Civil Society and the Legacies of Dictatorship (World Politics 2007) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Civil Society and the Development of Democracy
In the burgeoning theoretical and empirical literature on democratization, few issues are more central and diffuse than the question of elite versus mass influence. Is it SULPDULO\ elites who make, shape, and consolidate democracy? Or does the public matter? If so, how, when, and to what degree?
The Rise of the People and the Uselessness of Democracy as a Concept for Empirical Research
Page 1. The Rise of the People and the Uselessness of Democracy as a Concept for Empirical Research Fred Eidlin Department of Political Science University of Guelph , Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 feidlin@uoguelph.ca Prepared for presentation at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1-4 September. Page 2.
Consolidation of New Democracy, Mass Attitudes, and Clientelism
American Economic Review, 2009
When democracy is new it is often fragile or unconsolidated, meaning that important political groups lack full commitment to the democratic process, so that its survival is not assured. What economic policies can a government use to try to prevent a reversion to autocracy? One answer to this question begins with the argument that the threat to democracy comes from anti-democratic elites-the army, groups such as the wealthy who bene…tted most under the old regime, the "oligarchs"-who are seen as basically anti-democratic and who have the power to overthrow the new democratic regime. The "masses" are seen as unambiguously pro-democratic. Under this view, policy to consolidate democracy should focus on placating the anti-democratic elites, or, colloquially but not inaccurately, to "buy them o¤." This approach has received a superb treatment in Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (2005). Targeted economic policy to consolidate democracy can be viewed more generally. Survival of democracy (and policy to enhance that) can be thought of in terms of two fundamental questions. The …rst is: How does the support of di¤erent actors a¤ect the probability that democracy survives? The second is then: How do these important actors choose whether or not to support the continuation of democracy or its overthrow? The design of policy to address democratic fragility depends on the answers to these two basic questions. The policy prescription in the previous paragraph, for example, follows from the answers: it is the elites alone who are determinate; and, their support depends on giving them enough that they are content not to overthrow democracy. Our research on the fragility of new democracies focusses on di¤erent, but complementary issues. While we agree that anti-democratic elites pose a serious threat to fragile
This chapter explores two psychological orientations that support democratic governance. First, robust democracies require citizens to tolerate others' efforts to participate in politics, even if they promote unpopular views. Research shows that citizens' political tolerance is influenced strongly by the depth of their commitment to democratic values, by their personality, and by the degree to which they perceive others as threatening. Cross-national research generalizes many of these findings to other countries. Second, robust democracies need citizens who will participate in politics. Almond and Verba's cross-national research shows that interpersonal trust and other features of political culture enhance citizen involvement in politics. Inglehart expanded the political culture framework in his work on post-materialism, interpersonal trust, life satisfaction, and cognitive mobilization. Recent theories of social capital also emphasize the role of generalized interpersonal trust, membership in voluntary associations, and norms of reciprocity in enhancing political participation and democracy.
Center For the Study of Democracy, 2008
In fact, both views hold true. They do because they reflect fundamentally different conceptions of democracy. During the explosion of democracy that took place from 1989 to 1992 (which we will refer to as the Third Wave of democratization), electoral democracy spread rapidly throughout the world and it is clear that strategic elite agreements were a driving factor in this process--facilitated by an international environment in which the end of the Cold War reshaped the incentive structure in favor of democratic regimes. Accordingly, the correlation between standard measures of democracy and key indicators of societal development is relatively weak, when we use narrow measures that focus on nominal democracy-but it becomes much stronger when we use broader measures that focus on effective democracy. Thus, when one uses the Polity Project's "autocracy-democracy index" as a measure of democracy, the Human Development Index 6 explains only 35 percent of the cross-national variation in levels of democracy (N=114). Using the Freedom House measure of democracy, which takes civil liberties into account, the Human Development Index explains a larger share of the variance-41%. 7 But both of these linkages became considerably weaker if we use measures of democracy made after the climax of the global democratization wave (i.e., over 2000-04) instead of before it (i.e., over 1984-88): the variation in levels of democracy explained by the Human Development Index fell from 41 to 30 percent when we measure democracy with the Freedom House data, and from 35 to 18 percent when we use the Polity data. With the global diffusion of nominal democracy, formal democratic institutions were adopted even in poor societies, weakening the development-democracy link.
Global quality of democracy as innovation enabler: measuring democracy for success, 2019
A fresh monograph of an Austrian and American political scientist Prof. David F. J. Campbell "Global Quality of Democracy as Innovation Enabler" (Campbell 2019) is a comprehensive and conceptual summarizing theoretical and empirical study. The book is published within Palgrave Macmillan series "Studies in Democracy: Innovation and entrepreneurship for growth" and scrutinizes the meanings and tangible manifestations of democracy as a societal trend and mode of political, social and economics regimes in 160 countries worldwide (whether democratic or non-democratic ones) for the period of 2002-2016. The author interprets democracy as a continuum of social, political and economic modus vivendi and modus operandi of contemporary societies along various societal axes and suggests a theoretical matrix and a data-driven framework that allows consistent crosscountry as well as cross-regional comparisons. "Democracies", "semi-democracies" and "non-democracies" are thoroughly analysed in terms of their factual functionality in such areas as social equality, economic and political freedom, sustainability of development and self-organization. David Campbell comes to a conclusion that there exist and co-exist a magnitude of patterns of regimes with various degrees of democratic features and the related modes of securing societal, economic and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, concludes the author, the raising quality of life can be functionally secured also under conditions of "limited" democracy or in non-democratic regimes. At the same time, however, in the post-industrial mode of development, when knowledge becomes a main driver of growth and sustainability, only the countries with prevailing democratic trends along all societal axes would become true winners in the global competition. The latter is exemplified, inter alia, by 35 OECD member countries. David Campbell follows rather a positivist approach that assumes a fact-based investigation and systematic observations using the empirical data. However, a solid theoretical background was elaborated in order to construct a conceptual framework of the matrix for the subsequent and systematic empirical analysis. As a result of the profound and critical theory reviews, the sound empirical data mining and the modelling of a comprehensive analytical matrix, the book can be seen as an unprecedented compendium of up-to-date knowledge about the structural dynamics of modern polities. It provides a reader with clear methodological apparatus, reliable and verifiable data and a wide palette of possible interpretations of yielded data-driven outcomes. In the suggested model, the main components of any political regime that can be empirically measured are (1) the degrees of freedom, were one distinguishes economic and political freedoms; (2) social equality exemplified by income and gender (in-) equalities; (3) control by the government and of the government; (4) sustainability of development measured through the redesigned Human Development Index, Gini index, rate of CO 2 emissions and GDP per capita; (5) political self-organization of a society understood as government-opposition cycles (pp.40-41).