GOV 328L EXAM 2

What has been the role of the military in politics?

Has protected LATAM from external invasions, internal security, and politics

was essentially the 4th branch of gov

What was the role of the military during independence?

Independence was won by armies (except for BRAZIL), and the independence armies formed a base for the military. These militaries intervened in politics and established privileges for themselves; military officers couldn’t be tried in civilian courts.

What did militaries lack initially?

Initially, the military could not do its job of pacifying the country and defending frontiers. Because of this, borders changed rapidly, and there were frequent revolts in the 19thC. Oppositions came into power through revolts.

What did the weakness of the militaries give way to?

Caudillo's RULE and personal armies came to be due to the military's weakness. Multiple Caudillos were fighting for power.

How did the military get training?

Training from Europe: Chile hired German military →became the strongest military in LATAM→ exported expertise to other countries in LATAM

The U.S. and Britain also trained them and gave them more prestige and importance.

Meritocratic criteria of the military

Merit was used for promotion→officers had to go to school that was staffed by foreign officers→had to pass an exam(different from the past)→ART OF WARFARE

How did people become officers before schools and exams?

they fought in the war or political connections

What was one of the reasons to expand the military?

revolts by indigenous groups and regional caudillos;

Subjugation of resistance

The military started gaining more people from the Middle Class?

the MC began to represent a large sector of the educated population and started to join the military=good career

Why did discipline grow for the military?

During the 19th C the military developed, and people were proud of belonging to the military unlike the past when people felt allegiance to a Caudillo, officer, or president.

How did the military gain materials?

The missions from foreign powers were paid, but they also tried selling equipment to LATAM. LATAM could buy equipment due to the export BOOM.

What new structures and programs were put into place for the military?

Healthcare and pensions

the milt. was divided into different organizations→ made it more attractive to people

The Subjugation of Resitance

the military established a monopoly on violence- WEBER

the # of revolts decreased in the 20th C

Caudillos almost entirely disappeared

Opposition and indigenous groups could no longer overthrow the government, only the military could really overthrow gov

How did the military have an initial democratic effect?

the opposition could no longer overthrow the Gov. by arms, so they began to focus on the electoral path→ the ruling party controlled elections but began to push for democratic reforms → 20th C became more even

ex: secret ballot

Why did the military push back civilian interference?

“we know more than you”- pushed civilians back and the …

military also pushed back civilian leadersbecause they did not like them getting involved in military affairs like promotions etc

How was the military the guardian of the constitution?

4th branch→ could intervene in politics, but who checked them?

-took power for themselves and got in the way of democratization

How was the military a modernizer?

rejected traditional policies and began to embrace reform bc many officers came from the middle class → Populist overtones

ex: JUAN PERON

but some were left leaning like Juan Velasco in Peru (not the norm)

-weakened the power of traditional elites

picture: Juan Velasco

Was the military hostile to the Left?

Yes, the Cuban rev. Killed all the military officers of the Bautista Regime so they became hostile to rev. movements

IMAGE: CASTRO-CUBA

How long did military interventions tend to be?

short term; they would overthrow, take power, make some changes and cede power to civilian leader but this CHANGED IN THE 60S AND 70S

What happened to military interventions 60s and 70s?

They took power for longer times

In brazil from 64-1985

chile- 73-1990

wanted to clean society of leftist ideas bc the Cuban rev. lead to many Left wing mov. in LATAM

cold war also responsible for the shift

in Chile it lead to changes in economic policy (Pinochet)

MILITARY REGIMES TOOK POWER BY FORCE

IMAGE:PINOCHET

theory of bureaucratic authoritarianism

modernization theory

O’Donnell Theory

Modernization theory

a straight positive correlation/relationship between dev and democracy

as dev goes up so does democracy

Who challenged the modernization theory?

O’Donnell

What did O’Donnell argue?

that there is a kink to the correlation between democracy and development

the first kink:Traditional Authoritarianism-caudillos

b)Populist Authoritarianism

c)Bureaucratic Authoritarianism-military

last stage) advanced dem.

