DEFINE DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION
Democracy Revisited
Now that we have defined democracy as best we can, and explored the various
institutions that are typical of contemporary democracies, we will now contemplate the
leading (and one not so leading) theories of why states become democracies what
makes democracy “stick.” First, however, it might be worth reconsidering the definition
of a democracy. Recall that most definitions of democracy coalesce around two central
concepts: political rights and civil rights and liberties. Political rights refer to the ability
to citizens to participate in the electoral process and that the electoral process is free
and fair. Civil liberties refer to freedoms guaranteed by the government that are
fundamental to participating in the electoral process such as speech, assembly, and
access to information. Civil rights refer to the fact that the rule of law is equally applied
and does not discriminate between groups. States that only have political rights, but
struggle with civil rights and liberties, are often called electoral democracies. Those
that possess both elements are considered liberal democracies.
If you imagine a state where less than half can vote, basic rights are only upheld
for certain groups based on race and class, and elections are only held sporadically,
would we classify this as a democracy? Using the three criteria above, not only would
we be unlikely to call it a democracy, but we might also even call it a full-on
authoritarian regime (discussed in Chapter 8: Authoritarianism). The US rates 0.35 on
a scale of 0-1, with 1 being the most democratic. Yet, this is exactly how American
democracy began. Even after the passage of the 15th Amendment, which guaranteed
the right to vote to all races (but not to women of any race), various barriers were put
into place to continue to keep black Americans from voting such as poll taxes and
intimidation. Because blacks were generally much poorer than white Americans, a poll
tax effectively disenfranchised the black population. Tactics like this are not unlike
tactics by authoritarian regimes to disenfranchise whole sectors of society, such as
intimidation, disqualifying parties from participating, restricting suffrage, or preventing
victors from taking office.
According to the Varieties of Democracy, the United States was the only
democracy in 1789, the earliest for which they have data. (See Figure 75 above.) To
be fair, few states were sovereign at this time, and most were imperial, both of which
cannot be democratic. By contrast, in 2022, Pakistan’s democracy score is .4. Yet,
many would assume that Pakistan is not a democracy, or at least an extremely weak
one. Would we make the same assumption about democracy in 1789 America? Would
you classify any period of time in the statehood of the United States as authoritarian?
According to Paul Musgrave (2021), another democracy index, Polity,
measured by the Center for Systemic Peace (CIS), the US scored between an 8 and
10 from 1809 to 2016, where 10 is the most democratic. As he states, “[t]that period
includes the Civil War, when the losing side launched a volent conflict rather than
accept the election results” (Musgrave, 2021, p. 1). He further argues that democracy
didn’t become a norm throughout most the 50 states until at least the 1960s. This also
happens to be the so-called “second wave” of democratization, which coincides with
decolonization in Asia and Africa. (Recall Figure 65 on page 198). Up until this time,
many states in the US were “stable, one-party authoritarian enclaves,” as whites in the
South reliably and consistently voted for Democrats (Mickey, 2015). This echoes our
discussion the previous chapter of single-party systems, which are nearly always
authoritarian. Finally, for a state to be considered democratic, it must at least be a state
with the monopoly on the use of force. With widespread lynchings occurring
throughout the US for much of its early history, Musgrave (2021) also argues that the
US should have been considered not just a failed democracy, but a failed state.
Indeed, as we will explore below, much of America’s experience in the early days of
its “democracy” do not look entirely different from the struggles that many postcolonial
states as they look for a more stable and equitable governing model.
Thus, while the US has been considered a model democracy by many in
comparative politics, new self-reflective research is emerging, using definitions rooted
less in the American experience. None of the major democracy indices rate the US as
a strong democracy in 2023. To be sure, the US today does uphold many important
features of a democratic state, but the idea that it has always been, and will always
be, a democracy, should not be taken for granted. Indeed, as this volume hopes to
show, the style of democracy practiced in the US is rather unique, and therefore it has
few applications or fair comparisons to other states. We will continue this discussion
of American democracy in Chapter 8: Authoritarianism and Democratic Backsliding.
