Electoral Democracy, Liberal Democracy and the Global Recession of Democracy

4,743 views

Published on

Презентація до лекції Ларрі Даймонда "Визначення демократії: виборча, ліберальна демократія, якість демократії", що відбулася в НаУКМА 9 вересня 2013 року у співпраці з Українською школою політичних студій. Ларрі Даймонд розглядає різницю між виборчою та ліберальною демократією та визначає показники оцінки якості демократії. Він також аналізує світові тенденції виборчої і ліберальної демократії та пояснює, чому якість демократії тісно пов'язана зі стабільністю та консолідацією демократії. Ларрі Даймонд є професором Стенфордського університету та старшим науковцем Інституту Гувера. Також він працював в якості радника численних урядових і міжнародних організацій, в тому числі Державного департаменту США, ООН, Світового банку.

Published in: Education, News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,743
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
84
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Electoral Democracy, Liberal Democracy and the Global Recession of Democracy

  1. 1. Electoral Democracy, Liberal Democracy and The Global Recession of Democracy
  2. 2. Themes I. Electoral Democracy II. Liberal Democracy III. The Quality of Democracy IV. The Trends in Democracy V. Why a Recession of Democracy
  3. 3. What is Electoral Democracy?  A system of government at the level of the nation-state  A means for the people (with equal political rights as citizens) to choose their political leaders and (if they wish) to replace their leaders in regular, meaningful, free, and fair elections  Sufficient freedom for elections to be meaningful, free and, fair
  4. 4. Liberal (High-Quality) Democracy 1. Democracy: “Majority rule” Popular sovereignty and control over government Competition, participation, vertical accountability, responsiveness 2. Liberal government: “Minority rights” Freedom, Equality, Civic Culture 3. Republican government: “Good Governance” Rule of law, horizontal accountability, state effectiveness
  5. 5. Components of Liberal (or High-Quality) Democracy 1. Liberty: Extensive freedoms of: • Speech • Press (print and broadcast) • Association • Assembly, and peaceful protest • Movement • Thought and belief • Religion & religious practice • Language, identity, cultural expression
  6. 6. Liberty (Freedom) cont. and freedoms from: • Torture • Warrantless search and seizure • Corrupt demands and impositions • Violence and coercion by state and non-state actors
  7. 7. Liberal Democracy 2: Rule of Law protects rights of citizens, maintains order, & limits power of government • All citizens are equal under the law • No arbitrary arrest, exile, or imprisonment • No one is above the law • Government power is limited; no official may violate these legal and constitutional limits • The courts are independent in structure and in fact
  8. 8. Rule of Law, cont. • Right to know the charges against you, presumption of innocence • Right to a fair, speedy, and public trial by an impartial court • No one may be taxed or prosecuted except by a law established in advance • No one may be subjected to torture or cruel and inhumane treatment
  9. 9. Power is separated and dispersed among multiple, independent branches and institutions of government (checks & balances) • Executive power is limited, constrained and scrutinized by an independent legislature, judiciary, and other institutions Liberal Democracy 3: Horizontal Accountability
  10. 10. Horizontal Accountability, cont. • Independent institutions to monitor & control corruption & abuse of power  Counter-corruption commission  Ombudsman (public complaints comm)  Parliamentary investigative committees  Supreme audit agency (GAO)  Prosecutors and courts  National electoral commission  Central Bank
  11. 11. Liberal Democracy 4: Civilian Control of the Military, Police, and Intelligence • Armed forces are directed by and subordinate to civilian elected officials and their appointees • Elected, civilian commander in chief • Top military command appointments are made or approved by civilians
  12. 12. Civilian Control of the Security Sector, cont. • Budgets of armed forces, intelligence and other state security agencies are reviewed, understood, and approved by civilian executive and legislative authorities • Professional civilian capacity in defense ministry, presidential (or PM) office, and parliamentary committees to supervise military and security agencies
  13. 13. Civilian Control of the Security Sector, cont. • Armed forces and intelligence agencies may not operate domestically except under extraordinary & explicit constitutional circumstances, with close civilian supervision • Armed forces are non-partisan, non-political • Police are professional, depoliticized, and supervised and monitored by democratic, civilian authorities
  14. 14. Liberal Democracy 5, Competitiveness • At least two political parties with significant representation in parliament and a meaningful chance to win control of national government • Low barriers to entry of new political parties • No gerrymandering of electoral districts (independent commission) • Open, fair access to the mass media for all
  15. 15. Competitiveness, cont. • Limited or no use of government resources to reelect ruling party • Virtually no vote buying or other electoral fraud • Balanced access to party and campaign finance  Public funding of parties and campaigns?  Public guarantees of TV & radio air time?  Limits on campaign expenditures? • Over time, electoral alternation (ruling parties lose)
  16. 16. Liberal Democracy 6, Civic Pluralism • Numerous NGOs and interest groups represent a broad range of interests and values in society • NGOs and think tanks monitor the political process, expose abuses, and lobby for political reform • Alternative sources of information: public has access to a variety of sources of information in the mass media, independent of government control. • Very limited government ownership and regulation of the mass media • Independent public broadcasting
