Democratization and Countermajoritarian Institutions: The Role of Power and Constitutional Design In Self-Enforcing Democracy (original) (raw)
Related papers
2004
Transitology' and 'consolidology' have only rarely emphasized the importance of defining democracy in a normatively and theoretically sophisticated manner. Almost without discussion they accepted the parsimonious definition and elegant but simple concepts of Schumpeter, Dahl and Przeworski. 1 They reduced democracy to the question of free and general electoral competition, vertical accountability and the fact that the most powerful political and social actors played the political game according to democratically institutionalized rules. At least implicitly, democracy was conceived as an elitist electoral democracy. Neither the structural question of prerequisites for democracy 2 nor the conditions for sustainable legitimacy 3 played and could play a relevant role within this minimalist concept of the sustainability of democracy. But not only the external 'embedding' of democracy, but also the 'internal' embeddedness of the democratic electoral regime was neglected. Rule of law, civil rights and horizontal accountability were excluded from the concept of democracy. Guillermo O'Donnell (1993) 4 was the first to criticize that conceptual flaw of the mainstream of transitology and consolidology. Thirty years after the beginning of the third wave of democratization empirical evidence revealed the theoretical shortcomings of the minimalist 'electoralists'. It became evident that it is misleading to subsume Denmark, Sweden or France under the same type of regime-an electoral democracy-as Russia, Thailand or Brazil. Political science ran the risk of even falling behind the analytical capacity of daily newspapers in differentiating between different types of democracy. It became clear that the majority of new democracies could not be labelled 'liberal democracies'. General, competitive and free elections turned out to be insufficient in guaranteeing the rule of law, civil rights and horizontal accountability. Between elections many of the electoral democracies were not government by, of or for the people. It became obvious, again, that democratic elections need the support of complementary partial regimes, such as the rule of law, horizontal accountability and an open public sphere in order to become 'meaningful' elections. Democratic theory has once again met up with research on democratization. Since the mid-1990s studies
How to protect new democracies against their erosion
2014
Since the beginning of 1974 about 90 worldwide countries have been travelling from tyranny to democracy. The optimistic is that nearly 1 billion and 400 million people have been liberated. The pessimistic, that only 27 percent of those countries successfully consolidated their democracies. This assay is considering why as much as 73 percent of attempts are not consolidated with the success. The article made the attempt to show and then sum up almost forty years experiences in consolidating new democracies in: Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia in order , first, to show why they are hybrid and not consolidated and, second, to advance hypothesis about the most optimal institutional, especially constitutional, engineering in fledgling democracies.
Authoritarian-Led Democratization
Annual Review of Political Science
Authoritarian regimes become more likely to democratize when they face little choice or little risk. In some cases, the risk of democratization to authoritarian incumbents is so low that ending authoritarianism might not mean exiting power at all. This article develops a unified theory of authoritarian-led democratization under conditions of relatively low incumbent risk. We argue that the party strength of the authoritarian incumbent is the most pivotal factor in authoritarian-led democratization. When incumbent party strength has been substantial enough to give incumbent authoritarian politicians significant electoral victory confidence, nondemocratic regimes have pursued reversible democratic experiments that eventually culminated in stable, thriving democracies. Evidence from Europe's first wave of democratization and more recent democratic transitions in Taiwan and Ghana illustrate how party strength has underpinned authoritarian-led democratization across the world and acr...
Good'and 'bad'democracies: how to conduct research into the quality of democracy
Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 2004
This introductory article moves from the definitions of democracy and of quality to propose a definition of democratic quality, that is, of 'good' and 'bad' democracies. The five main dimensions of such a quality (rule of law, accountability, responsiveness, freedom and equality/solidarity) are analysed by enlightening four aspects: the empirical definition, the main indicators, the attempts and practice of its subversion, and the central condition or conditions. A particular emphasis is devoted to the betrayal and circumvention of quality goals. In the short conclusions a few issues are pointed out for further discussion.
Democratic Breakdown and Survival
Journal of Democracy, 2013
Why do democracies survive or break down? We return to this classic question with an empirical study of Latin America between 1945 and 2005 that employs a new research strategy. A rich body of qualitative studies of individual countries tells us that the survival or fall of democratic regimes depends on what political leaders, parties, militaries, social movements, and other key actors do. Their behavior is shaped, but not determined, by structural forces and cultural patterns. Scaling up from case studies is hard, however, and until now scholars' ability to test theories based on actors' preferences and behavior has been limited. Here we present an analysis that is mainly quantitative and aims at a preliminary assessment of how far certain key ideas from the qualitative literature can be generalized. Our study does not use a demanding definition of democracy. We begin with a tripartite classification, developed with Daniel Brinks, that categorizes Latin American political regimes as democratic, semidemocratic, or authoritarian. 1 For the purposes of this essay, we lump together democratic and semidemocratic regimes under the broader heading of "competitive regimes." Although we occasionally refer to these regimes simply as "democratic," the set of cases to which we are referring includes semidemocratic regimes as well. Between 1945 and 2005, the twenty countries of Latin America experienced a combined total of 644 years under competitive systems. Our analysis explores why (and when) competitive regimes broke down and, conversely, what factors favored their survival.
Constitutions and Democratic Breakdowns
Voters, Institutions, and Accountability, 2001
Ever since the emergence of political theory, political thinkers have debated which political institutions foster democracies, individual freedoms and good governance. Aristotle's analysis of different types of constitutional regimes and their political effects was retaken and elaborated upon by most modern philosophers. Referring to the history of the Roman republic as well as to contemporary evidence from Venice and other Italian cities, Machiavelli discussed at length the conditions underlying successful republican states in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. In the Spirit of Laws Montesquieu described in painstaking detail the foundations, structures and operation of monarchies, aristocracies and democracies and the potential causes of their decay. In turn, John Stuart Mill's Considerations on Representative Government examined the constitutional basis of a successful representative democracy.