Elites and institutions in conservative transitions to democracy: Ex-authoritarians in the Brazilian National Congress

Although many students of democratization accept that new democracies are impacted by various legacies of the previous authoritarian regime, little attention has been paid to the relationship between characteristics of the political class and the imperative of institution building in the new democracies. Conservative transitions to democracy, where continuity in the political class remains high despite the change in regime, are notably dependent on the participation of ex-authoritarians in the process of institution-building. Many such elites were socialized to marginal or fictional representative institutions under authoritarianism, leading them toward political practices which may subsequently be inimical to the development of effective instituions under democracy. A study of ex-authoritarians in the Brazilian Congress reveals their weaker commitment to legislative institutionalization, thus illustrating some of the tradeoffs and drawbacks of conservative transitions to democracy. Timothy J. Power is assistant professor of political science at Louisiana State University. He is currently writing a book on the role of the political right in Brazilian democratization.     

The muslim experience in the Balkan states, 1919‐1991

This article analyzes the effects of nationalizing policies of the state, processes of democratization, and uneven socio-economic development on the rise of Kurdish ethno-mobilization led by the PKK terrorist organization since the 1980s in Turkey. Three features of the Turkish modernization context are identified as conducive for the rise and continuation of Kurdish ethno-mobilization: a) a nation-building autocratic state that resisted granting cultural rights and recognition for the Kurds; b) democratization with the exclusion of ethnic politics and rights; c) economic regional inequality that coincided with the regional distribution of the Kurdish population. It is argued that autocratic policies of the state during nation-building accompanied the development of an illiberal democracy and intolerance for cultural pluralism. These aspects of Turkish democracy seem to be incompatible with both the liberal and consociational models of democracy that accommodate ethnicity within multiculturalism.     

Active resistance to democratic diffusion

Recent research on the international diffusion of democracy has focused on demonstrating how diffusion can change regime outcomes. Although there is still debate within the field of democratization over how important democratic diffusion is relative to domestic factors, autocratic leaders believe that democratic diffusion can be a threat to their rule. It is clear that some countries, such as North Korea, prevent diffusion by severely restricting interactions with foreigners and forbidding access to external sources of information. The more intriguing question is how the states that have economic, diplomatic, and social linkages with democratic states prevent democratic diffusion. In other words, what methods do globally-engaged, autocratic governments use to limit exposure to and reduce receptivity to democratic diffusion?In addition to using coercion and economic patronage, autocratic states utilize two non-material mechanisms to prevent democratic diffusion: 1) restricting exposure to democratic ideas and 2) developing alternative narratives about democracy to reduce local receptivity to democratic diffusion. Sophisticated autocratic leaders can limit receptivity to democratic diffusion if they convince citizens that those ideas are “foreign,” will cause “chaos,” or if they believe they already have their own form of democracy. I explore these methods of establishing firewalls to prevent diffusion by examining the cases of China and Kazakhstan, two countries where a high level of economic linkage coincides with a successful continuation of autocratic rule, despite the global spread of democratic norms. China has developed extensive methods to restrict access to foreign ideas about democracy while Kazakhstan has mainly focused on developing an alternative narrative about democracy. This article contributes to the literature on authoritarian persistence and democratic diffusion by investigating the internal methods autocratic leaders adopt to ensure that democratic diffusion does not threaten their rule.     

Inequality,Economic Development,and Democratization

Although multiple theories suggest that economic development and inequality somehow affect democratization, these claims have received only limited empirical support. I contend that much of the confusion stems from the implicit assumption held by the literature that development and inequality affect democratization independently of one another. In this paper, I argue that the effect of income distribution on democratization is in fact contingent on the income level: in middle-income countries inequality fosters democratization; in rich countries, however, it harms democratization. Using a data set covering almost all autocracies between 1960 and 2007, I find evidence consistent with my hypothesis.     

Does nationalism promote democracy? Comparative analyses of Ukraine's ‘Maidan’ revolution and Poland's ‘Solidarity’ mass mobilisation

The increased number of ‘democratic revolutions’ around the globe has raised questions of how mass mobilisation contributes to democracy and of what role nationalism plays in this process. Mass mobilisation is viewed as the best option for breaking down communist regimes due to the rise of new political elites to positions of power within the state. On the other hand, the revolutionary character of mass mobilisation movements, together with the uncertainty of the link between democracy and nationalism, may lead such movements to impact negatively on democratisation. Ukraine's ‘Maidan’ revolution and Poland's ‘Solidarity’ movement allow for a comparison of two types of mass movements in terms of both causes and outcomes. This article claims that the mass protests in Ukraine, as opposed to those in Poland, did not lead to democratisation but rather to the opposite: the polarisation of both political elites and civil society. The role of nationalism, in this respect, was shaped and interpreted by political leaders.     

