The Process of Democracy
The explosion of democracy around the world that began in the mid-20th century has changed international politics. Once the exception, democracies now dominate international life and are generally regarded as the ideal. They are associated with a variety of positive outcomes, from economic prosperity to respect for human rights. As a result, scholars and policy makers are increasingly interested in the process of democratisation—the means by which a society moves from authoritarian rule to democratic governance. Democratisation is often seen as a long, difficult, and risky journey that cannot be hurried.
Different theories of democratisation vary widely, with many debates focusing on what specific conditions or events lead to a transition from autocracy to democracy. For example, some argue that economic development is a necessary precursor to democratisation. They assert that economic growth creates an educated middle class with the interest and capability to demand greater influence over government issues. This, in turn, pressures even the most repressive regimes to allow more freedom of speech and assembly and eventually hold elections. Others, however, disagree, arguing that a successful transition to democracy requires more than just the overthrow of an autocracy and the holding of the first elections; rather, it must include a long process of implementing reforms that will ultimately produce a functioning democracy.
Regardless of the approach taken, most scholars agree that the road to democracy is not linear or free from hazards. For example, many states that have been labelled as “new democracies” in recent years are experiencing troubled times. Others have reverted to authoritarian rule or are at best mired in a hybrid form of government. In addition, there is a broad consensus that democratic processes are not easily replicated and that democratisation is not a simple formula that can be applied to any country.
There are also disagreements over what exactly constitutes a democracy. Some experts believe that a democracy involves much more than merely allowing for regular elections, and that it must also involve free and fair competition between political parties and the protection of civil liberties. In the light of this debate, many scholars have proposed various indicators to measure the extent to which a state is democratic.
Another area of agreement is that a prerequisite for democratisation is a favourable civil-society environment. This is argued to involve the presence of dense networks of voluntary associations that promote civic culture and allow citizens to organise themselves independent of the state. This, in turn, is believed to foster a level of tolerance and moderation that prevents societal conflicts from escalating into violent upheavals. Others, however, have argued that this view overlooks the ways in which civil-society changes can be manipulated by governments for their own purposes. This has resulted in the creation of a number of systems that are described as procedural democracies but not substantive ones.
The explosion of democracy around the world that began in the mid-20th century has changed international politics. Once the exception, democracies now dominate international life and are generally regarded as the ideal. They are associated with a variety of positive outcomes, from economic prosperity to respect for human rights. As a result, scholars and policy makers are increasingly interested in the process of democratisation—the means by which a society moves from authoritarian rule to democratic governance. Democratisation is often seen as a long, difficult, and risky journey that cannot be hurried. Different theories of democratisation vary widely, with many debates focusing on what specific conditions or events lead to a transition from autocracy to democracy. For example, some argue that economic development is a necessary precursor to democratisation. They assert that economic growth creates an educated middle class with the interest and capability to demand greater influence over government issues. This, in turn, pressures even the most repressive regimes to allow more freedom of speech and assembly and eventually hold elections. Others, however, disagree, arguing that a successful transition to democracy requires more than just the overthrow of an autocracy and the holding of the first elections; rather, it must include a long process of implementing reforms that will ultimately produce a functioning democracy. Regardless of the approach taken, most scholars agree that the road to democracy is not linear or free from hazards. For example, many states that have been labelled as “new democracies” in recent years are experiencing troubled times. Others have reverted to authoritarian rule or are at best mired in a hybrid form of government. In addition, there is a broad consensus that democratic processes are not easily replicated and that democratisation is not a simple formula that can be applied to any country. There are also disagreements over what exactly constitutes a democracy. Some experts believe that a democracy involves much more than merely allowing for regular elections, and that it must also involve free and fair competition between political parties and the protection of civil liberties. In the light of this debate, many scholars have proposed various indicators to measure the extent to which a state is democratic. Another area of agreement is that a prerequisite for democratisation is a favourable civil-society environment. This is argued to involve the presence of dense networks of voluntary associations that promote civic culture and allow citizens to organise themselves independent of the state. This, in turn, is believed to foster a level of tolerance and moderation that prevents societal conflicts from escalating into violent upheavals. Others, however, have argued that this view overlooks the ways in which civil-society changes can be manipulated by governments for their own purposes. This has resulted in the creation of a number of systems that are described as procedural democracies but not substantive ones.