T

POL WEEK 7 Notes on Democracy and Authoritarianism (Lecture 2)

Page 1: Course header

  • Code: POL1005S

  • Lecture 2 topic: Democracy and authoritarianism

Page 2: Democracy and authoritarianism

  • Objective: classify countries as types of regime

  • Key terms: “democracy” and “authoritarianism”

  • In future lectures: introduction of hybrid regime types such as “electoral autocracy” and “competitive authoritarianism”

Page 3: A contested concept

  • Democracy meaning remains contested; common thread: political power should serve the interests of the people rather than those who govern

  • Possible roots or references: Athens (historic origin) or not

  • Scholarly perspectives cited:

    • Schumpeter (1950): open competition

    • Dahl (1971): attendant rights and freedoms

    • Huntington (1991): turnover

    • Marxist and other approaches

  • Variants and critiques:

    • “Bourgeois democracy”

    • “Democracy with Chinese characteristics”: Communist Party claims scientific understanding of society to discern the people’s true interests

    • Communitarians (also see deliberative democracy)

    • Utopian traditions sometimes focus on the potential of new technologies

Page 4: History of “democracy” – Western narrative (Athens)

  • Democracy in Athens described as an improvised remedy for a local problem 2,500 years ago

  • Origins linked to struggles between wealthy landowners and poorer families

  • Population snapshot in Athens:

    • Citizens: 30{,}000 (in the city) – male, adults, several generations of descent

    • Slaves: 150{,}000

    • Metics (aliens): 40{,}000

    • Overall: approximately 300{,}000 inhabitants mentioned

  • Institutions and governance:

    • Assembly: all citizens

    • Council: 500 members; continuing executive; sets the agenda for the Assembly; coordinates other public bodies

    • Selection: drawn from territorial units; chairs rotated by lot; terms limited to 24 hours at a time

    • Courts: juries drawn from a panel of 6{,}000 volunteer citizens

  • Note: There were no elections as in modern democracies

Page 5: History of “democracy” -- Pre-colonial Africa

  • Democratic aspects in precolonial African societies:

    • Lineage systems (clans) limited domination by centralized states due to population densities and fluid structures

    • In some centralized kingdoms, there were forums where citizens could challenge royals and bureaucrats

    • Commoner councils provided checks on public administration

    • Those who held power were expected to ensure benefits of state were widely shared; masses had bargaining power (Bates, 1987)

  • Colonial destruction and its impact:

    • Imperial powers used traditional leaders to extract taxes and labor

    • Imposed compliant chiefs or made deals with incumbents

    • Chiefs empowered by colonial occupiers: diverted revenues for themselves, favored kin, established hereditary power, backed by colonial force

Page 6: Key events in recent spread of (Western) liberal democracy

  • American Independence (1760s): democracy term used as an insult by some; founders chose dispersed power, separation of powers, federalism, freedoms and rights; later self-identification as “democrats”

  • French Revolution: overthrow of absolute monarchy; democracy language linked to political struggle

  • After 1789: concept of democrats persists; 19th century developments linked to:

    • Industrial capitalism

    • Warfare

    • Mass literacy

  • Gradual concessions by political elites:

    • Legislative elections

    • Wider franchise

    • Freedom of vote

    • Executive accountability

Page 7: Waves of democracy

  • Samuel Huntington: Democracy's third wave (1991)

  • First wave (1828–1926):

    • Countries: USA, Britain, France, Italy, Argentina, British overseas dominions

    • Total democracies by 1918: 29

    • Subsequent reversals in: Italy, Germany, Argentina

  • Second wave (1943–1962):

    • Countries: West Germany, Italy, Japan, India, Israel

    • Democracies by 1962: 36

    • Reversals in: Brazil, Argentina, Chile

  • Third wave (1974–):

    • Portugal & Spain; Latin America; Asia (e.g., Taiwan, South Korea); Africa; Eastern Europe (post-Soviet states)

  • Huntington also notes a further wave including South America

Page 8: Binary idea dominated comparative politics

  • Democracy defined as a system in which parties lose elections

  • Core features typically cited:

    • Elections are regular and competitive and change occupants of legislatures and executive offices

    • Elections are free and fair (various compliance criteria)

    • Constitutional protections of key human rights (freedom of speech, press freedom, freedom of association)

    • Participation: citizens can express preferences between elections on particular issues

