Uncertain democracies present rather controversial issues becoming one of the most widespread regimes. In this regard, the paper will discuss, analyze, and compare uncertain democracies examined in two readings.
In their book, O’Donnell and Schmitter discuss the three paramount issues regarding the functional instauration of authoritarian regimes towards democracy (3). The first issue concerns transition that might be referred to as a tendency aimed at explaining and, presumably, indicating the transition from some form of autocracy to some form of democracy. The second topic is associated with attempts to pinpoint various dilemmas of transition. This section involves ideological confusions, cultural peculiarities, and actors’ attitudes. The third theme focuses on precise evaluation and analysis of the issues that were mentioned above. Introducing the discussion, authors begin with a conceptualization of core concepts such as transition, liberalization, democratization, and their interaction. On this basis, they propose the six generalizations, the most essential of which is that the liberalization can exist without democratization. In terms of socialization, it is stated that democracy institutionalizes uncertainty affecting social institutes and resulting in so-called social democracy.
In the context of unpredictable and rapid change, the initial stages of transformation of the regime present a high risk, the lack of cohesive groups, and vague priorities. Events usually take place under a sign of political determinism in a hypertrophied form. Actors suggest that they are involved in “open warfare” that provides new opportunities while success directly depends on their behavior. Speaking of actors promoting transition, O’Donnell and Schmitter claim that “political democracies are usually brought by conspiracies involving few actors (even though, those actors may obtain mass support for their efforts), and this may give special leverage to external manipulations and calculations” (18).
In other words, both individuals and mass actions might influence the situation. It is rather difficult for actors to determine in advance what classes, social groups as well as institutions stand on their side. It is understandable since there is no consensus and clear action plans in most of the communities. When this obscure and dangerous period is over, some of the actors begin to strengthen the new regime. At best, they will be forced to adopt jointly developed rules and follow them organizing an internal structure and considering the long-term consequences of their actions. However, they will inevitably be faced with constraints that occurred due to normative and other problems deeply rooted in society.
The transition process from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one can lead to different results. If one focuses on merely historical experience, the first and the most likely option would be a return to autocracy – in the same or a different form. According to the research conducted by authors, only a few countries managed to come to democracy during their first attempt or as a result of uniform and rectilinear movement. Most of them had to return to the somehow modified regime while others encounter a period of government resistance before becoming democratic. Some countries are notorious for the number of failed attempts, for instance, Spain and Portugal in Europe, Turkey, and Thailand in Asia, or Ecuador and Bolivia in South America.
It should be noted yet that the mentioned countries completed the establishment of democracy in one form or another. Another possible result is the formation of a mixed-mode regime. Although it does not meet the minimum procedural requirements of political democracy, the regime differs from the previous conditions. Such democradura (limited political democracy) and dictablanda (liberalized autocracy) are quite hard to admit reliable and durable solutions to common problems, yet they can be useful in improvisation allowing to gain some time required both for the return to autocracy and for the subsequent construction of democracy.
The third scenario that is not considered by authors in detail seems to be the most disputable one and called non-consolidated democracies. Political systems that fall into this category, in a sense, are doomed to democracy but are not able to take its benefits and advantages. They are trapped in a situation where all the minimum procedural features of democracy are respected while there are no generally accepted rules for the regulation of political forces. Formal rules proclaimed in a basic law are treated as conditional rules to be amended or rejected at the first opportunity. Finally, the most desirable result transition may lead to is democracy built based on common rules and accepted by all the institutions of civil liberty, political tolerance, and fair competition that act as the focal actors.
Authors aware that it is impossible to identify the exact moment of democracy establishment and reliably measure the degree of its achievement. Indeed, if one would insist on compliance with these principles, it is possible to come to a contradiction in terms as a democratic state system is never fully consolidated. On the contrary, they are unique in comparison with other modes due to the ability to self-transformation as well as the ability to incorporate uncertainty in its normal operation. O’Donnell and Schmitter utilize two variables of democraduras (limited political democracies) and dictablandas (liberalized autocracies) to introduce outcomes of transition to democracy.
