Democratization of Transforming Nations

This paper will take a closer look at the factors that have contributed to nations' conversion to democracy (as well as newly formed states that have installed democratic institutions) throughout history, as well as look ahead at the potential fate of the democratic system. In doing so, the reader will gain a better understanding of why some states adopt democratic institutions while others follow a different path along history.

Keywords Authoritarian; Democracy; External Democratization; Internal Democratization; Regime

Sociology of Politics & Government > Democratization of Transforming Nations

Overview

In 1939, a mere two decades after the First World War devastated the European continent, war again broke out as the newly resurgent German military staged an invasion of neighboring Poland. The rise of the fascist Nazi regime in Europe forced many of the region's great minds into hiding or exile. Among them was the German philosopher, critic, and author Thomas Mann. A Nobel Prize winner, Mann wrote of law abidance and the joys of life and never gave into the notion that militarism and fascism would survive long term. He put his faith into a theoretical system in which the people were in charge and capable of removing incompetent or counterproductive leaders. He wrote that democracy was a fresh and naturally human system, an inspiration for peace-loving progressives. "Democracy is tirelessly human," he said, "and timelessness always implies a certain amount of potential youthfulness" ("Thomas Mann on Democracy," 2007).

Since the British Empire was driven out of the colonial predecessor to the United States, democracy has become, for the most part, the system of choice for new nations. Its basic principles alone are incentives for installation in a new country, with its emphases on protection of the rights of all citizens, limited government interference, and high degrees of both political participation and representation. The systems that were thus installed over the centuries after the American Revolution were specific to the needs of the nation at hand, to be sure, but draw heavily from the core ideals of pure democracy.

This paper will take a closer look at the factors that have contributed to nations' conversion to democracy (as well as newly formed states that have installed democratic institutions) throughout history. It will also discuss the potential fate of the democratic system. In doing so, the reader will gain a better understanding of why some states adopt democratic institutions while others follow a different path along history.

A Brief History of Democracy

One of the more revered architectural sights in London is the Guildhall, which has served as the city's center of government since the Middle Ages. The structure was built beginning in 1411 and survived both the Great Fire of London and the German Blitz. Then again, the property has a history that dates back much farther, to a time during which the Roman Empire maintained control over Britons. In 54–55 BCE, Julius Caesar's armies seized the region, creating important trade and political networks that worked to the benefit of the empire. In the early second century CE, the emperor Hadrian built a Roman amphitheater on the site of what would one day become the Guildhall.

In 1993, archeologists exploring the grounds beneath Guildhall found evidence of one of the darker practices of the Romans, unearthing the bones of large animals as well as humans that had died for the entertainment of audience members. Further investigation revealed evidence of another practice in addition to that of gladiators. Pottery with the Latin word non was also located, indicating that the site was also used for secret ballots and voting. In other words, some of the earlier forms of democracy were unearthed on the same site where violence and bloodshed occurred (Muhlberger & Paine, 1998).

To trace the source of what has become the common democratic system is a difficult undertaking. In ancient Greece, for example, the earliest democratic practices could be traced as far back as the fifth century BCE, but debates continue as to whether such systems truly utilized the input of the masses or whether an elite class of citizens qualified to lead on the masses' behalf. What is known about the democratic institutions of the era, however, is that they grew enormously popular — by the time of Aristotle, hundreds of democracies had come into being among the 1,500 or so separate city-states that comprised ancient Greece (Cartledge, 2001).

In fact, democracy is a broad term applied to a political system designed to encourage popular participation in governmental decision making, protect the rights of the individual, limit government intrusion and repression, and encourage an open and free society. These are not practicable applications, of course; rather, they are ideals, created as broad guidelines for governmental institutions and leaders. The framework of democracies, at least within the ancient Greek paradigm (which still holds largely true), is found in two forms. The first is the "direct democracy," which grants power to the people directly. Direct democracies entail the entire citizenry taking part the decision-making process for the system. Of course, such frameworks are best applied in groups or systems of relatively small populations, such as small towns, tribes, and even unions. The second framework is "representative democracy," which is more commonly applied in larger political arenas with greater numbers of citizens. This form of democracy involves the people electing officials to govern on their behalf (Bureau of International Information Programs, 2008).

