The Emperor’s new clothes: Labor reform and social democratization in Chile

This article analyzes the relationship between political and social democratization in recent democratic transitions by illustrating how the two processes were at odds in the case of labor reform in Chile (1990–2001). Labor reform served simultaneously to consolidate political democracy and slow down the momentum of social democratization. It was a tool for signalling policy change to legitimate the democratic regime, but at the same time leaving the liberal economy intact. The Chilean case calls into question the thesis of a natural progression from political to social rights prevalent in democratic theory, and allows us to generalize about the way marketization places limits on democratic deepening. The article first discusses what would be appropriate criteria of social democratization considering contemporary labor issues and labor relations in Chile. It then investigates the political process of labor reform. Ongoing legal debates through the 1990s show the extent of path dependence set in motion by the timid nature of the first social reforms in Chile’s new demoncracy and their muting effect on citizenship. Louise Haagh obtained her doctorate from the University of Oxford (St. Antony’s College) in 1998, and for the next three years held a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellowship at the College. In 2001 she began a lectureship at the University of York.     

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.     

Democracy without democratic values: A rejoinder to Welzel and Inglehart

In reply to Welzel and Inglehart in this issue, we deploy three lines of criticism. First, we argue that their newly invented construct “effective democracy” is conceptually and empirically flawed. Second, we show that their results are highly sensitive to model specification. Regardless of the time period, their supportive evidence vanishes if a more pertinent measure of democracy is used instead of measures based on the absence of corruption, if a broader index of socioeconomic modernization is controlled for, and if their compound index of emancipative values is replaced by its core component; liberty aspirations. Third, we find that emancipative values are not a coherent syndrome at the individual level within countries, rendering the causal mechanism linking these values to democracy through collective action unintelligible. We conclude that democratic values are not a robust determinant of democratization. Jan Teorell is associate professor of political science at Lund University. He has published on intra-party politics, social capital and political participation, and, together with Axel Hadenius, is now involved in a project on the determinants of democratization. Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Lund University. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).     

Federalism and democratization in Russia

The scholarly literature on democratic transitions has largely ignored developments at the local level and the relationship between federalism and democracy. In this work I examine the development of federalism in Russia and I assess the impact of Russia's highly asymmetrical form of federalism on democratisation. The study shows that federalism far from promoting democracy has allowed authoritarianism to flourish in many of Russia's eighty nine regions and republics. Federalism and democratization in Russia exist in contradiction rather than harmony. In a vicious circle, authoritarianism at the centre has been nourished by authoritarianism in the region and vice versa. “Elective dictatorships” and “delegative democracies” are now well entrenched in many republics, and mini-presidential systems are firmly established in a majority of the regions.     

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.     

Access to Power Versus Exercise of Power Reconceptualizing the Quality of Democracy in Latin America

Research on comparative democratization has recently expanded its focus to issues of institutional quality: clientelism, corruption, abuse of executive decree authority, and weak checks and balances. However, problems of institutional quality are so different from those involved in regime transitions that it is unproductive to treat them as part of the same macro-process, democratization. Whereas regime transitions are changes in the form of access to power, problems of institutional quality involve the exercise of power. Abuses in the exercise of power affecting institutional quality are best characterized not as indicators of authoritarianism and deficiencies in democratization but as reflecting—in Weberian terms—patrimonialism and failures in bureaucratization. Moreover, struggles over the exercise of power involve causes, mechanisms, and actors that can be quite distinct from those at play in conflicts over access to power. The proposed analytical framework centered on the distinction between access and exercise enhances conceptual clarity and provides a stronger theoretical basis for tackling fundamental questions about politics in Latin America, including the failure of democratization to curb clientelism and foster other improvements of institutional quality, and the prospects of democratic stability under patrimonial administrations.     

The Transition to Equity in South African Higher Education: Governance,Fairness, and Trust in Everyday Academic Practice

In South Africa, 15 years into a new political order, higher education institutions are under pressure to create and sustain the conditions necessary for the consolidation of democracy. One of the more important of these conditions is the need to shift their academic staff profiles in ways that are more representative of a diverse democracy. This process is mediated by legislative and policy reforms that have as their aims the establishment of a more diverse community of academics (see, inter alia: White Paper, 1997; Employment Equity Act No. 55 of 1998; National Plan for Higher Education, 2001). While much current thinking is at the macro-level and focused on narrow human resource aspects related to “getting the numbers right,” there is limited research on what happens in the daily experiences of faculty. This article draws on a research project conducted at five universities in South Africa in order to explore how academics in their everyday micro-practices of governance, teaching, and research respond to this external systemic pressure. The findings are considered in terms of their implications for the democratization process, in relation to issues of governance, fairness, and trust, at the levels both of institutions and of society as a whole.     