Why does modernization lead to B.A regimes?

growing eco. problems→ end of easy stage of ISI→try to produce-> debt,inflation,stagnant growth→conflict;ppl on strike want high wages→populist cohabitation begins to break

Increased popular mobilization→ urban working class mobilizes and populists encourage protests→destabilizing→makes elites + gov nervous→military intervention

The Rise of Technocrats→ppl go abroad to study→want to apply knowledge but cannot due to inflation and eco. destabilization→coup→military steps in and represses mobilizations→ gov. asks for help from the technocrats→ realize that the populist gov. is the problem→ alliance between technocrats+milt.+elites

What are the consequences of B.A regimes?

-deactivation of the popular sector

-reppression of the workers→want a calm country w/out strikes and protests

-deepening industrial growth

—suppression of wages+rising inequality b/c they believe that strikes an dprotests get in the way of milt.reform

Criticisms of the theory of B.A Regimes?

-mixed predictive abilities

-coups taking place throughout LATAM, even in places without high dev.

Mex and VZ did not have coups at all and became advanced

placed an overemphasis on economic factors

-neglected international factors: cold war, US intervention, Cuban Rev.

diffusion: if militaries saw others take power, they wanted to too

Neglected Domestic Political Factors:

left-wing policies helped bring about coups→alianated the U.S. gov (ex: chile)

ineffective political institutions: long history of authoritarian rule and military intervention

weak democracy→support for coups

weak legislature

middle class growth

How common were bureaucratic authoritarian regimes?

not common in LATAM

ONLY IN CHILE, URUGUAY, BRAZIL

What were the policies under military rule?: economic

varying economic policies

-deepening state industrialization lower wages ex: Brazil and ARG

Chile DIFFERED→ abandoned the ISI model in 1970 after military comes into power→free market model→opens; the economy and privitizes→deinsutrilization occurs

1980s: everyone turns away from ISI in LATAM

How did the military try to wipe out subversion?

targeted anyone sympathetic to the left

-The National Security Doctrine: The biggest enemy of the military was internal subversion, so military intelligence was expanded and focused domestically

-radical left mainly was wiped out, and the moderate left was weakened

Political activity was restricted: press freedom was lowered, legislatures closed, and political parties banned→ new ones created in favor of elites and military

What are human right abuses?

Beatings, torture, assassination, execution, disappearance

Argentina(arg): planes fly over ocean to dump people

-preg. women abducted kept till birth-disappeared

who committed the abuses?

state security forces-military, police, intelligence agency, sometimes a particular agency in the military-under direct orders by leaders

-employed paramilitary organizations

-death squads: active duty personnel employed by someone

largest violators were state security forces

Many people were trained in the US, not necessarily just in torture but in assassinations

GUERRILLAS GUILTY TOO BUT LOWER NUMBERS

the shining path

peru- brutal car bombings, killed civilians, targeted assassinations of politicians→targeted people on the left even though they were also left because they did not want a peaceful change

Who had their rights violated

Guerrillas, military police

bystanders

people associated with the left

Why were rights violated?

casualties are bound to happen during war

-to gain info

-create fear and discipline

-lack of checks and balances

what countries had the most violations?

Central America: El Salvador and Guatemala

then colombia and Peru

southern cone: violations but lower per capita

Costa Rica and Panama very few in comparison

-Bolivia and Ecuador had fewer killings-Uruguay put ppl in jail killed less

who sought to prevent these violations?

domestic human right organizations→ emerged to denounce and keep track of who was arrested, abducted

the catholic church → in El Salvador, the archbishop was killed

-the exiled community

Who was Orlando Letelier?

an ambassador of allende gov→assasinated in Washington along with his assistant

to what extent were these efforts successful

made a diff, even if not enough

-documentation was crucial in spreading awareness and pressuring regimes to release prisoners

led to a division in regimes between hard and soft liners

How have democracies responded?

