THE THIRD WAVE DEMOCRACY

The Emergence of Democracy The concept of democracy as a government existed already in ancient Greece. The modern concept, however, emerged in the Western society at the end of 18th Century. Joseph Schumpeter’s “Classical theory of democracy”: - Classified democracy as “the will of the people” (source) and “the common good” (purpose). - “The democratic method is that 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’s classification became the accepted one around the 1970s.

The Meaning of Democracy Studies followed in the footsteps of Schumpeter and defined democracy as: - “Collective decision makers being selected through free, open, fair and periodic elections, where the candidates can freely compete for the votes and where most of the adult population are allowed to vote”. Central aspect of democracy: - Government leaders selected through competitive elections by the people. Democracy involves: contestation & participation. Also indicates: civil and political freedoms to speak, publish, assemble and political organisation.

Why define Democracy? Defining democracy in this way makes it possible to: 1) Evaluate to what degree a political system is democratic. 2) Compare systems. 3) Analyse if the systems are becoming more or less democratic. Acknowledged incompatible factors with democracy: Censorship, rigged elections, harassments of the opposition, jailing of opponents, prohibition of political meetings, etc. With this framework, an evaluation if a country is democratic or not, and to what extent it is a democracy can be defined.

Issues with Defining Democracy Definition in terms of elections is a limited definition. According to some people democracy should include: citizen control over policy, a responsible government, openness and sincerity in politics, equal participation and power, etc. However, according to Huntington, defining democracy in this way is not useful when analysing. - ‘Open, free and fair elections’ is the essence of democracy. The elected political leaders could be mere “puppets”. Limitations of power included in the concept of democracy. - The power should be shared with other groups of society. A puppet government is no democracy.

Issues with Defining Democracy Level of stability should be included into the concept of democracy. - Valuate to what extent a democracy can be expected to remain in existence. Should democracy and non-democracy be considered a dichotomous or continuous variable? - Compared to most people, Huntington prefer to use a dichotomous approach. - Better when analysing transitions from nondemocratic regimes to democratic regimes. Nondemocratic regimes don’t have much in common (except for the lack of electoral competition and widespread participation) Totalitarian regimes: Single party, powerful secret police, strong ideology, government penetration, control of mass communications and social and economic organisations. Authoritarian regimes: Single leader or small group of leaders, no party or weak party, no mass mobilisation, no ideology, limited government, limited political pluralism, no effort to remake society.

The Waves of Democracy First wave of democratisation 1828 - 1926 In 1750 no democratic national institutions existed, but by the end of 20th C it existed in many countries. These democratic institutions emerged in 3 different ‘waves’. A wave of democratisation is: “A group of transitions from nondemocratic regimes to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that period”. A ‘reverse wave’ followed each of the two first waves of democratisation. - Some of the countries that had made the transition to democracy reversed back to a non-democracy. First wave of democratisation 1828 - 1926 First reverse wave 1922 - 42 Second wave of democratisation 1943 - 62 Second reverse wave 1958 - 75 Third wave of democratisation 1974 -

First Wave of Democratisation 1828 - 1926 During this period of around 100years, 33 countries became democracies or semi-democracies. The democratisation developed gradually in most of the countries, which makes it difficult to decide exactly what date a country became a democracy. Jonathan Sunshine established two criteria for when the 19th century countries achieved minimal democratic qualifications in that period: 1) 50% of adult males eligible to vote. 2) A responsible executive who either must maintain majority support in an elected parliament or is chosen in periodic popular elections. Following these criteria it can be argued that the first wave started around 1828 in the US.

First Reverse Wave 1922 - 1942 New trend: A move away from democracy. - Return to traditional forms of authoritarian governments, or - Change into new forms of totalitarianism. Occurred mostly in countries that had adopted democracy just before or after WWI. - New democracies, and many also new states. Greece was the only country which established democracy before 1910 that reversed. Only 4 of the countries that introduced democracy between 1910 and 1931 maintained it throughout the 1920s and 1930s.

Second Wave of Democratisation 1943 - 1962 Around 40 countries established national democratic institutions. Started during WWII. - Allied occupation promoted establishment of democratic institutions in: West Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan and Korea. - Turkey and Greece, as well as several countries in Latin America also became democracies. - The beginning of the decolonisation resulted in new states, and in many of them there was an effort towards democracy.

