I .lilf'tl by

Ill· I{ I' KLANDERMANS AND

l < l R N ELlS VAN STRALEN

Movements in Times of Democratic Transition

~ J J l\11'11 llN1\ 1 RSI IY PIU SS

1!1 l'hii.Hkll•lllol Rum~ luk)'<l

TLJ\11'11· UNIVJ'RSII Y I'RI SS PlulaJdph.a, Pennsylvania 19122 11'\t'IV.t.:ntple.etlJt/tentpress

Cop)'rtght '" 2015 by Temple Umvcrsily i\ II rights reserved Puhhshcd 2015

All r.:tiSOIIab/i: attempts were mntlt~ to lowte til<' owm:rs of tl" illustrations pulllislletl ill this IUJok.lfyortlu:liew you may be onr of them, pleastt collltlel Temple University Press, and tht• publisher will iudude upprol>rialc: nckuowledgml!lll in Sllboeqtllmf editions a,( the book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Movemenls in l imes uf clcmocratic Iran sit ion 1 edited by Bert Klandermans and Cornclis vun Stralen.

pages em Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN \178-1-4399-1180-8 (hardback: alk. paper)­

ISBN 978-1 4399-1181-5 (paper: alk. paper)-ISBN 978-1-4399-1182-2 (c-hook) I. Social movcmcnts-l'olitical .bpects. 2. Democratizallon. 3. Political participation. I. Klandcrmam. Bert. II. Siralcn. Cornclis J. van.

HM88 1.M673 2015 303.48'4-dc23

2014018552

~ rhc paper used in thi~ puhlicatll)n meets I he requtremomts or I be Amcm:nn Nallonal Standard for lnfnrmaliun Sdences-Permant!nce nf P<1p1:r fnr Pr111tcd I ihrar)' Materials ANSI Z39.41!-1992

! I h K ij 7 I I l

Contents

Introduction Her/ Klanderma11s and Come/is van Stra/en

I'AH I I Theory

Mobilizing for Democracy: Social Movements in Democratization

Pmccsses l·cdel'ico M. Rossi and Donatella della Porta

~ I >isengagemenl from Radical Organizations: A Process and

\lultilevel Model of Analysis c Jl1vicr Fi/lieule

Abeyance Cycles in Social Movements Ali soli Dahl Crossley and Verta Taylor

I'AIH II Latm America

4 Introduction ( nmelis van Slralen

11 1\ 1 kmoaacy for "Us"-or tor All? !he Ambivalences of Bolivia's

Sou,tl Movements since Their Triumph

filii Sr1lnuw

9

34

64

91

108

Mobilizing for Democracy

"'''''Movements in Democratization Processes

FEDERICO M. ROSSI DONATELLA DELLA PORTA

En·n though social movements are more and more recognized, in political 111d academic debates, as important actors in democracies, interactions hdween politics and the social sciences have been rare (Rossi and della

l'nt 1.1 2009; della Porta 2014). Social movements have been far from prominent I" \111 literature on democratization, wbich has mainly focused instead oneco­""'ll'l pro.:conditions, elites' behavior, or the geopolitical situation. Modern­' .ttlon theory and the historical class perspective are structural approaches, , •l'n1.11ly concerned with the preconditions for democracy. They recognize the llflJ.d role of economic conditions and social classes but disregard the specific

"''' ' of 'odal movements and contentious politics. The so-called developmental 'I'Jllll.lth after World War II recommended economic supports as a precondi­tu•n to political democratization. Transitology conceives of democratization as 1 ''''"''Ktional process among elites; although it presents a more dynamic per­l"'ltivc of democratization, it assigns a limited role to movements, unions, and

I" nil's!. Most political science approaches privilege parties as main actors in the lllnsoladation of democracy. Even the more dynamic approaches to democrati-1 1111111 point to a declining degree of "participation from below" after the first l'l""l' of transition and, especially, during the so-called consolidation phase. !.unil.nly, until recently, social movement scholars have paid only limited atten­ttun to do.:mocratizalion processes, mostly focusilng on established democratic ~ nuntncs, especially the Western European and North American experiences. llowl·n.•r, three recent trends brought potential for bridging research on social umwnwnls and that on democratization. First, in social movement research, t 1,,. l'llll'f~l·ncc of tho.: global ju:.t icc movement pushed social movement scholars to JMY m<Hl' ,ltt~·ntion to isSU\.'S of dcmoaacy .lnd to the social movements in the

10 Chapter 1

Global South. AL the same time, the global justice movements have addressed issues of democratization of more and more powerful international govern men­tal organizations, as well as a "radical democratization" of already-democratic countries faced with the emerging challenges of representative democracy (Avritzer 2009; Baiocchi 2005; Sinlomer, Herzeberg, and Roecke 2008). Second, the emergence of transnational advocacy coalitions on human rights and de­mocracy has also been analyzed in research on democratization (in particular, in Latin America; see Brito 1997; Keck and Sikkink 1998). Third, research on the wave of democratization in Eastern Europe since 1989 has started to em­phasize the democratizing role of civil society-theoretically located between the stale and the market-with a diminishing confidence in political parties as l.u-ricrs of the democratization process. In some of these interpretations, civil socwty IS conceptualized almost as synonymous for social movements (Cohen and Arato 1992; Kaldor 2003). Within this frame, several programs of civil so­Cil'ty promotion have been sponsored by international governmental organiza­tions and individual states (Seiche! et al. 2014).

In what follows, we review these different perspectives and then propose an <lll.tlpic organization of the different roles that social movements, trade unions, ;,tdvo<.:acy net works. churches, and cycles of protest play in the dynamic, con­llllgent. and CO/Ilelllious shaping of democracy. In doing this, we are of course not pleading for an exclusive focus on democratization from below; we are con­vinced that the path and speed of democratization processes are influenced by the strength and characteristics of several social and political actors. The com­bination of protest and consensus is, in fact, a main challenge for democratiza­tion processes. We suggest, however, that social movements are often important actors in all stages of democratization. In our discussion of these topics, we draw examples especially from Latin America, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe.

The Marginal Concern with Social Movements in Research on Democratization

Studies on democratization have traditionally assigned a limited role to social movements and protest. This is true, although to different extent, within the main approaches to democratization, including structural approaches (mod­ernization theory and the historical class perspective) and the elite transactional process approach (transitology).

Structuraltst Approaches to Democratization

!'he first ~tudit·s of democratization emerged in the aftermath of the massive dt•sl rill t ion pwdm. ~·d Ill l·u rope by World v\'ar II Jlld in tlw rc~:on flf(ll ration ol wor ld pol rills m.unl}' u111s~·d by the l"Xpan!>IOn of till' !-onvil·t t nlon\ .1rca of

hrll llrv for D:::e.::.:m:::oc:.:.r:.:ac:!.y ____________________ _;_;,.11

1111~ rru ,\lld the decolonization of Africa and Asia. Two predominantly struc-1111 •II'' 1 ~Jlcl.tives developed with the intention of explaining political regime I tllf'' til pcnpheral countries (democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian). Re­

I II ru.unly focused on the prerequisites necessary for democracy to emerge 11 I 111, 1VI.' and on discovering which social class is the key actor in promoting uri ".t.uning a democratic regime.

\VIllnn modernization theory, S.M. Lipset's (1959) pioneering work associ-'' 11 tl11 l h.1nce for emergence of a democratic regime with economic devel-1 """I l"lm approach tended to recommend economic supports (such as the 11, Jr ,tl ll'l.tn) as a precondition to political democratization and accordingly 111 hll'~t•d the emergence of democracy in low-income countries improbable

IHrlllo ,tiiVIval precarious. Sustainable democracy requires structural prereq-111 Ill .I lUOng them the development of a prodemocratic middle class. Even 11 It hill, with large samples have often confirmed a positive and statistically 1 ooll h .till correlation between gross domestic product and the presence of 1 "'"'Iotti' institutions,' that docs not account for agency and thus cannot ex­jlllll wh> poorer countries, such as Portugal (1974), Greece (1974), Ecuador 1 1 ,,,, l'lru (1980), and Bolivia (1982), democratized before more industrialized "II"''"'' such as Argentina (1983), Brazil (1985-1990), Chile (1991), and South

l1111 1 t19R7 1988).2

\It hough powerful in explaining the survival of already-established de­llll' 1 ,, ll's, modernization theory tends to ignore the role of social actors (social

1or"\' nH·nts among them) in crafting democracy and therefore cannot explain Jlro rltlkrentlcmpos (i.e., whether decadelong or abrupt transitions) and de­'"'' ,,,tl/.ation quality (i.e., whether procedural or substantive democracy) 11111111g them. As we argue later, incorporating social movement literature into '"' tody of democratization processes can help bring agency back in.

1 hl· most prominent modernization scholar, Samuel Huntington (1965,

'"'Jf 1 a·jccts mobilization (in particular of the working class) as a source of 111 "'"' 1.1t1zation from below, defining those with high levels of mobilization 1 pt.t~:torian societies."' In his view, the potential for disruption produced by 111111, lor inclusion needs to be limited and controlled, because the assumption

1 th.tl tkmocracy needs low levels of mobilization and unionization and that \lit tlww low levels can be allowed only after a relatively high level ofindustri­

lltl,tllnn has been achieved. Sl·H'I al authors from diverse analytic traditions-for example, N. Berrneo

1 1'1•1 ). R. B. Collier (1999), D. McAdam, S. Tar row, and C. Tilly (2001), and TiUy 1 'IIIII) have instead convincingly demonstrated that mobilized actors play a ( 111 ~; r.ll role in the emergence of democracy and in its preservation or expan-t•lll 1 specially within historical sociology, research singled out the role of the

tlt.l~\l'' in the first and second waves of democratization and in resistance move­''"""" 111 th-.! fall of authoritarian regimes at the end of World War 11. A central ,111, 1uun hcl..llllC: Which i'i the democratizing social class? Historical accounts rol 1la fi1 sllicmolraliz.llion prO,l'SSl'S in Europe point to the labor movement's

12 Chapter I

part in struggling for civil, political, and social rights. In this regard, Barrington Moore Jr. (1966), although agreeing on the importance of some socioeconomic conditions, stresses the importance of social classes in first democratizations' in [ngland (1642-1649), France (1789-1848), and the United States (1861-1865). Sinularly, R. Bendix (1964) looks at how the masses entered history during thl? first European democratization wave; T. H. Marshall (1992) stresses popular mobilization in the struggle for civil, political, and social rights; A. Pizzorno (1996) observes that the socialist and other movements were important in the den:lopment of I iberal democracy; and Tilly (2007) points to the nationaliza-1 ion ••nd autonomization of protest activities during state and market building.

