the Fourth Wave of Democracyand Dictatorship

  • McFaul M
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Question: Why some states of the 28 post-communist, often new statesbecome democratic and others remained authoritarian?Earlier academic research on third wave democratization in SouthernEurope and Latin America:- Mode of transition (Uncertainty and power balance of pro-democracyand old elites) led to negotiated power-sharing agreements called"pacts"- Ideas, norms and beliefs played a little roleIn post-communist settings:- Unequal distribution led to stable democracies- Stable democratuc institutions only emerged if the hegemonic demoratswanted themOlder Research:I) Focus on elites in eralier transition literature (O'Donnel, Schmitterand Whitehead)Actor-centric focus adopted of Rustow (1970)--> Those framed thinking of regime changeTransition scholars neglected the structural prerequisites for democracySome scholars adopted a path dependency framework ( O'Donnel and Schmitter,Huntington and Przeworski) that distinguish between softliners andhardliner in old elite, between moderates and radicals in new forces.Dmeocracy is due to strategic interaction and pact between softlinersand moderate that navigate transition from dictatorship to democracyDemocracy-enhancing pacts must:1) limit the agenda (not too many contentious issues)2) share proportinally the benefits of new system3) restrict participation of outsiders, e.g. the extremists and thepublic masses!!!II) Why do pact come about?1) distribution of power was equal and democracy the result of a pronlongedand inconclusive (costly) struggle2) Uncertainty = Rawlsian veil so that compromise on equal distributionbetter, since all parties could be worth off, since they don't knowtheir own or opponents' strentgh--> Democracy emerge from a bargaining the profits EVERYONE!NON-COOPERATIVE MODEL TO TRANSITIONSResearch on new transitions in post-war countries"Actorcentrric cooperative approaches to democratization offer a usefulstarting point for explaining transformation in post-communist regimes"Rustow's condition for democratization, that is clear territorialboundaries applies (220) in third and fourth waveHowever:- Imposed transitions from above did not produce democracy but onlypartial ones or even dictatorship- It is instead "revolutionary transitions have actually producedthe most stable and consolidated democracies (in the 3rd wave thisproduced the most unstable outcomes)All the 3 necessary conditions for succesful transition in the thirdwave are not true (p. 221f)1) Rapid transition with no limited agenda but political AND economicreforms at the same time - real break with the past2) Skewed distributions of benefits3) Different actors participate in transition and split between soft-and hardliners less important, but the cooperation and mobilizationof society is decisive!!!4) Skewed power distribution , imbalance in favor of revolutionarydemocratic forces that topple communist regimes and replace themwith new ones.But also: Balance of power, skewed to authoritarian forces: 2. mode that ispreserved or reconstituted authoritarian instit.Balance of power, more equally balanced: 3. mode: partial democracyleading to violent confrontations into partial democracy or particaldictatorship (e.g. Angola)New democratc instutitions:--> --> Crafting institutions, institutions are zero-sum, they arenot efficient or enhance the welfare of all, but they can be stable!!Author argues that the specific institutions don't matter so much,but the commitment the powerful matters, their ideas and norms--> ---> Nice classification of countries with A) The balance of power(uneven toward democr. forces, balanced, uneven twoard authoritarianold elites) and B) Outcomes: Regime typesFor A) Outcome of the first post-war elections!!!!For B) regime type as measured by Freedom HouseFor democracy to develop:Confrontation is the dominant mode of negotiation between democr.new forces and old elites (228)Examples of countries that developed into stable democracies (229ff.)Poland - mass mobilization (see also Bunce 2003) as key elementHungary - democratic winners after elections dictated new rulesIn both cases and all other examples of countries that developed intostable democracies the TIMING of mass mobilization is very importantIn the partial democracy or transitioned owards authority countries:Elections were not liberalizing events (232)My comment: Interesting = elections not liberalizing or "break" withthe past!- Tajikistan is an extrem example of violent confrontational tarnsitionsresulting from relative equal distribition of power between the mainpolitical forces in the country; liberalization produced split inruling elite and instead of a costly stalemate and negotiations,it produced civil war (236)- The old regime overestimated its popularity, and the power of hisclan (237)- the settlement in Tajijistan was brokered but not a democracy butan unstable autocracy (237)What causes the different balances of power and the different ideologies?1) Regional clusters of countries with similar patters ..> ideologies--> regime types2) Path-dependency is case or history-specific, specific to a settingand thats where structura conditions have specific case-specificeffects--> Cultural or historical pattern hence cannot explain regme typeBut --> Rustow is right that definite national border are beneficial totransition ( (240)--> Western power near transitiory states are beneficial to democratictransitions (241), cantagion effects are significant, e.g. Bulgariaand RumaniaConclusion:I) Purpose of aricle: Challenge explan. for democr. transitions from3rd wave of democratizationII) Democracy from below is not unqiue in the postcommunist countriesbut also in France, and also externally imposed democratic regimesare not unique, e.g. Germany, Japan, Austria involved no pactingor negotiationsIII) Future Q: When are pacts beneficial to democracyIV) Prior regime type has no uniform effect on the outcome of transition(see diff. outcomes of all 28 prior communist states)V) Its ideologies and power balance that have path-dependent effectson democracyVI) What are the deeper factors that cause democracy, e.g. what causesthe different paths (that is the balance of power in favor of democrats,the norms in society and elites, etc)VII) Different historial contexts may create unique factors for andagainst democratization (244)

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McFaul, M. (2002). the Fourth Wave of Democracyand Dictatorship. World Politics, 54(January), 212–244.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free