The Concept of Democracy
The dramatic rise of democracy in the twentieth century has transformed world politics. Today democracies represent the norm and authoritarian regimes the exception. This has stimulated interest in democratisation, the process of changing an authoritarian political system to a democratic one. The term democratisation is used in various ways, and there is no consensus about what exactly it means. However, a common interpretation is that it is the process by which a regime becomes more democratic. It is usually accompanied by substantial changes in the institutions of a state and by social change, such as increased participation and openness in government. It is often contrasted with decolonisation, which is the process by which a country becomes independent from colonial rule.
In general, there is broad agreement that the conditions for democratisation must be met in order to guarantee the legitimacy of a new regime. One important requirement is the existence of a stable population that can support democratic governance. Another is economic development, which is seen as necessary because it produces a educated middle class that can pressure government for change. Finally, the conditions of civil society must be favourable so that citizens can grasp and accept democratic ideas, values and practices as not threatening their traditional referents of cultural identity.
Many academics have also suggested that the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime is largely determined by internal factors in the subjected country. This is called the “spiral of democratization” theory. For example, the rapid democratization in Southern Africa after the end of the apartheid regime has been attributed to the fact that the black and white political elites of the country summoned unprecedented levels of mutual commitment to a multiracial democracy.
However, it has also been argued that the success of the transition from dictatorship to democracy is dependent on the timing of events and the strength of external pressures. For this reason, the “wave of democratization” that swept the globe in the middle of the 1970s led to a radical revision of the traditional view.
One consequence of this was that the field of democratic studies expanded to include the study of why and how a state can go through a successful democratization process. The most significant change was the introduction of the concept of a ‘democratic tipping point’ by James Ferguson. This is the point at which a state’s level of democratization will become insurmountable.
There is also a growing recognition that the success of democracy depends on an understanding of its institutional design and how it interacts with social forces. The work of George O’Donnell and Paul Schmitter has been especially influential in this area of research.
A related issue concerns the phenomenon known as the “democratic peace” in which established democracies do not go to war with each other. While there are a few ambiguous cases in the 19th century, this pattern has been remarkably consistent since 1900. It is a crucial element in the stability of the world’s international political order.
The dramatic rise of democracy in the twentieth century has transformed world politics. Today democracies represent the norm and authoritarian regimes the exception. This has stimulated interest in democratisation, the process of changing an authoritarian political system to a democratic one. The term democratisation is used in various ways, and there is no consensus about what exactly it means. However, a common interpretation is that it is the process by which a regime becomes more democratic. It is usually accompanied by substantial changes in the institutions of a state and by social change, such as increased participation and openness in government. It is often contrasted with decolonisation, which is the process by which a country becomes independent from colonial rule. In general, there is broad agreement that the conditions for democratisation must be met in order to guarantee the legitimacy of a new regime. One important requirement is the existence of a stable population that can support democratic governance. Another is economic development, which is seen as necessary because it produces a educated middle class that can pressure government for change. Finally, the conditions of civil society must be favourable so that citizens can grasp and accept democratic ideas, values and practices as not threatening their traditional referents of cultural identity. Many academics have also suggested that the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime is largely determined by internal factors in the subjected country. This is called the “spiral of democratization” theory. For example, the rapid democratization in Southern Africa after the end of the apartheid regime has been attributed to the fact that the black and white political elites of the country summoned unprecedented levels of mutual commitment to a multiracial democracy. However, it has also been argued that the success of the transition from dictatorship to democracy is dependent on the timing of events and the strength of external pressures. For this reason, the “wave of democratization” that swept the globe in the middle of the 1970s led to a radical revision of the traditional view. One consequence of this was that the field of democratic studies expanded to include the study of why and how a state can go through a successful democratization process. The most significant change was the introduction of the concept of a ‘democratic tipping point’ by James Ferguson. This is the point at which a state’s level of democratization will become insurmountable. There is also a growing recognition that the success of democracy depends on an understanding of its institutional design and how it interacts with social forces. The work of George O’Donnell and Paul Schmitter has been especially influential in this area of research. A related issue concerns the phenomenon known as the “democratic peace” in which established democracies do not go to war with each other. While there are a few ambiguous cases in the 19th century, this pattern has been remarkably consistent since 1900. It is a crucial element in the stability of the world’s international political order.