Democratisation and the Third Way to Democracy
Democratisation – the transformation of non-democratic governments to democratic ones – has been one of the most remarkable phenomena of the post-World War II world. It shifted international politics from a situation in which democracy was the exception to an environment where it now tends to be the rule. Its explosive spread and the difficulties encountered in sustaining a viable democracy have made Democratisation an issue of central interest to political scientists and policy makers alike.
A number of different explanations for democratisation have been advanced. Some emphasize the importance of economic development, while others argue that a democratic regime is more likely where people are better educated. Still others stress the importance of ethnic and national cohesion, arguing that a sense of civic nationalism helps prevent violent civil conflict. In general, most analysts believe that the process of democratisation involves a series of negotiations between different groups competing for power.
The most important of these negotiations takes place between elites, who must decide whether to compromise and share political control with other groups or reject the democratic bargain altogether. This basic model is generally referred to as the “elite-choice” approach. It is criticized for neglecting the origins of elite preferences and conditions that shape negotiations, but it avoids many of the problems associated with structural models by specifying the incentives that lead an elite to voluntarily surrender power.
It is also commonly argued that the process of democratisation involves the formation of myriad voluntary associations, which provide an important alternative to state-provided social services and enable individuals to express their own identities and interests in a variety of ways. This idea of a thriving civil society is sometimes called the third way to democracy and is widely held to be essential for democratic stability.
However, it has been difficult to establish a clear link between a healthy civil society and the stability of democratic regimes. It is possible that the emergence of a vibrant civil society simply allows an emerging democratic regime to evade criticism by opponents in a way that would be impossible with a less robust civil society. It is also possible that a robust civil society helps create an atmosphere in which democratic regimes are more likely to endure by providing the citizens with opportunities for civic engagement and helping them form mutual bonds of trust. It is doubtful that there is any evidence that either of these assumptions is true, but the idea of a civil society as a necessary precondition for a democratic state has given rise to many specific forms of political activism around the world. Examples of these include demonstrations, boycotts, and volunteer activities such as cleaning up after natural disasters. In these cases, a strong and vibrant civil society appears to have served its purpose as a means of protesting against the government or holding it accountable. In most of these cases, the political rights of citizens have expanded as well — for example, it is now considered perverse to call any government democratic that excludes women, slaves, or free blacks from the franchise.
Democratisation – the transformation of non-democratic governments to democratic ones – has been one of the most remarkable phenomena of the post-World War II world. It shifted international politics from a situation in which democracy was the exception to an environment where it now tends to be the rule. Its explosive spread and the difficulties encountered in sustaining a viable democracy have made Democratisation an issue of central interest to political scientists and policy makers alike. A number of different explanations for democratisation have been advanced. Some emphasize the importance of economic development, while others argue that a democratic regime is more likely where people are better educated. Still others stress the importance of ethnic and national cohesion, arguing that a sense of civic nationalism helps prevent violent civil conflict. In general, most analysts believe that the process of democratisation involves a series of negotiations between different groups competing for power. The most important of these negotiations takes place between elites, who must decide whether to compromise and share political control with other groups or reject the democratic bargain altogether. This basic model is generally referred to as the “elite-choice” approach. It is criticized for neglecting the origins of elite preferences and conditions that shape negotiations, but it avoids many of the problems associated with structural models by specifying the incentives that lead an elite to voluntarily surrender power. It is also commonly argued that the process of democratisation involves the formation of myriad voluntary associations, which provide an important alternative to state-provided social services and enable individuals to express their own identities and interests in a variety of ways. This idea of a thriving civil society is sometimes called the third way to democracy and is widely held to be essential for democratic stability. However, it has been difficult to establish a clear link between a healthy civil society and the stability of democratic regimes. It is possible that the emergence of a vibrant civil society simply allows an emerging democratic regime to evade criticism by opponents in a way that would be impossible with a less robust civil society. It is also possible that a robust civil society helps create an atmosphere in which democratic regimes are more likely to endure by providing the citizens with opportunities for civic engagement and helping them form mutual bonds of trust. It is doubtful that there is any evidence that either of these assumptions is true, but the idea of a civil society as a necessary precondition for a democratic state has given rise to many specific forms of political activism around the world. Examples of these include demonstrations, boycotts, and volunteer activities such as cleaning up after natural disasters. In these cases, a strong and vibrant civil society appears to have served its purpose as a means of protesting against the government or holding it accountable. In most of these cases, the political rights of citizens have expanded as well — for example, it is now considered perverse to call any government democratic that excludes women, slaves, or free blacks from the franchise.