Moore's hypotheses on the impact of class structures on democratization Jln>lesses have been cited by scholars looking at the role of different classes in more recent waves of democratization. In pathbreaking work, D. Ruesche­llll')'Cr, 1:. II. Stephens, and J. Stephens (1992) found that-given a certain levd oll·wnomil development-the working class has been the key actor promoting dl•mocrutization in the last two waves of democratization in Southern Europe, Soul h A rnerica, and the Caribbean.5 More recently, in another cross-national wmparison, Collier {1999) suggests that the working class-although not so important in the nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century transitions in West­ern Europe as suggested by Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens-was cru­cial to the most recent wave of democratization in Southern Europe and South America. Beyond workers' role, C. Boix (2003) and D. Acemoglu and}. Robin­son (2006: 38-39), using game theory, argue that democratization is successful when the middle classes do not side with the privileged classes in blocking the working class's demand for political inclusion. And}. Markoff (1996) empha­sizes women's movements demanding democratic rights in the first long wave of democratization, starting in the late eighteenth century.

Conjunctural Approaches to Democratization

While the historical class perspective shows more concern for interactive his­torical paths than does classic modernization theory, both perspectives over­look the agency of contentious actors and the interactive mechanisms associated with democratization.6 Agency is instead central in the so-called transitologist approach, which, however, did not pay much attention to social movements as potential actors in democratization.

After the 1970s wave of democratization in Southern Europe, political sci­ence approaches to the construction of political institutions have privileged po­utical parties as main democratic actors (Higley and Gunther 1992). Even the more dynarnic approaches to democratization (O'Donnell and Schmiller 1986; Linz and Stepan 1996) tended to perceive the reformn pactada-mptura pactada (negoti:ttcd reform-negotiated break) in Spain (1977) as the model for success­fullktnon,\llzation. l'hcy stressed a demobilization ol "nl.l\"> politils" (or at lt-.1\ltlwi• dl.tnnehng with111 nhlllutioll.llill•d polltk.tl p.ulll'\) ·'' lll'lC,sary tor

Ill hoy lou Oumo:,:cr.:.ac~y~--------------------13

I• 111, tousolidation of democracy. In the theoretical volume concluding 1 l1too.uln:~carch project, G. O'Donnell and P. Schmitter (1986) dedicate a

1 , u 111 1\h,\1 they call the "res11rrection of civil society," meaning the short 111' , ttmmcnt when movements, unions, churches, and the society in gen­

II I' It lou .111 initial transition of a nondemocratic regime toward democracy. I II '''I II tim is a moment of great expectations,

"I ,,,11,.,~ of its intensity and of the background from wh icb it emerges, 1111 pupular upsurge is always ephemeral. Selective repression, manipu­l•tloHI ,, nd cooptation by those still in control of the state apparatus, the l•llt'"' tnduced by frequent demonstrations and "street theatre," the in-1 1u.tl ullllltcts that are bound to emerge over choices about procedures 011· I .uh~tantive policies. a sense of ethical disillusionment with the "re­t It Ito u1mpromises imposed by pact-making or by the emergence of

1tllj '" hil leadership within its component groups are all factors lead­ltlj' ht\,,trd the dissolution of the upsurge. The surge and decljne of the

1u oopll'' leaves many dashed hopes and frustrated actors. (1986: 55-56)

I Itt .luul time civil society is present in the streets is not only inevitable, ,, 1 ho 1 n han ncling of participation through the political parties and the ''" d w'tcm, but also desirable, to avoid frightening authoritarian soft-1 "''" .thandoning the negotiation process with the prodemocracy mod-

'' 1 lltt'' .trc thus not only the source of the democratization process but I 1 tho om·~ who control its outcome. If for O'Donnell and Schmitter conten-

11•11 pn1iltl\ favors the transition of a nondemocratic regime to democracy, 1 1 lht; , n111 ributors to). Higley and R. Gunther's volume (1992) any kind of

1 ol 1110H·mcnt, protest, or strike must be controlled and demobilized to as­"' , , lliiMlhdatcd procedural democracy. While in O'Donnell and Schmitter's 11 1 d• llllll natization is made possible by a ctivision between (authoritarian and I Ill"' 1 lltl) ditcs, in Higley and Gunther's analysis it is the consensus among

1 "'' 11111g dilcs that allows for consolidation. Transitology, thus, emphasizes lit ttutlngcnt and dynamic nature of the democratization process but tends 1 , "oluu• 11 tu <l bargaining among political elites in a context of uncertainty.

\\1111111 tr<lllSltology, more systematic attention to civil society in democ-1 1tilll tnn prm.esses can be found in J. Linz and A. Stepan's (1996) model of

"tubl t1.111sition. They take into account not only the immediate liberaliza-llt "' ·llllllt.lnsttion bargaining process but also the characteristics of the pre­''"'. uomknwcratic regime (i.e., authoritarian, totalitarian, posHotalitarian,

1th ""''" ), the way the nondemocratic elites exit state power, t.he historical It" ",,.,,q,r~ of the political parties and the elites, and, when il ends, the un-ll.tltll> lltn~<tlc. "A robust civil society, with the capacity to generate political

1li••n.ltlvt•s Jnd to monitor government and state[,] can help transitions get 1111• t1 lwlp resist reversals, help push transitions to their completion, help "" ulul.llt, ,\lid hdp decp,•n democracy" and is necessary to complement the

14 Chapter 1

"political sodcty," mudc of the elites and institutionalized actors. ·:At all stages of the democratization process, therefore, a lively and independent civil society is invaluable" (9). Even though recognizing its role in theory, the two authors do not give much empirical space to the analysis of civil society.

Reflecting on the relationship between the characteristics of the previous authoritarian regime and the chances for the emergence of prodemocratic mo­bilizations, Linz and Stepan (1996: chap. 3) suggest that, by eliminating any pluralism, totalitarian regimes jeopardize the development of autonomous organizations and networks that could then be the promoters of democracy. Suhanistic regimes, because of the high personalization of power, manipulate mobilization for ceremonial purposes and through para-state groups, discour­aging and repressing any kind of autonomous organization that could sustain resistance networks. Authoritarian regimes, mainly those installed in countries with previous (semi)democratic familiarity, generally experience the most mas­sive mobilizations and face some organized underground resistance based on several networks that either preexisted the regime or formed later, thanks to the higher degree of pluralism. Linz and Stepan add another ideal-typical re­gime, posHotaJitaria n, but this seems to be more an intermediate step in the democratization of totalitarian regimes than a regime type. Two subtypes of authoritarianism, not mentioned by these authors. are important for our pur poses: (a) bureaucratic-authoritarianism, in which a technocratic civic-military elite commands the depoliticization of a mobilized society for capital accu­mulation (O'Donnell 1973), and (b) populist-authoritarianism, in which elites mobilize the society from above for legitimating the regime while incorporat­ing the lower classes (see Hinnebusch 2007). While some South American and Southeast Asian countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) were bureaucratic-authoritarian, the predominant model in some Middle East­ern and North African countries (Egypt, Algeria, etc.) was populist-authoritar­ian. Linz and Stepan hypothesize an interesting relationship between the type of nondemocratic regime and the potential for the emergence of movements, protests, strikes, and underground resistance networks that antedate liberaliza­tion and accompany democratization. Recent studies have shown the impact of the regime type on the characteristics of contentious politics (Almeida 2003; Ulfelder 2005; Ortiz 2013).

Linz and Stepan (1996: chap. 2) also stress the need to consider multiple simultaneous transitions (e.g., simple, with only regime change; dual, with a change in regime pius economic system; or triple, with change also in the nation-state arrangement). ln this sense, it is important not only whether the previous regime was authoritarian or totalitarian but also whether it was capi­talist or communist (Stark and Brusztl998). Additionally, in a triple transition, nation-slate building is complicated when nationalist movements mobilize in the nanw of 'on tending. visions of which movement should be the demos of the lt1l11r~· dl•mch .. r.ll\ l'hu,, although in the \ovicl Union in 1991 r~·gion,ll mobi­li;.ltu•n kd to th~· d"'olutmn of the political unit, in Sp.1i11 it clnlnot HastlliC

ul1111, 101 Oem:::o::c~ra~c!....y _ ____________________ 1_5

1 ( 11 d.ltl nationalist movements undermined the legitimacy of Francisco ,, n 11wme but were unsuccessful in achieving independence. Czechoslo­

j,, 1111 lll,Lance, experienced a peaceful dissolution of the polity along with 1 '""', 1t11 .. and capitalist transition in 1989- 1992. These changes can be ex-

1 lot .r ""I~ 1hrough the intertwined role played by regime elites, democratic 111 n111hillzed groups, and international pressures. Moderation in claims for

11 111.,111 ) .tnd independence has been mentioned as favoring the transition to 1 1111,. 1,1, y .u'ld radicalized claims as jeopardizing it (see, e.g., Reinarcs 1987; II 1 , h dl 2000; Glenn 2003).

