1. POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics
What Makes a Democracy?
Professor Timothy Lim
California State University, Los Angeles

2. Some Questions … Do popular protests make democracy?
Do the political elite make democracy?
Do “structures,” not people, make democracy?
What, really, is democracy?

3. Let’s begin with a basic observation …

4. … the world is seemingly becoming more democratic
This graph shows the number of states with each of three general authority patterns: democracy, autocracy, and “anocracy” (an anocracy is defined as a regime type that has characteristics of both democratic and authoritarian rule).
____________________
Source: Global Conflict Trends
Democracies
Autocracies
Anocracies

5. The world is becoming more democratic
Another perspective: In 1900, zero (0.0) percent of the world’s population lived in democracies; by 1950, 31 percent of the world’s population was democratic
By 2000, according to another source, 58.2 percent of the world’s people lived in democracies; by 2006, this figure had grown to 63% (based on estimates by Freedom House) _______________________
Source: R.J. Rummel, “Democratic Peace Clock”

6. Why Is Democracy Spreading?
The global spread of democracy raises a number of important questions …
Is the expansion of democracy inevitable? Will it necessarily reach all countries in time?
Or, is democracy the product of particular forces and processes that will be forever resisted by some parts of the world, such as the Middle East and China?
Why did the 20th century witness the most major advances of democracy globally? Was there something unique about the 20th century?
What is the best method of promoting democracy? Should the United States be in the business of exporting democracies?

7. What is democracy? Defining Democracy
The definition of “democracy”is subject to great debate, but defining democracy is an essential first step …
What is democracy?
A discussion point

8. Defining Democracy: One Definition
“I would say democracy exists where you have a multiparty system with political parties competing with one another, free and non-corrupt voting procedures to elect political leaders, and an effective legal framework of civil liberties or human rights that underlie the mechanisms of voting processes”
~ Anthony Giddens

9. Defining Democracy: A Formal Definition
Gidden’s definition includes three core characteristics of democracy:
A competitive multiparty system
Free and non-corrupt elections
An effective legal framework of civil liberties or human rights
To this list, we might add a fourth characteristic:
(Near) universal and equal suffrage (suffrage is simply the right or privilege of voting) 1. 2. 3. 4.
So, are these characteristics enough?

10. Defining Democracy: A Formal Definition
To many people, “formal democracy” is not democracy at all: it may be a democracy in name, but not in reality. Instead, many believe that democracy must be defined in substantive terms
This cartoon illustrates the problem with “formal democracies”: people may have the right to vote in free and “fair” elections, but the real power lies with the corporate elite

11. Defining Democracy: The Continuing Debate
Is a “formal” or narrow definition of democracy appropriate or meaningful?
Does only a substantive definition provide an adequate understanding of “real” democracy?
What is the best way to operationalize the concept of democracy?

12. WHY? The Case for a Formal Definition
Substantive definitions of democracy are important, but a formal definition are sometimes necessary …
To answer this question, let’s consider the importance of operationalization
WHY?

13. The Case for a Formal Definition
What does this mean?
The Case for a Formal Definition
Analytically speaking, complex concepts such as “democracy” must be operationalized
Quick definition: Operationalization is the process of defining a concept so that it can be ______________ or otherwise identified as a distinct phenomenon
Operationalization is essential in scientific analysis, for if it is not possible to measure (or quantify) a phenomenon, it is essentially impossible to study it in a meaningful way
Consider the following example …
measured

14. The Case for a Formal Definition
To appreciate the importance of operationalization, consider the concept of “intelligence” …
How can we study “intelligence” if we cannot measure it?
How can we study intelligence if we cannot distinguish it from other phenomena?
How can we know the significance of intelligence if there is no unequivocal way to even say that it exists?

