Democratization

Encyclopedia : D : DE : DEM : Democratization

The Politics series:
Politics by country Political science Political history Political scientists Comparative government International relations Political economy Political philosophy Political psychology Form of government Sovereignty Public administration Consent of the governed Theories of political behavior
Subseries of Politics
Forms of government Democracy Executives Legislature Elections Voting *Electoral systems Ideology Political parties
[[Portal:Politics\|Politics Portal]] This box: [ view] • [ talk] • [ edit]

Democratization is the transition from authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems to democratic political systems, in which there is universal suffrage, regular elections, a civil society, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.

Contents

1 Ideologies and extremes
2 Factors affecting democratization
3 Empirical research
4 Democratization movements
5 Democratization in other contexts

5.1 International bodies
5.2 Corporations
5.3 The Internet

6 Notes
7 Further reading
8 See also

Ideologies and extremes

This definition however is obviously rooted in a late 20th century concept of democracy, and differs from what democracy would have meant in another era, or what it is thought to ultimately lead to, in a given political theory.

For example, a very extreme democratization that delegates decision to very small units without any central control is sometimes referred to as anarchization. That term however is as controversial as anarchy itself, and will have quite different implications based on ideology: Orthodox Marxism proposes that a peaceful anarchy is the result of abolishing capitalism by moving through a phase of dictatorship of the proletariat; Other theories propose laissez-faire anarchization via open markets and free trade, or extremely rigorous governance processes that are not amenable to being corrupted either by the tyranny of the majority or any minority in society.

Factors affecting democratization

There is considerable debate about the factors which affect or ultimately limit democratization. A great many things, including economics, culture, and history, have been cited as impacting on the process. Some of the more frequently mentioned factors are:

Wealth. It has been claimed that countries with a higher GDP are more likely to be democratic. There is debate about whether democracy is a consequence of this wealth, a cause of it, or completely unrelated to it. Some campaigners for democracy believe that as economic development progresses, democratisation will become inevitable. Others cite PRC as a counter-example with economic progress but little democratization. A counter to this counter-example is the suppressed peasant riots indicating that the poor are unhappy with a system that denies them the opportunity to move up without leaving their ancestral lands. Some postulate that democracy cannot exist without wealth.
Economic system. Some claim that a country's economic system is an important factor in democratization. For example, it is sometimes claimed that democracy and capitalism are intrinsically linked. This belief generally centers on the idea that democracy and capitalism are simply two different aspects of freedom, and that without one, the other cannot exist. By contrast, many Marxists would claim that capitalism is inherently undemocratic, and that true democracy can only be achieved if the economy is controlled by the people as a whole rather than by private individuals. The resource curse theory suggests that states whose sole source of wealth derives from natural resources exports often fail to democratize on account of their political-economic structure.
A large middle class. According to some, the existence of a substantial body of citizens who are of intermediate wealth can exert a stabilising influence, allowing democracy to flourish. This is usually explained by saying that while the upper classes may want political power to preserve their position, and the lower classes may want it to lift themselves up, the middle class simply has less use for power, and is therefore unlikely to pursue non-democratic means of achieving it.
Civil society. A healthy civil society (NGOs, unions, academia, human rights organizations) are considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and a common purpose, and a social network through which to organize and challenge the power of the state hierarchy.
Homogeneous population. Some believe that a country which is deeply divided, whether by ethnic group, religion, or language, cannot establish a working democracy. The basis of this theory is that the different components of the country will be more interested in advancing their own position than in sharing power with each other.
Culture. It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive to democratic values than others. Typically, it is Western culture which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This argument is sometimes used by undemocratic regimes to justify their failure to implement democratic reforms.
Previous experience with democracy. According to some theorists, the presence or absence of democracy in a country's past can have a significant effect on its later dealings with democracy. Some argue, for example, that it is very difficult (or even impossible) for democracy to be implemented immediately in a country that has no prior experience with it. Instead, they say, democracy must evolve gradually. Others, however, say that past experiences with democracy can actually be bad for democratisation — a country, such as Pakistan, in which democracy has previously failed may be less willing or able to go down the same path again.
Foreign intervention. Some believe that foreign involvement in a democratization is a crucial factor in its success or failure. For some, foreign involvement is advantageous for democracy—these people believe that democracy must be actively promoted and fostered by those countries which have already established it, and that democracy will not otherwise take hold. Others, however, take the opposite stance, and say that democratization must come "from the bottom up", and that attempts to impose democracy from the outside are doomed to failure regardless of other factors.

Empirical research

A considerable amount of empirical research has been conducted on democratization, with scholars looking for patterns in the establishment of democracies around the world. The results have been varied, with different researchers coming to different conclusions.