1 , , 11 1 hough the dynamic, agency-focused approach of tra nsitology allowed Ill• 1111o n.•st in the role played by movements in democratization to develop

I' tgnu~..,o 1995), it did not focus attention on them. In addition to its elit-1 111 1 ,, M1me other assumptions of transitology have been criticized. First,

t 1 11 , tltologists tend to emphasize individuals over collectives, which reduces tit l''''' l' \\ to strategic instrumental thinking, ignoring class-defined actors

11 h ~ ~ unions and labor and left-wing parties, and it is state-centric, which '''"" olt~t.lh::. social actors to state actors (Collier and Mahoney 1997). Second,

t1 111 ttolngy tends to consider movements and protest actors as manipulated 1 11111 '• •• nd focusing on very instrumentally defined purposes (Baker 1999).' 1 hll.l , I\ h •lc transitologists believed in the inevitability and desirability of"eliti-'""" ol the democratization process, research by social movement scholars

I''"' nil he importance of the interplay between elites and mobilized social ac-1 11 •" 1hc necessary (though not sufficient) condition for a democratization l"'~ ' ''' • lJUCstioning the elite-led and elite-ended logic that previously.do~i­'' 111 .t 11l·mocratization studies. Scholars who have analyzed democratJZat•on 111 111111dlltst perspectives generally agree that not even the Spanish transition

111111h 11, a purely elite-controlled bargaining process. Massive strike waves, ter­''"' 1 .11tacks by nalionalist movements, and an ascending cycle of protest char-1 "ttll'd the transition (see, e.g., Maravall1978, 1982; Rei nares 1987; Foweraker !VIi'l, l.trrow 1995; McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001: 171-186; Sanchez-Cuenca

111.1 1\guilar 2009), better defined as a destabilization and extrication process (I olltl'r 1999: 126- 132) or as "a cycle of protest intertwined with elite transac-111111' (t-.lcAdam, Tarrow, and TiUy 2001: 186).ln sum, transitology is accused of 't ""' 1ng the long-term, dynamic, contingent, and contentious process assoc~­tlt d with the creation of the conditions for the breakdown of nondemocratiC

• t rtmcs. The next section addresses this process.

Perspectives of Democratization f1 om Social Movement Studies \\ 1th kw exceptions (e.g., some Latin American scholars), the literature on so­.t.tlmowmcnl~ has traditionally shown little interest in democratization pro­le ,,~., (dl'll.t Purt.t ,11\d Diani 2006). Onl)' recently the concept of contentious

16 Chapter I

politics, as opposetlto routine politics, has been proposed to link research on phenomena such as social movements, revolutions, strike waves, nationalisms, and democratization (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001).

Moreover, even those who have accorded an importance to social move­ments disagree on the positive versus negative effects of their intervention. Charles Tilly singles out two opposed conceptions of social movements in the process of democratization. First, a "populist approach to democracy" empha sizes participation from below, where "social movements contribute to the ere at ion of public space-social settings ... in which consequential deliberation over public affairs lake place- as well as sometimes contributing to transfers of power over states" (Tilly 1993- 1994: 1). Second, an elitist approach believes that democratization must be a top-down process and that an excess of mobiliza­tion leads to new forms of authoritarianism since the elites fear changes that are too much too soon. In this sense, Tilly stresses that, although it is not always straightforward, one can see "a broad correspondence between democratization and social movements" (2004: 125). On the one hand, many of the processes that cause democratization also promote social movements, and "democratiza­tion as such further encourages people to form social movements" (131). On the other hand, "under some conditions and in a more limited way, social move­ments 1 hem selves promote democratization" (131).

If democratization promotes social movements via the broadening of citi­zens' rights and the public accountability of ruling elites, many, but not all, social movements support democracy. Some movements refuse democracy al­together (as do fascist and neofascist ones), others might have the unwanted effect of producing backlash in democratic rights (as have some guerrilla move­ments in Latin America; see Wickham-Crowley 1992; Brockett 2005). Some­times people mobilize against democratic regimes, demanding authoritarian solutions to political or economic crisis, providing the nondemocratic actors with a popular source oflegilirnacy (e.g., middle-class women's protests against Salvador Allende's government in Chile), and some actors seek restrictions of democratic rights in democratic regimes (e.g .• European anti-immigration and xenophobic movements).8 Identity politics, such as in ethnic conflicts, often led to religious war and racial violence (Eder 2003). In other cases, movements try­ing to promote democratization might have the perverse effect of increasing slate repression or facilitating the emergence of undemocratic actors (e.g., the collapse of the Weimar Republic in Germany).

In most cases, however, a positive relation between social movements and the promotion of democracy can be found. By pushing for suffrage enlargement or the recogn ilion of associational rights, many social movements contribute to democratization. As Edwin Amenta and Neal Caren sutnmarize, "Gains in the ucmocratization of state processes arc perhaps the most important [gains] that so~o.ialmovements can influence and have the greatest systemic effects" (2004: 165) An itl<..<1111pletc but relevant correspondence between the processes that pmmok tkrnmr;lltz.llinn .111d SIH.t.ll movements has bcl'n cxpl.uul'd lhts way·

11111t1~ lnr Dorr::ro.:;Cr~a.:;;CY:...._ _____________________ 17

1 1 111.tl1} "f the same processes that cause democratization also indepen-1111) t'l•llllntc social movements. Second, democratization as such further en­H 'l't pl'ople to form social movements. Third, under some conditions and '""" ltmited way social movements themselves promote democratization"

I II IIIII. 1'1). 111 .u111. social movements contribute to democratization only under certain

t•d 11 11 Ill\ Collective mobilization frequently creates the conditions for a de­l l•lli t 1111111 of authoritarian regimes, but it can also lead to an intensification 1 I''' \lOll or the collapse of weak democratic regimes, particularly when

llllltll\'cments do not stick to democratic conceptions. Labor, student, and 111111 lltovcments brought about a crisis in the Franco regime in Spain in the

1 11 11ul 1970s, but the worker and peasant movements and the fascist coun­t It•••\• tm·nts contributed to the failure of the process of democratization in 11 1 1111hl· 1920s and 1930s (Tarrow 1995).

11. lllW the relationship between social movements and democratization is

11 llll('ll·, the main question for social movement scholars bas been when and 1 .l11 movements promote democratization? Two branches in social move­It• til .tudtcs have tried to answer this question: the new social movement ap­l, , "h .tnd the political process one. We begin with a brief overview of both

It lllu n .tnalyze the role of social movements in each stage of democratization. 111 lnrnpc the new social movement approach has looked at the emergence

1 , til w ,Ktor in postindustrial society. Alain Touraine (1981), the most prom­'" ul l ,poncnl of this perspective, argues that the capital-labor conflict has 1 11 .111 p.tssed by new conflicts related to the self-representation of the society 11uli h· rypes of actions related to its transformation. Thus, the new connicts d. \tiiiJll'd outside the factory and the labor movements, and the claims for tak­'"t' l.lll' power were abandoned by the women's, student, and environmental t11 .. ,,111U1ls of Western Europe. Although its original aim was to explain a very ltll•t•Hl phenomenon, some authors widely applied the new social movement 'fll'•u.tdt in the 1980s- 1990s Latin American tra111sitions, emphasizing the cul­llll ,d .1 nd social democratization produced by movements, decentering the stale 1 1lt~11 m,lin interlocutor (Slater 1985; Jelin 1987; Escobar and Alvarez 1992),

1\111 , h ,., what ultimately caused these authors to ignore the elite-movement in-1• '·" 11011 ,,s crucial for democratization (for example, see Arato 1981).

\'interest in Latin American democratizations and the new social move­lit• ,11 .1pproach decreased, the political process approach became more promi­llllll '" ,tudics of regime transformation as a result of the emergence of new

11. 1wn r.lCtcs in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Trying to eluci­d Ill' wh.ll favors emergence of contention in liberal democracies, the political

1,, "'-~'~s .1pproach devotes more systematic attention to the institutional context tit 111 t h~: new social movement approach does, highlighting the interrclation­.htp of gnwrnnll'ntal actors, political parties, social movements, and protest. s, hul.11 -. t.tking l hill perspective have observed a curvilinear relationship be­l\\1•1·11 th~: l'tm·rgl'nc<.> of protest and the openness of political opportunities

18 Chapter 1

(Eisinger 1973). Recently, some have proposed the reformulation of transitol ogy's perspective, accounting for contentious politics (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001; Schock 2005; Tilly 2004).

Both approaches converge in suggesting that, if it is true that social move­ments arc not necessarily promoters of democracy, neither docs the elitist dy­namic model fully explain democratization processes. Social movements play different roles in each specific stage of the democratization process. The rest of this chapter looks at social movements and contentious politics in the different stages of the democratization process (resistance, liberalization, transition, and expansion).

Resistance to Nondemocratic Regimes

Democratization as a process starts much earlier than transitologists generally suggest. The elites begin a bargaining process because something happens that pushes some of them to withdraw their support from the nondemocratic re­gime. A trigger might be a prodemocratic cycle of protest and an increasingly massive and nonsyndical wave of strikes (see, e.g., Foweraker and Landman 1997; Collier 1999~ McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 200J).lf"democratic transitions express a wide variety of trajectories and outcomes, it is suggested that 'the role of social movements within them is conditioned by the specific rhythm of the "protest cycle," the shape of the political opportunity structure, and the contin­gency of strategic choice"' (Foweraker 1995: 90n2). In Spain, Brazil, and Peru, for instance, strike waves were very important during part of the democratiza­tion process if not the entire process (Maravall 1982; Sandoval 1998; Collier !999). So Peru's democratization process was very much innuenced by a strike wave (1977-1980) against a highly unpopular authoritarian regime (Collier 1999: 115-119), and Brazil experienced a strike wave (1974-1979), followed by a cycle of protest (1978-1982) mainly mobilized by urban movements (Mainwar­ing 1987). If sometimes cycles of protest and strike waves converge, more often strike waves are stronger in the first resistance stages, decline later, and then reemerge during lfberalization and transition in coordination with the upsurge of a cycle of protest originating from underground resistance networks.

Whatever the relevance of these contentious processes, most important in undermining the legitimacy of the regime and the (national and international) support for it are the underground networks of resistance. Latin American new social movement scholars (Jelin 1987; Corradi, Fagen, and Garret6n 1992; Es­cobar and Alvarez 1992) studied the cultural and political resistance to the au­thoritarian regimes and the construction of alternative democratic networks. Human rights movements, trade unions, a11d churches often promote delegiti­mation of authoritarian regimes at international forums such as the United Na­tions and in clandestine or open resistance to an authoritarian regime at the 11.11 ion.tl kvd. I" he rcsil il'nce of resistance networks under n.·pression is decisive at th1~ sl.t~t·, hl"t.\IISl" lht•sc ncl works c,\11 lead to sphts in tlw rul1ng .tuthoritar·

ftlllllup lor De:::m:::o::.cr:.:a.::cy~--------------------'9

11 oil toll,tlitarian elites and force even unwilling elites to initiate liberalization Ito" I 'OOt;). For instance, whereas the Cat hoi ic high hierarchy was often part

1 llu , I Ill'' that supported the authoritarian regime, in some countries church­Ill! 1l ,Hinrs played a prodemocratic role.9 So the Vicaria de Ia Solidaridad 1 llt.tll' of Solidarity) in Chile condemned tlhe repression, persecution, and t tn.llions ordered by Augusto Pinochct and helped coordinate the unions,

I 'II II ollld grassroots activists that organized protests against the regime in 11 11 IV w, (Lowden 1996). In Brazil, with the incorporation of liberation the-

l"l }• lltl" church helped create grassroots empowering spaces through the '"""'".l.tdcs Eclesiais de Base (CEB; Christian-based Communities; see

1 ttdJo I 1'192; LevineandMainwaring200l). TheCEB was central to thestrug-1 '"' dlmucratization, and Catholic groups worked as a broker in a prodemo­' 111 uMitlion with the trade unions and urban movements. Similarly, in the

lit ""' ~ountries, the local clergy supported the opposition to the Francoist lnu hdping preserve the Euskera language (della Porta and Mattina 1986).