15. The Case for a Formal Definition
One Problem. In the real world, substantive definitions of democracy tend to “set the bar very high” such that few, if any, countries actually meet the criteria. This might be acceptable if formal definitions do not, in fact, tell us something important about democracy
This leads to an obvious question: Are formal definitions of democracy meaningful?
One way to assess the meaningfulness of a formal definition is to consider the following question …
Is a political system that meets the minimal requirements of a formal democracy significantly different from an autocracy or dictatorship--such as the one once ruled over by that evil-doer Saddam Hussein?

16. The Case for a Formal Definition
To see how a formal definition of democracy is meaningful it is useful to consider concrete differences in political regimes, between dictatorships and democracies …
Chile under Pinochet ( ) or Chile under President Michelle Bachelet

17. The Case for a Formal Definition
To see how a formal definition of democracy is meaningful it is useful to consider concrete differences in political regimes, between dictatorships and democracies …
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler or Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel

18. The Case for a Formal Definition
To see how a formal definition of democracy is meaningful it is useful to consider concrete differences in political regimes, between dictatorships and democracies …
Japan under Prime Minister Hideki Tojo or Japan under Juniichiro Koizumi

19. The Case for a Formal Definition
Key Point: If there is a significant difference between democracies and autocracies, then a formal definition of democracy is both appropriate and meaningful
To Repeat: If it can be shown that the criteria of a formal democracy represent a real political change then we need not worry developing a “perfect” definition of democracy
Is a political system that meets the minimal requirements of a formal democracy significantly different from an autocracy or dictatorship, such as the one once ruled over by that evil-doer Saddam Hussein?

20. The Case for a Formal Definition
One last point
Using a formal definition of democracy does not mean that we should ignore, still less abandon substantive definitions
Indeed, depending on the purpose of the research, a substantive definition is sometimes necessary
Example. A study of why some democracies are “strong” while others are “weak” or a study of how to “improve” democracy …

21. Explanations of Democracy
What Makes a Democracy?
Explanations of Democracy

22. Some Questions
There is a tendency--in the West at least--to assume that democracy benefits everyone. But this isn’t necessarily true. To begin a study of democracy, then, it is crucial to consider a few basic questions …
In general, who (or which groups) in society opposes democracy?
In general, who (or which groups) in society favor democracy?
Who benefits from democracy and whose interests are threatened?

23. Who Opposes Democracy?
For the dominant groups in society, democracy generally represents a concrete threat to their own interests, since, by its very nature, democracy gives power to the “oppressed” or subordinate classes who constitute the large majority of any society’s population
Historically, the group most resistant to democracy has been the landowning class: this is because landowners, more than any other dominant class, depend on a subservient, oppressed labor class

24. Who Opposes Democracy?
Think of it this way: If the majority of people in a society are poor and exploited would they not be immediately tempted, in a democratic system, to use their new-found and overwhelming voting power to redistribute economic resources and, ultimately, to undermine—if not destroy—the position and privileges of the wealthy (or political and economic elite)?
The simple answer is YES

25. Video intentionally removed Please see CourseSite to view video
Who Opposes Democracy?
In the 20th century, opponents of democracy have also included states and/or state leaders, especially in poor or developing countries
The 1989 Chinese “democracy movement” in Tiananmen Square represents an example of state-opposition to democracy
______________________________
Leaders of modern states often oppose democracy because their own survival may be at stake once they are out of office; other state leaders believe that democracy will result in too many demands by labor, thus undermining the industrialization process
Video intentionally removed
Please see CourseSite to view video

26. Who Favors Democracy?
Simple Answer: Any group or segment of society that would benefit from having a greater voice in the political process
Historically, this has included the “middle class,” the working class, the masses in general, the petty bourgeoisie (e.g., small merchants, craftsmen, and other self-employed groups), and the “intellectual class” (especially university students)

27. Democracy is above all a matter of power
Democracy and Power
Given the almost undeniable social tension that democracy entails, most analysts agree …
Democracy is above all a matter of power

