Waves of democracy

Last updated

In political science, the waves of democracy or waves of democratization are major surges of democracy that have occurred in history. Although the term appears at least as early as 1887, [1] it was popularized by Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University, in his article published in the Journal of Democracy and further expounded in his 1991 book, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century . Democratization waves have been linked to sudden shifts in the distribution of power among the great powers, which created openings and incentives to introduce sweeping domestic reforms. [2] [3]

Contents

Scholars debate the precise number of democratic waves. Huntington describes three waves: the first "slow" wave of the 19th century, a second wave after World War II, and a third wave beginning in the mid-1970s in southern Europe, followed by Latin America and Asia. Though his book does not discuss the collapse of the Soviet bloc, a number of scholars have taken the "Third Wave" to include the democratic transitions of 1989–1991. [4] Other scholars, such as Seva Gunitsky of the University of Toronto, have referred to thirteen waves from the 18th century to the Arab Spring (2011–2012). [5] Scholars have also noted that the appearance of "waves" of democracy largely vanishes when women's suffrage is taken into account. Moreover, some countries change their positions quite dramatically: Switzerland, which is typically included as part of the first wave, did not grant women the right to vote until 1971. [6]

Definition

In his 1991 book, The Third Wave , Huntington defined a democratic wave as "a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite directions during that period of time." (Huntington 1991, 15)

Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán (2014, 70) offer a similar definition: "any historical period during which there is a sustained and significant increase in the proportion of competitive regimes (democracies and semi-democracies)." [7]

Gunitsky (2018) defines a democratic wave as a clustering of attempted or successful democratic transitions, coupled with linkages among the transitions in that cluster. [5]

Huntington's three waves

The three waves of democracy Waves of democracy.png
The three waves of democracy

First wave

The first wave of democracy (1828–1926) began in the early 19th century when suffrage was granted to the majority of white males in the United States ("Jacksonian democracy"). This was followed by France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, and Argentina, and a few others, before 1900. At its peak, after the breakup of the Russian, German, Austrian, and Ottoman empires in 1918, the first wave saw 29 democracies in the world. Reversal began in 1922, when Benito Mussolini rose to power in Italy. The collapse primarily hit newly formed democracies, which could not stand against the aggressive rise of expansionist communist, fascist, and militaristic authoritarian or totalitarian movements that systematically rejected democracy. The nadir of the first wave came in 1942, when the number of democracies in the world dropped to a mere twelve. [8] [9]

Second wave

The second wave began following the Allied victory in World War II, and crested nearly twenty years later, in 1962, with 36 recognised democracies in the world. The second wave ebbed as well at this point, and the total number dropped to thirty democracies between 1962 and the mid-1970s.

Third wave

The third wave began with the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal and the late-1970s Spanish transition to democracy. This was followed by the historic democratic transitions in Latin America in the 1980s, Asia-Pacific countries (Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan) from 1986 to 1988, Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and sub-Saharan Africa, beginning in 1989. The expansion of democracy in some regions was stunning. In Latin America, only Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela were democratic by 1978, and only Cuba and Haiti remained authoritarian by 1995, when the wave had swept across twenty countries. [10]

Huntington points out that three-fourths of the new democracies were Roman Catholic; [11] most Protestant countries already were democratic. He emphasizes the Vatican Council of 1962, which turned the Church from defenders of the old established order into an opponent of totalitarianism. [12]

Countries undergoing or having undergone a transition to democracy during a wave are sometimes subject to democratic backsliding. Political scientists and theorists believe that as of 2003, the third wave had crested and would soon begin to ebb, just as its predecessors did in the first and second waves. [13] In the period immediately following the onset of the "war on terror" after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, some backsliding ensued. How significant or lasting that erosion is remains a subject of debate.[ citation needed ] Third-wave countries, including Portugal, Spain, South Korea, and Taiwan became fully consolidated democracies rather than backsliding. As of 2020, they even had stronger democracies than many counterparts with a much longer history as democratic countries. [14]

Arab Spring

Experts have associated the collapse of several dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa, a phenomenon known as the Arab Spring, with the events that followed the fall of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The similarity between the two phenomena inspired hope for a fourth wave of democratization. However, a few months after the apparent beginning of the transition, most of the Arab political openings closed, causing an inevitable pull-back. In particular in Egypt, the government, controlled by the military, did not facilitate the democratic transition in any way. On the contrary, it strove to silence revolt by arresting peaceful protesters and by trying them in military tribunals.[ citation needed ] A concrete example is provided by the story of Maikel Nabil, an Egyptian blogger convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for "insulting the military establishment". The main causes of the regression and crisis in all the affected countries are attributed to corruption, unemployment, social injustice, and autocratic political systems.