Theories of Democracy
Having recentered our discussion of democracy, it is now important to think
about why democracies emerge. These theories of democratization can help us better
understand not only the emergence of democracy in the US, but the challenges to
democracy in much of the Global South.
Modernization Theory
Perhaps the most frequently cited cause of democracy is “modernization,”
which more accurately refers to economic development. Recalling the economic
theory of statehood in Chapter 5, modernization theory follows a similar logic: changes
in economic conditions lead to democratization. Specifically, as states become
wealthier, a middle class emerges. This new economic class, being the largest, begins
to demand more rights and more say in the political process (Lipset, 1959). This may
be accompanied by other factors such as an increase in leisure time, more education,
and more urbanization. Authoritarian regimes find it difficult to maintain their legitimacy
in the face of these growing demands, and eventually and slowly, democratic reforms
take hold.
There is some evidence to support this theory. If one simply compares the map
of democracies and the maps of the Global North and South one will see that most of
the world’s democratic states are also Global North states, which tend to be higher
income. Another example will illustrate the power of modernization theory.
Student Feature: Japan and Tunisia
In this comparative case study, we will examine how both Japan and Tunisia
went through democratic transitions in a manner aligned with modernization theory
despite vastly different circumstances. This can be classified as a Most Different
Systems Design case study in that the causes and circumstances were different, but
the effects were the same (until recently).
Tunisia
Full Country Name : Republic of Tunisia
Head of State : President Kais Saied
Head of Government : Prime Minister Najla Bouden Romdhane
Government : Authoritarian (since 2022 constitutional reform), prior to
that semi-presidential democracy
Official Language : Arabic, French
Economic System : Market oriented economy
Location : North Africa
Capital : Tunis
Total land size : 163,610 sq km; 63,170 sq miles
Population : 11,976,182
GDP : $127.509 billion
GDP per capita : $10,400
Currency : Tunisian dinar
Recalling, Tunisia was part of the vast French empire which lasted from 1881
to 1956. The French wanted an independent Tunisia to be a constitutional monarchy,
which we learned about in Snapshot Case Study: Thailand. There had been a monarch
ruling over the territory for centuries while Tunisia was part of the Ottoman empire. In
a surprising series of events, elections were held almost immediately upon
independence, which resulted in a decisive victory for the nationalist and pro-
independence party. Following these elections, the monarchy was dissolved. The first
president, Habib Bourguiba, envisioned Tunisia to pursue a similar path as Türkiye as
a secular state with Islam playing an important cultural role, while also retaining some
governing strategies from the French. He aimed for economic growth with a minimal
role for the military. But his reign was certainly not democratic; he managed to stay in
power until 1987, when he was removed in a coup. The man who removed him, Ben
Ali, would stay president until the famous Arab Spring revolutions resulted in sweeping
political changes throughout the Middle East (Alexander, 2016). These series of
protests and revolutions have been described as the “biggest transformation of the
Middle East since decolonization” (Agdemir, 2016).
Tunisia was the epicenter of the Arab Spring. It began at the end of 2010 with
the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi over unfair government treatment over his fruit sales.
This coincides with an epidemic of poor living conditions in Tunisia. This event sparked
massive protests in Tunisia across North Africa. Tunisia was the only state to adopt a
democratic system of government (see Figure 78) due to the revolutions, which it
maintained until 2021, when the President took advantage of a new constitution and
dismissed the prime minister and suspended the parliament. The president cited
worsening economic conditions as one of several reasons he invoked Article 80 of the
new constitution, which allows the president to take “necessary measures” when
Tunisia is “in a state of imminent danger” (Guesmi, 2021).
