Comparative Politics Lesson 3

What is the difference between a procedural and a substantive definition of democracy?

Procedural Definition:

• Focuses on the rules and processes through which political power is obtained and exercised.

• Example: free and fair elections, political competition and participation.

Substantive definition:

• Focuses on the outcomes and values associated with democracy.

• Example: political equality, freedom, justice and the protection of citizens’ rights.

• A country may have elections but still fail to protect civil liberties or political equality.

Procedural definition = how government is chosen.

Substantive definition = what democracy actually delivers.

What is the difference between continuous and dichotomous measures of democracy?

Dichotomous measures:

• Classify countries into two categories: democratic or non-democratic.

Continuous measures:

• Place countries on a scale according to they degree of democracy.

• A continuous measure can capture differences between countries that are both formally democratic but differ in their protection of rights, electoral fairness or political participation.

• However, continuous measures require decisions about how much weight to give each indicator.

• For Example: Should freedom of expression count as much as competitive elections?

• Dichotomous measures are simpler, but they can overlook important differences between political systems.

What are the components of Dahl’s polyarchy?

Robert Dahl identifies six institutional requirements for polyarchy, a practical form of democracy in large modern states:

• Elected officials: citizens choose representatives who make political decisions.

• Free, fair and frequent elections: Elections allow genuine competition and give citizens the opportunity to remove leaders.

• Freedom of expression: Citizens can criticise the government and discuss political issues without punishment.

• Alternative sources of information: People can access information beyond government-controlled media.

• Associational autonomy: Citizens can inform independent organisations, political parties and interest groups.

• Inclusive citizenship: Adult citizens are broadly entitled to participate in the political system.

These institutions allow citizens to express preferences, organise opposition and hold governments accountable. If one is missing, political competition and meaningful citizen control become weaker.

There are broadly four major types of democracies. Define two of them

Presidential democracy:

• The president is elected independently of the legislature and has a fixed term in office.

• The executive and legislature have separate sources of democratic legitimacy.

• The president does not normally depend on the confidence of parliament to remain in office.

• This separation can provide checks and balances, but disagreements between the president and legislature can lead to political deadlock.

Parliamentary democracy:

• The government is formed from parliament and must maintain the confidence of the parliamentary majority.

• The prime minister is generally the leader who can command that majority.

• If the government loses parliamentary confidence, it may have to resign or elections may be called.

• Executive and legislative power are closely connected, which can make it easier to replace a government without replacing the entire political system.

Majoritarian democracy:

• Political power is concentrated in the hands of the winning majority, allowing it to govern and implement its programme.

• It is often associated with single-party majority governments, two-party competition and winner-takes-all elections.

• Advantage: Decision-making can be faster, and voters can more clearly identify who is responsible for government policy.

• Disadvantage: Smaller parties and minority groups may have less influence over political decisions.

Consensus democracy:

• Political power is shared among multiple parties and groups rather than concentrated in a single majority.

• It is often associated with proportional representation, coalition governments and the inclusion of minority interests.

• Advantage: More groups are represented, and decisions may enjoy broader political support.

• Disadvantage: Negotiations can be slower, and it may be harder to identify who is responsible for particular policy decisions.

Presidential vs. parliamentary = relationship between the executive and legislature.

Majoritarian vs. consensus = how political power is distributed.

Explain the ‘‘perils of presidentialism’’.

• The term is associated with political scientist Juan Linz and describes risks arising from presidential systems.

• Both the president and legislature can claim a democratic mandate, so conflicts may occur when they disagree.

• Fixed terms make it difficult to remove and ineffective or unpopular president before the term ends.

• Presidential elections can encourage a winner-takes-it-all mentality, increasing polarisation and making compromise more difficult.

• In political crisis, the lack of flexible way to replace the executive can threaten democratic stability. These are risks, not inevitable outcomes of every presidential system.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of majoritarian and consensus democracies? Give four in total.

Majoritarian democracy:

Advantages:

• Decisive government: Power is concentrated in the governing majority, allowing decisions to be made quickly.

• Clear accountability: Voters can more easily identify which party is responsible for government decisions.