28. Power • Politics • Struggle
Democracy and Power: Implications
Democracy does not just happen through some automatic process, but is almost always a product of a political struggle among competing groups with competing interests
Democratization requires an underlying shift in power
The transition to democracy marks a significant political change, but transitions to democracy are never guaranteed:
Indeed, given the nature of democratic change--i.e., its impact of relations of power--opposition and attempts to re-impose a non-democratic system should be expected
Power • Politics • Struggle

29. Start with structural approach
Democracy and Power: Implications
Structuralists, rationalists, and culturalists generally agree on the significance of power, but they differ on several key questions …
Who are the key agents of change? Are they elites, subordinate actors, outside agents or some combination?
How does the struggle for power unfold? Is it the product of elite interaction? Is it a structural phenomenon, a cultural one, or something else?
Do certain “conditions” need to exist before democratization can happen? Or is democracy possible under any circumstances?
Start with structural approach

30. How do subordinate classes “get power”?
Democracy and Power: Structural View
To structuralists, transitions to democracy are shaped and even determined by broad structural changes that reorder the balance of power among different classes and class coalitions in society
For democracy to emerge, subordinate classes must have sufficient power to challenge the dominant classes, but …
How do subordinate classes “get power”?
Discussion question

31. Democracy and Power: Structural View
How do subordinate classes “get power”?
Basic Answer: The power of subordinate classes is a product of capitalist development, which brings unavoidable changes to any society. Specifically …
Capitalism creates subordinate classes with the capacity for _________________________
Capitalism also entails greater dependence of elite groups on subordinate classes: simply put, capitalists rely on workers to work
Capitalism creates tensions between elite groups: landowners, in particular, lose power at the expense of “industrialists,” which weakens the cohesion of the elite
SELF-ORGANIZATION: An Explanation
“Capitalism brings the subordinate class or classes together in factories cities where members of those classes can associate and organized more easily; it improves the means of communication and transportation …; in these and other ways, it strengthens civil society and facilitates subordinate class organization”
self-organization

32. Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains
Democracy and Power: Structural View
The importance of self-organization is underscored in Marx and Engel’s famous quote (from the Communist Manifesto) …
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains

33. Democracy and Power: Structural View
Having more power doesn’t automatically lead to democracy. There are several reasons for this …
Sometimes subordinate groups are co-opted by the elite
Sometimes subordinate groups, while more powerful, still lack enough power to topple the existing regime--in these cases, alliances with other groups may be necessary
In a similar vein, sometimes the state is “overdeveloped” (i.e., possesses excessive coercive capacity, often as a result of an alliance with major Western countries)
Sometimes “transnational forces” intervene
Co-option refers to the process of being incorporated into the mainstream or dominant power structure, but always in a subservient role. Frequently, those who have been co-opted will embrace the interests of the dominant power structure while neglecting the interests of their original group
More on next slide

34. Democracy and Power: Structural View
Video intentionally removed Please see CourseSite
Video intentionally removed Please see CourseSite
These two videos illustrate both how “transnational forces” can work against democratization and also how outside powers can help to create overdeveloped state capacity with regard to coercive capacity

35. Democracy and Power: Structural View
Summing Up: In general, structuralists assert that capitalist development is the underlying process through which democracy emerges
This helps explain why democracy is a primarily 20th century phenomenon: capitalist industrialization has made its greatest and most rapid strides in the last 100 years or so
At the same time, democracy is an essentially unintended outcome of capitalism; that is, capitalism is not designed to promote capitalism; indeed, it is, in many ways, antithetical to democracy
This helps explain why the globalization of capitalism is undermining democracy today instead of encouraging it

36. Democracy and Power: Structural View
Questions for consideration and discussion:
As a rapidly growing capitalist society, is the breakdown of authoritarian, communist party rule in China inevitable?
Can structuralists account for the longevity of authoritarianism in the Middle East, especially among Arab Islamic countries?
Are there any inconsistencies in the structural account that you can identify? How would a rationalist or a culturalist respond?
Consider these questions in depth. They could be part of your final examination!