Second Reverse Wave 1958 - 1975 22 countries reversed during this period. 1/3 of 32 democracies became authoritarian in mid-1970s. The majority of the reverse took place in Latin America. Decolonisation of Africa led to the largest addition of authoritarian governments in history. The second reverse wave involved several countries which had maintained democratic institutions for a longer period of time (a quarter century or more). - E.g. Chile, Uruguay, India and the Philippines.

Third Wave of Democratisation 1974 - ? Since 1974 around 30 countries has established a democracy. - And a few others have had a considerable liberalisation. The third wave started in Southern Europe, then moved towards Latin America, Asia, the Soviet bloc, etc. Will there be a third reverse wave?

Why Democracy? Democracy is closely related with freedom of the individual. Political Stability. - Democracies are rarely politically violent. - Tends to use far less violence against their citizens than nondemocratic regimes. - Provides stability by giving regular opportunities for change of political leaders. Significant to international relations. - Democracies are less likely to fight each other. The future of democracy important for the US. - The US is committed to liberal and democratic values.

~Huntington’s third wave: why~

How waves propagate 1. Single cause development Example: WW2

How waves propagate 2. Parallel development Example: a= economic development, x= democracy

How waves propagate 3. Snowballing

How waves propagate 4. Prevailing nostrum (zeitgeist)

Why do some countries democratize? Many factors (economic, military, strong middle class, respect for law, low levels of violence….) But democratization involves multiple factors Different waves of democratization caused by different combinations of causes

Patterns of regime change Cyclical pattern (Argentina, Brazil, Turkey etc) Second try pattern (Germany, Japan, Colombia etc) Interrupted democracy (India, the Philippines, Chile etc) Direct transition (Romania, Taiwan, Guatemala) Decolonization (Papua New Guinea etc)

Third wave: factors Declining legitimacy and performance dilemma Global economic growth Changes in Catholicism/ religious changes Changes in the policies of external actor Snowballing effects

Factor 1: Declining legitimacy Legitimacy of most regimes decline over time Military failure Poor economic performance etc Frustration builds  regime support disintegrates and power change occurs Communist regimes in 1970s faced such problems

Factor 1: Declining legitimacy How to overcome legitimacy issues in a current regime? Just hold on and deny… Become repressive Provoke foreign conflict and appeal to nationalism Restore some democratic legitimacy Introduce a democratic system on their own accord

Factor 2: Economic development Correlation between wealth and democracy Wealth shapes value of citizens People become more educated More resources  people are more willing to share (not so dog-eat-dog) Wealth in 1970s was created by open trade, and therefore more flow of ideas Expansion of middle class

Factor 3: Religious Changes As of 1988, Christianity was the dominant religion in 39 out of 46 democratic countries. Western Christianity emphasize dignity of individuals and separation of Church and State This gives a plausible reason for the democratisation of countries where Christianity expanded. Example during ‘60-’70: South Korea

Factor 3: Religious Changes After WW II South Korea was predominately Buddhist and Confucian. Only around 1 percent were Christian. By 1980, 25 percent. Christianity gave surer doctrinal basis for political repression.

Factor 3: Religious Changes 1st wave countries were mostly protestant countries. 2nd wave were religiously diverse. Many Catholic countries were not democratic. - Protestantism stressed on individual relation, Catholicism stressed on the role of the church as intermediary. - Protestant churches were more democratically organized, Catholic church was an authoritarian organisation. - Weber thesis. All of those ideas were challenged during the 1970 and 1980; most democratised countries were Catholic.

Factor 3: Religious Changes Why Catholic? Beginning of 1950 Catholic countries had higher rates of economic growth than Protestant countries. The change that was happening in the Catholic Church; Second Vatican Council and local priest activity.

Factor 4: New policies of external actors External actors also influenced democratisation of countries. Allied victory in WW I changed many not yet stable countries into democracies. Soviet intervention after WW II prevented socially and economically ready countries becoming democracies. Major source of power of the third wave: - Vatican - European Community - United States - Soviet Union

Factor 4: New policies of external actors EUROPEAN COMMUNITY To become a member, country must become a democracy. Membership of the community also reinforced commitment to keep democracy. CSCE, Helsinki Final Act, and the beginning of Helsinki Process.

Factor 4: New policies of external actors The United States Late 1960s-1970s: Was not US main interest; focused on Vietnam War. 1974: the United States made the promotion of human rights a major foreign policy goal 1977: Carter administration; Even more emphasize on Human Rights. Reagan administration: First reduced the attention in non-communist authoritarian countries and focusing more in Communist countries. 1983-1984, Focusing on both.