Despite the apparently unsolvable situation, the UN, under the administration of Ban Ki-moon, tried to work as a mediator between the governments and the protesters. Political scholar Larry Diamond has claimed that the role of the United States in the democratic transition of the Arab world was fundamental. [15]

Digital media played a large role in creating favorable conditions for uprisings, helped to publicize key igniting events, and then facilitated those uprisings and their diffusion. But digital media did not do this alone or as suddenly as some observers have claimed. The story of the Arab Spring, according to Howard and Hussain, began over a decade ago as internet access and mobile phones began to diffuse rapidly through North Africa and the Middle East. The citizens that could afford internet access, the wealthy and powerful, mostly, played a huge role in the Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain uprisings. Over time, online criticism of regimes became more public and common, setting the stage for the Arab Spring. Digital media also allowed women and minorities to enter political discussions, and ultimately, the ensuing protests and revolutions as well. [16]

Whether or not the Arab Spring counts as a distinct democratic wave is challenged by scholars on empirical grounds, as Tunisia is the only Arab Spring nation that successfully consolidated into a semi-stable democratic state following its uprising (according to the democracy-evaluating organization Freedom House, as of 2020). [17] Since the accession of Kais Saied to the office of president, Tunisia has seen a decline in the democratic freedoms enjoyed by its citizens. [18]

Post-2019 protests

Since 2019, worldwide protests have energized democracy movements, focusing on racial equality, human rights, freedom, democracy, and social justice.

Other waves

In a 2018 study in Perspectives on Politics , Seva Gunitsky of the University of Toronto identifies thirteen waves of democracy. [5] His main criterion is rejection of absolute rule. By contrast, Huntington used the much narrower criterion of voting rights for the majority of men.

  1. Atlantic Wave (1776–1798)
  2. Latin American wars of independence (1809–1824)
  3. First Constitutional Wave (1820–1821)
  4. Romantic-Nationalist Wave (1830–1831)
  5. Spring of Nations (1848–1849)
  6. Second Constitutional Wave (1905–1912)
  7. Post-WWI Wave (1919–1922)
  8. Post-WWII Wave (1945–1950)
  9. African Decolonization Wave (1956–1968)
  10. Modernization Wave, also known as the "Third" Wave (1974–1988)
  11. Post-Soviet Wave (1989–1992)
  12. Colour revolutions (2000–2007)
  13. Arab Spring (2011–2012)

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy</span> Form of government

Democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state. Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.

In political science, a revolution is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's state, class, ethnic or religious structures. A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel P. Huntington</span> American political scientist and academic (1927–2008)

Samuel Phillips Huntington was an American political scientist, adviser, and academic. He spent more than half a century at Harvard University, where he was director of Harvard's Center for International Affairs and the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratization</span> Society becoming more democratic

Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.

The term "illiberal democracy" describes a governing system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures". There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.

Modernization theory holds that as societies become more economically modernized, wealthier and more educated, their political institutions become increasingly liberal democratic. The "classical" theories of modernization of the 1950s and 1960s, most influentially articulated by Seymour Lipset, drew on sociological analyses of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons. Modernization theory was a dominant paradigm in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, and saw a resurgence after 1991, when Francis Fukuyama wrote about the end of the Cold War as confirmation on modernization theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seymour Martin Lipset</span> American sociologist (1922–2006)

Seymour Martin Lipset was an American sociologist and political scientist. His major work was in the fields of political sociology, trade union organization, social stratification, public opinion, and the sociology of intellectual life. He also wrote extensively about the conditions for democracy in comparative perspective. He was president of both the American Political Science Association (1979–1980) and the American Sociological Association (1992–1993). A socialist in his early life, Lipset later moved to the right, and was considered to be one of the first neoconservatives.

In political science and in international and comparative law and economics, transitology is the study of the process of change from one political regime to another, mainly from authoritarian regimes to democratic ones rooted in conflicting and consensual varieties of economic liberalism.

<i>The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century</i> 1991 book by Samuel p. huntington

The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century is a 1991 book by Samuel P. Huntington which outlines the significance of a third wave of democratization to describe the global trend that has seen more than 60 countries throughout Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa undergo some form of democratic transitions since Portugal's "Carnation Revolution" in 1974.

Democratic consolidation is the process by which a new democracy matures, in a way that it becomes unlikely to revert to authoritarianism without an external shock, and is regarded as the only available system of government within a country. A country can be described as consolidated when the current democratic system becomes “the only game in town”, meaning no one in the country is trying to act outside of the set institutions. This is the case when no significant political group seriously attempts to overthrow the democratic regime, the democratic system is regarded as the most appropriate way to govern by the vast majority of the public, and all political actors are accustomed to the fact that conflicts are resolved through established political and constitutional rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic transition</span> Specific phase in a political system