111 l'ttl.tnd ,, prodcmocratic alliance developed between the Catholic Church and

1 1~ol.u nus' (Solidarity) union, which proved crucial in the network of resis­lllllt th,,t helped create the necessary resources for the massive mobilizations ltlltll~ ltheralization and transition (Glenn 2003; Osa 2003). And in Lithuania,

tit t .tt ltulic Church in cooperation with the Lithuanian diaspora in the United t•lt tml intellectuals in Russia were the main organizers of the resistance to 11 ""\policies of sovietization (Lane 2001: 89-92).

Itt ttl her countries, such as Argentina, the Catholic Church was a supportive 1 1 ltndt•r to state terrorism and in some cases even actively participated (Mig­ll'••u I•IRII; Obregon 2005; Verbitsky 2005). Civic networks played delegitimiz-11t 111k\. the Mad res de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), Servicio tl• I'M) lusticia (Peace and Justice Service), an<i Asamblea Permanente por los I'L'''I"'~ I lumanos (Permanent Assembly for Human Rights), among other or-1 11117.11tons of the human rights movement, in coordination with human rights I• til 11.t11ona l advocacy networks initiated national and transnational cam­l' ''P'" lur truth and justice to learn the fate of the thousands of disappeared­tit",, I iJnapped and killed by the military of Argentina (Brysk 1994; Wright

1111 ( h;tptcr 8). By naming and shaming, social movement organizations tlllttllg~ the image of authoritarian regimes in international forums such as the 1 llltt•d "''ations and the Organization of American States (Brysk 1993; Brito 1'~'~7, S1kk1nk 1996; Keck and Sikkink 1998: chap. 3). Although authoritarian

1, gunc' .tre dosed to political opposition, M. Keck and K. Sikkink have shown tl• 11 ,, boomerang effect develops when human rights networks sensitize other l "'"'' ncs and intergovernmental organizations to generate political pressure on 111 .Htthuntarian regime:

1 tliVC:rnmcnts are the primary "guarantors" of rights, but also their pittn.ny v1olators. When government violates or refuses to recognize tt!!,ht,, individuals and doml•stic groups ortcn have no recourse within

20 Chapter I

domestic ~wlili1.al and judicial arenas. ·r hey may seck tntcrnatwnal con nee lions finally to express their concerns and even to protect their lives.

When channels between the state and its domestic actors are blocked, the boomerang pattern of influence characteristic of inter­national networks may occur: domestic NGOs bypass their stale and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside. (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 12)

Resistance to authoritarian regimes also developed inside (non religious) cultural groups. In the Czech Republic, for instance, the main organization in the democratization movement, the Civic Forum, emerged from the action of a net work of artists and theaters constructing a space for autonomy and ex pres sion after strong state repression of student protests (Glenn 2003). Also in Asi.t nnd Africn, intellectuals and students often formed circles in which a critique ol the regime developed (Parsa 2000).10

In parttcular. Juring the resistance stage, the labor movement and its allks nmy he effective promoters of democratic values and understandings that crock a nondemocratic regime and set the necessary conditions for liberalization to take place. ( ~specially in Latin America and Southern Europe, workers' organi· zations but also other social movements have often developed strong ties with left-wing political organizations (Collier 1999). In a comparalive study of wom en's movements in Southern European countries, D. della Porta, C. Valiente, and M. Kousis (forthcoming) stress the importance of women's organizations in the resistance against fascist regimes and the effect that their alliance had on the characteristics of the women's movement in those countries. The struggle against fascism represented, for instance, an important political experience for many Italian women: "If fascism ... restricted women to a narrow, passive, limiled existence as baby-makers, the antifascist democratic front created a new and active model for women" (Hellman 1987: 32-33). ln 1943, the Gruppi di Difesa della Donna e di Assistenza ai Combattenti della Liberta (Groups for the Defense of Women and for Aid to the Volunteers for Liberty) were formed as part of the Resistance (Beckwith 1985: 22). These units, depending on the all-party Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale (Committee for National Libera­tion), were in charge of food and weapon supply and assisted wounded partisans and partisans' families. Although only a few women of the seventy thousand or so who participated in the Resistanc:e actually took up arms against fascism, their support role was essential. Similarly, feminism developed in authoritar ian Spain mainly in a milieu of opposition to the dictatorship. Feminists were very active in general political and syndical clandestine work and in gender equality issues. In Greece, during the early 1960s, new organizing efforts led to the reemergence o( a militant women's movement in the popular struggle for radical social change. The well-organized Pan-Hellenic Union of Greek Women was formed by women who wen.• ac:tivc participants of th~o· n,l\ional resistan~oc

lilllriHk fur Democracy 21

l1 111 tllht•" of the (,reek Communist Party. A Coordinating Committee of tl 111~ Women was organized by communist and other progressive women.

ttiiHinms muhisectoral coalitions were built to turn resistance into a lib­,IJ 11 h!lt('n>~ocss under control of the democratizing sectors. In Estonia, Lat­' ""II uhuania, Popular Fronts were the main coalitions in the struggle for

, ltttll.lt·ttll. from the USSR, and-as a by-product-for democratization. The

1ultt I tonh were coalitions of environmental and cultural social movement tt•t~ tttnns, religious groups, the Catholic Church, neocommunist elites, and 1 It nl )llllllps organized by local intelligentsia profiting from Mikhail Gor­

h• \ td.lsi\()Sl policies. They were later imitated in Ukraine, Armenia, and "1 11 llltmlinating their actions for independence from the USSR (Beis-

' I '1111))

f,llilfiiJOn and the Upsurge of Mobilization

11•1• , ttii.Jtton needs an acceleration of certain dynamics in order to occur. I 1 , ~• lt·t.ilton spreads the perception among the authoritarian elites that I 1 I 1111 otlwr way than to open the regime if they want to avoid civil war

1 .. 1. 111 1.1keover of power by democratic or revolutionary actors. This was 1 t, lc11 u1stance, with the civic-military socialist revolution in Portugal

1 J I 1 h.ll started the transition to a democratic (although capitalist) re­t I 11t.llhl• protracted insurgency in El Salvador (1994) and in South Africa

I} (\\nod 2000). The intensity of the protests and strikes affected the elite 1 , ~PI pul'suing a long and controlled transiUon or a short extrication from

I 1'"\Hl

I hn Ill)( the liberalization stage, organized society becomes more visible: '''I " llldions on meeting and demonstration rights develops in what has t• tilt d ,, "resurrection of civil society'' (O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986:

J1111 "H this stage movements may push toward effective democracy or 1 1 till' dt·tnocratization process. Trade unions, labor/left-wing parties, and

1 '" ""•wmcnts, mainly in shantytowns and industrial districts, have been 111nl ,,, main actors seeking democracy (Slater 1985; Collier 1999; Silver

111 J 1111 hilc, shantytown movements organized by members of the Commu-1 I' 111\ 111 Santiago were among the main promoters of a 1983-1987 cycle of 1!1 1 1 h.tl pushed Augusto Pinochet to seek legitimacy through a referendum

It c ,, .uhs triggered a controlled transition (Schneider 1992, 1995; Hipsher ) 111 \outhcrn Europe women's organizations exercised pressure from be­till ""t! the phases of liberalization, pushing regimes lo open up. In fact, It w ll•tmen's organizations that were tolerated by the authoritarian regimes , ,,It .t 1h~· organizational resources for informal oppositional networks to

1"1' 1" p.nltcular, in Spain, during the wave of popular protest that accom­tlh ,I t ht ltheralization of Franco ism, women took part in a sort of a resur­llolltnl ~tvil sodety. In the struggle against fascist regimes, some women's

22 Chapter I

urg<lnization~ were.:· inlluc.:nceJ h) the.:· donunanl frame~ th,\l cmph.l:.ited c.::ivil and polili~.al nghts, part11:ipating in the ~.ommon struggles for ltberalization

On some occasions, during phases of liberalization, boomerang effcl.ls .~reproduced by social movement alliances with transnational actors. In Latin America and in Eastern Europe these alliances were crucial for the push from regime liberali1.ation to an actual transition to procedural democracy (Kcck and Sikkink 1998; Glenn 2003).

Transition to Procedural Democracy

During the transition to democracy, social movements may push for social justice and the elimination of the n.~~erved powers that limit the emerging de mocracy. Although political opportun1l1es for mobilization open up because of the high uncertain!} that characterizes this stage, crc.:les of protest may push in opposite Jirec.:tionl>. Mobilization strengthens the ability of challengers and elites to make claims ret also limits the range of acceptable outcomes because of the conditional nJture of popular support" (Glenn 2003: 104). Old (labor, ethnic) movements and new (women's, urban) movements participate in large c.:oalitions asking for democratic rights (Jclin 1987; Tarrow 1995; della Porta, \',1liente, and '-'oum, forthcoming; Chapter 10).

Often the transition stage is characterized by mobilization of a prodemoc­raq coalition of trade unions, political parties. churches, and social movement~.