Factor 4: New policies of external actors The US methods to promote democratisation during the third wave: Statements by presidents, secretaries of state, and other officials endorsing democratisation. Economic pressures and sanctions Diplomatic action Material support Military action Multilateral diplomacy

Factor 4: New policies of external actors Soviet Union Changes of Soviet policy in the late 1980s Greatly impacted Eastern European countries to democratise.

Factor 5: Demonstration effect or snowballing Many countries that faced similar problems or saw democratisation might be a cure for their problems were also trying to democratise themselves. Demonstration effects demonstrated: - The ability of leaders or groups from another society to remove authoritarian regime with a democratic system. - It showed how it could be done. - Taught the democratisers the dangers to be avoided and the difficulties.

Factor 5: Demonstration effect or snowballing Why demonstration was really important on the third wave? Tremendous expansion in global communications and transportation Countries that were closer geographically, or culturally similar had greater impact. The change over time in the relative importance of the causes of the wave.

From causes to causers Many factors contributed to the third wave of democratisation. These factors only created favourable condition to democratisation. The people were also needed in this change.

~the further expansion of democratization~

Outline Does democratizations continue and make the whole world democratized? If the third wave came to a halt, would it be followed by a significant third reverse wave? 1. Third Wave Causes: Continuing, Weakening, Changing? 2. The Possibility of the Third Reverse Wave 3. The Obstacles to and Opportunities for Democratization that may exist in those countries that as of 1990 had not democratized. 1. Identify some factor that will affect the future expansion or contraction 2. Pose the questions that seem most relevant for the future of democratization

1. The Cause of the third wave ~Continuing, Weakening or Changing?~ ①Change in doctrines and Activities of the Catholic Church To what extent would the Catholic Church continue to be the potent force for democratization that it had been in the 1970s? Were the attitudes of the Vatican concerning birth control, abortion, women priests, and other issues consistent with the promotion of democracy in the broader society and polity? In 1960s and 1970s By 1990 The spread of Christianity in Korea and Africa The Catholic impetus to Democracy had largely exhausted. So, remember he pointed out the five factors in Chapter 2; the legitimacy problem of authoritarian regimes, economic development, change in doctorine, external factor, and snowballing effect. Here, he focused on three of them, which is chage in doctorine, external factor, and snowballing effect.

②External Factor 1. European Community 2. Soviet Union Turkey wanted to reinforce modernizing and democratic tendencies and isolate the forces supporting Islamic fundamentalism. Should EC expand its membership? If so, should priority go to European Free Trade Association members, or to Eastern Europeans, or Turkey? 2. Soviet Union There seemed little more the Soviet Union could do or was likely to do to promote democracy outside its borders.

3. The United states Force Obstacle Direct exercise of American Power Bush - “our new mission to be the promotion and consolidation of democracy.” 1.“The end of the Cold war and of the ideological competition with the Soviet Union could remove one rationale for propping up anticommunist dictators.” 2. The American impetus to Democracy had largely exhausted. 3. US faced major problems: crime, drugs, trade deficits, budget deficits, low savings and investment, decreasing productivity growth, inferior public education, decaying inner cities. As a Winning Model It stood for freedom and it conveyed an image of strength and success.

③Snowballing Effect Short Summary The impact of snowballing on democratization was clearly evident in 1990 in Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Nepal, Albania, some Arab and African countries. In the absence of favorable conditions in the affected country, snowballing alone is a weak cause of democratization. The economic and social conditions favorable to the existence of democracy did not exist throughout the world. Short Summary In Eastern Europe the major obstacle to democratization had been Soviet control. Once that was removed the movement to democracy developed easily. It seems unlikely that the only major obstacle to democratization in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia was the absence of the Eastern European example of democratization. By 1990 many of the original causes of the third wave had been significantly weakened or exhausted.