    • Consolidation: turnover has occurred historically and polity remains stable across regimes

Page 9: Authoritarian alternatives

  • “Authoritarian rule” as a catch-all term for non-democracies include:

    • Autocracy, tyranny, dictatorship

    • Hereditary absolute monarchy

    • Oligarchy

    • Theocracy

  • 20th century as a predominantly authoritarian era; key regimes:

    • Fascism (Nazi Germany, Italy): state nationalist, corporatist projects; intolerance of opposition; emphasis on the nation

    • Communism (Soviet, Chinese, others): party scientific consciousness; state takes over economic function from capitalism; intolerance of opposition; emphasis on rapid industrialisation and war economy

  • Totalitarian regimes seeking total control; ideological debate prioritized over analysis

  • Military rule: widespread 20th-century phenomenon; coups; limited state penetration; militaries’ capacity to seize institutions

Page 10: Democracy’s strengths

  • Provides an outlet for dissent

  • Capacity to adapt

  • Deters state capture by oligarchs or tyrants; accountability reduces corruption

  • Dignity: quote example illustrating popular empowerment (Financial Times, 21 December 2004; Nadia Berezovska, Ukrainian postmistress, Kiev crowd demanding fresh election)

  • Deters arbitrary and brutal rule

  • Moderate government (potential weakness)

  • Stable relationship with modern capitalist economy (also a potential weakness)

Page 11: Democracy’s weaknesses

  • Lobbies and interest group power

  • Tough reforms evaded to avoid unpopularity

  • Increases consumption rather than investment (elections and interest groups)

  • Democracy may hinder development

  • Does not preclude systematic inequality

  • Mobilisation of emotions ( nationalism, racism, xenophobia )

  • Vulnerability to manipulation and rigging

  • Citizens do not really rule themselves; appears to be an illusion

  • Poor leadership choices – but remediable (no “bad emperor problem”)

Page 12: One key: citizens do not really rule

  • Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679):

    • Idea of the modern state emerges during religious wars; threat is horizontal (between groups) rather than vertical (between rulers and subjects); state as a common structure of authority distinct from rulers or subjects

  • Benjamin Constant (1767–1830):

    • ‘Liberty of the ancients’ = collective agency of the citizen body

    • ‘Liberty of the moderns’ = freedom to do whatever individuals choose, protected by rights

  • Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950):

    • Citizens are ignorant; politics involves competition between teams of politicians for the vote

    • Victors win the opportunity to govern; governance becomes a “rule of the politician” and a transfer of power to professional rulers

Page 1: Course header

  • Code: POL1005S

  • Lecture 2 topic: Democracy and authoritarianism

Page 2: Democracy and authoritarianism

  • Objective: To understand and apply criteria to classify countries according to their regime types, distinguishing between democratic and authoritarian systems.

  • Key terms: “democracy” and “authoritarianism” serve as foundational concepts for analyzing political systems.

  • In future lectures: We will delve into more nuanced and complex hybrid regime types, such as “electoral autocracy” and “competitive authoritarianism,” which combine elements of both democracy and authoritarianism.

Page 3: A contested concept

  • Democracy meaning remains contested; however, a common thread across various interpretations is the fundamental belief that political power should serve the collective interests of the people rather than solely those who govern.

  • Possible roots or references: While often a historical reference, the democracy in Athens (historic origin) serves as one potential (though debated) origin point for the concept, or it can be viewed as an independent development.

  • Scholarly perspectives cited:

    • Schumpeter (1950): Emphasized democracy as a method where individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote, focusing on open competition among political elites rather than direct popular rule.

    • Dahl (1971): Introduced the concept of “polyarchy,” defining democracy not only by elections but by attendant rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and inclusive citizenship, that enable effective participation and contestation.

    • Huntington (1991): Defined democracy largely by the occurrence of periodic competitive elections with genuine turnover of power, often focusing on the procedural aspect of electing and replacing government officials.

    • Marxist and other approaches: Critiques often argue that liberal democracy, particularly its capitalist form, is insufficient to achieve true equality or popular rule, viewing it as a system that perpetuates class divisions.

  • Variants and critiques:

    • “Bourgeois democracy”: A Marxist critique suggesting that liberal democracies primarily serve the interests of the capitalist class, maintaining economic inequality despite political freedoms.