Without this coalition democracy is usually not achieved because contendmg countermovements are likely to push for restoration of the authoritarian or to­talitarian regimes. Some right-wing or military networks might also resist Iran sition or try to v1olently produce a democratic breakdown. This is exemplified by the Carapitanda (Face-painted) military group in Argentina in 1987, 1988, and 1990, which tried to end the trials of the military who had tortured and assassinated during the 1976-1983 authoritarian regime (Payne 2000: chap. 3). In other cases the reaction comes from the regime 1/0mellklatura (those in posi­tions of power in governmental, industrial, and other spheres, usually members of the Communist Party), with an increase in repression, as in the case of the I989 crackdown on the Chinese student mo\'ement or the state of emergency against unions 111 Poland (Zhao 2000; ( kicrt and Kubik 2001).ln double transi­tions, we can also find protests and movements that res1sl the transformations of the economi1. systcm. This was the ~.asc of the 1989 I993 wave of farmer::;' protest in Poland following promarket reforms (see C haptcr I 5).

The bargaining uynamic among elites and the increased radicalization of contention in the strc~ets intensify the relationship between elites and move ments (Casper and "laylor 1996:9 10). ). Glenn (2003: 104) argues that the logic of the transition is manifold: (a) mobilizations affect elite negotiations by intro­ducing new actors to the political arcn.l, altering the power relationships among thl' I.Ontending p.ullc~. and mserting nl'w demands into the process reshaping the.:· l.'llllls~· ol .ldion, .llld (b) dttcs' negoti.uion affects nwhiliz.llions by itself

M••hlllllnalor Democracy 23

h '"H"IH tlw degree of up~.·nness of the pollt~~:.1l opportunities for mov~:ments I \ uuHIII > 1ng part of the daims and acceptable interlocutors of the process.

1 ht moment at which the society is demobili:led and politics is channeled '''", I'·'' t y politics is considered by transitologists as the end of the transition I'' tlt•d I hi\ outcome, however, is only one of many possible outcomes in ac­llt tlt1 tllsttions. Although demobilization did not occur after the transition in

11 nttn.t, Bvlivia, Lcuador, and Central America, in countries such as Uru-111) uul <. h.tc pol111cs was quickly institutionalized through the party system

1 wd 199,2, $1.hneider 1992; Hipsher 1998; Chapter 5; Chapter 7; Chapter 8). 1 11111 \nwrica wa~ not unique in this regard. For instance, in South Africa llttthlltt 1tinn did not decrease after the transition (Klandermans, Roefs, and 1 '"\I< 1 IIJlJH; Chapter II), and the same is true in Egypt and Tunisia after the Arab

111lng (dl'll,t Porta 2014). Demobilization docs not seem essential to consolida-1 11 l11 mg instead linked to specific characteristics of the partv system (Rossi

UOt• '112). In general, continuous popular pressures after transition can be a 111 11111 llll.trls for a successful consolidation (Karatnycky and Ackerman 2005).

1 •'I 1.11nly, social movement organizations mobilized during liberalization 1, It• •""1t10n do not totally disband. As soon as the institutions of rcpresenta-

11 1 llt.:nllllra<.)' start to work, many activists dedicate themselves to building 1 lllli':,ttlons capable of interacting with these institutions. In Southern Eu-1'' \\nnH·n who had mobilized in the struggle for democracy participated

11 l~~tlldu1g new institutions. Even though the need to construct democratic In 11t11111111~ reduced the space for autonomous women's movements, women's

ltll•p· tlnerged and reemerged. True, the very characteristics that had helped 11111\t llltllt' during liberalization and transition an infonnal and flexible or

lllllllton.ll structure, an emphasis on the so<.icty against the state, a focus on lit unlfy1ng target of the struggle against the old regime- are likdy to jeop­lltlltt 1 ht'lr capacity to adapt to democratic politics. Social movements do not II •PI•e.tr, however. In Southern European countries, democratization helped a

I 11 1 1111111her of women's organizations to flourish, even though they had dif-1 rtul "1!-lillllt.ational structures, political and cultural aims, anc.l propensity to 11 1 l""ll'st forms of action. In fact, the women's movements of the 1990s in uutlu1 n l'urope were more similar than they had been in the 1980s to Lhose

llltllhu Western democracies. In particular in Spain, Portugal. and Greece, the 11111 n's movements seem to have leap-frogged the radical phase that in other

\ It In democrac1es has characterized the construction of a new feminist ideo­Ill) ltut .m ~till ready to play a role in the consolidated democracies using rou-IH• •~ wdl as contentious forms of political participation.

I ht ~h.~racteristics of the previous regime and the specific path of the 11 111 1111111 scem to affect the ability of social movement organizations to adapt tn dullllll.ltizalion processes. Demobilization can be particularly difficult if I lllt•u 111~ .::onsolidation docs not happen easily. This was the case in Portugal, llt1ph,.lll'd as it \~as by the involvement of the military and a mass insurgency

tit 11 ""~not the l'Xpression of a strong and well organized so<.ialmovement

24 Chapter I

sector. To the <.:ontrary, as the analysis of the women's movement seems to in ­dicate, a long-lasting authoritarian regime, with no previous experience with mass democracy and only a timid liberalization in the 1970s, had destroyed the organized society to the point that the democratic state had to actively intervene to build up civic associations (della Porta, Valiente, and Kousis, forthcoming). The reconstruction of civic participation seems to have been easier in Spain, where social movements had developed in the 1960s and 1970s that pushed for and took advantage of the liberalization of the regime. In Greece and Italy, with relatively shorte r-lived authoritarian regimes, the nucleus of future social move­ment organizations was formed by the well-organized and armed Resistance, although in Italy the repression of the labor movement in the 1950s brouglht about a demobilization of social movements.

A tradition for mobilization and support for movements by political parties, unions, and rei igious institutions facilitate a high level of protest, as happened with the Communist Party promotion of shantytown dwellers' protests in Chile (Hipsher 1998; Schneider 1992, 1995); with the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT; Workl·rs" Party) and part of the Roman Catholic Church support of the rural mowments and unions in Brazil (Branford and Rocha 2002; Burdik 2004); and with tlw environmental movements in Eastern Europe (Koulov 1988; Beissinger 2002; Petrova 2004).

The role of so<.:ial movement organizations and nongovernmental organiza­tions (NGOs) has been particularly stressed for the last wave of democratiza­tion. In particular, the lran~ilion in Eastern Europe beginning in the late 1980s brought about a new paradigm for the democratization of politics and policies: democracy needs a civically active collection of social organizations, prefer­ably with some autonomy from the state. In recent democratization processes in Eastern Europe, the availability of public and private funds for NGOs contrib­uted to an early institutionalization of movement organizations, showing that the weakness of civil society is often exaggerated (Flam 2001).

Consolidation of a Procedural (or Substantive?) Democracy

In the political science literature, consolidation is generally defined as coming at the completion of the democratization process as signaled by the first free and open elections, the end of the uncertainty period, and/or the implementa­tion of a minimum substantive democracy (O' Donnell 1993, 1994; Linz and Stepan 1996). Democracy, however, cannot be consolidated without the uni­versal and effective application of citizenship rights, which transcend voting. At this stage, movements in many countries daim rights for those excluded by low-intensity democracies and ask for a more inclusive democracy (e.g., land reform, employment, and indigenous and women's rights) and the end of the authoritarian kgacies (Eckstein 2001; Hite and Cesarini 2004; Rossi, forthcom­ing; ddhl Porta, Valiente, and Kousis, forthcoming). Claims framed by movc­llll"llt '- 1 n the ll,llllc of right~. dt1zenl>h ip •• 1nu thl·i r pol iliL.ll p1.1t 1 in·s arc nucial

M lllllllltlllor Democracy 25

II• 111 tlttlf.\ c..1t11cnry (Foweraker and Landman 1997; l:.ckstein and Wickham­' tuwl· · ~ lOCH). As joe Poweraker observes, "The struggle for rights has more l h 111 1 nt•• d y rhctorica I impact. The insistence on the rights of free speech and

1 111lol} ".1 precondition of the kind of collective (and democratic) decision­Ill tll111-1 tlt.lt educates citizens" (1995: 98).1n brief, social movements usually 1, tt ltlll' lon~ term effects that are not only institutional but also cul~ural and

1 t1 1 ht'\l' transformations are developed through the movements alterna-11 I'' ,, tl~l·s ,md values that help sustain and expand democracy (Rossi 2005a;

1111, '110) ). Furthermore, movements' networks are important in mobilizing

1111 1 l'l"I''IStent exclusionary patterns and authoritarian legacies (Hagopian 1 1 111 \ ,1 ~h.t1 2005; Chapter 8).

1 'Jwrston to Postrepresentative Democracy

lw til ,uualmovements may influence the expansion of democracy (a not-yet lull ~ Mtttltcd stage in democratization)11 by addressing both democratic refo~m 1 11 1~ tntnnational system of governance and transcendence of representattve 1 '""', .u ~· ,,, the national level, through experiments of participatory and de­hi, t•tlln dt•mol.racy (Baiocchi 2005; Santos 2005; della Porta 2013).n

tlu ••lob;tl civil society perspective (Kaldor 2003; Keane 2003) emphasizes 111 tt. ttto• ratizing effect of a worldwide organized civil society (Cohen and

1 ,,, 1•1•1 ~ ) in democratization at a supranational scale. Moreover, research u 1 1t~lt.tl JUStice movements (della Porta and Tarrow 2005; della Pona 2009a, IHI'•I•) .111<1 transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998) notes

lit• lt•k ol human rights, indigenous, women's and alter-globalization groups ~~~ lh• ptollmtion and expansion of national democratic regimes and in there­I ,,1111 1.ttton of the not-so-democratic procedures of i nternalional govern mental

II '"' .tllllns such as the World Bank and the International Monetary F~nd. 111 1lu , 1 >l" of the global justice movements, proposals for reform are espeCially ,, h 11 trd toward a broader transparency of decision making in international 11\l 1111 m·ntal organizations, increased controls by national parliaments, and ,1,, '""ft of dum nels of access for social movement organizations (della Porta

1111 ' • c ,,,m.,on and Pereyra 2008).

r. unchiSIOn

111 1.tl 11uwcmcnts have long been omitted from analysis of democratization. t1 .. 1, ''"'·'''on approaches have given little a.ttention to agenc}' (in general) and

111 ltlmnVl'l11cnts in particular, focusing on the economic conditions for demo­''"' .t.11nltt). Scholars taking other approaches have studied the social classes

lit 11 1, .t dunocratization processes, focusing, however, more on their structural .,1,1tufnll' than their mobilization. The dynamic study of democratization in ,, l 11lnl t1,,nsilology considers social movements to be short-lived relevant ac­

lttt Itt u 111) thl•liherali1 . .1tion stage. fowsing research on the institutional actors

26 Cha111er I

especially when addressing transition and consolidalion.lwcn though some au thors mention a robust civil society .ts facilitating democratization processL's, transitologists have traditionally paid lillie empirical attention to its character istics and development. Social movement studies until recently have tended to focus on advanced democracies, remaining broadly unconcerned about social movements in authoritarian regimes and social movements in processes of de· mocratization.