Like snowflakes, it is rare to find two completely similar democracies. There is a logical explanation for this fact, and it rests with the very people democracy is implemented to protect. Each society has its own goals, priorities, and issues. Some are the longtime victims of repression. Others have grown tired of their own respective systems' corruption or disconnect from the people. As these priorities and perspectives become evident, democratizing societies apply the principles of such a system in the proportions they seek. Hence, each democratic system, while culling what is needed from the theoretical fundamentals introduced more than two millennia ago, in practice takes on a shape and political life of its own.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy 2012, there are 116 democracies in the world — twenty-five are considered "full" democracies (such as the United States, Japan, and Sweden); fifty-four are deemed "flawed" (such as South Africa, Latvia, and Slovakia); and thirty-seven are so-called hybrids (which have hints of democracy mixed in with authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Haiti).

Following the end of World War I, the twentieth century saw an increased push for democratization in the international community. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, deconstructed the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and started the trend. By the middle of the century, particularly following World War II, the concepts put forward by United States president Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points (originally proposed in 1918) influenced scores of new governments in decolonized Africa and Asia to institute democratic governments in the new nations. There was another explosion of new countries occurring at the end of the twentieth century with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1989—31 new nations were created or reconstituted between 1990 and 2012, including the former Soviet states, the former Yugoslavia, and South Sudan (Apps, 2012). Of those new nations, the vast majority are what the Democracy Index deems either full, flawed, or hybrid democracies.

Clearly, the rapid creation of myriad democracies over the course of the twentieth century underscores the popularity of the installing democratic elements in the infrastructures of new nations. The question is thus posed: Why do nations democratize? This paper will next turn to an in-depth analysis of this important question.

Why Democracy?

Why choose democratic principles as contributors to (if not the primary drivers of) an independent state? For many nations, the desire to limit government intervention or to enhance popular participation in government as well as emphasize individual and group rights is optimal due to the heavy hand exercised by a previous regime. For example, in the United States, the Bill of Rights was built into the Constitution due to the previous repression experienced by the colonists under British rule.

Breakaway republics from the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, after years of repression from their previous governments in Moscow and Belgrade, respectively, by-and-large built into their own constitutions protections of individual rights and limitations on government sanctions. Such reforms are implemented as the result of the will of the people and the leaders they chose to carry out such changes. This form of political development is referred to as "internal democratization." Croatia's constitution, for example, makes clear the point that power "is derived from the people and belongs to the people as a community of free and equal citizens" (Constitution.org, 2008). The Republic of Georgia's constitution states in its preamble that it is the will of the people of that country to establish a political system "to secure universally recognized human rights and freedoms" (Venice Commission, 2004). In these and other examples of newly independent states, democratic principles are introduced in part because of the previous repression of the now-governing regime and citizenry.

Sometimes states feel empowered, obligated, or entitled to spread their influences to other independent states. When an outside nation influences another toward democracy, this form of influence is known as "external democratization," and has may be seen in two manifestations. The first is that which occurs as the result of military occupation; the Americanized transformation of postwar Japan in the mid-twentieth century and the American occupation of Iraq in the early twenty-first provide examples of this type of extraterritorial influence. The second has economic as well as political incentives for the developing state—when the foreign policy of one nation uses diplomacy and economic incentives to encourage democratic ideals within external governments (Gat, 2005).

By its very nature, external democratization is somewhat more of a challenge to the nation in question than internal democratization is. After all, the former is a foreign influence, regardless of the degree to which it is involved in the democratizing country. This fact is given particular light in situations in which a nation is born out of war or conflict. An occupied nation whose government has been ousted by that external entity must both replace the government institutions and quell any destabilizing elements. Such an endeavor must entail not only political development but economic reconstruction and security applications as well. One study of external democratization concludes that nonindigenous parties seeking to foster democratization in a postwar or postconflict society must not only focus on installation of the institutions of liberal democracy, they must also create a comprehensive agenda of political, economic, and social mechanisms whereby peace is maintained. Additionally, the study argues, if the external actors withdraw before these systems can be deeply embedded in the country's infrastructure and can operate efficiently and independently, then democratization efforts run the risk of failure (Grimm & Merkel, 2008).

The discussion over democratization of a state that is attempting to recover from war or civil conflict raises an interesting point. Many states emerging from such violence may consider democratization a lower priority than internal security and order. This paper will next look at a few examples of situations in which democratization is not seen by the new country as a viable avenue.

Applications

Security, Law & Order

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, so too did the heavy hand of government controls that had existed in virtually every aspect of life. Such a development was initially welcomed by former Soviets as well as Western observers — a lack of government intrusion is a cornerstone of a liberal democratic society that seeks total social freedom.

Then again, limited government controls can breed corruption and crime, particularly in an environment in which liberal democracy was not an original institution. In a nation in which the state governed the economy as well as society, the lack of fear of state-sponsored repercussions meant that corruption began to run wild within the Russian economy, and Russian organized crime took a powerful hold both domestically and around the globe.