    • “Democracy with Chinese characteristics”: A term used by the Communist Party of China to describe its political system, claiming to represent the people's will through a scientific understanding of society and long-term planning by a single party, rather than through multi-party elections.

    • Communitarians (also see deliberative democracy): These perspectives emphasize the importance of community, shared values, and collective deliberation in democratic decision-making, often contrasting with individualistic liberal democratic models.

    • Utopian traditions sometimes focus on the potential of new technologies: Exploring how technological advancements could enable more direct, participatory, or efficient forms of democracy.

Page 4: History of “democracy” – Western narrative (Athens)

  • Democracy in Athens described as an improvised remedy for a local problem 2,500 years ago, specifically arising from social and economic tensions.

  • Origins linked to struggles between wealthy landowners and poorer families, particularly regarding debt and political exclusion, leading to reforms aimed at broader participation.

  • Population snapshot in Athens (excluding surrounding territories):

    • Citizens: Approximately 30{,}000 (male, adult, several generations of Athenian descent, constituting the politically active population).

    • Slaves: About 150{,}000 (a significant portion of the population with no political rights or freedoms).

    • Metics (aliens): Roughly 40{,}000 (resident foreigners, often engaged in trade, who also lacked political rights).

    • Overall: The total population was often cited as approximately 300{,}000 inhabitants, highlighting the highly exclusive nature of Athenian citizenship.

  • Institutions and governance:

    • Assembly (Ekklesia): Comprised all eligible citizens, meeting regularly to debate and vote on laws, foreign policy, and other major decisions, demonstrating direct participation.

    • Council (Boule): A body of 500 members ( 50 from each of the 10 tribes); it served as a continuing executive, preparing legislation for the Assembly and overseeing various public bodies, setting the agenda for popular debate.

    • Selection: Members for the Council and some other offices were drawn from territorial units (demes) primarily by lot, reflecting an egalitarian belief that all citizens were capable of governing. Chairs were rotated by lot, and terms were strictly limited (e.g., 24 hours for the chair of the Council) to prevent accumulation of power.

    • Courts (heliaia): Juries were drawn from a large panel of 6{,}000 volunteer citizens (jurors were paid), providing a mechanism for legal resolution and accountability for public officials.

  • Note: There were no elections as in modern democracies; instead, selection by lot (sortition) was prevalent for many offices, demonstrating a different conception of political representation and participation.

Page 5: History of “democracy” -- Pre-colonial Africa

  • Democratic aspects in precolonial African societies:

    • Lineage systems (clans) limited domination by centralized states due to population densities and fluid structures, allowing for decentralized decision-making and checks on power.

    • In some centralized kingdoms, there were established forums where citizens could openly challenge royals and bureaucrats through public discourse and collective action, providing avenues for accountability.

    • Commoner councils provided crucial checks on public administration, ensuring that power was not concentrated solely in the hands of hereditary rulers or elites.

    • Those who held power were expected to ensure benefits of the state were widely shared among the populace; the masses often had significant bargaining power (Bates, 1987) to demand equitable distribution of resources or reject unpopular mandates.

  • Colonial destruction and its impact:

    • Imperial powers frequently manipulated and used traditional leaders to facilitate the extraction of taxes and labor, thereby subverting pre-existing communal governance structures.

    • They imposed compliant chiefs or made strategic deals with incumbent leaders, transforming their roles from community representatives to agents of colonial authority.

    • Chiefs empowered by colonial occupiers often diverted revenues for themselves, favored their own kin groups, established hereditary power where it hadn't existed, and were backed by overwhelming colonial force, leading to the erosion of indigenous democratic practices and accountability mechanisms.

Page 6: Key events in recent spread of (Western) liberal democracy

  • American Independence (1760s): During this period, the term “democracy” was often used as an insult, associated with mob rule. The founders, fearing excessive popular power, chose a system with dispersed power, separation of powers, federalism, and robust freedoms and rights. However, the nation later evolved to self-identify as “democrats,” embracing the term for its republican values.

  • French Revolution: This seminal event involved the overthrow of an absolute monarchy and was characterized by profound political struggle. The language of democracy became intrinsically linked to the revolutionary ideals of popular sovereignty, liberty, and equality.

  • After 1789: The concept of democrats persisted and gained momentum. The 19th-century developments that further fueled the spread of democratic ideas were linked to:

    • Industrial capitalism: Which created new social classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat) demanding political representation and rights.