• Political stability: Single-party majority governments can implement policies without constantly negotiating with coalition partners.

• Strong electoral choice: Elections provide a clear choice between the governing party and the opposition.

Disadvantages:

• Minority exclusion: Smaller parties and minority groups may have limited influence on political decisions.

• Winner-takes-all-politics: The winning party can dominate decision-making, even without representing all voters.

• Risk of power concentration: Limited power-sharing can weaken checks on the governing majority.

• Polarisation: Competition between opposing parties can encourage confrontation rather than compromise.

Consensus democracy:

Advantages:

• Broad representation: Proportional representation allows more parties and social groups to gain political influence.

• Minority protection: Power-sharing makes it harder for one majority to exclude minority interests.

• Compromise and cooperation: Coalition governments encourage parties to negotiate and find common ground.

• Legitimacy: Decisions supported by several parties or groups may enjoy broader public acceptance.

Disadvantages:

• Slower decision-making: Negotiations between multiple parties can delay political decisions.

• Complicated accountability: Voters may find it difficult to determine which coalition partner is responsible for a policy.

• Coalition instability: Disagreements between coalition partners can threaten the governments survival.

• Diluted policies: Compromises can lead to less decisive policies the do not fully satisfy any participating party.

Majoritarian democracy = prioritises concentrated power and decisive government.

Consensus democracy = prioritises power-sharing and broad representation.

Unpack one explanation for why some countries become democratic and other do not.

Survival theory - Przeworski and Limongi:

• Survival theory distinguishes between the emergence of democracy and its survival.

• Democracy can emerge a different levels of economic development; economic growth does not automatically cause an authoritarian regime to democratise.

• Howerver, wealthier countries are more likely to sustain democracy once it has been established.

• One proposed mechanism is that, when wealth is more widely distributed, more citizens have something to lose from dictatorship and therefore have stronger incentives to defend democratic institutions.

• A second mechanism is that wealthier societies tend to be more stable, regardless the regime type, while poorer societies face greater instability.

• Therefore, economic development is more consistently associated with the survival of democracy than with its initial emergence.

Classical modernisation theory predicts that development helps produce democracy; survival theory argues more specifically that development helps democracy endure.

According to Lipset, which two major processes promote the legitimacy of new political systems?

• Protecting the status of established institutions: During political transitions, established institutions - such as monarchy - may retain legitimacy if the transition does not unnecessarily threaten their position.

• Providing access to the political system: New social groups must be able to participate and gain representation through political institutions.

• When groups can enter the political system peacefully, they are more likely to accept the new order as legitimate.

• If access is blocked and groups must use violence to gain influence, conflict and distrust can become entrenched.

• Lipset also emphasises the importance of developing a shared political culture, particularly among elites, during the transition.

According to Lipset, which three historic cleavages must be resolved for a stables democracy?

• Religion: The relationship between the church and political authority must be settled.

• Class and suffrage: The political system must address whether and how the working class gains political participation and voting rights.

• Distribution of income: Conflicts over economic rights and the distribution of resources must be managed.

• These cleavages can be destabilise democracy when groups feel permanently excluded or believe that political institutions cannot represent their interests.

• Stable democracy depends on managing these conflicts through institutions and negotiation rather than allowing them to escalate into fundamental struggles over the regime.

Why does Lipset prefer two-party political systems?

• A two-party system can encourage parties to compete for voters across different social groups rather than representing only one narrow interest.

• It can promote moderation because parties must attract voters beyond their core supporters to win elections.

• It may help reduce extreme polarisation by encouraging citizens to switch between parties instead of treating political identity as permanent and all-encompassing.

• Two-party competition can also make political responsibility clearer: voter can more easily identify which party governs and hold it accountable.

• The presentation connects this argument to the importance of cross-cutting social cleavages and moderate political conflict. However, two-party systems can also underrepresent smaller parties and minorities.

What is the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism?

Authoritarianism:

• Political power is concentrated in a ruler or a small elite, and political competition is restricted.

• The regime generally aims to maintain control rather than transform every aspect of society.

Totalitarianism:

• A more extreme form of authoritarian rule that seeks to transform society according to an overarching ideology.

