Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | M | Melbourne Journal of Politics

Rethinking democracy: the end of democratic transitions?

Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT

The literature on democratic transitions and consolidations is struggling to properly understand a growing number of regimes that fail to conform to existing typologies. These regimes lie within a grey zone between the black and white dichotomy of authoritarianism and democracy. How should these be categorised? Is it correct to refer to regimes that exhibit some democratic characteristics as forms of democracy? Here it is argued that a democracy can only exist when all its required elements are present. Most approaches within transitology miscategorise these mixed regimes by relying upon a flawed understanding of democracy. In analysing a number of important works, it is argued that the problem is largely definitional. In concluding, a solution to these shortcomings is forwarded. As these new regime types are fast populating the globe it is important that they are categorised correctly.

Keywords: democracy; the third wave; transition theory; consolidation theory; semidemocracy; electoral democracy

**********

The third wave of democratisation reached its apex in the early 1990s as the communist challenge collapsed and countries worldwide appeared to take up liberal perspectives on democracy (2). This was closely followed by another wave consisting of articles, books, conference papers and various other manuscripts all grappling with this serious challenge to prevailing understandings of democracy. The immediate response was characterised by an almost blind optimism with scholars becoming caught up in the historic events that suddenly appeared to leave democracy, 'without an enemy' (3) . John Mueller went so far as to suggest that, 'democracy can come about rather naturally, almost by default' (4). As Guillermo O'Donnell admits, in chastising himself and others, there was a strong teleological tendency throughout the literature (5) . It presumed the end point for these newly democratising countries would be regimes similar to the ones that populate the industrialised first world. However, it has become obvious that the defeat of open authoritarianism in many states did not equate to the victory of Western-style democracy. These heady days also challenged dominant modernisation discourses that prescribed a long list of preconditions to be fulfilled before democratisation could successfully occur. At its zenith, the third wave seemed to indicate that the delicate flower of democracy could appear in even the most arid and inhospitable terrain.

Once the initial euphoria had worn off, a second phase quickly emerged within the literature on democratic transitions, one that was far more critical. Here there was a self-correcting move away from approaches that either explicitly or implicitly contained teleological characteristics. On an empirical level there was an understanding that there was no guarantee that the regimes to emerge in third wave countries would be Western-style democracies. On a normative level there was no longer the assumption that new democracies must replicate existing models. Importantly, there also was a realisation that simply equating democracy with elections is insufficient. Such an understanding ignores other vital aspects of democracy and has a tendency to overlook the validity of the actual elections. These are, however, issues that we shall return to later. What is pertinent here is that, in developing a more nuanced approach to transitions, a significant amount of regimes were identified that fall within a grey zone between the black and white dichotomy of authoritarianism and democracy (6). These regimes pass some but not all of the definitional criteria for what constitutes a democracy. Collier and Levitsky, in their article 'Democracy with Adjectives', highlight the proliferation of terms to describe these regimes: 'psuedodemocracy', 'authoritarian democracy', 'electoral democracy', 'delegative democracy', 'semidemocracy' and 'virtual democracy' being some of the more prominent examples (7). What this plethora of expressions points towards is an attempt to comprehend these new regime types. By describing, labeling and examining these halfway houses, the hope is that the missing elements can be discovered and their difference from the liberal model of democracy explained.

The most recent part of the debate has recently emerged and is a reaction to the approaches described above to classify these regimes within transitions theory. The most forceful exposition of this argument has been Thomas Carothers' article, 'The End of the Transition Paradigm' (8). He argues that, 'it is increasingly clear that reality is no longer conforming to the [transitions] model. Many countries that policy makers and aid practitioners persist in calling "transitional" are not in transition to democracy and of the democratic transitions that are under way, more than a few are not following the model' (9). While initially persuasive, there are some definite flaws in his argument. Ghia Nodia notes that Carothers tends to quote the US Agency for International Development rather than academic sources (10). The negative results of this are twofold. First, he portrays a rather large and disparate body of work as one monolithic approach (11). The second problem follows on closely from the first; by not properly consulting the literature some of his criticisms are unfounded or out of date. The most obvious example is Carothers' attack on the transition paradigm for a belief that structural features will not be, 'major factors in either the onset or the outcome of the transition process' (12) . This overlooks much of the work which admits that while structural factors are not the only important element they still play a crucial role in determining the success of a transition. None of these problems, however, invalidate his underlying proposition: it is inappropriate to describe these regimes as being in transit to democracy. Using this argument as a starting point, this piece will ask the following question: how should we best understand regimes that fall in the grey zone between authoritarianism and democracy? More specifically, is it correct to refer to regimes that exhibit some democratic characteristics as forms of democracy? This pertains to the question of whether democracy should be understood in terms of gradations or in a dichotomous manner (13) . The first part of this paper will offer a definition of democracy that excludes the possibility for partial democracies. It is argued that a democracy can only exist when all its required elements are present. The second section will then expand on this understanding by critically examining some major attempts within the transitions literature to define and explain these new regimes types. In the third and final part, it will be suggested that the current inability to adequately comprehend these new regimes primarily stems from definitional problems. In conclusion, a different methodology for classifying these regimes shall be suggested.

DEFINING DEMOCRACY

One of the most surprising aspects of the literature on transitions is that there is a reasonably uniform understanding of what is meant by 'democracy'. Larry Diamond, though, finds quite the opposite--a distinct lack of consensus (14)....

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!