The Missing Democratic Revolution and Serbia's Anti-European Choice: 1989–2008

In 1989, as the countries of the Soviet bloc took a turn toward democracy and Europe, Yugoslavia and Serbia plunged into a bloody war and moved in the opposite direction. This article argues that the legacy of that era is still strongly felt in postwar and post-Milosevic Serbia. Now, like then, the choice is not simply for or against Europe. By holding on to the nationalism of the Kosovo myth, which territorializes both the Serbian ethnos and the opposition between Christianity and Islam, Serbia is tracing a tortuous path toward democratization and European integration. In the contemporary context, the Kosovo myth impedes Serbia’s recognition of Kosovo as an independent state; it continues to fuel the rhetoric of fractious elites that never cease to tap its capacity for rallying the public; and it provides room for “pro-European” leaders to negotiate EU integration, straddling the fence between Europe’s Atlantic propensities and the resurgent power of Russia. This nationalist myth thus plays a normative and an instrumental role, both domestically and internationally. Outside Serbia, it also engages with a narrow and “thick” notion of Europe, which gained traction within Europe itself in the post-9/11 climate of heightened fear of Islam, where cultural identity trumps the values of liberal democracy.     

Emancipative values and democracy: Response to Hadenius and Teorell

This article demonstrates that Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell’s attempt to disprove a causal effect of emancipative mass orientations on democracy is flawed in each of its three lines of reasoning. First, contrary to Hadenius and Teorell’s claim that measures of “effective democracy” end up in meaningless confusion of democracy and minor aspects of its quality, we illustrate that additional qualifications of democracy illuminate meaningful differences in the effective practice of democracy. Second, Hadenius and Teorell’s finding that emancipative orientations have no significant effect on subsequent measures of democracy from Freedom House is highly unstable: using only a slightly later measure of the dependent variable, the effect turns out to be highly signficant. Third, we illustrate that these authors’ analytical strategy is irrelevant to the study of democratization because the temporal specification they use misses almost all cases of democratization. We present a more conclusive model of democratization, analyzing how much a country moved toward or away from democracy as the dependent variable. The model shows that emancipative orientations had a strong effect on democratization during the most massive wave of democratization ever—stronger than any indicator of economic development. Finally, we illustrate a reason why this is so: emancipative orientations motivate emancipative social movements that aim at the attainment, sustenance, and extension of democratic freedoms.     

Varieties of Authoritarianism: The Organization of the Military State and its Effects on Federalism in Argentina and Brazil

While much has been written about democracy and democratization, far less attention has been paid to the institutional organization of authoritarian regimes. Scholars have focused on the causes, economic policies, societal support, intra-elite conflicts, or human-rights violations of authoritarian regimes. More recently, political scientists have also studied the role of elections and legislatures on the survival of authoritarian regimes. However, the very different ways in which authoritarian regimes, and military regimes in particular, organize the government, occupy the state apparatus, and modify the country’s political institutions have largely gone under-theorized. This essay contributes to fill in this void by analyzing how the last military regimes of Argentina (1976–1983) and Brazil (1964–1985) organized power within the state and the legacies of such organization on the institutions of federalism. The essay argues that variation in the organization of the state under the military regimes accounts for the divergent origins of post-developmental decentralization, which in turn explains the contrasting evolution of intergovernmental relations in each country. The article contributes to the recent literature on electoral authoritarian regimes by showing that elections and legislatures matter not only to regime survival but also to policy outcomes.     

Democracy and Dictatorship in Continental Latin America During the Interwar Period

This article emphasizes the key role of labor in shaping trends and patterns of pica change. The first section of the article argues that during the interwar period, continental Latin America experienced common trends in several areas, including a general upsurge in labor unrest, deepening conflicts among elites, the implementation of new modes of state regulation, and a disruption of prevailing trade arrangements within the world economy, all of which were accompanied by a brief but significant wave of democratization in the 1920s. Noting that these general trends were unevenly distributed through the region (particularly after the 1930s), the second section of the article proceeds to abstract four patterns of political arrangements (repressive dictatorships, party competition, corporatist nationalism, and unstable labor politics). The article uses two principal variables (the relative weight of the middle and working classes and the degree of cohesion/fragmentation among elites) to explain these patterns of political change. Overall, the article suggests that the relative strength of labor and subordinate groups was key to shifts away from repressive dictatorship, while the degree of convergence among elites was significant in shaping political outcomes, but not in promoting democratic outcomes. I would like to thank Professor Irving Louis Horowitz for useful comments on an earlier version of this article. Previous versions of this research were presented at a seminar of the Latin American Studies Center at Princeton University, and at an annual meeting of the Southern Labor Studies Conference, where I benefited from comments by panel participants.     

