Stages of democratization (0)

Stages of democratization ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACIES: transition always doesn’t end up in a democracy
Mexico /SA:
Continuing problems of corruption ;
lack of transparency;
weak rule of law;
Impunity
Democratic culture weak
The old regime breaks down.
New democratic structures are built . Initial fragility
These new structures become embedded; their removal is unthinkable: ‘consolidation’.
Structural factors :

• Factors that are ‘unchangeable’ or change slowly; ‘preconditions’
  
  • Historical
    
  • Economic
    
  • Political
    

W. Germany 1950s: educated, literate population, but residue of authoritarian attitudes, poor experience of Weimar democracy?
E. Germany 1990s : educated, literate, good knowledge of West German system – (relatively) easy adaptation once East German state collapsed Mexico: as economy developed did potential for democratic structures increase ? South Africa : little apparent scope for change?
Transitions theory

liberalization of authoritarian rule

civil society pushes the boundaries of change faster and farther

holding of fair elections of uncertain outcome.
Elite vs mass
West Germany – 1950s – mass element largely absent – ‘guided’ into democracy by Adenauer and economic success
East Germany 1990 – mass protests against communist rule undermine regime; when it crumbles no obstacle to unification
‘Wir sind das Volk’ (we are the [East German] people becomes ‘Wir sind ein Volk’ (we are one [united German] people)
Mexico – crises (economic, 1985 earthquake) brought gradual change. Ironically, pro-democratic electoral reform was greatest when ruling party (PRI) was strongest. PRI needed a credible opposition. Both bottom up and top down (though former was stronger). Pres Zedillo (1994-2000) accelerated reforms.
South Africa: Mass protests played a determinative role , but timing contingent on elite decisions…but elites lost control of process
What is Governance? 
Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them .
Domestic vs international factors
Germany 1950s:
Context of division , occupation: western allies insist on democratic renewal
Effective leadership and economi recovery provide space for accommodation with democracy
Germany 1990s
Gorbachev removes protection from East German state, end of Cold War
East German civic protest thus enabled, removing east German regime, paving way for unification
Mexico:
International – pressure from IOs, other states , donors, learning effect from reforms elsewhere, etc.
Domestic pressures come from crises or lack of ‘ delivery ’ of services, growth , etc.
South Africa
Domestic: uprising ‘ungovernability’ Electoral instutitions: Germany – PR, with 5% hurdle to prevent fragmentation, enable stable government
Mexico: first -past-the-post for President ; mix of PR and FPTP for Congress . No re-election undermines commitment of Congress to constituents.
South Africa – PR, still high turnout (if diminishing)
Concerns about distance between MPs and voters
International: sanctions, censure, impact on economy
Transitional institutions
Rule of law : Voice and Accountability
Political Stability and Absence of Violence
Government Effectiveness Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Separation of powers; Allied armies as back up if needed … (g)
East Germany absorbed into ready -made rule of law from West
Constitutions, courts (SA)
more independent Congress (M)
Federal Electoral Institute (M)
Openness:
TRC (SA)
‘Gauck-Authority’ (G)– opening of Stasi files;
Freedom of Information Agency (M)
CONSOLIDATION
Democratization doesn’t end with elections….
West Germany: importance of democracy in delivering prosperity, international rehabilitation and security (after experience of war, division)
South Africa: need to develop trust in institutions, strengthen accountability
Mexico: corruption, rule of law still needs strengthening. Acceptance of norms of democracy –
Germany
1950 25% felt best to have one party, 53% several parties
1997 7% felt best to have one party, 86% several parties
South Africa
Barely 30% citizens thought that MPs should hold the president to account .
Fewer than 40% agreed that “the government is like an employee ; the people should be the bosses”, most preferring the view that “people are like children ; the government should take care of them like a parent ”.
Only 10% thought that voters should hold MPs to account, 40% believed that presidents should be able to “decide everything”.
Mexico democratizised
Electoral change - PAN success.
More independent institutions and groups - Courts, Congress, IFE, media, pressure groups.
Power slowly being devolved to states.
Popular unhappiness caused by response to 1985 earthquake, economic crises, stolen election of 1988.
BUT!!! Legacies continue : corruption, impunity, authoritarian-style lack of accountability.
Legacy of long PRI rule = stability. Unique in Latin America.
Typical questions in first session. Three and choose one. Pattern. Broad theme or concept. 2nd question is explicit comparison –more narrow concept.
3. Not sig more challenging than others, can say far less about each
No question only about SA or Germany –have already done that in essays
Critically assess the impact of electoral systems on politics of two of the countries studied
How do a country’s history and political culture affect its ability to democratise? Answer by comparing two of the countries studied in this course.
What role do political parties play in democratisation? Compare South Africa and Germany.
Learn key themes from certain authors so that you can refer to them Show that you have learned something in the course!

• Explain your ‘take’ on the question, e.g.
  
  • define key terms (impact)
    
  • explain parameters: which bit of ‘politics’ will you focus on? outcomes, representation, stability?
    

Exam Q: ‘Critically assess the impact of electoral systems on politics in two of the countries studied in the course.’
Impact: effect, what kind of effect, why should we expect impact
Refine and define, but explain.
Outcome: coalition government; representation: minorities, small parties, stability (FPTP= stable)
What kind of things might be mentioned – Germany – double ballot system – combination of single-member districts and PR each voter has own local representative , and the Bundestag as a whole is proportional.
Russia –double ballot system until 2003 elections but not closely linked as in German system – the PR system independent of the single-member district so Russian elections not very proportional. Eg. 1995 43 parties run for election and only 4 in parliament. 50 % of electorate unrepresented. Since 2007 fully proportional system which has strengthened power of core 4 parties to pick their candidates from centre and weakened independents and regional cands.
Many paths to democracy
Structural factors / Contingent choices
Elite vs mass influences
Domestic vs int’l
Consolidation
Illiberal/ pseudo democracies can emerge
Governance – a useful approach ?