Civil Society and Democratization

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

9

2.1 Civil Society and Democratization

2.1.1 Democratization and democratic consolidation

In Huntington’s book, The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, he defines a democracy as “to the extent that its most powerful collective decision makers are selected through fair, honest and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote.” (Huntington, 1991, p. 7) He focuses on the empirical studies that well observe the three waves of democratization so as the democratic reverses. The first wave of democratization came during the time of 1828-1926, which was rooted in the American and French revolutions. However, because of the economic recession that erupted in the 1920, the democratic revolutions were later followed by the first reverse wave from 1922 to 42. The totalitarian dictatorships and authoritarian rose again.

After the World War II, the new states that just freed themselves from the colonial destiny intended to adapt democratic ruling systems, and started the second wave of democratization from 1943-62. The second reverse wave (1958-75) broke out in Latin America and Africa. One third of the working democracies in 1958 returned to authoritarian regimes. The third wave, from 1974 up until now, has accompanied with globalization, and the success of the democratic regimes have encouraged other countries and caused a snowball effect worldwide. As has happened in the first two waves of democratization, some of the new democracies have been reversed. Take Pakistan as an example. Its colonial history enhances the role of the military in the politics. Difficult economic circumstances accompanied with military interference in politics hamper the persistence of democracy. (Giunchi, 2011, p.1280-1281) It is defined by Diamond as “the single most serious reversal of democracy during the

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

10

third wave”. (Diamond, 2000, p.92) Similarly, Algeria’s economic reform combined with rapid and through democratization leads to regime collapse as well as the quick reversal of democratization. (Hinnebusch, 2006, p.388) According to the Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World survey, there are notable democratic setbacks from 2006 to 2012. The probability of a reverse wave has aroused wild academic attention. (Møller & Skaaning, 2013, pp.97-98; Cannon & Hume, 2012, p.1040)

Accordingly, democratic transition process is not necessary promise for a

democratic consolidation. Institutional changes usually accompany with disturbances.

If a system is not adapted efficiently to the new changes, this might lead to

systematical breakdown and democratic reverse. New democracies are often disturbed by the instability intertwined with social, economic, and political changes. The newly built democratic systems turn into authoritarian regimes or dictatorships when the democracy skepticism prevails. See that the persistence of democracy does not come unconditionally with the process of democratization. In the theoretical literature, different factors are discussed as contributing to democratization and democratic consolidation in a given country.

2.1.2 Democratization theory and the role of civil Society

More recently, Grugel identifies three major schools of democratization theories- the modernization theory, historical sociology, and transition theory. (Grugel, 2002, pp.46-62) They all focus on different factors that lead the process and results of

democratization. Modernization theory emphasizes the economic and societal factors.

Historical sociology focuses on the structural and institutional configurations.

Transition theorists favor that the conflicts between elites bring about the eventual democratization.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

11

Seymour Martin Lipset’s (1959) empirical study focuses on how the

socio-economic development further influences the level of democratic development of a given country, which is better known as “Modernization Theory”. He establishes a direct link between socio-political development and democracy and emphasizes the positive correlation between the two factors. He notes that "the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy”. (Lipset, 1959, p. 75) In other words, socio-economic development brought about by industrialization is a crucial intervening variable in democratic transformation. In this context, with economic development and social structural change, the role of the middle class is emphasized in the democratic transitions. The evolution of social conditions towards a modernized society and the increasing power of the middle class give impetus to democratization. The demands for democratic values and political rights from an awakening society push the authority to gradually loosen its control.

However, the modernization theory has been subjected to two major critiques.

(Hinnebusch, 2006 p.375) First, it has a problem in identifying the threshold of the economic and social conditions. Second, it is hard to explain in cases such as democratic India and European fascist and communist regimes. Those counter examples have short-circuited the linear relation between socio-economic

development and democratization. Potter said that “the assumption ignores various other possibilities, for example that increasing levels of socioeconomic development may have an unsettling effect on the political regime and a negative impact on democracy”. (Potter, 1997, p.12)

Historical sociology is taking a structural approach in explaining the outcome of democratization. It traces back to the historical and social structures to explain the political path that the state takes. This kind of social structural perspective is concerned about the class conflicts and argues that “democracy requires a balance

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

12

between the state and independent classes”. (Hinnebusch, 2006, p.378) Potter elaborates the basic premise of the structural approach to democratization as “the particular interrelationship of certain structures of power-economic, social, political – as they gradually change through history provide constraints and opportunities that drive political elites and others along a historical trajectory leading toward liberal democracy”. (Potter, 1997, p.18)

Rather than emphasizing the economic or historical factors, transition theorist views “democratization as a process, led by cost-benefit calculations on the part of key actors”. (Cannon & Hume, 2012, p.1041) Potter states that “certain actions, choices, and strategies of political elites are beneficial to democratic transition, others are not”. (Potter, 1997, p.17) It focuses on the role of political elites rather than the people. It believes that elite bargaining is the key factor to the ultimate democracy.

This theory has been criticized that it is too elitist and its empirical studies work better for southern Europe but not Africa and China. (Hinnebusch, 2006, p.387)

Grugel proposes an alternative approach to focus on the interaction between the state, civil society and global political economy. She emphasizes the structural explanation along with social subjects and international context. In this context, she views democracies as “political systems comprising institutions that translate citizens’

preference into policy, have effective states that act to protect and deepen democratic rights, count on a strong participatory and critical civil society”. (Grugel, 2002, p.96) Drawing from that, the institutional construction should not be the only factor for democracy. The role of civil society, citizens’ perceptions, and social actors’

engagements should not be neglected in the discussion of democracy.