POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics What Makes a Democracy? February 27-March 1, 2007 Professor Timothy Lim California State University, Los Angeles

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics

What Makes a Democracy?

February 27-March 1, 2007Professor Timothy Lim

California State University, Los Angeles


February 27-March 1, 2007Professor Timothy Lim

California State University, Los Angeles

2

An Alternative Perspective

Rationalists do not agree that “inert, invisible structures make democracies.” To put it very simply, believe that …

people make democracypeople make democracy

People may be political elites or “the people,” as in mass movements

3

Different Processes, Different Actors: Rationality

Some Basic Differences and Assumptions

Rationalists don’t consider capitalism to be the key process in democratization

Rationalists don’t necessarily discount the role of subordinate classes, but they tend to put greater emphasis on the interests and actions of the elite (more on this shortly)

Rationalists don’t like to focus on underlying (economic) structures: they believe that democracy is possible in virtually any economic context


Competing Explanations



4


Some Basic Differences and Assumptions among Rationalists

Rationalists don’t agree on which people matter most

Some rationalists argue that only the elite matter, that they are the key agents in democracy

Others argue that “the people” (and not just the working class) are the key agents of political change





5


Some Basic Differences and Assumptions among Rationalists

Rationalists don’t agree on the basic process of democratization

Some rationalists argue that democratization is a product of negotiations among the elite, also known as ____________: in this view democracy is a cooperative and very deliberate project

Other rationalists argue that democratization is a non-cooperative project, that is, it is a product of coercion, whereby authoritarian leaders are, in essence, forced to leave office under threat of violence





pacting

6


Implications of Cooperative and Non-Cooperative ExplanationsCooperative Explanations: Epitomized by Samuel Huntington’s observation on an ironic feature of contemporary democratization …

Non-Cooperatiove Explanations: Suggests that democracy is product of people who want it and are willing to risk their lives to “get it”: from a rational choice perspective, the push for democracy changes the strategic environment for political leaders; when mass-movements are strong enough, leaders can see the writing on the wall, they know they have no choice but to leave





Democracy without democratsWhat does this statement mean?

From a rationalist perspective, how does this statement make sense?

What does this statement mean? From a rationalist perspective, how does this statement make sense?

7


Empirical Issues

Both cooperative (elite-centered) and non-cooperative approaches (mass-based) have empirical support …

Latin American cases

Supports Elite-Centered Mass-Based approach?

Post-Communist cases (Eastern Europe)

Supports Elite-Centered Mass-Based approach?





8


So where does this leave us?

Can the rational choice approach provide a theoretically coherent and empirically comprehensive explanation of democratic transition?





The answer is a definite …maybe

9

Differing Authoritarianisms: An Alternative Rational Choice Perspective

A little comparative checking will tell us that not all authoritarian regimes are alike …

Some are dominated by military leaders, who may have taken power through a coup d'état

Some are dominated by “personalist” or charismatic leaders: single individuals who dominate the political process

Some are dominated by a highly cohesive, tightly disciplined party structure--so-called single party regimes





10

Differing Authoritarianisms: An Alternative Rational Choice Perspective

For a long time, many scholars took these differences for granted; they did not assign any particular causal significance to the different varieties of authoritarianism

One scholar, however, asked the question …





Can different types of authoritarianism lead to

different outcomes? In other words, is “authoritarian type” an independent variable?

11

The Rationality of AuthoritarianismBegins with the premise that different types of authoritarian leaders have different preferences or interests …

Military leaders are less concerned with political power and more concerned with the survival and efficacy of the __________________ itself and with the preservation of ________________________.

Personalist leaders have an overriding interest in staying in power: the “perks” of political power are many, while the costs of losing power are extremely high and almost certain (e.g., imprisonment, death, or, at best, exile)

Single-party leaders also have an overriding interest in holding on to political power, but, unlike personalist regimes, their “power base” is more stable and enduring than in personalist regimes





militarynational security

12

The Rationality of Authoritarianism

Basic Argument: Different types of regimes arise for different reasons, but, once created, they tend to exhibit similar characteristics regardless of political, social or cultural context

______________ regimes are the most likely to breakdown because the leaders are not interested in political power per se

Moreover, if any internal splits threaten the cohesion and power of the military, their preference is to “save the military” rather than to hold on to political power

Key Implication: Military authoritarian regimes not only tend to have the shortest life spans, but the transition to democracy is generally negotiated and “cooperative”





Military

13

The Rationality of Authoritarianism

Basic Argument: Different types of regimes arise for different reasons, but, once created, they tend to exhibit similar characteristics regardless of political, social or cultural context

__________________ and ________________ regimes are more resistant to breakdown because the political leaders have more to lose: leaders will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on to power

This means that transitions are almost always _____________________

In addition, the impetus for a transition to democracy, especially in single-party regimes, will generally come from the outside, that is, __________________ “shocks” are usually needed to spark a change





Personalist

Single party

non-cooperative

exogenous

Documents

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics What Makes a Democracy? February 27-March 1, 2007 Professor Timothy Lim California State University, Los Angeles