$R92MCSN

The current state of the world
two ends of regime spectrum

Democracy (rule of many) Authoritarianism (rule of
-executives and one)
legislatures are chosen in -no free and fair elections
free, fair, regular elections -no opposition parties and
-elected officials have no effective societal
power of government opposition
-equal right to vote -no civil or political rights
-civil and economic (such as free speech or
liberties freedom of association)
bias for democratization
• Since World War II, social scientists have assumed
that all societies naturally evolve toward
democracy. So they have considered undemocratic
regimes in a ‘transitional’ state toward democracy.
But recent studies around the world suggest that
not all societies are on a path to democracy
--in the last few decades, democracy is no longer

seen as inevitable or intrinsically appealing
Competitive Authoritarianism: the third option
Such regimes are NOT democratic because:
• In such regimes, violations of democratic criteria are both
frequent and serious enough to create an uneven playing
field between government and opposition
• Although elections are regularly held and are generally free
of massive fraud, people who hold state power routinely
abuse state resources, deny opposition adequate media
coverage, harass opposition candidates and their
supporters and in some cases manipulate electoral results
• Members of opposition may be threatened or arrested
• Tax authorities and judiciary intimidate or persecute
opposition (newspapers, independent companies, banks,
etc.)
Examples:
• Africa: Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zimbabwe
• Latin America: Haiti, Peru, Venezuela
• Asia: Singapore, Malaysia, Azerbaijan,
• Europe: Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Albenia,
Belarus, Turkey, Poland
Competitive Authoritarianism is NOT full
authoritarianism, since:
• In competitive authoritarian regimes, even
though democratic institutions are flawed, both
the governments and opposition in such
regimes take them seriously since in such
regimes there exist some arenas of contestation
• In such regimes, typically there are four arenas
of contestation: (i) the electoral arena, (ii) the
legislative arena, (iii) the judicial arena, and (iv)
the media
Arenas of contestation
Elections: the presence of international observers and the
existence of parallel vote-counting procedures limits the
ability of governments to engage in large-scale fraud
Legislatures: Parliaments sometimes can resist or block
authoritarian measures or policies
Judiciary: Combination of international observers and
incomplete control by the executive can give
independently-minded judges an opening
The media: Independent media outlets can play a critical
role in discovering and exposing the abuse of power by
the government
can stable democracies backslide?
• Social scientists for the most part have failed
to predict the collapse of the Soviet bloc
• Is it possible that we are also failing to see that
stable democracies in North America and
Western Europe can deconsolidate and turn
into authoritarian regimes?
Four indicators of deconsolidation of
democracy
a) citizens’ support for the system as a whole
b) the degree to which they support key
institutions of liberal democracy (such as
checks & balances, civil and political liberties)
c) willingness to advance political causes within
the existing political system
d) openness to authoritarian alternatives
a) support for the system as a whole
-72 % of Americans and 55 % of Dutch born

before World War II regard democracy as
‘essential’
-Only 30 % of millennials (people born after
1980) in the US and Netherlands consider
democracy as essential
-In 2011, 24% of American millennials
considered democracy as bad or very bad. 13%
of European youth were of the same opinion
b) support for the key institutions of liberal
democracy
• 41% of Americans born during the 1940’s
regard civil and political institutions as
‘absolutely essential’. Among millennials,
however, this number falls to 32%.
• In Europe, these figures are 45% and 39%
c) willingness to advance political causes:
engagement in politics
• In 1990, 63% of Americans 36 and older
reported that they are interested in
engagement in politics; only 41% of younger
Americans expressed any interest in politics
• 52% of older Europeans expressed interest in
participating in politics, whereas only 38% of
younger Europeans expressed any interest in
politics
d) openness to authoritarian alternatives
• In 1995, only 1 out of 16 Americans believed that

‘rule by the army’ as good or very good; today this
number is 1 out of 6.
• The number of citizens of Western democracies
who favor a ‘strong leader who doesn’t have to
bother with parliament and election’ is rising
among new generations.
• In 1995, 35% of well-off young Americans favor
‘undemocratic’ alternatives. And 17% of upper-
income Europeans favor it.
is democracy deconsolidating?
Not yet but there are reasons to worry:
• Rise of anti-system parties and politicians in
the US and Europe
• Far Right parties gain strength in Germany,
France, Sweden, Greece, Hungary and Poland,
just to name a few.

$R92MCSN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

$R92MCSN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

$R92MCSN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current state of the world

two ends of regime spectrum

--in the last few decades, democracy is no longer

-72 % of Americans and 55 % of Dutch born

• In 1995, only 1 out of 16 Americans believed that

You might also like