With the departure of President Boris Yeltsin (who led Russia during its most tumultuous period immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union), President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official and expert in security, took the reins of leadership in 2000. Putin returned government influence to administer the faltering economy and restore stability to the crime- and corruption-laden Russian society. To many Russians, his strong hand, which to Western observers appeared to be a turn back toward the ways of the Soviet Union, was a welcome one. Adding to his positive domestic response was the fact that crime and corruption appeared to diminish, and the economy grew significantly. When Putin left office on 2008, he was riding an 80 percent approval rating — Russians were even clamoring for him to become "President for Life." Despite his strong, borderline authoritarian hand and increasingly defiant, nationalistic rhetoric, Russians largely embraced Putin's leadership style (McFaul & Stoner-Weiss, 2008).

It is difficult to claim that the heavy-handedness by which Putin ruled in the early twenty-first century was the major contributor to the stability Russia saw in that same period. Putin was, after the election, installed as prime minister, simultaneously helping bolster the leadership of his successor Vladimir Medvedev and continuing his own political legacy. Medvedev enjoyed high popularity due in no small part to his prime minister's presence. However, their popularity ultimately proved fleeting.

In 2012, Putin again won the presidency, qualifying him for two more six-year terms in office. By that time, however, a vocal protest movement had grown up. Opponents came to see the Medvedev presidency as having been a mere sham to keep Putin in power (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013). Putin’s increasing authoritarianism became evident as the government cracked down on protesters with high fines for unauthorized demonstrations, deemed foreign nongovernmental organizations "foreign agents," censored the oppositional punk rock group Pussy Riot, and broadened the definition of treason (Cohen, 2012). At the same time, the Russian economy slowed. Nonetheless, a majority of Russians continued to support Putin, who still enjoyed an approval rating of about 64 percent in May 2013 (Adomanis, 2013).

The point is that many societies welcome democratization as an alternative to war, conflict, or even national collapse (as in the case of the Soviet Union). However, as suggested earlier, if the roots of democracy are not so embedded in that society that it becomes a stabilizing force rather than a disruptive one, many societies (especially those already used to authoritarian controls) may turn toward a more security-minded regime.

Viewpoints

In his work Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville (1840) said that the "genius of democracies is seen not only in the great number of new words introduced but even more in the new ideas they express" (Tocqueville & Sandage, 2007). Indeed, throughout history, democracy has captivated the attention of those who seek to create a new political order for themselves.

Democracies have been on the rise steadily in number and power since the late eighteenth century. In a great many circumstances, democratization has taken place as an alternative to the repression of hegemons or authoritarian regimes under which the nation was governed before autonomy. In other situations, war and civil conflict have left a vacuum in leadership, one that could lead to the installation of a dictatorship or empower the people to adopt democratic institutions in pursuit of returning to order and eventual prosperity. Still others have adopted parts of the democratic model to remove corruptive elements of their incumbent regimes or allow for greater economic development.

While each system is different, the basic principles of democracy are indeed enticing for burgeoning nations: popular participation in governmental decision making, either directly or indirectly through representatives; protection of the rights of every citizen; minimization of government power; and the promotion of a free and open society. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that so many democracies were introduced to the international community in the twentieth century. When the hegemonic empires of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries crumbled and fell apart after the First World War, many new democracies formed in their wake. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, fifteen more appeared, including the its former center, Russia.

There remains a large number of authoritarian and otherwise repressive systems in the twenty-first century. Many are also the result of internal and international conflict; still others have arisen because seemingly democratic regimes previously in place failed to produce progress or became fraught with corruption and instability.

Conclusion

Taking into account the thoughts of Tocqueville and Mann earlier in this essay, democracy can encourage creativity among political leaders. It is multidimensional, offering frameworks for every facet of a country's society. By promoting individual rights and diversity, it can mitigate potential social disorder and inequality. Democracies come in many shapes and sizes, some allowing direct governance by the people, others creating institutions that are led by elected leaders.

Democratization is equally diverse; how new and transforming nations adopt democratic systems is a testament to the composition of their societies. Many states are heavily influenced (if not occupied) by foreign democracies seeking to bring stability and order where none previously existed. As some scholars have argued, democracy must be deeply rooted in a society in order for it to be effective. If an external element seeking to bring democracy to a nation fails to introduce it on a comprehensive scale (or removes any part before it can take hold), the chances that it will fail are increased significantly.

Democracy is by no means perfect. Its generalities in theory naturally necessitate interpretation and, at times, experimentation in terms of the proportions in which it is applied. As demonstrated in the case of Russia provided in this paper, some nations that have initially democratized have chosen to eschew some of these values in favor of security and order. As is the case with fully democratized states, how these systems endure and mitigate economic and social crisis remains to be seen.