Minimal democratic audit of Islamic and other identitarian regimes

Empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows that democracy in Muslim societies is poorly institutionalized. Many scholars of democratization studies critique that the methodology of Western institutions that audit democracy and freedoms worldwide employs normative metrics which are insensitive to cultural particularisms and thus biased. This paper presents a minimal framework for democratic audit of electoral Islamic regimes that while being normative, answers to this criticism. It is also shown to be in the self-interest of modernizing elites in such regimes. This framework is premised on the transference of the burden of legitimacy from ‘majority consent’ to ‘minority concern’ by basing itself on the substantive ‘political equality’ proviso of Dahl. This is achieved without constraining the democratic capacity of the majority. Structured as a guarantee of rights and two guarantees of justice in a system of fairness, the framework can be used for democratic audit of a much larger set of electoral regimes.     

Reconstructing the Role of the Working Class in Communist and Postcommunist Romania

This article examines the position of the industrial working class in Romania before 1989, its role in the overthrow of the communist regime during the December 1989 revolution, and its status during the postcommunist transition to democracy after 1989. The subordination of labor interests by both communist and postcommunist regimes to ideologies that underestimated the issue of class differentiation is emphasized throughout the paper. This analysis is undertaken at two levels, namely, the rewriting of the history of communism after 1989 and the obstacles encountered during the process of democratic transition. The later aspect refers to the problematic relationship between the intellectuals and the working class and labor's lack of involvement in shaping the post-1989 economic and political reforms. The argument that I pursue is that many of the setbacks experienced during the democratization process are partly rooted in the status of labor as an important absentee from the discourse and agenda of both incumbent governments and intellectual elites. It has been a significant factor in pushing the working class towards an illiberal right-wing politics and ideologies of a populist, xenophobic, and anti-intellectual nature.     

Illiberal Democrats versus Undemocratic Liberals: The Struggle Over the Future of Thailand's Fragile Democracy

Abstract

This article examines the inter-related factors that underpin the fragility of Thailand's democracy. Uneven economic development, the high levels of income inequality, and unequal access to power and resources are significant drivers of Thailand's ongoing political conflict. Social divides across classes and regions, and populist exploitation of the rural poor's sense of alienation from the traditional ruling elites, provide a volatile backdrop to national politics. In addition, Thailand's unstable political history and the weakness of liberal institutions present risks to its democracy. The army, the revered monarch and the judiciary comprise elites whose periodic interventions in politics and reservations about electoral democracy further render the Thai polity fragile. Thailand's political situation represents a ‘slow-burning’ crisis of democracy: a long-term historical confrontation developing slowly, with the fundamental issues unresolved. It is undergoing a period of social turmoil fuelled by a power struggle between competing material interests and by an ideational contest to determine the country's constitutive political rules. This can be conceptualised as a struggle for control of Thailand's future between a heterogeneous populist-capitalist movement of illiberal democracy and conservative forces of undemocratic liberalism.     

The Historical Origins of Tanzania's Ruling Class

This article integrates the dynamics within authoritarian elites into analysis of democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa. This variable has been excluded from nearly all analysis on the subject. Based on a comparison of three cases, this article concludes that only in cases where popular mobilization was accompanied by deep divisions within the ruling coalition did democratization ensue. The division of the authoritarian coalition in Benin and South Africa created a window of opportunity which enabled pro-democracy forces to push through democratic reforms. Furthermore, only when a majority of the authoritarian elite in South Africa favoured negotiations with the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid political organizations did the transition towards democracy in South Africa make any progress. In contrast, in the Togolese case, a united ruling coalition precluded any reform that would have challenged its political hegemony.     

Is Mexican democracy consolidated?

In the wake of Mexico's electoral watershed of 2 July 2000, many scholars are willing to classify the country as an electoral democracy, yet debate persists over whether Mexican democracy is consolidated. This article seeks to advance this debate by clarifying the meaning of the term democratic ‘consolidation’ and how it should be operationalised. It argues that the concept should refer exclusively to a regime with a low probability of democratic breakdown. This avoids the conceptual confusion created by viewing consolidation as any change that improves the quality of democracy. In terms of measuring consolidation, it maintains the importance of placing greater weight on the proximate cause of regime instability, anti‐democratic behaviour, and discounting more remote causes of democratic breakdown, including economic performance, institution building, and attitudinal support. Based on this understanding, the article explains why Mexican democracy is fully consolidated.     