amnesty laws were put in place: only for laws before amnesty laws, so they argue that the disappearances were an ongoing crime because the bodies are still gone

-hard to get them for those war crimes

-vast majority that violated human rights were not prosecuted

-truth commissions are more common: create a full account of all the assassinations and tortured and human right violations

provide some information, but not complete information about guilt

-no persecution just reports

Brazil: a history of military interventions

The emperor of Brazil was overthrown in 1889→military took power_>returned to civilian rule 1930: election Getulio Vargas← lost but Vargas did not accept and revolt that spread to the military + members of the state military forces→vargas gained power

Brazil had short-term interventions until 1964 → military would step in get rid of the leader and hold new elections and then civilian rule again

The policies of Getulio Vargas

vargas is a populist

ISI

-state led industrilization

-governed by decree

-tried to mobilize and control labor mov. through unions and elections. suspended the Brazilian constitution to cut down on fighting → replaced the constitution with his own → called elections off to stay in power

-security forces under Vargas would censor and arrest opposition and use torture during interrogation

The fall of Vargas and military intervention (TWICE)

1943 Vargas moves to the left a bit to get support in 1945 military wants him to resign→sent to exile on his ranch

-resigns →general close to him wins→runs again and wins

Vargas’s second term problematic

-corruption: palace security chief tried to assassinate a journalist who criticized Vargas, but killed the bodyguard who was in the airforce →military demands he steps down

→committed suicide in 1954

Kubitscheck elected in Brazil

-strong growth

-moves capital to brazilia in the interior

-industrialization grows→automobile production → costs a lot of money

-deficits

Kubitscheck succeeded by Janio Quadros

Launches stabilization policy because the government had a large deficit→ gets criticism only 7 months in office resigns → congress rejects his resignation but later on accepts and his VP took over

-NO ONE LIKES AUSTERITY POLICIES

THE RISE AND FALL OF JOAO GOULART

a contested rise to power

-center leftists-military opposed him →compromised- can be president but has to govern through cabinet accountable to Congress (congress can get rid of his ministers)

-starts campaign to restore power→restored by plebiscite

economic problems: goulart

need for stabilization-Goulart supported the left, so he backed away from those and increased spending

-deficit and inflation increases

-growth decline

-US aid is slowing cause of the leftist leader

-edge on a debt crisis bc cannot pay

a fragmented congress: goulart

his party does not control congress-no solid alliance

wants land reform, nationalize oil refineries, and reform constitution to strengthen him, but cannot do this

-wants to bypass congress through plebiscite

social mobilization and polarization : goulart

polarized between left and right, demonstration in the street, left is getting more power but right has mobilized to stop them

-left begins a campaign to unionize soldiers which the officers hate

-peasants are carrying out acts to seize land and want their land seizures recognized, landlords are fighting off land invasions in the countryside

-in the cities, there are a lot of strikes

Increasing fear of coup from above: Goulart

fear of Goulart becoming dictatorial and arm revolution group or reform his constituion by himself

however he could not because of opposition but not enough to impeach - isolation

military intervenes: goulart

naval mutiny last straw→(center + right wing) overthrow him

-u.s. gov knew about the coup plans and essentially support it by restoring aid to Brazil afterwards

-goulart flees into exile w/in 24 hours of coup

presidency is vacant→military takes over

The military in power

bureaucratic authoritarian regime

-political repression

-sev. diff. leaders which are generals and none of them are elected, but power isn’t as personalized as it was in Chile

-Gov was coalition of military officers, civilian technocrats, and some traditional right-wing politicians

economic growth: military in power- The Brazilian Miracle

from 1967-1964 10% growth per year which is insane

-exports quadrupled, industrial workers doubled

-military regime did pretty well on this part

continued social problems: brazil

low wages

inequality (between regions, so a lot of internal migration (south is much wealthier and was growing faster, also a movement to the interior, which led to the burning of the Amazon