A democratic transition describes a phase in a countries political system as a result of an ongoing change from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. The process is known as democratisation, political changes moving in a democratic direction. Democratization waves have been linked to sudden shifts in the distribution of power among the great powers, which created openings and incentives to introduce sweeping domestic reforms. Although transitional regimes experience more civil unrest, they may be considered stable in a transitional phase for decades at a time. Since the end of the Cold War transitional regimes have become the most common form of government. Scholarly analysis of the decorative nature of democratic institutions concludes that the opposite democratic backsliding (autocratization), a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of modern hybrid regimes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy promotion</span> Domestic of foreign policy to increase democratic rule

Democracy promotion, also referred to as democracy building, can be domestic policy to increase the quality of already existing democracy or a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international organizations that seek to support the spread of democracy as a system of government. Among the reasons for supporting democracy include the belief that countries with a democratic system of governance are less likely to go to war, are likely to be economically better off and socially more harmonious. In democracy building, the process includes the building and strengthening of democracy, in particular the consolidation of democratic institutions, including courts of law, police forces, and constitutions. Some critics have argued that the United States has used democracy promotion to justify military intervention abroad.

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military. States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy promotion by the United States</span> Overview of democracy promotion by the United States of America

Democracy promotion by the United States aims to encourage governmental and non-governmental actors to pursue political reforms that will lead ultimately to democratic governance.

Anocracy, or semi-democracy, is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements. Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas. Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition. Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.

A hybrid regime is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states. Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic intervention</span>

A democratic intervention is a military intervention by external forces with the aim of assisting democratization of the country where the intervention takes place. Examples include intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democratic intervention has occurred throughout the mid-twentieth century, as evidenced in Japan and Germany after World War II, where democracies were imposed by military intervention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic backsliding</span> National decline in democracy

Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary and repressive. This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especially freedom of expression. Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization.

<i>Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy</i> 2017 non-fiction book by Daniel Ziblatt

Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy is a 2017 non-fiction book by Daniel Ziblatt, published by Cambridge University Press, discussing the growth of democratic countries in 19th and 20th century Europe. Ziblatt's thesis is that in those democracies the conservative parties were often crucial on whether a democracy survives: he analysed both Germany and the United Kingdom. Ziblatt argued that if conservative parties were robust they would assist democracy but if they had weaknesses they would impede democracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic backsliding by country</span>

Democratic backsliding, also known as autocratization, is the decline in democratic qualities of a political regime, the opposite of democratization.

References

  1. Morse, Anson D. (1887). "The Cause of Secession". Political Science Quarterly. 2 (3): 470–493. doi:10.2307/2139185. JSTOR   2139185.
  2. Gunitsky, Seva (2014). "From Shocks to Waves: Hegemonic Transitions and Democratization in the Twentieth Century". International Organization. 68 (3): 561–597. doi:10.1017/S0020818314000113. ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   232254486.
  3. Gunitsky, Seva (2017). Aftershocks. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-17233-0.
  4. Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert R. (2016). "Democratization During the Third Wave". Annual Review of Political Science. 19 (1): 125–144. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-015137 . ISSN   1094-2939.
  5. 1 2 3 Gunitsky, Seva (2018). "Democratic Waves in Historical Perspective". Perspectives on Politics. 16 (3): 634–651. doi:10.1017/S1537592718001044. ISSN   1537-5927. S2CID   149523316.
  6. Paxton, Pamela. (2000). "Women's Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of Operationalization." Studies in Comparative International Development 35(3): 92–111
  7. Mainwaring, Scott; Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal (21 September 2014). Democracies and Dictatorships in Latin America: Emergence, Survival, and Fall. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139047845. ISBN   9780521190015.
  8. Huntington, Third Wave, pp. 17–18.
  9. For a detailed outline history, see Peter Stearns, Encyclopedia of World History (6th ed. 2001), pp. 413–801. For a narrative history, J. A. S. Grenville, A history of the world in the 20th century (1994) pp. 3–254.
  10. Schenoni, Luis and Scott Mainwaring (2019). "Hegemonic Effects and Regime Change in Latin America". Democratization. 26 (2): 269–287. doi:10.1080/13510347.2018.1516754. S2CID   150297685.
  11. In chronological order: Portugal, Spain, nine new democracies in Latin America, Poland and Hungary.
  12. Huntington, "Democracy's Third Wave" (1991) p. 13
  13. Zagorski, Paul W. (2003). "Democratic Breakdown in Paraguay and Venezuela: The Shape of Things to Come for Latin America?". Armed Forces & Society. 30 (1): 87–116. doi:10.1177/0095327X0303000104. S2CID   145056898.
  14. "Democracy Index 2020".
  15. Diamond, Larry (23 May 2011). "A Fourth Wave or False Start?". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 4 March 2016.
  16. Howard, Phillip N. (2013). Democracy's Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring (PDF). Oxford Studies in Digital Politics. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 November 2021. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
  17. "Countries and Territories". Freedom House. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
  18. Ishaan Tharoor (1 March 2023). "The West shrugs as a democracy dies". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 April 2024.

Further reading