More to the point, they consider several cases related to different countries to illustrate examples proving their generalizations (10). They do not show causal mechanisms preferring to focus on outcomes and peculiarities. The proposed explanation upheld by analysis so that generalizations may be considered correct and trustworthy. In their work, authors do not refer to other credible sources that, in turn, may be explained by the lack of studies in the corresponding area. Despite this, they were pioneers in explaining the transition. The works of such scholars as Mainwaring or Whitehead seem to contribute to the deeper and more complete understanding of the theme. All in all, it seems that this work is crucial in current debates related to uncertain democracies and, therefore, should be considered without a doubt.
The second reading under discussion is an article by Rustow, in which the scholar also examines transitions to democracy yet from a different perspective. According to his investigation, the transition to democracy should be based on the following assumptions: national unity and awareness, a family feud – some debate, the solution to the debate, and habituation that refers to the fact that “a distasteful decision, once made, is likely to seem more palatable as one is forced to live with it” (Rustow 358). In other words, people get used to the existing regime and begin to take it for granted.
The author claims that there is no doubt that a situation where a national identity, determined territorial borders, and the sovereign power are already evident is the most preferable for the transition process. The paramount assumption suggested by the author is, however, the following: “any genetic theory of democracy would do well to assume a two-way flow of causality, or some form of circular interaction, between politics on the one hand and economic and social conditions on the other” (Rustow 436). Thus, a comprehensive approach based on the integration between politics, economy, and social life is the most appropriate way to initiate a transition to democracy.
Considering the article in terms of empirical analysis, it is essential to pinpoint that Rustow examines a dynamic model of democracy. On the contrary to Lipset, Almond, and others who focus on correlation, he strives to study causation between democracy and socio-economic factors. Rustow applies two cases of Sweden during 1980-1920 and Turkey in 1945 excluding democracy resulting from foreign intervention. The variables presented by the author are clearly and thoroughly measured and discussed to reflect and support his assumptions. Rustow utilizes empirical evidence to conduct his study and establish causal effects (4). In conclusion, it is mentioned that all the assertions are strengthened by the research. At that, all the components that were identified before should be specified and implemented promptly. The latter may include political leaders, democratic regulations, organizations, and other preparatory aspects. It is also significant to note that habituation was proved to be an integral part of democracy genesis.
This article might be regarded as rather considerable and beneficial to understand the notion of uncertain democracies in detail. It also offers several vivid examples and clarifications concerning the topic promoting an in-depth analysis. Such a clear and detailed representation of materials allows learning the information effectively. This may be regarded as the main contribution of work. Among limitations, one might note the fact that the article investigates the topic from the only side, yet it is the specifics of work distinguishing it from others’ functional approach. More to the point, it creates originality and promotes a clear explanation of outcomes.
Nevertheless, it seems that works by Mirowski, Barrington, or Dahl might also be valuable in comprehending uncertain democracies. The source is relevant to evaluate and make conclusions about the topic. The credibility of the reading is ensured by various references to other reliable studies as well as by timeliness. Consequently, one may conclude that the goal desired by the author was achieved as he provided a reader with useful and comprehensible information. Furthermore, the analysis of the data that was made by the author can be proved as it could not be easily argued and denied because there is evidence of it being taken from reliable sources. In this connection, the information presented in the article appears to be accurate and trustworthy. Therefore, it might be utilized as a basis both by students and scholars in their perspective investigations.
To conclude, it should be emphasized that the two works were discussed to provide an in depth-analysis of transitions to democracy. It was revealed that this process is quite controversial and requires plenty of effort. The paramount distinction between readings is the approach to the topic. While the article by Rustow reflects causal effects, the book by O’Donnell and Schmitter focuses on correlations and outcomes. As a result, taking one with another, these readings represent a multifaceted explanation of the theme.
Works Cited
O’Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe Schmitter. Transitions From Authoritarian Rule. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. Print.
Rustow, Dankwart. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.” Comparative Politics 2.3 (1970): 337-363. Print.