In The Civic Culture and The Civic Culture Revisited, Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba (editors) conducted a comprehensive study of civic cultures. The main findings is that a certain civic culture is necessary for the survival of democracy. This study truly challenged the common thought that cultures can preserve their uniqueness and practices and still remain democratic.

Samuel P. Huntington wrote The Third Wave, defining a global democratization trend in the world post WWII. Huntington defined three waves of democratization that have taken place in history, with the latest wave marking its period through the present. It is considered by the Journal of Democracy, a periodical journal, as one of the most empirical approaches to democratization. Samuel Huntington also examined the cultural aspect in international interactions in his rather non-empirical writing the Clash of civilizations. He identified six civilizations of the world and elaborated the concept of a cultural clash between the "East" and the "West" marked by democratic and freedom values of the West.

Francis Fukuyama wrote another classic in democratization studies entitled The End of History and the Last Man which spoke of the rise of an inevitable western liberal democracy in the new world order post-Cold War. He was determined in his writing to present the inevitability of western values and democratic values to take place in an imperialist democratic wave.

One influential survey in democratization is that of Freedom House, which arose during the Cold War. The Freedom House, today an institution and a think tank, stands as one of the most comprehensive "freedom measures" nationally and internationally and by extension a measure of democratization. Freedom House categorizes all countries of the world according to a seven point value system with over 200 questions on the survey and multiple survey representatives in various parts of every nation. The total raw points of every country places the country in one of three categories: Free, Partly Free, or not Free.

One of the very few studies examining the relationship between capitalism (measured with one Index of Economic Freedom), economic development (measured with GDP/capita), and political freedom (measured with the Freedom House index) found that high economic freedom increases GDP/capita and a high GDP/capita increases economic freedom. A high GDP/capita also increases political freedom but political freedom did not increase GDP/capita. There was no direct relationship either way between economic freedom and political freedom if keeping GDP/capita constant. ^{[#endnote_note1]}

Other research suggest that economic development itself does not increase the chance for democracy. But if a nation becomes democratic, then nations with a higher economic development are more likely to remain democratic. Poor and democractic nations have a high chances of returning to dictatorship if they experience a period of declining growth.[link]

The probability for a civil war is increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization [link].

Democratization movements

Today, there are a large number of groups around the world which describe themselves as seeking democratization. In many cases, these groups are illegal. The methods employed by these groups vary considerably—some are peaceful, while others pursue violent means.

People, groups, and events which have been described as working for democratization include:

Aung San Suu Kyi, a campaigner for democracy in Myanmar/Burma
Industrial Workers of the World
Birlik and Erk in Uzbekistan
Chinese democracy movement
Coalition for Unity and Democracy in Ethiopia
Democratic Party and The Frontier in Hong Kong
Forum for Democratic Change in Uganda
Human Rights and Democracy Movement in Tonga
Maldivian Democratic Party
Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe
National Alliance for Democracy and Development in The Gambia
National Opposition Union in Nicaragua
Opposition to Fidel Castro in Cuba
Orange Revolution in Ukraine
Otpor, a Serbian student group which protested against Slobodan Milošević
People's United Democratic Movement in Swaziland
Rose Revolution in Georgia
Sąjūdis, a Lithuanian group
Sam Rainsy Party in Cambodia
Seven Party Alliance in Nepal
Seychelles National Party
Union of Forces for Change in Togo
Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, leading to the end of Communist rule
Zubr, a group in Belarus

Democratization in other contexts

Although democratization is most often thought of in the context of national or regional politics, the term can also be applied to:

International bodies

International bodies (e.g the United Nations) where there is an ongoing call for reform and altered voting structures and voting systems.

Corporations

It can also be applied in corporations where the traditional power structure was top-down direction and the boss-knows-best (even a "Pointy-Haired Boss"); This is quite different from consultation, empowerment (of lower levels) and a diffusion of decision making (power) throughout the firm, as advocated by workplace democracy movements.

The Internet

The loose anarchistic structure of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet itself have inspired some groups to call for more democratization of how domain names are held, upheld, and lost. They note that the Domain Name System under ICANN is the least democratic and most centralized part of the Internet and is totally unresponsive to the needs of its users, extending a simple model of first-come-first-served capitalism to the names of things, which may be a very bad idea. Ralph Nader called this "corporatization of the dictionary."

Services such as Wikipedia have inspired some groups to call for a more deliberative democracy to decided what words on the net must mean, and reverse this corporatization with a democratization of meaning, much as Wikipedia users debate and refine the meanings of names and concepts.

Notes

↑ [link]