• Totalitarian regimes use extensive propaganda, terror and repression and attempt to mobilise citizens in support of the regime.

• Authoritarian regimes more often seek to demobilise citizens and limit political involvement.

• They can be more flexible because they do not necessarily try to control every aspect of private life.

• In the presentation, authoritarian regimes are describes as potentially more durable, while totalitarian regimes pursue more far-reaching social transformation.

Name three types of authoritarian regime.

According to Barbara Geddes’s classification, three major types are:

Personalist regimes:

• Power is concentrated in one ruler and a small circle of loyal supporters.

• Political institutions are weak, and officials depend heavily on the ruler.

Single-party regimes:

• A ruling party dominates the state and military.

• The party provides a broader organisation structure and may permit limited participation or mall rival parties.

Military regimes:

• The military takes power, often following a coup, and becomes the central political actor.

A fourth type is monarchy, in which political authority is organised around a royal family and succession is often institutionalised. Gedde’s approach classifies regimes according to which group of elites holds power.

Which type of authoritarian regime is most likely to turn into a democracy?

• Military regimes are identified in the presentation as having the highest chance of democratisation.

• They are often established through a coup and may be intended to manage a crisis rather than to create a permanent political order.

• Military rulers may eventually withdraw from politics when continued rule becomes costly or threatens the military as an institution.

• The presentation also describes military regimes as the shortest-lived authoritarian type.

• This is a general pattern in the classification, not a guarantee that every regime will democratise.

Which type of authoritarian regime is the most long-lived?

• Single-party regimes are identified in the presentation as the longest-lasting authoritarian type.

• The ruling party provides an organisation that survives beyond an individual leader.

• It can coordinate elites, distribute positions and benefits, and manage internal disagreements.

• Party institutions also help the regime gather information and manage political participation without surrendering ultimate control.

• These structures can make single-party rule more durable than personalist out military rule, where succession and elite conflict may be more destabilising.

Which type of authoritarian regime is the most effective?

• The presentation identifies single-party authoritarian regimes as the strongest performers on economic performance among the main authoritarian types.

• Their party organisations can coordinate policy, maintain elite cohesion and support long-term planning.

• However, authoritarian effectiveness is not universal: the presentation notes that evidence on economic growth is mixed and that corruption is often higher although findings vary.

• A lack of checks on power can also lead to disastrous decisions, and succession can create serious instability.

• Therefore, single-party regimes may perform relatively well in some circumstances, but authoritarianism as a whole does not guarantee effective government or good living standards.

What is the major threat to authoritarian regimes?

• The presentation emphasises that other elites, especially powerful elites close to the ruler, are often the most immediate threat to authoritarian survival.

• Military leaders, party officials or members of the ruling coalition may organise a coup if they believe their interests or positions are threatened.

• The ruler must therefore prevent elite groups from becoming powerful enough to challenge the regime.

• Authoritarian leaders use repression, legitimacy, co-optation and political institutions to manage there threats.

• Popular uprisings can also become dangerous, as demonstrated by recent waves of protests, including the Arab Spring.

What tools are available to authoritarian regimes to prevent coups?

The presentation identifies four main tools for authoritarian survival:

• Repression: Imprison, intimidate or otherwise weaken opponents. Targeted, low-visibility repression may preserve regime survival more effectively than indiscriminate violence, which can provoke resistance and empower security forces.

• Legitimacy: Use propaganda, ideology and claims of effective government to persuade people that the regimes deserves support.

• Co-optation: Give elites and citizens jobs, payments, privileges or other benefits in exchange for loyalty. The military is especially important.

• Democratic institutions: Use parties, legislature and elections to manage elite competition, gather information, diffuse criticism and bring opposition groups into the system.

These strategies help the ruler manage threats without relying exclusively on violence.

Each has risks: for example, repression can trigger resistance, while distributing benefits can be costly.

Why do authoritarian states use democratic institutions?

Signal strength:

• Large electoral victories can communicate to rivals that the regime is powerful and opposition is unlikely to succeed.

Gather information:

• Election results reveal where support is strong or weak and help rulers assess the loyalty and performance of local officials

Manage elites and distribute patronage:

• Elections and parties create opportunities to distribute positions and benefits among regime supporter.