This lack of reciprocal attention is all the more concerning because pro test cycles and waves of strikes are important in democratization processes, in both the forms of eventful democratization, driven by protest, and participatoq' pacts, in which civil society organizations invest their resources on the negotia­tion table (della Porta 2014). Emerging research shows that social movements tend to vary in the different stages of democratization:

I. Underground networks of resistance undermine internal and inter­national supports for authoritarian regimes.

2. The intensity of the protest might accelerate processes of liberaliza­tion.

3. Social movements are often important allies of political parties and other collective actors in prodemocracy coalitions during the transi­tion phase.

4. During and afler democratic consolidation, alternative praxes of de­mocracy within social movements might promote a procedural and/ or subs! an Live expansion of democracy.

Though movements have promoted democracy, they have not always been effective. Several factors arc necessary for effective democratization to take place. One is the need for a combination of perspectives from above and from below, because "the 'mode of transition,' the context of the democratization process, the types of actors involved in the process, and their strategic interactions, all influ­ence the kind of democracy that is established" (Pagnucco 1995: 151). Elements that favor democratization include a nonsyndical strike wave or a prodemocracy cycle of protest, increased political organization in urban areas and a relatively dense resistance network, a church that is actively involved in the struggle for democratization, international pressure from human rights advocacy networks, divisions within the elites concerning whether to continue the nondemocratic regime, and the existence of prodemocratic elites able to integrate the demands for democracy coming from below (at least until transition is well initiated). Difficulties emerge when the transition must deal with contending movements demanding national independence and alternative exclusionary demos views or when terrorist attacks or guerrilla movements develop during the democratiza­tion process rejecting democracy as a plausible immediate outcome. These two clements do not make democrati1.ation impossible but may pul il at risk of never cunsolldat ing or of bringing on I} limited liberalization of authoritariantsm.

t•IIIIIIM ltu Democracy 27

II II "

11 111 /~1111 Ills. In this d1apter we build on and expand the ideas \~e ~r~senl in Rossi 1 1 (1 1 l'utl.t 700'1, 2011. We thank Amr Adly. Patrick Bernhagen, Chnsltan Haerpfer,

1 111,.1, rrn.111~. Leonardo Morlino, RonalJ Jnglehart, Philippe Schmitter, Juan 1 11111 , 1 hr bli<HI Welzcl, and two anonyrnou~ reviewers for their useful comments

1 111111 1 , 1 ,11m~ o( this chapter. Donatclla della Porta acknowledges Lhe support of I " b·t·. f, D " lt•tt>Jto 111 lh·~earch Council, AG 269136, Mo • tzmg or emocracy.

1 t 11111, rt 1 ,1q, Jcspilc breaks and irregularities, has in general been correlated with 1 lttj flttWtly and inequality (Przeworski el al. 200~;. ~~ule 2009). .

1 111 , 111nparison of gross domestic product and Gull mdex (when avatlable) for .,1111t 11c~ 111 the year~ of the transitions lo democracy, we consulted lhe World .I tl.tiM\l' .11 hll p://dala.wurldbank.org. . . . \ 1 othling to Huntington, "In a praetorian socictygr~u~s.~cc~~~ m~btltzcd ·~to lVII hnul becoming socialized by politics" (1965: 83). fh1s pohllc•zallon of soc tal

( 1'1 J h." several implications; the author emphasizes one: "The stability of a prae­

'''' ,, It'll v.1ries inversely with the scope of pol ilical participation". (.198). . 1 j\l1111 r,· ,tresses in particular the presence of an urban bourgeOIS!~ thalts nol al­

l lllo I Itt· ,11 1\tocracy in repressing lhc emerging working class, allowmg the !alter to

I 111111~d.unh. •.

1111 tlw working class and unions in democratization processes, see also Stiver oil

r 1 ••llin (1999) develops a dynamic analysis of democratization_ pr~cesses but

1, lilt .ott, hc1 analysis in the working class (i.e., unions and labor or lett wmg parues)

lilt t1 11 tnlrnltun ofllnding empirical answers to Moore's puzzle. . . \ l'ttl'Worski (1991: 57), for example, considers movement~> 1mportan1 m the

t11111 111 1 hl condition~ for libcrali1..alion, but Lhey arc a tool of an elltc-lcd process. li 1 ,11 11ondcmocratic movements in Latin America, see Payne 2000; for Western

IIIIJ'l 1 ,n 1\.landermans and Mayer 2005. . 1 111 1 hlhodox countrie~. like Romania, the churches played dtfferent roles. fhe

11,11 ll.ut.111 Rumanian Orthodox Church was co-opted by the regime, and.the 2,500

f 1 lltlli•B "'the (;reck Orthodox Church were expropriated and all the assets gtvcn l.o the 1 uwd.111 Orthodox Church. The smaller Hungarian Reformed Church was cructalm '' 11 lit .1 plwse nllhc 1 ransition lo democracy (Siani-Davies 2005: chap. 5; Ddelant 2006).

111 1 11r a comparison of the role played by resistance movemcn_ts and stale r~-1 11111 t11 thl ~truggles for democratization in the authoritarian rcg•mes of Nc Wm 11 11 IIJIII) in Burma (Myanmar), Ferdinand Marcos (1965- 1986) in the Philippines,

11111 lh~ttth (Raden) Suharto (1967-1998) in Indonesia, see Boudreau 20?4. . II 1 hapwr 5 analyzes expansion of democracy in Bolivia follo.wmg accesston lo

1 11wu ull hl Movimienlo a! Socialismo (MAS: Movcmenllowa~d Soctaltsm) .. 1 1 l't·.tr~c 2010 offers several interesting examples nf Ctly-level cxpenmcnts of

llt ~• dtuto>li'JCY in Brazil, Colombia, Great Britain, and Venezuela. For the case of the 1111oltn movement of Buenos Aires, see Rossi 200Sb.

til IIIli NC t.S

A 1 1 l ·toll 1 l'uhu1son 200() FroiiOIIIIC Origi11s of Dictatorship cwd Democracy. nc' lttug u. ., . ' ~ · · 4

1 llnhttd~t·: Cambridge Univa~ily l'rcs~.

28 Chapter 1

Almerd.t, l'aul 1>. 2003 ... Opporlunrl} Org,llliutimh ,rml J'hrcat Induced < ontention: Protc~t Waves. in Authoritarian Setting~:· American Journal of Sociology 109 (2): 345- 400.

Amenta, Edwin, and Neal Caren. 2004. uThe Legislative. Organizational, and Beneficiary Conscqucnc'-'s of State Oriented Challengers." In Tire Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. Snow, S. Soule. and JI. Kriesi, 461-488. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Arato, A. 1981. "Civil Society against the State: Poland 1980-81: Telos 42:23- 47. Avritzcr, 1.. 2009. Participatory lnstitrJtions in Democratic Brazil. Baltimore: Johns

I Iopkins University Press.

Baiocchi, G. 2005. Militants and Citizens: Tire Politics of Participatory Democracy i11 Porto Alegre. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.

Baker, G. 1999. "The Taming Idea of Civil Society.'' Democratization 6 (3): 1-29. lkckwith. K. 1985. "Feminism and Leftist Politics in Italy: fhe Case of UDI-PCI

Relationships.'' West European Politics 8 (4): 19- 37.

Heichel, r., I. Hahn, 1-. Schimmelfcnnig, and S. Worschech, eds. 2014. Civil Society mlC! f>mwcracy Promotion. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

1\ctssinger • .M. 20()2. Nationalist 1\,fobilizMion mrd the Collapse of tire Soviet State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bendix, It 1!.164. Nation Building arnl Citizenship. New York: Wiley and Son~. lknncn, N. 1997. "Myths llf.Moderation: Confrontation and Conflict during D••mocralic

J'r.rn~itwn." Compnmti1•e Politics 29 (2): 205-322.

Jloix <.. 2003. D.•mocmcy and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boudreau, V. 2004. Resisti11g Dirlatorslrip: Repression nnd Protest in Southeast Asin.

Cambridge· Cambridge Univer~it y Press.

Branford, S., and), Rocha. 2002. Cutting tlte Wire: The Story oft he Landless Movement in Brazil. Lundon: l.atin American Bureau.

Brito, A. 1997. Human Rights and DemocmtiultiOn in Latin Ameriw: Urug11ay and Chile. Oxford: Oxford Umversity Press.

13rockclt, C. 2005. Political t'vlovements and \'iolence in Central America. New York: Cambridge University Pres~.

Brysk, A. 1993. "hom Above and Below: Sucial Movement~, the International System, and Human Rights in Argentina." Comparative Political Studies 26 (3): 259- 285.

--. 1994. Tire Politic$ of Human Rlglrts h1 Argentina: Protest, Change, and Democ­ratization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Burdick, ). 1992. "Rethinking the Study of Social Movements: The Case of Christian Base Communities in Urban Brazil." In The ;\.faking oJSociallv!ol'ements In Latin America: ldentity, Strategy and Democmcy. edited by A. Escobar and S. Alvarez, 171-184. Boulder, CO: We~tview.

--. 2004. Legacies of Liberation: Tlrr Progressive Catlrohc Church in Brazil at the Start of a New ;'>!illenrrium Alder~hot, UK: t\$hgate.

Canel, E. 1992. "Democratization and the: Decline of Urban Social Movements in Uruguay: A Polilical- Institulional Account." In Tlrl' Making of Social Movements in L'atin Amnicn. edited by A. Escobar and S. Alvarez. 276-290. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Casper,(,., and M. Taylor. 1996. Negotiating Dt'IIIOCracy: Transitions from Authoritarian Ruh•. Pillshurgh, I'A: University of Piusburgh Press.

