Transitions to Democracy Notes

Transitions To Democracy
• Is it inevitable that all states will become democracies?
• What factors affect the form democracy finally takes in a state in transition?
• Is it inevitable that a state having become a democracy will remain one?

In order to deal with whether democracy is inevitable and whether it is permanent we need assess factors such as the transition into democracy, the military, as well as economic and social society.

The historical circumstances for revolution are unique to each country, being generally being controlled by:
• How the previous regime broke down
• The nature and duration of authoritarian rule
• How the ruler gained and maintained his legitimacy
• The confidence and competence of the ruler and opponents

A history of liberalism is an important factor in whether a country remains democratic or not. Ever since the French Revolution of 1789, France has been swaying between the desire for liberalism and representation and a strong leader to rule them. Although the Fifth Republic has appeared to have dealt with these apparent contradictions, the presidents emergency powers have the potential for dictatorship similar to Hitler’s assimilation of Germany in the Night of the Long Knives. The longer any period of liberalism the more it is likely that a coup would be met with violent oppoisition.

Many democracies, are started as a result of dictators slowly introducing liberalisation as a result of:
• During times of success
• A weariness of repression

In times of success dictators consider themselves to be in a position where they are able to encourage limited democracy, assuming they will be supported by the population

In weariness, normally from military defeat this is mainly intended as a token gesture.

However, both cases introduce a new factor to society. For a limited democracy there is a growth in individualism and opposition which may create a legitimacy deficit in the medium and long term, especially when people start questioning the role and legitimacy of the leaders.

Part of this extension of civil liberties is as a result of overconfidence of the dictator. This happened and resulted in the collapse of the Argentine military of 1973, Brazilian generals if 1974 and the Portuguese MFA of 1975 to name but a few.

In general, it is felt that if the dictator voluntarily introduced liberal aspects into society it may become easier to undo than if forced to do so by events, such as Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. However, it is at great cost and may take a considerable deal of repression to do so.


Historically, this is still more dangerous for the regime as it normally catalyses opposition which had been easier to put down previously.


The extent of military intervention is important as to whether or not a society can become and remain democratic.

As O’Donnell and Schmitter put it in Transitions From Authoritarian Rule “once the military has reached a minimal level of professionalism, only a severe rupture within it can open the way to a successful revolution”. If the weariness of repression is because of a war the level of militarism domestically may be lower, especially in an unsuccessful one, as most of the most professional forces are fighting elsewhere. This finally would allow for the potential of revolution or concessions which could permit transition as mentioned earlier.

Looking at the Franco regime the strong military was a factor for the collapse of democracy and his maintaining of power. However, by the time of transformation in the 1970s the armed forces had become merely one of several elements in what Juan Linz has called its “limited pluralism”, allowing democracy to come in and stabilise itself in Spain.

When the armed forces does not care for the authoritarian regime it becomes easier for it to have what O’Donnell and Schmitter described as a “hands off attitude to the transition, by declaring themselves concerned only with protecting their own institutional values of stability and autonomy, as well as public order”. This makes it easier for a democracy to establish itself and become stable.

On the other hand, if its involvement is extensive in society the institutional interests of the military cannot but be affected by emerging civilian authorities who may not be sympathetic to such considerations. This can be very dangerous to any democracy, as it will always raise the spectre of future military uprising.


Any democratic and liberal progress must be matched with economic development, as there needs to develop “complex sets of collective actors” to represent and stabilise various social classes.

One of the greatest problems facing any newly democratised countries is that they are highly vulnerable to the outside world economically. In general most authoritarian countries put controls on contact with the outside world both intellectually and economically. When the economic markets are finally opened up these previously underdeveloped economies have to immediately deal with an increasingly advanced and competitive world market. For example, following the collapse of the Soviet Block output fell dramatically for countries such as Poland and Russia until the mid nineties.

In authoritarian regimes there has been a tendency for civil society to decline as a result of physical and ideological repression, coupled with the fact that any participation would have existed in the state controlled public arena. The longer this occurred for the more dangerous it becomes, as Russia is still in a position where people for generations have been unable and now unused to creating societies and organisations independent of the state.

A weak economic system and civil society, such as experienced by many African countries will always find it difficult to maintain democracy in the threat of possible coups as people would be less likely to resist political change and less likely to succeed.

It is improbable that all societies will become democracies, especially at the same time. Underdeveloped societies will find it difficult to resist military rule just as it becomes harder for despots to maintain control over more complex demanding societies. There will always be events which will allow for small groups to assume control of states as well as groups of people to overthrow despots. It is dependent on how society, the military and the leader deals with these events.

These notes were collected by Jonathan McHugh in January 2004


Bibliography

Guillermo O’Donnell And Philippe Schmitter: Transitions From Authoritarian Rule (The John Hopkins University PressxqWSX, 1986)

Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin and Breslin, Shaun Comparative Government And Politics: An Introduction (Third Edition) (Macmillan, 1992)

Wright, Vincent The Government And Politics Of France (Hutchinson, 1984)