Co-opt opposition:

• Allowing selected opposition groups into legislature or parties can divide opponents and bring some of them under regime control.

Gain legitimacy:

• Elections allow regimes to claim that they possess domestic popular support and can improve their international image.

Even manipulated elections can serve there purposes.

However, visibly stolen elections can backfire by triggering mass protests or causing elite defections.

According to Bellin, what factors improve the will and capacity of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) regimes to maintain coercive power?

Bellin argues that democratic transitions depend partly on whether a regime’s coercive apparatus is willing and able to repress challenges. Four relevant factors are:

Fiscal health and access to rents:

• Financial resources allow regimes to pay security forces, maintain equipment and reward loyal supporters.

International support networks:

• Foreign allies can provide financial, military or diplomatic assistance that helps regimes survive domestic challenges.

Institutionalisation of the coercive apparatus:

• Less institutionalised security forces may be more dependent on the ruler, while a strong corporate identity and commitment to a broader mission can shape how security institutions respond to protest.

Level of popular mobilisations:

• Large and sustained mobilisation can challenge the regimes ability to repress opposition and increase the pressure for political change.

The central argument is institutionalist: the resources, organisation and behaviour of the coercive apparatus help explain why some regimes survive uprising while others experience transitions.

What are the three plus one classes that Moore Jr. identifies as crucial in determining the outcome of modernisation?

Moore focuses on the relationships among major social classes and the monarchy or state:

Landed upper class (landed elite):

• Large landowners whose economic power and relationship with the monarchy shape the path of modernisation.

Bourgeoisie:

• The commercial and industrial class, including merchants and business owners.

• Its independence from the monarchy and landed elite is important for the development of capitalism and democracy.

Peasantry:

• The rural population whose labor and relationship with landowners influence whether modernisation leads to democracy, racism or communism.

The monarchy or state:

• The political authority that interacts with the other classes and can either concentrate power or be challenged by alliances among social groups.

Moore argues that the outcome of modernisation depends not simply on economic growth, but on which classes are powerful, how they use economic resources, and which alliances they form.

Which class alliance leads to democracy according to Moore Jr.?

• Democracy becomes more likely when the bourgeoisie and parts of the landed elite ally against the monarchy or absolutist crown.

• The landed elite must become sufficiently independent of the crown, partly through commercial economic activity, rather than relying entirely on royal power.

• The bourgeoisie contributed commercial and industrial interests that can challenge arbitrary rule and support more rational, predictable institutions.

• This alliance must not turn into a united landed-elite and bourgeois coalition against the peasantry; such an alliance can instead support authoritarian outcomes.

• Moore’s famous argument is summarised as ‘‘No bourgeois, no democracy’’: an independent commercial class is crucial to the democratic route in his historical explanation.

What are Moore Jr.’s three historical routes to modern world?

• Bourgeois revolution —> capitalism and democracy: In Britain, France and the United States, the development and political influence of commercial classes contributed to democratic outcomes, although the historical paths differed.

• Revolution from above —> capitalism without democracy: In Germany, Italy and Japan, modernisation was led by conservative elites and the state, contributing to fascist outcomes.

• Peasant revolution —> communism: In Russia and China, peasant-based revolutions contributed to communist political systems.

• The key explanation is the relationship among the landed elite, bourgeoisie and peasantry, and the alliances formed during modernisation.

• Moore also argues that earlier countries’ development paths shape the choices available to countries that modernise later.

Does economic development help democracy emerge or help it survive?

• Classical modernisation theory argues that industrialisation and economic complexity create social and political changes that can undermine authoritarian rule and encourage democracy.

• Przeworki and Limongi’s survival theory argues that democracy can emerge at different levels of development, but wealth makes it more likely to survive once established.

• Wealthier societies may be more stable, and citizens may have stronger incentives to defend democracy when they have more to lose from dictatorship.

• Moore’s approach emphasises class relations, political alliances and the historical path of modernisation, rather than economic development alone.

• The best conclusion is that development may support democracy, but it does not automatically produce it. The mechanism and the distinction between democratic emerges and survival are essential.