Chile before 1950

-long democratic history

1830-1973 only two interruptions of constitutional rule

• Not full democracy

  • Limited suffrage (women get vote in mid 1900s, illiterates in 1970)

• Great deal of gov intervention in elections during this time, but pretty democratic by all standards

social and economic changes Chile

urbanization industrilization

-depended on copper

-u.s companies gain control of copper-resentment

the three main social groups chile

elites: right wing

-mining an industrial elites

-land owning elites

middle class: centrist

-state workers and private sector

-large middle class from industrialization

working class: emerged from industrialization- leftist

NOT A LOT OF IMMIGRATION

growing labor activism

social security benefits- to diffuse activism

1917-20 repression against anarchist and activists

after 1910 naco syndicate organized strikes

RISE OF LEFT WING PARTIES -COMMUNIST AND SOCIAL PARTY-20TH C

INTENSE PARTY COMP. CHILE 50-1970

DEMOCRATIC AND COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS

NO ONE HAD MORE THAN 25% OF VOTE - HAD TO FORM COALITIONS WHICH WERE WEAK

CENTER PARTIES HELD SWING VOTES

RIGHT WING VICTORIES IN CHILE

GENERAL CARLOS IBANEZ (1942) HAD AUSTERITY MEASURES THAT WERE HATED BY THE LEFT

-JORGE ALESSANDRI IN 1956-RIGHT WING NOT CENTER-31% OF VOTE, ALLENDE GOT 29%, EDUARDO FREI 21% (CENTRIST)

-MADE US NERVOUS

-ALESSANDRI HAD AUSTERITY POLICY, SMALL AGRARIAN REFORM, TRIED TO GET MORE us INVOLVED IN MINING NOT SUCCESFUL

WHEN DID CHILE SWING TO THE CENTER? 1964

• EDUARDO FREI

• Right didn’t believe they had enough support on their own so went with Frei- Christian Democrat

  Exploited fears another Cuba in Chile if Allende is elected

  US supported Frei, CIA contributed more than half of campaign expenses without him knowing

  Won with 56% of vote, but Allende had only improved popularity as well

FREI’S REFORMS (MIDDLE PATH)

PARTIAL OWNERSHIP IN US COPPER COMPANIES TO GET PROFIT FOR CHILE-BUT LARGE PROFITS FOR US=NOT SUCCESFUL

-LAND REFORM: PROVIDES LAND TO 28K PEASANTS BUT NOT AS MUCH AS PROMISED

-POPULAR PARTICIPATION PROGRAM- TRIED OT GET CHRSITIAN DEM PARTY IN THE STUDENT WORKER UNIONS, AND COOPERATIVES THAT THE LEFTISTS HAD LONG HAD ON LOCK

-PEOPLE WANTED MORE RAD. CHANGE SO NOT POPULAR

WHEN DID CHILE SWING LEFT?

1970-ALLENDE WINS

-LEFT (SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST ALLIANCE)

US DID NOT SUPPORT CANDIDATE BC DID NOT KNOW IF RIGHT OR CENTER WOULD BE MORE POP. SO THEY GO OUT AGAINST ALLENDE

ALLENDE WINS 36%, ALESSANDRI 35%, CD GETS 28%

under Chilean constitution, if any candidate receives under 50% of the

vote, the Chilean congress must certify the winner of the election

○ CIA tries to persuade Chilean congressmen to not vote for Allende

through bribes and causing financial panic in Chile. None of these

plans worked

○ CIA also got involved in unconstitutional plans such as funding a

military coup. The coup plotters tried kidnap Schneider because he was

the leader of the military

■ Schneider resists so he is shot and killed. This upset Chileans

very much and actually created more support for Allende, the

opposite of what the US want

The Allende gov. - revolution by legal means

-this rev. does not fit the class definition for a revolution-bc it was through democratic means

