomous state, whether democratic or not. Nevertheless, this
did not stop western governments insisting on the need for democratisation.
2) The resurgence of neoliberalism
“Neoliberalism is not only an economic theory. It also has strong political dimensions
which involve both normative and functionalist theories of politics and the state”
(1993; 608). Leftwich argues that neoliberalism also has a functional theory of
politics in which concern with markets and economic growth links to concern with
democracy, “it assumes that democratic politics is also necessary for a thriving free
market economy and vice versa, for the two are inextricably implicated with each
other” (1993; 609). Neoliberals therefore believe that a large “obese” state is in
practice “incompatible with an independent and pluralistic civil society and hence
with effective democracy” (ibid.). Neoliberal political theory therefore holds that
democratisation in the context of a free economy would ensure that governments were
help accountable and were less corrupt/more efficient – idea that GG promotes the
ideas of democracy without being explicitly political.
3) The collapse of communism
Leftwich argues that the fall of communism changed the world dynamics so that
democracy and market-capitalism prevailed – as a result, western governments were
more forthright in their shaping of world politics: “the collapse of communist regimes
and the consequential shirt in the structure of the world politics enabled Western
governments to exercise not only economic conditionality, but also direct political
leverage without fear of giving advantage to the Soviet Unions and its allies” (1993;
609).
4) The rise of pro-democracy movements in the developing world
Legitimisation of the West’s actions, by the rise of pro-democracy movements: “The
West has drawn legitimacy for pro-democracy policies from these movements around
the world and can thus claim to be supporting genuinely popular and intellectual
demands in those societies”.
Leftwich concludes by arguing that development is highly political and to argue
otherwise is naïve. In many developing countries, “democracy is unlikely to be the
political form which can generate such a state or system of governance” (1993;
620) – history shows that successful transformations have almost always involved a
strong and active state and, as a result, such as transformation is dependent less on
regime type or policy orientation, but more on the capacity of the state whether
democratic or not – cf Fritz and Menocal (2007) week 6. He therefore highlights that
what is needed for economic development is therefore not necessarily a democratic
state, but a developmental one. It is a matter or politics and state, than governance
and democracy.
Lummis, D. C. (1996). Radical Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
McNally, D. (2002). Another World is Possible: Globalisation and Anti-Capitalism.
Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.
Critique of the capitalist system – argues that the capitalist system adds to the dilution
of democracy via analysis of the history of democracy. Importantly, McNally argues
that there is a “fundamental contradiction between (real) democracy and
capitalism” (2002; 196).
“The effect is to de-radicalize the movement by proposing merely to change the
ideology that drives government policy, not the system as a whole” (McNally, 2002;
60).
He goes on to analyse the alternatives to capitalism – for example in Bolivia and
Ecuador.
Porta, D. D. (2005). "Globalizations and Democracy”. Democratization, 668-685.
“challenges to democracy arise from the necessity to adapt conceptions and practices
developed at the national level to a reality in which transnational actors and global
events have an increasingly larger influence” (2005; 669).
“The turbulence of financial markets and irrational exploitation of natural resources
are also viewed as free-market globalization effects that weaken and destabilize
democracy” (2005; 671).
“Therefore, economic globalization, in this neo-liberal version, challenges a
conception of democracy as development of social rights that is deeply rooted in
sociological theory” (2005; 671).
“In summary, the term ‘globalization’ has been used to indicate various and
heterogeneous types of phenomena, all of them producing challenges for the
traditional, nation-state-based models of democracy. Economic globalization as free
trade, with a devolution of power from the state to the market, challenges the welfare
state model of tempered capitalism that has been dominant, especially in the European
democracies, and, with it, the social dimension of democracy as a political regimes
which aims to reduce economic inequalities” (2005; 679).
Qadir, S., Clapham, C., & Gills, B. (1993). "Sustainable Democracy: Formalism vs
Substance". Third World Quarterly, Vol 14, No 3, 415-422.
Rose, R., & Shin, D. C. (2001). "Democratization Backwards: The problem of
Third-Wave Democracies". British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, pp 331354.
This article discusses the problem of third wave democracies by comparing their
development to that of the first wave of democratisation. Examples include
establishing democratic elections before the establishment of basic institutions of a
‘modern state’ such as the rule of law, accountability of government, institutions of
civil society ie ‘Good Governance’. They argue that having “democratized
backwards”, most third wave democracies are currently incomplete democracies.
The authors detail three alternative paths, which incomplete democracies can follow:
1) Completing democratisation
2) Repudiating free elections and turning into an undemocratic alternative or
3) Falling into a low-level equilibrium trap in which “the inadequacies of elites
are matched by low popular demands and expectations”.
The authors then conclude with discussing the implications of
democratisation,
incomplete
“A regime that is an incomplete democracy, with free elections but lacking essential
elements of the modern state, may survive indefinitely but only at a price. Major
derogations from the rule of law and untrustworthy institutions of civil society limit
the effectiveness of a broken-back democracy” (2001; 351).
Schumpeter, J. (1947). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
This book highlights Schumpeter’s minimal definition of democracy:
Schumpeter defines democracy as the “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 (1947;269).
World Bank. (1997). World Development Report: The State in a Changing World.
Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Linked to transitions from WC to PWC, this report highlights mainstream changes in
attitude towards the state. The focus is still very much on market led development, but
with the state playing an important role in facilitating the working of the markets.