What kind of capitalism for Russia?: A comparative analysis

Post-communist governing elites had a vision of a transition to a type of society characterised by wealth, markets, private ownership, democracy and civil society. The transformation in Russia is analyzed in terms of company structure, economic outcomes and patterns of social integration, elite and class fragmentation. On the basis of a comparative political economy, different models of capitalism are defined (competitive or market-led and cooperative or negotiated). The Russian economy is defined as a perverse chaotic social formation. It is contended that policy should move towards a state-led “negotiated” type of capitalist system.     

Poverty and Survival

A recent literature highlights the uncertainty concerning whether economic growth has any causal protective effect on health and survival. But equal rates of growth often deliver unequal rates of poverty reduction and absolute deprivation is more clearly relevant. Using state-level panel data for India, we contribute the first estimates of the impact of changes in poverty on infant survival. We identify a significant within-state relationship which persists conditional upon state income, indicating the size of survival gains from redistribution in favour of households below the poverty line. The poverty elasticity declines over time after 1981. It is invariant to controlling for income inequality but diminished upon controlling for education, fertility and state health expenditure, and eliminated once we introduce controls for omitted trends.     

Promoting Democracy and Promoting Authoritarianism: Comparing the Cases of Belarus and Slovakia

Although scholars have made great progress over the last few years studying the international dimension of democratisation, questions remain about this complex relationship, especially about the understudied area of external promotion of authoritarianism. This article seeks to develop more refined understanding of specific mechanisms linking one type of external involvement, financial assistance, to regime change. Financial assistance can increase the capabilities of either pro-democratic or pro-authoritarian elites and therefore contribute to regime change. These mechanisms are examined by looking at democracy assistance in Slovakia and Belarus and Russia's support for authoritarianism in Belarus.     

Regime Responsiveness to Basic Needs: a Dimensional Approach

Despite a considerable amount of research over the last three decades, an unequivocal conclusion regarding democracy’s impact on social outcomes has not been reached. This paper attempts to enhance understanding of the impact of political regimes on social outcomes by applying a dimensional approach. Unlike previous studies, which have focused on the overall effect of democracy, this paper separates the dimension of elite competition from the dimension of popular participation and tests their relative effects on the satisfaction of basic needs. Cross-national statistical tests demonstrate that effective participation has a positive effect on need satisfaction, whereas excessive competition has a negative impact. Theoretical explanations of these different impacts are provided. It is argued that the best way to understand the relationship between democracy and social outcomes is to realize that democracy’s overall effect might conceal the existence of opposing effects of its component parts. This finding suggests more nuanced ways of reforming political systems that bypass the possible trade-off between democratization and social development.     

可持续的资本主义是否可能?

目前，资本主义国家的可持续发展模型存在一系列问题。如果我们错误地寄希望于资本主义，其结果虽然不会是世界的终结，但肯定会出现大规模的、反复出现的环境危机及巨大的全球性灾难。这就需要对资本主义进行结构性替代，需要实行包括企业民主制、商品和服务的市场化、投资的社会管理三种基本制度在内的“经济民主制”。这种民主制经济既是工作领域的民主化，也是金融领域的民主化。它更利于可持续性发展，也会比资本主义更为平等、稳定和民主，是对资本主义的超越。     

Neoclassical and structural analysis of poverty: winning the ‘Economic Kingdom’ for the poor in Southern Africa

In situations characterised by historical injustice in the distribution of economic resources, such as in many southern African ‘settler’ countries, there is a powerful intuitive case that ameliorative and palliative public policy is insufficient to significantly affect poverty reduction. This is because of the dulling effects on growth caused by significant structural inequality in the distribution of resources. However, the proposition that inequality is a problem for poverty reduction is contentious. This article reviews the neoclassical and structuralist literatures on the relationship between growth, inequality and poverty. It argues that the first is inconclusive and, furthermore, can only be so, while the second requires to be made more relevant to the discussions of how redistribution and inequality relate in legitimate policy and practice. The concept of property regimes can help here, within a more contextual understanding of development in practice as not necessarily involving growth and economic progress, but as being subject to periodic phases of ‘de‐development’, or well‐being retrogression. The paper concludes that state‐sponsored redistribution policy has an important role to play in changing underlying property regimes for the benefit of the poor in southern Africa. Inequality does matter, and a consideration of radical, redistributive social change is worth rehabilitating as an efficient means of reducing poverty, particularly in situations of low or fluctuating growth. This consideration, in turn, requires a political acceptance of the legitimacy of a broader role for economic public policy and state action.