Cohen. 1 .• Jlld A Ar;lln. 1992 Cil'il 'iocit•ty muf Political Theory. Cambridge. l\IA: MIT Press.

M lhiiiiiHIIIor Democracy 29

lllh 1, I( 11 IIJIJ9 Pat Irs toward Democracy: Tire Working Cltus ami Elites in Westenr ''''''/"' rrw/ Suutl1 Amalea. New York: Cambridge University Press.

•llio 1, I( 11. ,111d J. Mahoney. 1997. "Adding Collective Actors to Collective Outcomes: 1 1j,, 11 ,111d Recent Democratization in South America and Southern Europe."

1 ''"'I"HHtiw l'olitics 29 (3): 285-303. 11 ttl! 1 I' W. Fagen, and M.A. Garrct6n, eds. 1992. Fear at tire Edge: State Terror and

II• $( j /1mn•ln Lcllin America. Berkeley: University of California Press. 11 h trur , 11 ).006. "Romania. 1945- 89: Resistance, Protest and Dissent." In Revolution

rrul u,.,,,ttlnre m Eastern Europe. edited by K. McDermoll and M. Slibbe, 81-99.

I hlurd Ilag. 1 llr I'''''·' 1 > 2005. "Globalization and Democracy." Democratization 5 (12): 668-685.

ul 1 1Jil9a. AIIOtlter europe. London: Routledge. l d '110%. Democracy i11 Social Movements. Basingstoke, UK: Pal grave Macmillan. 'UI' ( mr Democracy Be Saved? Oxford: Polity. 'Ill 1 Mobilizing for Democracy. Compari11g 1989 and 2011. Oxford: Oxford

~ "'"''''it) l'ress. 1 11 1 1'111 t.1, 1), and M. Diani. 2006. Social Movements: Anlntroductron. Oxford: Blackwell. 1 11 1 l't" '·•· n .. and L. Mattina. 1986. "Cicio~ polilicos y movilizaci6n etnica: El caso

v 1 ,, 11 ' [l'ul !tical Cycle and Ethnic Mobilization: The Basque Case). Re~·ista Espmlola rll' tmnllfo(IICiones Socio16gicas [Spanish Journal of Sociological Research) 35: 11 1 Ill! .

1 11 1 I'"''" , 1 > .. and S. Tarrow, eds. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global Activism. 1 urlwu. MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

lit Jloll.r D., C. Valiente, and M. Kou~is. Forthcoming. "Sisters of the South: 1111 Women's Movement and Democratization.'' ln Democratic Consolidation in ,,,,111•111 Furope: The Cultural Dimension. edited by R. Gunther, P. Diamandouros,

1111111 J>uhlc. Baltimore: johns Hopkin~ University Press. ,, 111 , '·· cd. 2001. Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Socittl MO\'eme11ts, ml nl llcrkclc)': University of California Press.

r.ln, s, and T. Wickharn-Crowley. 2003. What justice? Whose justice? Fighti11gjor 1,111 m·>s, Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

It 1 1 •()Ol. "Identity Mobilization and Democracy: An Ambivalent relation." In Social \t. 111·m1•11ts tllld Democracy, edited by P. Ibarra, 61-80. New York: Palgrave.

II ll•t•u, J'. 1973. "11w Condition~ of Protest Behavior in American Cities.'' American /t1111 1111l11j Political Science 67:11-28.

lllorl, 1, , ,111d 1. Kubik. 2001. Popular Protest and Democratic Consoliclation in Pola111l, tv,q•J t'J93. Ann Harbor: University of Michigan Press.

11h 11 , -\, .rntl S. Alvarez, eds. 1992. Tire Making of Social Movements itt Latin America: It/! rr/1/y, Stmtegy a11d Democracy. Boulder. CO: Westview. .

1 1111 11 '001. Pink, Purple, Gree11: Women's, Religious, E11viromnental twd Gay/Lesb1an \lownu•uts ;, Central Europl' Today. New York: Columbia University Press.

IIIII! 1 ·~··•· J, 19R9. Mt~king Democracy in Spain: Grassroots Struggle m the South, 1955-1•1 'i Cnmbridgc: Cambridge University Press.

1'1'1". 1'/worizing Social Movements. London: Pluto Press. llllltl·'k1•1, 1 •• ,1nd 1'. Landman. 1997. Cili~enslrip Rights and Social Movements: A

( 0111pr11rrtiw ami Statistical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . l 1 1111 J ..!UU3 "contentious Politics and Democratization: Comparing the Impact ot

<;, 11,;1 ,11 Movements on the Pall of Communism in Eastern Europe." Political Studies • 10 \ I }.().

30 Chapter 1

<lrim~on, A .. <tnd :-.. l'~reyra, ed~. 200H. COI(/lirtos globales, l'Oces locales: Movilizaci6n y nclivismo en clm•1' lrctiiSmlciomll {Global Connicts, Local Voices: Mobilintion and Activism in a Transnational Logic]. Buenos A ire~: Prometco.

Hagopian, 1. 1990. "Democracy by Undemocratic Mean~? Elites, Political Pacts anu Regime Transition in Brazil.'' Comparative Polilical Studies 23 (2): 147-17().

Hellman, j. 1987. journeys among Women: FemiiiiS/17 in f:ive lta/i(l/l Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Higley, )., and R. Gunther. 1992. Elit1•s and Democratic Consolidation in Lati11 America and Southern 'Europe. New York: Cambridge University Prc~s.

IJinncbusch, R. 2007. "Authoritarian Pt:rsistence, Dcmocratintion Theory and the Middle East: An Overview and Critique." In Democratization in the Muslim World: Changing Pattems of Power and Authority, euitcd hy 1'. Volpi and 1'. Cavatorta, 11-33. L<mdon: Routledge.

Hipsher, P. 1998. "Democratic Transitions as Protest Cycles: Social Movements Dynamics in Democratizing Latin America.h In The Social Movemellt Society: Contentious Politics fora New Century, edited by D. Meyer and!>. 'farrow, 153-172. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

I lite. K .. und P. C:csarini. 2004. Authoritanan Legacies ond Democracy in Lolin America wul Southern Europr. N~Hrc Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Pre:.~.

lluulc, C. 2009. ulnequality and Democracy: Why Inequality Harms Consolidation but Do<!s Not A fleet Democratization." World Politics 61 (4): 589-622.

llulltington, S. 1965. Polit1ca/ Order in Changing Societies New Haven, CT: Yale Uniwr~ity Pro.:s~.

-- . 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

)din, E., ed. 1987. Mo1•imientos sociales y democmcia emergente [Social Movements and the Emergent Democracy!. 2 vols. Buenos Aires: Latin American Press Centl!r.

Kaldor, M. 2003. Clo/wl Cil•il Society: An Answer to Wt1r. Cambridgl!, UK: Polity Press.

Karatnycky, A ... 111d P. Ackerman. 2005. How Freedom Is Won: From Civic Resistcmce to Dwable Democracy. New York: Freedom House.

Keane, J. 2003. Global Civil Society? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keck, M., and K. Sikkink. 1998. Acti1•ists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in

Jnternalional Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Klamiermans, B .. and N. Mayer, ed. 2005. Extreme Right cmd Activists in Europe: Through the 1Hagnljying Glnss. New York: Routledge.

Klandermans, B., M. Rocfs, and ). Olivier. 1998. "A Movement rakes Office." ln The Soc in I Movemml Society: Contentious Polit1cs for a New Century, edited by D. Meyer and S. Tarrow, 173-194. Lanham, MD: Rowrnan and l.itLlcfield.

Koulov, B. 1998. "Political Change and Environmental Policy." In Bulgaria in Transition: Politics, Economics, Society 011d Culture after Commw11sm, edited by J. Bell, 143-161. Boulder, CO: We~tview.

Lane, 1'.'2001. Lithuania: Stepping Westward. London: Routledge.

Levine, IJ. H., and S. Mainwaring. 2001. "Religion and Popular Protest in Latin America:

Conlrasllng Experiences." In Power and Popular Protest. editeu by S. Eckstein, 203-240. Berkelc.:y: Universit > of California Press.

I inz, r.. and A. Stepan. 199o. Problems of Drmoallltc Transition and Collso/itlation. '>ollltht•m l:llrclflt. ~<Wilt ilml'rrrt!, and Post Commtwist F.urapt•. Halt unorc: Johns llupkin~ Unin·r~it) Prn~ .

,_.,,,1llltlu11 tor Democracy 31

'I , 1 s to. I. 1959. "Some Social Requisites lo Democracy: Economic Development and t' .. lut .. 1I Legitimacy." American Political Scieuce Review 55:69-105. ,1, 11 fl 1996. Moral Oppositiou to Arllhoritariall Rule 111 Chile, 1973-1990. London:

1\ol.o.nullan. lro\\.utng. s. 1987. "Urban Popular Movements, Identity, and Democratization in

lh o11l." Comporative Political Studies 20 (2): 131 -159. . , 1 11 1v.1ll J M. 1978. Dictatorship nnd Political Dissent: Workers and Students 111 Francos

~I'•'"' New York: St. Marlin's Press. 1'1~2. The Transition to Democracy in Spain. London: Croom Helm.

1111.,11 J 1996. Wa1•es of Democracy: Social Movements cwd Politicnl Change. fhousand

1 ''"' <.A: Pine Forge Press. t 1r h 1([, 1 H. 1992. "Citizenship and Social Class (1950).» In Citizenship and Social

1 111 s,cdlted by T. H. Marshall and r. Bottomore, 3-51. London: Pluto Press. 1 <\11.1111 1 > .• s. farrow, and C. Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Co11te11tion. New York:

' ""h11dgc University Press. . . . tt 1111u11 1 1988. Witness to the Tr11th: Tlte Complicity of Clwrc!J nnd D1ctatorsh1p m

\o,•ollilllt, 1976-1983. New York: Orbis. 1 ,41 ,, 11 , Jr ti.J66. Social Origms of D1clatorsllip and Democracy: Lord and Peasant intlte

Moll.mg of the Modem World. Boston: B~:acon Press. . 11 1 dl.tll A. 2000. "Social Movement~ and the Transitions to Democracy.' De-

""'' trill atimr 7 (3): 25-45. ll•t I'""· M. 2005. Entre Ia cruz y Ia espada: La Iglesia Cat6/ica durante los primeros atios

1/, l'l'mrrso" lin Between the Cross and the Sword: The Catholic Church during the 111 ~~ Yl'Ms of the "Proceso"). Buenos Aires: Universiuad Nacional de Quilmes.