-wanted socialism of red wine and empanadas that fit Chile’s needs and goals

-freezes prices and raises wages to give workers more purchasing power, leads to short-term income distribution but then leads to shortages when sellers won’t sell at gov mandated prices

-nationalized copper companies, super popular in Chile, but don’t provide compensation because of the illegally high copper profit made by the US

-Nationalized coal and steel and private banks as well

US cuts off investments in Chile and all loans

-peasant land occupation

-leads to rising concern about property rights

-Allende finds opposition in Congress and can’t submit any constitutional changes, wants a plebiscite but doesn’t have time

1972 Chile had growing economic problems

-reform but also the US making things difficult on an international level

-people selling their goods really high on the black market, and there is sabotage by enemies of Allende

-people didn’t invest because of fears of property rights (land occupations and nationalizing stuff)

-major trade deficit because not producing

What did the US try to do to undermine Allende?

Spent 7 million to undermine Allende through campaigns and funding opp.

Political Difficulties- Allende

The far left was pushing for radical action like land occupation, but moderates like the communist thought significant change would cause a coup

-still did better in the March 1973 elections than the March 1970, but still had a majority of seats in the legislature

-Christian democrats didn’t support Allende

-The middle class was starting to go against him too

-Opposition lacked 2/3 needed to impeach Allende

How did presidentialism worsen the Crisis?

Arturo Valenzuela argues that the Chilean Crisis would have been solved more efficiently with parliamentary system

-Executive and leg. elected sep. in presidential system, but in parliamentary system the PM has to form a GOV where they are in the majority so they have more support

-in the presidential system, pres has a fixed term and only way to get rid of him is major vote, but in parliamentary system, you just need to lose a key vote for the gov to fall

-this encourages the military to step in to solve the issue

rising social instability-ALLENDE

opposition was carrying out protests and terrorist attacks, but the supporters of Allende did the same thing

-opposition was a genuine concern and was funded by the US

Military coup in Chile

Commander in chief of army and minister of defense Carlos praaat resigns from pressure and is replaced by General Augusto Pinochet who is believed to be a strict constitutionalist

-coup begins, navy seizes port, airforce bombs presidential palace

-way out of pocket for Chilean history

-Allende commits suicide instead of being captured

-most violent coup in history of South America, so many executions, Caravan of death which is military officers that would take Allende supporters out of jail so they could execute them

Pinochet regime- repressive regime

Highly authoritarian, closed legislature, took control of universities, banned some political parties, and banned some labor unions. CDP thought the coup would end but it didn’t

widespread human right violations that even extend to other countries to try and get everyone who fled

Personalist rule - pinochet

Wasn’t bureaucratic authoritarian regime

he rose to top of military regime and made himself president

Did Pinochet last in power?

No miliary officer had lasted so long in power in the post war era

How did Pinochet consolidate power?

-used carrot and stick

-controlled information, he was the only one who knew what was going on, boosted military expenditure to get support, forced anyone against jim to retire including head of police

-rotated generals so they wouldnt gain support

DINA: DID ALL THE HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATIONS→watched opposition and other members of military

Took advantage of the disciplined constitutionalist nature of history

-there wasn’t any history of intervention, so he used that for himself

What was Pinochet’s base of support?

-military, political rights, catholic groups, business associations, conservative intellectuals , and technocrats

The Chicago Boys-technocrats-trained at the University of Chicago in economic

-returned to Chile to become professors-insulated them from political pressure→ did all the liberal plans they wanted

-intense free market reform

Neoliberal reforms

-privatized state-owned companies, social security, healthcare, vouchers in the education system

removed barriers to foreign trade and investments

deregulated the economy

social policy reforms

the effect of neoliberal reform -pinichet

brought down inflation→generated economic growth

-reduced wages and worsened income distribution in Chile

-consolidated Pinochet support from right, elite, and business class- in the beginning even had middle class

-gave him the popularity for new constitution in 1980 that allowed him to rule till 1990

What were the Huntington waves of democratization?