2. Third Reverse Wave? ~The Problem of Consolidation~ ①The causes of shifts from authoritarianism to democracy in the first and second reverse wave. The weakness of democratic values among key elite groups and the general public Economic crisis or collapse that intensified social conflict and enhanced the popularity of remedies that could only be imposed by authoritarian governments Social and political polarization often produced by leftist governments attempting to introduce or appearing to introduce too may major socioeconomic reforms too quickly The determination of conservative middle- and upper-class groups to exclude populist and leftist movements and lower-class groups from political power The breakdown of law and order resulting from terrorism or insurgency Intervention or conquest by a nondemocratic foreign government Snowballing in the from of the demonstration effects of the collapse or overthrow of democratic systems in other countries

②Military Coup or Executive Coup Transitions from democracy to authoritarianism were almost always produced by those in power or close to power n the democratic system. The first reverse wave The second reverse wave Military Eastern Europe, Greece, Portugal, Argentina, and Japan. Latin American countries, Indonesia, Pakistan, Greece, Nigeria, and Turkey. Executive Uruguay (through a mixed executive-military coup) Korea, India and the Philippines With only one or two possible exceptions, democratic systems have not been ended by popular vote or by popular revolt. Military coups in which military officers (usually the top leadership of the armed services) ousted democratically elected leaders and installed some form of military dictatorship, Executive coups in which democratically chosen chief executives effectively ended democracy by concerntrating power in themselves, usually by declaring a state of emergency or martial law.

③New Forms of Authoritarian Rule Democratic systems were replaced by historically new forms of authoritarian rule. - fascism and bureaucratic-authoritarianism 1.Systemic failures of democratic regimes to operate effectively could undermine their legitimacy. - international economic collapse 2. Snowballing effect 3. A lack of precondition for democracy 4. Developments of nondemocratic regime 5. New forms of authoritarian rule - Authoritarian nationalism, Religious fundamentalism, Oligarchic authoritarianism, Populist dictatorships, Communal dictatorships, Technocratic electronic dictatorship

3. Future Democratization ~Obstacles and Opportunities~ 4 regions that did not have democratic regimes. Homegrown Marxist-Leninist regimes Sub-Saharan African countries Islamic Countries East Asian countries

①Politics The absence of experience with democracy The death or departure from office of long-term dictatorship leaders “Were the obstacles to liberalization in these countries the origins and nature of the regime, the long duration of their leaders in power, or their poverty and economic backwardness?” The Lack of Political Leadership One serious impediment to democratization was the absence or weakness of real commitment to democratic values among political leaders in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. “These leaders won power through the electoral system and then used their power to undermine that system.” The absence of experience with democracy of most countries that remained authoritarian in the 1990s. The death or departure from office of long-term dictatorship leaders They create authoritarian regimes or who remain long in power in such regimes usually become staunch standpatters opposing democratization.

②Culture The Restrictive Version ・・・Democracy has a relatively narrow base both in time and in space. Democracy, in short, was appropriate only for northwestern and perhaps central European countries and their settler colony offshoots. Less Restrictive Version ・・・One or more cultures are peculiarly hostile to it. ⅰ. Confucianism ⅱ. Islam The restrictive version states that only Western culture provides a suitable base for the develoment of democratice institutions and democracy is largely inappropriate for non-Western societies. Democracy consequently has “a relatively narrow base both in time and in space; and the evidence has yet to beo produced that it is the natural form of rule for peoples outside those narrow perimeters.” Hence there is “no reason to suppose that the attempt to develop and employ democratic institutions would be the best course for many of these peoples.” Democracy, in short, was appropriate only for northwestern and perhaps central European countries and their settler colony offshoots. 3 questions to ask for Confucianism and Islam

Confucianism Confucian societies lacked a tradition of rights against the state; to extent that individual rights did exist, they were created by the state. Group over the individual, authority over liberty, responsibility over rights. China – “new authoritarianism” Taiwan ・rapid economic growth and social development ・fundamental change in Chinese political culture, ・the emergence of substantial entrepreneurial class Korea In the late 1980s, urbanization, education, the development of a substantial middle class, and the impressive spread of Christianity all weakened Confucianism. China 1They articulated a theory of “new authoritarianism” based on the experience of Taiwan, Singapore, and Korea and justified by the argument that for a country at China’s stage of economic development authoritarianism was necessary to achieve balanced economic growth. ２The leadership violently suppressed the democratic movement in Beijing and elsewhere in the summer of 1989. Singapore Taiwan rapid economic growth and social development fundamental change in Chinese political culture, which has not occurred in China itself or in Korea or Vietnam and never really existed in Japan. The emergence of substantial entrepreneurial class Korea In the late 1980s, urbanization, education, the development of a substantial middle class, and the impressive spread of Christianity all weakened Confucianism.

