4.4: Democratic Consolidation

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define democratic consolidation.
• Identify characteristics of democratic consolidation.
• Recognize modern theories of democratic consolidation.

Introduction

Democratization, also referred to as democratic consolidation, is a type of regime transition whereby new democracies evolve from fledgling regimes to established democracies, making them less at risk to fall back into authoritarian regimes.When a democracy becomes consolidated, scholars expect that it will endure. Transitions of regimes from non-democratic, to democratic, to consolidated democracies are of major interest for scholars. A regime itself can be defined as a system in which a particular administration, system, or prevailing social system or pattern retains power and domestic (but not necessarily international) legitimacy. Regime transitions are not the same as government changes, but are instead broader political conversions, which mean that governmental changes can occur within a given regime without creating a true regime transition.

As defined in Chapter Three, a regime transition occurs when a formal government changes to a different government leadership, structure or system. According to comparative scholar Stephanie Lawson, it is a substantial change in the form of governance of countries, involving shifts from one type of regime to another, such as a shift from a socialist to a democratic form of rule (Lawson, 1993). Ronald Francisco (2000) argues that regime change is, at its core, a political event, meaning that the changes which occur center around political issues. The most important result of regime transitions for comparativists include the new constellation of rules, institutions, and authority that are established or develop(ed) over time. While there is certainly not unanimous consensus among scholars on how to pinpoint precisely when a regime transition has concluded, most agree that the establishment and legitimization of a national constitution is often indicative of such a change. Regime transitions have been studied at length, with attention paid to the quality of democracy that is established, and whether democratic institutions become stronger over time.

Many scholars assert that democratic consolidation occurs when the regime transition to democracy has ended, and further, that the qualities that led to the regime transition may not be the same qualities required to make a democracy endure.

Many scholars assert that democratic consolidation occurs when the regime transition to democracy has ended, and further, that the qualities that led to the regime transition may not be the same qualities required to make a democracy endure. At this point it is critical to ask, what are the indicators of a consolidated democracy? In other words, how do we know when a democracy is consolidated or not?

Two potential indicators of consolidation that have been put forth include the two-election test and the longevity test. On the former point, the two-election test, also known as the transfer of power test, is what it sounds like: democracy is consolidated when a government which had been freely and fairly elected is defeated in a subsequent election and the election outcome is accepted by both sides. The peaceful transition of power is critical in any democracy, so in a way, this test makes sense. At the same time, this test is not without its flaws. What if a country has a dominant party system wherein the same political party seems to be elected to power over and over again? Does that mean democracy is not consolidated? If that’s true, then a number of democracies in existence would be excluded from being considered consolidated. The second test to consider would be the longevity test. In this test, if a country has been able to hold free and fair elections for an extended period of time, perhaps over two decades, then perhaps the democracy is consolidated. Here too, there are problems. Maybe elections can be held over time, but the continued elections simply benefit one party. This is to say, the longevity of a regime may not translate into the quality of a democracy. Beyond this, longevity gives no indication, in and of itself, that democracy, if it exists, will continue to be high quality. We will have difficulty gauging whether democracy is in danger of backsliding into authoritarianism.

Since it can be difficult to solidify exact indicators for what constitutes a consolidated democracy, it may also be helpful to consider some theories of democratic consolidation. Below are a few of the theories that have been proposed regarding the likelihood of a democracy of becoming consolidated.Importantly, the below list of theories is not a complete one, there are dozens of theories about what circumstances or conditions best lend to a consolidated democracy.

Theory 1

The regime type that existed prior to the democracy will affect whether a country can experience a consolidated democracy.

While there have not been any extensive studies demarcating the types of preceding regimes that may lend towards democratic consolidation, this theory tends to be considered from time to time. The idea of this theory is that there will be some types of regimes that, prior to becoming democracies, may be better suited to eventually become consolidated democracies. In this vein, if the previous regime had any democratic characteristics, whether these were partially free or fair elections. If there were any institutions that were representative of the people, perhaps these regimes will eventually have a higher likelihood of consolidating. On another point, if there is a deeply embedded military dictatorship preceding a democracy, perhaps it will have more difficulty eventually becoming a democracy. Perhaps the people will be fearful of the regime backsliding into a military dictatorship. Perhaps this will limit the opportunities to fully democratize over time. Some authors have argued that it does not necessarily matter what the regime was prior to the transition, what is important is that there was an established state which had some form of legitimacy. To this end, Benthem wrote: “A 'state' which is incapable of enforcing any effective legal or administrative order across its territory is one in which the ideas of democratic citizenship and popular accountability can have little meaning.” (Beethem, 1994 pg. 163)

This theory is difficult to test, though not impossible. Case Studies, combined with the medium to large N, could add to the field. The main challenge in a quantitative study would be finding ways to quantify the various aspects of previous regimes.

Theory 2

The type of transition that occurs will affect whether a country can experience a consolidated democracy.

Does the circumstances under which the regime transitioned to democracy matter? Are there certain types of transition to democracy which may later inhibit its ability to consolidate? There has been a lot of consideration of this theory. Huntington and Linz put forward options for the circumstances that are most conductive and least conducive to democratic consolidation. For instance, if the transition to democracy was imposed by external forces, this may not be a positive indicator for eventual consolidation. There’s also the possibility of an authoritarian regime initiating a change to democracy, which may or may not lead to long term democratic processes. Finally, there’s the option of the regime transition being initiated by groups within the society. Some have argued that democracies have a better chance of success if it is the people who demand the change, and the change is not imposed from external or authoritarian forces.

Theory 3

The chances of democratic consolidation improve with economic development.

Some have argued that states need a free market system in order to experience democratic consolidation, and further, that economic growth is a catalyst for consolidation. This dovetails with modernization theory, which says a country will improve its processes towards modernizing because there could be economic and/or political benefits in doing so. Beethem described the general thoughts behind this theory when he wrote:

… a market economy disperses decisional and other forms of power from the state. This serves the cause of democracy in a number of ways: it facilitates the development of an autonomous sphere of 'civil society' which is not beholden to the state for resources, information or organisational capacities; it restricts the power and scope of a bureaucratic apparatus; it reduces what is at stake in the electoral process by separating the competition for economic and political power into different spheres. (Beethem, 1994 pg. 164-165)

Overall, if a state is willing/able to promote a free market with fair competition, it loosens its grasp on an institution which it may have the power to control, but chooses not to. In choosing not to control all market outcomes, the state is more likely to experience economic growth. There also tends to be a general argument that the more the economy improves, the more citizens within a state can experience prosperity and begin to engage in political life.

Theory 4

Some religions will deter or not support democratic consolidation.

This theory has been a controversial one, and has not aged well. Historically, there have been a number of political science articles which argued along the lines that sociologist Max Weber did, namely, arguing that countries which were primarily Protestant had better opportunity to democratize than, for instance, Catholic states. The reasoning here was that Protestants, according to Weber, were more accepting of individual responsibility, were focused on productive work, and were non-conformists. Later, this theory can sometimes be used to make it sound like certain religions are simply incapable of democratization, and this theory does not have solid grounding or support. While this theory has been largely revoked, it is still important to consider this theory as many authors, like Samuel Huntington, made arguments to this end.

Overall, new theories of democratic consolidation have emerged over the last few decades, and there is not yet consensus among scholars about what conditions and theories tend to have the greatest credence. That being said, regime transitions to democracy and the process of democratization likely rest on a variety of factors which need to be considered: historical context, political culture, identity politics, class structures, economic structures, institutions, types of government structure and constitution types.