Patterns of culture and democratization in Kuwait

Conventional wisdom asserts that Islam and tribalism dispose the countries of the Arab Middle East against democratization. Yet the local culture in the region resembles those in the ancient world where democracy was first established, and neither resembles the pattern of political development that occurred in Western Europe, today’s democratic paradigm. Kuwait, a city-state that has enjoyed a high level of collective wealth throughout the period following World War II, displays many of the attributes of the “positive liberty” that Isaiah Berlin, Hannah Arendt, and others see as characteristic of ancient democracies. Vigorous participation in a range of public spaces acts as a check on runaway state power. Kuwait’s record on “negative liberty” is poor, which is why it diverges from the western European model. Population growth and its effect on political development is eroding Kuwait’s qualities as a city-state and pushing it toward mass politics. It is not possible at this stage to predict with any confidence whether these new trends will result in further liberalization or a more authoritarian polity. Mary Ann Tétreault is a professor of political science at Iowa State University. She is the editor ofWomen and Revolution in Africa, Asia, and the New World (1994) and the author ofThe Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and the Economics of the New World Order (1995). She is presently working on a monograph on democratization in Kuwait and, with Robin Teske of James Madison University, is preparing an edited volume on power and social movements.     

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。     

Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics

This article offers a revision of democratic theory in light of the experience of recently democratized countries, located outside of the northwestern quadrant of the world. First, various definitions of democracy that claim to follow Schumpeter and are usually considered to be “minimalist” or “processualist” are critically examined. Building upon but clarifying these conceptual efforts, a realistic and restricted, but not minimalist, definition of a democratic regime is proposed. Thereafter, this article argues that democracy should be analyzed not only at the level of the political regime but also in relation to the state—especially the state qua legal system—and to certain aspects of the overall social context. The main underlying theme that runs through this article is the concept of agency, especially as it is expressed in the legal system of existing democracies. I dedicate this article to my daughter Julia, for the metonymy and much love Guillermo O'Donnell is the Helen Kellogg Professor of Government at the University of Notre Dame. He has written many books and articles on authoritarianism, political transitions, democratization, and democratic theory. His latest book,Counterpoints, was published in 1998 by the University of Notre Dame Press. O'Donnell is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I presented previous versions of this paper and received useful comments at seminars held in April and May 1999 at the University of North Carolina; Cornell University; Berlin's Wissenschaftszentrum; the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, August 1999; and in September 1999 at the Kellogg Institute. I also appreciate the comments and criticisms received from Michael Brie, Maxwell Cameron, Jorgen Elklit, Robert Fishman, Ernesto Garzón Valdés, Jonathan Hartlyn, Osvaldo Iazzetta, Gabriela Ippolito-O'Donnell, Iván Jaksić, Oscar Landi, Hans-Joachim Lauth, Steven Levitsky, Juan Linz, Scott Mainwaring, Juan M. Abal Medina, Martha Merritt, Peter Moody, Gerardo Munck, Luis Pásara, Timothy Power, Adam Przeworski, Héctor Schamis, Sidney Tarrow. Charles Tilly, Ashutosh Varshney, and Ruth Zimmerling. I am particularly grateful for the careful revision and editing undertaken by Gerardo Munck and Ruth Collier for the present issue ofSCID.     

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.     

The wrong kind of crisis: Why oil booms and busts rarely lead to authoritarian breakdown