    • Warfare: Large-scale conflicts often required mass mobilization, leading to demands for greater political inclusion in return for sacrifice.

    • Mass literacy: The spread of education empowered citizens with information and critical thinking skills, fostering demands for participation.

  • Gradual concessions by political elites:

    • Legislative elections: The introduction of elections for parliamentary bodies, allowing citizens to choose their representatives.

    • Wider franchise: The progressive extension of voting rights beyond narrow elites, eventually including propertyless men, and later women, leading to universal suffrage.

    • Freedom of vote: Ensuring that citizens could cast their ballots without coercion or undue influence, through secret ballots and protection from intimidation.

    • Executive accountability: Mechanisms such as parliamentary no-confidence votes or impeachments ensuring that the executive branch was answerable to the elected legislature or the people.

Page 7: Waves of democracy

  • Samuel Huntington: His influential work, “Democracy's Third Wave” (1991), identified distinct periods of democratic expansion globally.

  • First wave (1828–1926): Characterized by the gradual establishment of electoral democracies in

    • Countries: USA, Britain, France, Italy, Argentina, and British overseas dominions (e.g., Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

    • Total democracies by 1918: Reached an estimated high of 29 countries.

    • Subsequent reversals in: Italy (with the rise of fascism), Germany (Weimar Republic's collapse), Argentina (military coups).

  • Second wave (1943–1962):

    • Countries: Emerging after World War II, including West Germany, Italy, Japan (all under Allied influence), India (post-independence), Israel.

    • Democracies by 1962: Peaked at 36 nations.

    • Reversals in: Brazil, Argentina, Chile (experiencing military takeovers).

  • Third wave (1974–): The most extensive wave, beginning with the democratization of Southern Europe and spreading across various regions.

    • Portugal & Spain: Transitioned from authoritarian rule following dictatorship.

    • Latin America: Saw a widespread shift from military dictatorships to electoral democracies.

    • Asia: Significant transitions in countries like Taiwan and South Korea.

    • Africa: Experienced democratic openings, particularly in the 1990s.

    • Eastern Europe: Post-Soviet communist states underwent democratization after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

  • Huntington also notes a further wave including South America, often considered an extension or part of the third wave's broader impact.

Page 8: Binary idea dominated comparative politics

  • Democracy defined as a system in which parties lose elections: This seemingly simple definition highlights the crucial element of peaceful and regular transfer of power as a defining characteristic, implying that incumbents can be removed by popular vote.

  • Core features typically cited:

    • Elections are regular and competitive and change occupants of legislatures and executive offices: Meaning elections are held at prescribed intervals, genuinely contested by multiple parties, and can result in a change of who holds power.

    • Elections are free and fair (various compliance criteria): Encompassing aspects like universal adult suffrage, impartial administration of elections, absence of fraud, equal access to media for candidates, and freedom from intimidation for voters.

    • Constitutional protections of key human rights: Safeguarding fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, which are essential for citizens to engage in political discourse and organize opposition.

    • Participation: Citizens are able to express preferences between elections on particular issues, not just at the ballot box, through various means like protests, lobbying, or public consultations.

    • Consolidation: Implies that turnover of power has occurred historically through democratic means, and the polity remains stable even after changes in government, indicating the deep institutionalization of democratic norms.

Page 9: Authoritarian alternatives

  • “Authoritarian rule” as a catch-all term for non-democracies includes a diverse range of political systems:

    • Autocracy: Rule by a single individual with absolute power.

    • Tyranny: Often similar to autocracy but frequently implies oppressive or cruel rule.

    • Dictatorship: A government where absolute power is concentrated in a single person or a small group, often seized by force or sustained without popular consent.

    • Hereditary absolute monarchy: A system where a monarch (king/queen) holds supreme power passed down through family lines, with no constitutional or popular checks.

    • Oligarchy: Rule by a small group of elites, often based on wealth, military power, or family connections.

    • Theocracy: A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god, or where religious law is supreme.

  • 20th century as a predominantly authoritarian era; key regimes prominently featured:

    • Fascism (Nazi Germany, Italy): Characterized by extreme nationalism, corporatist economic projects (state-managed economy), suppression of all opposition, and often expansionist foreign policy, emphasizing the absolute authority of the state and nation over individual rights.

    • Communism (Soviet, Chinese, others): Ideologically driven by a single party's