East Asian Democratic Institutions Democracy without turnover –more dependent on performance legitimacy -Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia- What happens if and when eight percent GNP growth rates disappear; unemployment, inflation, and other forms of economic distress escalate; social and economic conflicts intensify? -Western democracy ・・・ turn the incumbents out -dominant-party democracy ・・・ revolutionary change in a political system based on the assumption one party would always be in power and other parties always out To what extent does the East Asian dominant-party combination of Western procedures and Confucian values presuppose sustained substantial economic growth? Can this system last during prolonged economic downturn or stagnation? The interaction of economic progress and Asian culture appeared to generate a distinct East Asian variety of democratic institutions. The central problem in such a system is drawing the boundaries between “the domain of the dominant party and the degree of tolerance of an opposition.” Japan a democracy that had not truly met the first-turnover test not to mention the second-turnover test. A first criterion for democracy is equitable and open competition for votes between political parties with an absence or minimal levels of government harassment or restriction of opposition groups. In 1990 the East Asian dominant-party systems covered a continuum between democracy and authoritarianism, with Japan at one extreme, Indonesia at the other, and Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Singapore in between, more or less in that order. Western democratic systems, as has been pointed out, are less dependent on performance legitimacy than authoritarian systems because performance failure is blamed on the incumbents rahter than the system and the ouster and replacement of the incumbents lead to the renewal of the system.

Islam To the extent that governmental legitimacy and policy flow from religious doctrine and religious expertise, Islamic concepts of politics differ from and contradict the premises of democratic politics. Exceptions Turkey – interrupted by occasional military intervention Lebanon - oligarchy and Christianity Whatever the compatibility of Islam and democracy in theory, in practice they have not gone together. Would the existing governments continue to open up their politics and hold elections in which Islamic groups could compete freely and equally? Would the Islamic groups gain majority support in those elections? In the late 1980s domestic economic problems combined with the snowballing effects of democratization elsewhere let governments in several Islamic countries to relax their controls on opposition and to attempt to renew their legitimacy through elections. But, fundamentalism seemed to be gaining strength in Middle Eastern countries.

Some Counter-arguments to Cultural Obstacles Similar cultural arguments have not held up in the past. Great historic cultural traditions, such as Islam and Confucianism, are highly complex bodies of ideas, beliefs, doctrines, assumptions, writings, and behavior patters. Even if the culture of a country is at one point an obstacle to democracy, cultures historically are dynamic rather than passive. Similar cultural arguments have not held up in the past. As has been noted, at one point many scholars argued that Catholicism was an obstacle to democracy. Yet in the 1960s and 1970s Catholic countries became democratic and, on the average, had higher rates of economic growth than Protestant countries. By the 1980s, a new generation of scholars saw Confucianism as a major cause of the spectacular economic growth of East Asian societies. Great historic cultural traditions, such as Islam and Confucianism, are highly complex bodies of ideas, beliefs, doctrines, assumptions, writings, and behavior patters. Even if the culture of a country is at one point an obstacle to democracy, cultures historically are dynamic rather than passive.

③Economics Short Summary Transition zone at the upper-middle levels of economic development “Poverty is a principal and probably the principal obstacle to democratic development. The future of democracy depends on the future of economic development. Obstacles to economic development are obstacles to the expansion of democracy.” the Middle East and North Africa? Economic vs. Culture Short Summary Few relationships between social, economic, and political phenomena are stronger than that between level of economic development and existence of democratic politics. The overwhelming bulk of the countries where economic conditions supportive of democratization were emerging in the 1990s were in the Middle East and North Africa. The economic well-being of many of these countries was dependent on oil exports, a situation that enhanced the control of the state bureaucracy and hence provided a less favorable climate for democratization. But, this did not mean that democratization would necessarily be impossible. The state bureaucracies of Eastern EUrope exercised even more complete control than those of the oil exporters. The issue of economics versus culture would then be joined: What forms of politics would emerge in these countries when economic prosperity interacted with Islamic values and traditions? In China, the obstacles to democratization in 1990 were political, economic, and cultural; in Africa, they were overwhelmingly economic; in the rapidly developing countries of East Asia and in many Islamic countries, they were primarily cultural.

Conclusion Democratic Consolidation “Economic development makes democracy possible; political leadership makes it real.” 1. Economic development 2. Political Leadership Cautions 1. the difficulty of economic development by late developing countries 2. New forms of authoritarianism Modernization – industrialization and interrelated economy -(Ch. 2) Human rights come along with modernization. Universal Modernization (Jack Donnelly) Democratic Consolidation Judging by the past record, the two key factors affecting the future stability and expansion of democracy are economic development and political leadership. One example is Egypt.