Economic crisis has been a central catalyst to Third Wave democratic transitions by contributing to authoritarian breakdown, yet crises in oil-exporting states have generally failed to catalyze such breakdowns, which are a crucial precondition to democratization. This article argues that oil wealth produces two distinct political trajectories, depending on its timing relative to the onset of late development. The dominant trajectory in the oil-exporting world is durable authoritarianism which has forestalled all but a few regime collapses. And, when the alternate trajectory produces vulnerable authoritarianism, oil-catalyzed authoritarian breakdown tends to generate new authoritarian regimes. I use case materials from Iran and Indonesia during the 1960s and 1970s to illustrate the two oil-based trajectories, and I conduct a broader test of the theory against data for 21 oil-exporting, developing countries, which provides suggestive support for a two-path theory of oil-based aturhoritarian persistence. Benjamin Smith is an assistant professor of political science and Asian studies at the University of Florida. His first book,Hard Times in the Land of Plenty: Oil, Opposition, and Late Development, is under contract with Cornell University Press. Other work has appeared in theAmerican Journal of Political Science, World Politics, and theJournal of International Affairs. He is currently at work on a book-length study of durable authoritarianism with Jason Brownlee (University of Texas-Austin) and on a study of the conditions under which democracy can consolidate in oil-rich countries with Joseph Kraus (University of Florida). Thanks to Jason Brownlee, Sam Huntington, Joel Migdal, Pete Moore, Jon Pevehouse, Susan Pharr, Dan Slater, David Waldner, Patricia Woods, participants in the Sawyer Seminar in comparative politics at Harvard University; participants in the “Transforming Authoritarian Rentier Economies and Protectorates” seminar at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Bonn; and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this article.     

From authoritarianism to political democracy in Grenada: Questions for U.S. policy

Beginning as early as 1498 when Grenada had its initial contact with metropolitan forces, this island state has experienced little of the political democracy U.S. President Reagan pledged to restore to the country as part of the 1983 intervention. Yet, for the 1984 elections that followed the toppling of the remaining vestiges of the 1979–83 revolution, the United States and selected Caribbean allies attempted to amalgamate a party as an alternative to the Grenada United Labour Party (GULP) and the remaining revolutionary forces. The resulting New National Party (NNP) was electorally successful in 1984 but by 1987 defections from the Party had produced a base for the National Democratic Congress (NDC). In 1989 the NNP again divided. It was thus predictable that the 1990 elections would not return either wing of the National Party and instead would result in a coalition government led by the NDC. Chances for real political democracy in Grenada are improved but will not be easily realized in the face of severe economic crisis and a potentially weak government. The economic crisis could well promote current movements toward increased regional integration. It is important that the 1983–1984 pledge of the United States to promote democratization in Grenada be honored. W. Marvin Will is associate professor of comparative politics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Tulsa. He is past president of the Midwest Association of Latin American Studies and a founding member of the Caribbean Studies Association. Will has done extensive field research in the Caribbean and is the recipient of a 1991–92 Fulbright Research Fellowship for Caribbean Research. He is co-author of a forthcoming book on the Pacific and Caribbean Basins.     

Assessing and enhancing the impact of democratic development projects: A practitioner's perspective

As political liberalization expands across the globe, a growing array of Western donor and exchange organizations are seeking to bolster fledgling democracies or to nudge authoritarian regimes toward greater openness. These efforts coincide with intensified academic scrutiny of transitions to democracy. Yet, scholars have paid surprisingly little attention to assessing the impact of these organizations' democratization projects, and development practitioners have had little success in formulating useful criteria and approaches for assessment. Better understanding of how to evaluate these activities could enhance their impact as well as inform political development theory. This article places the assessment problem in context by acknowledging a few of the key debates pertaining to political development and by summarizing the range of foreign assistance organizations and efforts aiming to promote democratization. It then describes why evaluation of these efforts is generally inadequate. Finally, the article presents some initial ideas on how this difficult problem can be addressed. Stephen Golub is an attorney and consultant who has been involved with democratic development work since 1985. The thoughts and impressions presented in this article spring from: his experience with the Asia Foundation from 1985 through 1990 as Program Officer for Law and Government, Philippines Assistant Representative, and consultant for Pakistan law projects and overall foundation directions in law programming; his work as a consultant for the U.S. Agency for International Development in the Philippines in 1991 regarding both law and A.I.D.'s Democracy Initiative, and, in 1993, evaluating legal services programs; research conducted on Philippine nongovernmental legal service groups as a Senior Fulbright Fellow in 1991 and subsequently while based in Manila in 1992 and 1993; and discussions with representatives of other organizations that support democratization projects, such as the Ford Foundation, the Institute of International Education, Germany's Naumann Foundation, and the Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation. Of course, the opinions expressed here are solely those of the author, and should not be attributed to any organizations with which he has been associated.     

Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.” Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2001). Jan Teorell is associated professor of political science at Uppsala University. His articles on intra-party democracy, social capital, and political participation appear in international journals.     

Political transition and civil society: The cases of Kenya and Zambia

Studies of regime change that focus on the “high politics” of transition tend to overlook the importance of civil society in democratization and liberalization. This article explores the role that organizations and institutions in society play as agents of political change. Elements of civil society influence both the processes and outcomes of political transitions. Case studies of Kenya and Zambia indicate that associational arenas representing civil society made important contributions in liberalizing and democratizing authoritarian regimes. Beyond this, contrasting the two cases highlights the factors that influenced their efficacy as agents of political transition. Differences are found in the character of the civil societies in the two countries. These differences help to account for the extent of Zambia’s transition when compared to Kenya. Peter VonDoepp is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Florida. From 1992 to 1995 he held a Foreign Language/Area Studies Fellowship at Florida’s African Studies Center. He is currently conducting research in Malawi on the role of religious institutions in political change. Until 1997     

Measuring Democratic Consolidation

The concept of democratic consolidation has become a pivotal concept in comparative politics. In its most widespread acceptation, a “consolidated” democracy is one that is unlikely to break down. For all its apparent thinness and simplicity, this conceptualization poses considerable problems of operationalization and measurement. As the article argues, cholars have been relying on three basic strategies to assess the survival prospects of democratic regimes. They have been studying either behavioral, attitudinal, or structural foudnations of democratic consolidation. This article briefly examines those approaches that rely on different kinds of empirical evidence as well as on different causal assumptions. On the basis of a quick revision of recent Latin American experiences, it concludes that in common judgments about democratic consolidation, behavioral evidence seems to trump both attitudinal and structural data. Andreas Schedler is professor of political science at the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) in Mexico City. He also chairs the Research Committee on Concepts and Methods (C&M) of the International Political Science Association. His current research focuses on democratization and electoral governance in Mexico in comparative perspective. I am indebted to the Austrian Academy of Sciences for supporting work on this article through the Austrian Program for Advanced Research and Technology (APART). Also, I am most grateful to Ruth Berins Collier, Peter Burnell, David, Collier, Michael Coppedge, Larry Diamond, Graciela Ducatenzeiler, Francis Hagopian, Robert R. Kaufman, James Mahoney, Scott Mainwaring, Sebastián Mazzuca, Gerardo L. Munck, Martin Schürz, Richard Snyder, Kurt Weyland, and the anonymous reviewers ofSCID for their valuable comments. Many thanks, too, to Harold Waldrauch for sharing the New Democracies Barometer data. Naturally, though, all responsibility is mine.     

从“太阳花学运”看台湾民主

台湾自视为民主化的“灯塔”,但“太阳花学运”暴露出台湾民主存在诸多问题,引发广泛争议。争议中的共识是台湾民主出了问题,但也存在分歧,即究竟该对近三十年来的台湾民主化持什么态度,肯定、否定,抑或其他？分歧的产生与民主质量理论运用到台湾民主研究有关,民主质量的概念特性导致不同学者对其内涵的理解有所不同。有将其理解为狭义的“民主”的质量,包括竞争性选举、政党轮替等;也有将其理解为中义的“民主政治”的质量,包括法治、宪政、分权、人权等其他政治范畴;还有将其理解为广义的“民主政体”的质量,包括政治绩效、经济绩效、社会绩效等政治、经济和社会范畴。通过民主质量理论可知,台湾基本实现了巩固的民主,但尚未实现优质的民主。     

Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study

ABSTRACT

This essay provides a global perspective on the democratic transformation of the state in societies undergoing democratization. Comparative research indicates that the development and effective performance of democratic political systems require the establishment of honest and competent public bureaucracies that avoid political partisanship and demonstrate respect for the diverse values and interests of the populations they serve. Especially important in democratizing the state is the development and practice of the norms of secondary democracy. The practice of these norms of mutual respect, fairness, and collaboration create the essential culture or modus vivendi of democracy. The Republic of South Africa is analyzed as an important case study of a contemporary state that is attempting to create a democratic and corruption-free public service in a country with an extremely racist, authoritarian, and corruption-ridden past. This case study reveals that the democratization of the state in South Africa, as in the case of other countries around the world, requires the members of the state bureaucracy to practice the norms of secondary democracy in their daily relations with one another and in their relations with the citizenry.     

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.