Conflict Resolution and the Concept of Democratisation
A democracy is a government where citizens have rights, freedoms and responsibilities to the state as well as equal opportunities and access to services. Democratisation is the process of making such a political system more established and more widely accepted. It is one of the most important concepts and trends in modern politics, and it has implications for conflict-resolution theory and practice.
There are a variety of theories about the causes and processes of democratization. One view is that it occurs in a process of slow incremental development, exemplified by Great Britain’s gradual evolution from absolute monarchy to a democracy. Another is that democratization occurs when economic development creates an educated middle class with interests in governing issues and the capacity to make demands of a repressive government, which eventually forces it to give way. Still others see a more dynamic, revolutionary process, as when revolutionaries topple an autocratic regime and install themselves in power.
The question of what makes democracy more or less likely to develop has generated considerable debate among democratic theorists, and even more discussion about the conditions for a society’s readiness to become democratic. The most important factor, according to many scholars, is the existence of a cultural environment that is supportive of democratic institutions and values. These include tolerance of diversity, a belief in the equality of all citizens and that all are capable of participating effectively in public life, a commitment to civil liberties and human rights, and a sense of mutual obligation and reciprocity among citizens. The term for this collection of attitudes and values is often referred to as a ‘civic culture’.
While there is disagreement among scholars about the nature of civic culture, there is a consensus that a democracy cannot succeed without it. Moreover, the more democratic a society is, the more likely it will be to sustain itself, and the less likely it will be to collapse or revert to authoritarian rule. There is also a consensus that democracy tends to spread in waves, with most countries becoming democratic over time and space. The first wave, lasting from the expansion of suffrage in the late 19th century to World War I, was succeeded by the second wave in the postwar period and by a series of reverse waves in Asia and Latin America.
It is also widely agreed that democracy cannot thrive unless it has an adequate supply of resources. This is a fundamental reason behind the emphasis on economic development as a necessary precondition for democratization, and it has led some academics to propose models of transition from authoritarian regimes that do not rely on any particular set of structural ‘big causes’. These scholars, such as Dankwart A. Rustow in his book Democracy and Development (1990) and Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter in their classic Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (1986), have criticized the idea of large-scale ‘structural’ causes of democratization as being simplistic.
A democracy is a government where citizens have rights, freedoms and responsibilities to the state as well as equal opportunities and access to services. Democratisation is the process of making such a political system more established and more widely accepted. It is one of the most important concepts and trends in modern politics, and it has implications for conflict-resolution theory and practice. There are a variety of theories about the causes and processes of democratization. One view is that it occurs in a process of slow incremental development, exemplified by Great Britain’s gradual evolution from absolute monarchy to a democracy. Another is that democratization occurs when economic development creates an educated middle class with interests in governing issues and the capacity to make demands of a repressive government, which eventually forces it to give way. Still others see a more dynamic, revolutionary process, as when revolutionaries topple an autocratic regime and install themselves in power. The question of what makes democracy more or less likely to develop has generated considerable debate among democratic theorists, and even more discussion about the conditions for a society’s readiness to become democratic. The most important factor, according to many scholars, is the existence of a cultural environment that is supportive of democratic institutions and values. These include tolerance of diversity, a belief in the equality of all citizens and that all are capable of participating effectively in public life, a commitment to civil liberties and human rights, and a sense of mutual obligation and reciprocity among citizens. The term for this collection of attitudes and values is often referred to as a ‘civic culture’. While there is disagreement among scholars about the nature of civic culture, there is a consensus that a democracy cannot succeed without it. Moreover, the more democratic a society is, the more likely it will be to sustain itself, and the less likely it will be to collapse or revert to authoritarian rule. There is also a consensus that democracy tends to spread in waves, with most countries becoming democratic over time and space. The first wave, lasting from the expansion of suffrage in the late 19th century to World War I, was succeeded by the second wave in the postwar period and by a series of reverse waves in Asia and Latin America. It is also widely agreed that democracy cannot thrive unless it has an adequate supply of resources. This is a fundamental reason behind the emphasis on economic development as a necessary precondition for democratization, and it has led some academics to propose models of transition from authoritarian regimes that do not rely on any particular set of structural ‘big causes’. These scholars, such as Dankwart A. Rustow in his book Democracy and Development (1990) and Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter in their classic Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (1986), have criticized the idea of large-scale ‘structural’ causes of democratization as being simplistic.