1st wave: 1828-1926

critics say this is too long of a period to be a wave

-29 democracies in the world which represented nearly half of independent countries

-followed by backsliding and democracies fall

What were the Huntington waves of democratization?

second wave: 1943-1962

by 1932 there are only 12 democracies because of backsliding and repression

-more democracies, but now that there are more independent countries it’s only a 1/3 of all countries

by 1973 only 30democracies instead of maybe 39

What were the Huntington waves of democratization?

Third wave starts in 1974

-this is LATAM

-virtually all LA countries become democratic now (there a lot of backsliding, but it happened)

by 1990, 59 countries are democratic which is almost half of all nations

-debate over whether third wave has continued or if we are in period of backslide now

-depends on what countries count as dem.

what is democracy?

free and fair elections

-equal playing field for candidates, access to media, no favoring by electorate system, are certain candidates barred from running

never truly fair due to money and access to media

electoral system always favors certainn candidates

-in the US, senate favors rural states

-opposition often discriminated against by making it very hard to get on the ballot or tilting the electoral system

Levels of inclusion in elections -can all adult citizens vote

-some argue that the results of elections matter-

democracy only comes with alteration of power, and the ruling party cedes power

-not enough for democracy

what is a democracy

civil liberties:

other necessary side of dem

-speech assembly, media: need free speech and information to have free politics

what is democracy?

horizontal accountability:

other argue that this is part of dem.

ability of one branch of gov to check the power of another

-checks and balances

what is a democracy?

eliminating authoritarian enclaves

-specific area of the country that isn’t democratic

-rule of law throughout entire state and spheres of influence

-others say this is just a feature of a strong democracy

what is a dem?

• Rule of Law

  • Consistent application of law to everyone

• People can’t agree on a metric for democracy

• Democracy with adjectives

  • Disagreements on what constitutes democracy has led to qualifying adjectives to include countries as democratic (semi, partial, etc)

economic factors and democracy

probalistic relationship with factors of democracy, the theories cant hold 100% of the time

• development and Democracy: Modernization Theory and its Critics

  • Probably most widely accepted theory of democracy

  • Posits Relationship between economic development and democracy

    • As countries develop, more likely to be democratic

    • Lots of studies show that this is true in general 

    • Less agreement on why this is the case and wheter the relationship is causal or just a correlation

  • Others argue that with development comes the strengthening of the landed elites which puts the peasants down

    • They were an obstacle to democracy, and development strengthened bourgeoisie so the opposition led to democracy

  • Others argue development strengthened urban force that now is demanding democracy

  • Others argue that development leads to education which leads to democracy

modernization theory critics

• Exceptions like Singapore and Saudi Arabia who are developed but not democratic

• Botswana and India aren’t too developed but they’re democratic

• Modernization fans say this is just a general theory and it can have exception

• Other critics say the economic development doesn’t cause democracy but it sustains it

  • I like this one the best

inequality and democracy

• Inequality inhibits democracy is the claim

  • Economic inequality leads to political radicalism and guerrilla movements which leads to violence and oppression on both ends

  • Some scholars argue that where there are high levels of inequality, elites don’t want to democratize cause they have so much to lose 

• However there are a lot of highly unequal democracies

  • Like the US

economic openness and democracy

• Idea is that elites are less likely to resist democracy if they know they can avoid taxation by shifting their wealth overseas

  • As long as economy is open, you can get your money out of the country and it helps with winning the elites

• Economic liberalization is good because takes away resources for authoritarian govs who would have taken control of economy to keep themselves in power

• Political freedom goes with economic freedom: comes with decentralization

• Critics:

  • Economic liberalization can actually destabilize democracy through protest and hardships

Natural Resources and Democracy

• Theory: natural resource wealth can undermine democracy because it inhibits manufacturing industrialization

  • Oil rich middle east is not usually democratic which they use as evidence

  • When rulers have natural resource wealth, then they don’t need to tax population they just extract that wealth so the population which is not getting taxed might not demand democracy