Terms & Concepts

Authoritarian: Political system in which leadership is focused on consolidation of power and strict social and economic controls in the hands of a ruling elite.

Democracy: Political system designed to encourage popular participation in governmental decision making, protect the rights of the individual, limit government intrusion and repression and encourage an open and free society.

External democratization: Democracy advocated and fostered in a nation by a foreign state or party.

Internal democratization: Democracy established by internal forces.

Regime: System of political leadership or governance.

Bibliography

Adomanis, M. (2013, June 11). Vladimir Putin's approval rating isn't actually declining. Forbes.com. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/06/11/vladimir-putins-approval-rating-isnt-actually-declining/

Apps, P. (2012, December 2). Special report: Why some new countries are more equal than others. Reuters. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/02/us-south-sudan-countries-idUSBRE8B102020121202

Brauner, J. (2012). Military spending and democratisation. Peace Economics, Peace Science, & Public Policy, 18, 1–17. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87067317

Bureau of International Information Programs. (2008). Defining democracy. US Department of State. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

Cartledge, P. (2001, January 1). The democratic experiment. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from BBC History: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy%5f03.shtml

Cohen, A. (2012, October 18). Putin’s new ‘Fortress Russia.’ New York Times. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/putins-new-fortress-russia.html?%5Fr=0

Constitution.org. (2008). The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from: http://www.constitution.org/cons/croatia.htm

Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy index 2012: Democracy at a standstill. London, England: Author. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2012.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=DemocracyIndex12

Gat, A. (2005, October). The democratic peace theory reframed. World Politics, 58, 73–100.

Grimm, S., & Merkel, W. (2008, June). War and democratization. Democratization, 15, 457–471.

Iskyan, K. (2008). Putin's political future becomes clearer. Global Finance, 22.

Johnston, M. (2013). More than Necessary, Less than Sufficient: Democratization and the Control of Corruption. Social Research, 80, 1237-1258. Retrieved December 4, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=94074739

McFaul, M & Stoner-Weiss, K. (2008, January/February). The myth of the authoritarian model. Foreign Affairs, 87, 68–84. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87105/michael-mcfaul-kathry yn-stoner-weiss/the-myth-of-the-authoritarian-model.html.

Merkel, W., & Weiffen, B. (2012). Does heterogeneity hinder democracy?. Comparative Sociology, 11, 387–421. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77329623

Muhlberger, S., & Paine, P. (1998, February 8). Is there a history of democracy? World History of Democracy. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/history1. .htm.

Nilsson, M. (2012). Reaping what was sown: Conflict outcome and post-civil war democratization. Cooperation & Conflict, 47, 350–367. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=79305325

Rosenberg, M. (2008, February 18). New countries of the world. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/newcountries.htm.

Saikal, A. (2012). The UN and Afghanistan: Contentions in Democratization and Statebuilding. International Peacekeeping (13533312), 19, 217-234. Retrieved December 4, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74464691

Tocqueville, A., & Sandage, S. A. Democracy in America: Abridged edition. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.

Thomas Mann on democracy. (2007, April 5). Harper's Magazine. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-quote-thomas-mann.

Venice Commission. (2004, May 27). Constitution of the Republic of Georgia. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2004/CDL(2004)041-e.pdf

The world in 2007. (2007). Economist. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from: http://www.metafilter.com/56666/The-Economist-The-World-in-2007

Suggested Reading

Clare, J. (2007, May). Democratization and international conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 44, 259–276.

Fenger, M. (2007). The diffusion of revolutions: Comparing recent regime turnovers in five post-communist countries. Demokratizatsiya, 15, 5–28. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25049655&site=ehost-live

García-Rivero, C. (2013). Democratisation, State and Society in the Middle East and North Africa. Comparative Sociology, 12, 477-504. Retrieved December 4, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89689772

Herrmann, P. (2011). Democracy in theory and action. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from EBSCO online database eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=403448&site=ehost-live

Kalandadze, K., & Orenstein, M.A. (2007). The impact of pro-democratic popular uprisings on regime change in hybrid political systems. Conference Papers — International Studies Association, 1–38.

Merkel, W. (2008, June). Democracy through war? Democratization, 15, 487–508.

O'Neill, D., & Black, R. (2007). A modernization theory: economic growth, income equality and democratization. Conference Papers — Midwest Political Science Association.

Shapiro, I. (2011). The real world of democratic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from EBSCO online database eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=356022&site=ehost-live