1 ll1tllldl, < 1. 1973. Modemizatlon and Bureaucratic·Aralroritaricmism: Studies In South 11111'1111111 Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1•1•H. "On the State, Democratitation, and Some Conceptual Problems (A Latin \ 1111-, 11 ,1n View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries)." Working Paper

11 h "''u 192. Helen Kellogg Institute for international Studies, University of Notre

I 1 •llll' Nutrc Dame, IN. t<i'Jl "L)clegative Democracy?" Joumal ofDemocmcy 5:56~69. .

1 t '""'" ([ , ( ... and P. Schmitto.:r. 1986. Trar1sitions from Authontanan Rule: Te11tat1ve 1 t 111o!rHI!lns about Uncertai11 Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

I'll~~.

''" 11,11111 ( 1 • 2013. "Rocks, Bottles, and Weak Autocracies: The Role of Political lt(glua Settings on Contention-Repression Interactions." Mol1ilization 18 (3):

1\'1 II J

r 1 f\1 •uot "Networks in Opposition: Linking Organizations through Activists in the l'illl,h l'cople'~ Republic.~ 1n Social A1ovements wrd Networks: Relational Approaches 11 1 1 111/,•llivt' Action, edited hy M. Diani and D. McAdam, 77-104. Oxford: Oxford

I IIIH'I~Hy Pres>. . . 11111 , "·It 1995. "rhc Comparative Study of Social Movements and DemocratrzalJon: l'otlllt• .11 Interaction and Political Process Approaches." In Research in Socinl \11, 1111, /lb. Cmrflicts and Clrcmge, vol. 18, edited by M. Dobkowski, I. Wallirnann,

111111 Stopnov. 145-183. London: IA1 Pres>. . . 1 11 , ,\1 'llUU \/lilt'S, TtleCIIogies allli Social Revolutions: A Compamtrve Analys1s of Iran,

N11111,1grul rrml tllo• t>ililippincs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . .

1~ 111 , 1 lOUO. tfltt I vii /o.IOI'I'illt'IIIS: T/u• Armed Rrght Wing and Democracy 111 Latm llllo'll((l 11.1lt11n!lrc: John~ llupkrn' Univcr~•ty Pres~.

32 Chapter ~

Pcam:, A., cd 2010. Partiripaticm muf Democracy in tht• Twenty·l'trst Century Cil)' Basing~tukc, UK: Palgravc Macmillan.

Petrova, L>. 200•t "Bulgaria." In Dissent rwd Opposition ill Communist Eastern Europe: Origi11s of Civil Society and Democratic Tra11sitiou, D. Pollack and J, Wielgoh~. 161-184. Aldcrshot, UK: Ashgatc.

Piuorno, A. 1996. "Mutamcnti nelle islituzioni rappresentalive c sviluppo <.lei partili politici" [Metamorphosis in the Representative Institution~ and the Development o•l Political Parties!. In La storia dell'Europa co11temporcwec1 [History of Contemporary Europe!, edited by P. Bairoch and E. J. Hobsbawm, 961-1031. Turin: Einaudi.

Pr;r.cworski, A 1991. Democracy r111d the Market: Political and Economic Reforms 111

Eastem Europe and Latin Americcl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Przcworski, A., M. Alvare;r., ]. Chcibub, and F. J.imongi. 2000. Democracy and Devel­

opment: Politicallnstitlltions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-/990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rei narc~. P. 1987. "l'he Dynamic~ of Terrorism during the Transition to Democracy in Spain." In Contemporary Research on Terrorism, edited by P. Wilkinson and A. Stewart, 121-129. Aberdeen, UK: Aberdeen Un iversity Press.

Ros~i. I. M. 2005a. "Crisis de Ia Republica Oclcgativa: La constituci6n de nuevos actores pol itico~ t•n Ia Argentina (2001-2003): las asamblcas vecinalcs y popularcs" [Crisis. ulthc: D!!lcgalive Republic: The Constitution of New Political Actors in Argentina; the.: Neighborhood e~nd Popular Assemblies). America Latina Hoy (Latin America. ludayl ~9:195-216.

--. 2005h. Ml.a~ asamblcas vccinalcs y populares en Ia Argentina: Las particularidade~ organlzativa~ uc Ia acci6n colectiva contenciosa" [The Neighborhood and Popular A'scmblics in Argentina: The Organintional Specificities of Contentious Collective Action]. Sociologi<'a !Sociologicaljl9 (57): 113-145.

-- 2006. "Movimicntos socialcs" [Social Movements]. In Polltietl: Cuestiones y Problemas !Politics: Question~ and Problems], edited by L Aznar and M. DeLuca, 235-274. Buenos Aires: Editorial Ariel.

--. Forthcoming. "Beyond Clicntelism: The Piquetero Movement and the State in Argentina." ln Handbook of Social Aloveme11/s across Latin America, edited hy P. Almeida and A. Cordero. New York: Springer.

Rossi, F. M., and D. della Porta. 2009. "Social Movement, Trade Unions and Advocacy Networks." In Democratiztlllon, edited by C. Haerpfer, P. Bernhagen, R. lnglehart. and R. Welzel, 172-185. Oxford: Oxford University Pres~.

--. 2011. "Acerca del rol de los movimientos socialcs, sindicatos y rede~ de acli­vista~ en lo~ procesos de democratit.aci6n" [About the Role o( Social Movements, Trade Union:. and Advocacy Networks in Democratitation Processes!. Desarrollo Economico !Economic Dcvclupmcntl50 (200): 521-545.

Rueschemcycr, D., E. H. !>tephens, and J. Stephens. 1992. Capitalist Developme11t am/ Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sanchet-Cuenca, 1., and P. Aguilar. 2009. "Terrorist Violence and Popular Mobilization: l'h€ Case of the Spanish Transition to Oemocracy.'' Politics and Society 37 (3): 428-453.

Sand<lVal, S. 1998. 'Social Movements and Democratization: fhc Case of 13ra?il and the: Latin Countric~:· In From Contention to Democracy, edited by M. Giugni, D. McAdam. <111d C. !'illy, 169-201. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Litt lefield.

SJ ntu,, B. !'>., c:d. 2005. Dt•moaatbllg Dt•nwrmcy: Bqoml the Libeml Democmtic Canon. I nndu n: V .-r~o

Mollilizin& for Democracy 33 -------

.. hneic.ler, C. 1992. "Radical Opposition Parties and Squatter Movements in Pinochc.:t'!> Chile." In The Makiug of Social Movements in Latin Anwrica. edited by A. Escobar ,md ~.Alvarez, 60-75. Boulder, CO: Westview.

1995. Shantytown Protests in Pinochet's Chile. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press. , huck, K. 2005. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements ill Nondcmocracies.

!\tin neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. , 1.1111 navies. P. 2005. The Romanian Revolution of December 1989. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press. . . ''' ki ttk, K. 1996. "The Emergence, Evolution. and Effectiveness of the Latm Amencan

I Iuman Rights Network." In Constructing Democrary: lluma11 Rights, Citizenship, ami Society in Latin America, edited by E. Jelin and E. Hcrshbcrg, 59-84. Boulder,

( 0: Westview. 11v,·1, 11. 2003. Forces of Labor. New York: Cambridge University Pre~s.

111111111er, Y., C. Herzeberg, and A. Roecke. 2008. Les budgets participatifs en Europe IJ';lrlicipatory Budgets in Europe]. Paris: La Decouverte. .

,J.,It 1

l>. 1985. New Social Movements and lite State i11 Latirt Amenca. Amsterdam: t wter for Latin American Research and Documentation.

•l.ttk 1> .. ,1nd L. Bruszt. 1998. Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics a11d Property 111 ftlst Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 111

ow, s. 1995. "Mass Mobilization and Regime Change: Pacts, Reform and Popular l'uwer in Ttaly (1918-1922) and Spain (1975-1978)." In Democratic Consolidation in , 1111 t!rem Europe, edited by R. Gunther, P. Diamandouros, and H. Puhle, 204-230.

ll.tltinwre: johns Hopkins University Press. 1 Ill), < 1993-1994. "Social Movements as Historically SpecWc Clusters of Political

l'•rlnrmance." Berkeley Joumal of Sociology 38:1-31. lUOI. "When Do (and Don't) Social Movements Promote Democratization?" In

Wtltllt\lfovements and Democracy, edited by P. Ibarra. 21-45. New York: Palgravc

l\ l .KIll ill an. 1004 Social Movements, 1768-2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. .'007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J, 1111 w 1c, A. 1981. The Voice and tile Eye: An Arwlysis of Social Movements. Cambridge:

c .11nhridgc University Press. . . 1 1f1 J.J,·t, J. 2005. "Contentious Collective Action and the Breakdown of Authontanan

ltq\tmes.'' lntmltltioll(ll Political Science Rev1ew 26 (3): 311-334. \ l 1 l•ll .k y 11 2005. El Silencio: De Pa11lo VI a Bergoglio; las Relaciones Secretas de Ia

l!{/t'5111 t'OII 111 ESMA [The Silence: From Paulo VI to Bergoglio; the Secret Relations ul ciH: Church with the ESMA). Bueno~ Aires: Sudamcricana.

VI• JJt. 1111 crowley. T. 1992. Guerrillas and Revol11tion in Latin America: A Comparat~ve ~trufl 11· ft1s11rgents ami Regimes since 1956. Princeton, Nj: Princeton Universtty

,.,,' Wm•.l 1 2000 Forging Democracy from Below: f11surgent Tra11sitions in So 11th Africa and

tl s11 /1'tulor New York: Cambridge University Press. \ ltJlltl, 1 200/. State Terrorism in Latin America: Clli/e, Argentina and Tnternatioua/

lltmltlrt Righls. lanham, MD: Rowman and Lilllcfield. . . 1 1

111, 11 >oos. Co 11t;:stirrg Citizenship in Latin America: ~he Rrs~ of !nd1getiOIIS

\lim 1111•11ts amltilr Postli/Jeml Challenge. New York: Cambndge Umverstty Press. It 111 11 lll(ICI. rfl<' f'owa af Titllltlllmeu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.