    • Taxation usually comes with the call for representation 

  • Oil regimes can use revenue to buy patronage and support, or security

• Exceptions: US and Norway

  • Many people suggest correlation between natural resource wealth and authoritarian rule is so various may be other factors like religion

Cultural Values and Democracy

• Some modernization theorists argue development affects democracy not through class structure but by changing social values so that people value democracy more

  • Development leads to more social classes, female participation in the labor force= does that mean changing social values

• Values conducive to Democracy (emancipative values): gender equality over patriarchy, tolerance over conformity, valuing individual autonomy of authority, valuing participation

• Religious authority can undermine democracy if you value it too much

• Critics:

  • Democracy changes cultural values, not the other way around

  • Just because people value democracy doesn’t mean they are gonna get it if the rulers are oppressive

  • Masses having right values doesn’t mean they can achieve democracy

religion and dem.

• They argue religious beliefs are transmitters of social value

  • Protestantism helps foster democracy because it’s associated with individualism, tolerance, pluralism, and civic association

    • Some argue protestant missionaries spread democracy by spreading literacy and civil society/organizations

  • Catholicism is criticized as bad for democracy, Islam too

    • Catholicism is too hierarchical for democarcy

    • Islam leads to suppression of women’s rights which has negative impact on democracy

    • Both religions don’t advocate enough division against church and state

• Critics

  • Look at all the democratic LA countries that are hella Catholic

  • In some countries, Church vocally supported democratic revolutionaries (El Salvador)

  • Only difference is Protestant countries are usually more developed than Catholicism

  • Protestantism associated with slavery, colonial rule, and many Protestant govs fought against democracy

Ethnic Diversity and Democracy

• Ethnic Diversity bad because creates division and ruling ethnic group will undemocratically keep power over other ethnic groups

• In general there isn’t a correlation between ethnic diversity and democracy if you look at the facts

  • In many places, ethnic diversity leads to democracy by creating opposition parties

Civil Society and democracy

• Civil society is non-gov organizations that individuals participate in  (clubs)

• Active civil society is good for democracy because some of the organizations push for democracy, protest, monitor gov, etc

  • They’ve drawn attention to civil rights abuses, lobbied foreign countries, served as watchdog organization

  • Media often counted as civil society

  • Help generate trust between citizens which can help democracy

• Critics

  • Not all civil society is good for democracy: the KKK, fascists, the Nazi party had lots of support from civil society

international factors and democracy

• Fact that there are waves suggest that international factors are big

• International economic conditions and democracy- The Debt Crisis

  • Economic crisis can shake up politics, and authoritarian regimes were in charge at the time so they lost support and power

  • 1930s Debt Crisis helped Latin America, but it hurt some countries

• International Political Factors - the end of the Cold War

  • Cold War was bad for democracy because US and USSR supported authoritarian govs as long as they were allies

  • Undermined democratic govs during Cold War

  • This is why we get so much spread of democracy in the 1980s-90s

    • Guerrilla movements aren’t being supported to same extent, and US isn’t going after communist countries as much

• Diffusion of Democracy

  • Neighboring countries can place pressure on countries to conform either to democracy or revolution or authoritarianism

Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold

• Splits within the Regime

  • Often begins with this

  • Causes: economic crisis, human rights violations, sector or regime wants to give up power, etc

    • Soft liners want to give up power or liberalize, hard liners want to hang onto power and repress

Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold

• Countries will compromise with liberalizing without democratizing

• However, citizens now use rights given to them

• Popular upsurges are strikes, media, protests, vocal asks for change

Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold

• Gov Makes Choice: Repress or democratize?

  • Repression: some countries return to authoritarianism

  • Democratization: if softliners prevail, you see real democratization

Democracies as a Choice: How Transitions Unfold

• Deciding the terms of the transition

  • Elections, who can participate, electoral system, who can vote, political institutions for voting on, role of military in new gov