A key element in the success of the Tunisian revolution and the subsequent
democratic reforms (despite recent shifts backwards) was the access to internet and
the educated youth as shown in Figure 79. While Tunisia was not the most educated
in the Arab world in 2010 at the start of the revolutions, it had experienced one of the
steadier increases in education. Socioeconomic advancements such as education and
a growing middle class are the causes of democratization under modernization theory.
The young people in Tunisia were beginning to become educated and demand an
equal and fair place in society.
The case of Tunisia shows us that growth of an educated middle class might
be necessary for democracy, but it is also likely insufficient to build a democratic state.
In other words, it is dependent on several other factors. Tunisia also shows us that a
worsening economy might be a cause for democratic backsliding, which further
demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between democracy and economic
growth.
Japan
Full Country Name : Japan
Head of State : Emperor Naruhnito
Head of Government : Prime Minister Fumio Kishida
Government : Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy
Official Language : Japanese
Economic System : Market oriented economy
Location : East Asia
Capital : Tokyo
Total land size : 377,915 sq km; 145,913 sq mi
Population : 123,719,238
GDP : $5.126 trillion
GDP per capita : $40,800
Currency : Japanese Yen
Japan never experienced complete Western colonization but was heavily
influenced by the desire to keep colonization at bay, similar to China (see Snapshot
Case Study: Qing Dynasty in modernday China on page 116). The Japanese empire
took several measures to ban Christianity as well as trade with Europeans in order to
limit European cultural influence. In fact, Japan was itself a major colonial power in
Asia, expanding its territory into parts of modern-day China, Russia, and Korea
(Tipton, 2008). This history of territorial conquest is still a source of resentment
between Japan and these states.
World War II came to an official end with the US-led bombings of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima in 1945, resulting in the full surrender of Japan. As part of the surrender
plan, the US occupied Japan and actively participated in its rehabilitation. The second
phase of the occupation plan was focused on the economy (Tipton, 2008). While
modernization theory explicitly links democracy with economic growth, an implication
of the theory is also that democracy is linked to Western economic models. With the
end of World War II came heavy American influence in Japan. The winning powers of
World War II were very interested in making sure that Japan did not become
communist, and that Japan would adopt Western ideals. Therefore, there was a large
emphasis on making the Japanese economy into a free market. These changes
coincided with a shift in Japan’s political system to democracy, which took place
through the drafting of a new constitution, which was written largely by American
military generals. Before these changes there were large business conglomerates that
undermined democracy and stunted economic growth (Miyajima, 1994). With the
liberalization of the Japanese economy came rapid economic growth and
democratization. Indeed, the Varieties of Democracy Index rates Japan’s democracy
as 0.62, nearly the same as the US (0.61) in 1952 (Herre et al., 2013).
Since then, Japan is rated above 0.8 consistently. Elections were held almost
immediately following US occupation in 1947, in which the Liberal Party won a plurality
of seats. This party has remained overwhelmingly dominant, with only two periods in
which it was out of power in the postwar period. Thus, while Japan is considered a
strong democracy, it is also a clear dominant-party state (See Dominant and Single
Party Systems). This government, with the permission of the emperor, approved the
new constitution shortly after it was elected. Perhaps most importantly, this constitution
severely limits the Japanese military. Japan can teach us several lessons about the
connection between economic growth and democracy. First, like Tunisia, economic
growth is helpful to democratization, but more is required. In the case of Japan, limiting
the role of the emperor, and a direct mandate from an occupying power certainly aided
its democratization. It can tell us something about democratic consolidation. Long
periods of economic growth may lead to long-term democratic stability. The main
criticism of modernization theory is its blindness to Western influence. We see this
clearly in the case of Japan. The US had a keen interest in the democratization of the
state. We can also see this in the case of Tunisia, which remained clearly
undemocratic for most of its postcolonial independence with the tacit support of the
Global North. It also ignores the fact that economic growth in the Global North was in
part driven by the exploitation of resources in Global South for centuries.