  17. 17. Liberal Democracy 7, Vertical Accountability The people hold their agents (public officials) accountable to them Type 1: Electoral Accountability  Party system is sufficiently competitive,  Competition is sufficiently fair,  Voters are sufficiently informed and aware of their interests, So that elected officeholders can be periodically held accountable, and removed for bad performance
  18. 18. Vertical Accountability, cont. Type 2: Societal Accountability • Civil society is sufficiently pluralistic, resourceful, and independent of government, • Mass media are sufficiently independent and professional, • Public is sufficiently vigilant and mobilized, So that unpopular policies & abuses of power can be challenged and reversed.
  19. 19. Liberal Democracy 8: Participation Citizens take an active role in politics & the making of public policies and decisions • High rates of voter turnout • Extensive public interest in and awareness of major issues, government conduct, & party positions on issues • High membership rates & active participation in civil society organizations (CSOs) • Individuals and CSOs petition and lobby government
  20. 20. Liberal Democracy 9: Equality • Citizens have relatively equal political resources, at least in education, organization, and citizenship rights • Women have substantial representation (ideally, one-half) in the cabinet, parliament, and other representative bodies • Economic inequalities are not so severe that they rob large groups of political voice and power
  21. 21. Equality, cont. • Ethnic minorities have representation in parliament, & provincial & local legislatures, in rough proportion to their shares of the population • All citizens are treated equally by government agencies and institutions (including the judiciary), regardless of their class, region, religion, ethnicity, gender, party, or beliefs
  22. 22. Liberal Democracy 10: Responsiveness Government Responds to Citizen Demands and Preferences • Government changes its policies in response to clear, consistent, and fairly deliberated expressions of majority preference • There is substantial correlation over time between government policies and citizen preferences and desires
  23. 23. Responsiveness, cont. • Aggrieved groups of citizens are able to win redress of wrongs and abuses committed by government • Significant manifestations of citizen interest and protest are able to have access to the public agenda, and to be heard by legislative and executive bodies
  24. 24. Liberal Democracy 11, Civic Culture Competing parties and groups are: • Tolerant of opposing views & groups • Law-abiding, & respectful of the constitution • Peaceful, and rejecting of violence • Willing to compromise • Unwilling to coalesce with undemocratic, anti-system actors
  25. 25. Civic Culture, cont. The vast majority of citizens & groups • Believe in the legitimacy of democracy • Are loyal to the constitutional system • Know their rights & obligations as citizens • Respect the outcome of elections • Question but respect authority • Condemn acts of intolerance and violations of constitutional norms
  26. 26. Liberal Democracy 12, State Effectiveness  The state has legitimate authority: It is widely viewed as having the right to make and enforce laws, exercise a monopoly of force, and extract and distribute resources  The state has administrative capacity: A professional, meritocratic, honest, and politically neutral bureaucracy is able to regulate, tax, maintain order, and produce public goods
  27. 27. The Dimensions of Democratic Quality Dimension Type Measures 1. State Effectiveness Good Governance Government Effectiveness (WB) Regulatory Quality (WB) 2. Rule of Law Good Governance Rule of Law (WB) 3. Horizontal Accountability/ Corruption Control Good Governance Control of Corruption (WB) Corruption Perceptions Index (TI) 4. Competition Democratic Procedure Political Rights (FH) Voice and Accountability (WB) 5. Participation Democratic Procedure Political Rights (FH) Voter Turnout Rates 6. Vertical Accountability Democratic Procedure Political Rights (FH) Voice and Accountability (WB) 7. Freedom Democratic Content Political Rights (FH) Civil Liberties (FH) Voice and Accountability (WB) 8. Equality Democratic Content Political Rights (FH) Civil Liberties (FH) Gini Coefficient 9. Responsiveness Democratic Results Public Opinion Surveys
  28. 28. The Global Expansion and Recession of Democracy 1974-2012
  29. 29. The Democratic Boom—The Third Wave of Democratization • In 1974, less than a third of all states were democracies • By 1984, there were 59 democracies (36%) • By 1990 there were 76 (46%) • Then the Berlin Wall came crashing down: – 1991: 88 democracies (48%) – 1995: 112 democracies (58%) – 1999: 118 democracies (61.5%) – 2005: 121 democracies (62.5%)
  30. 30. The Global Expansion of Democracy, 1974-2012  29.1% 33.5% 37.0% 45.7% 58.1% 59.9% 62.5% 60.0% 20.9% 23.6% 26.1% 30.5% 33.0% 35.9% 41.1% 45.6% 15.0% 25.0% 35.0% 45.0% 55.0% 65.0% 75.0% Year Electoral Democracies Liberal Democracies
  31. 31. Expansion of Liberal Democracy About two-thirds of the world’s democracies (77) are reasonably high-quality or “liberal”: • electoral competition is institutionalized, fair, and open, • civil liberties are better protected, • there is a rule of law • there are low levels of political violence and abuses or impunity by state security services.
  32. 32. The Globalization of Democracy  During this period, democracy became a global phenomenon. Today:  28 of 33 Latin Am states are democracies (85%)  17 of 29 in Eastern Europe and FSU (59%)  10 of 25 in Asia (40%) +(10 of 12 Pacific Island)  17 of 49 in Sub-Saharan Africa (35%) (or less?)  Only 3 of 19 in the Middle East
  33. 33. Democracy by Region, January 2013  100 85 63 38 83 37 21 100 67 43 21 75 22 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Eur/Anglo LAC EE+FSU Asia Pacific Is. SS Africa MENA %oftotal Democracy Liberal Democracy
  34. 34. Global Trends in Freedom, 1974-2012 4.47 4.31 4.24 3.85 3.64 3.48 3.22 3.30 3.31 5.05 4.84 4.76 4.35 4.08 3.89 3.61 3.70 3.69 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 Year World Developing World
  35. 35. Regional Trends in Freedom, 1974-2012 6.19 3.81 2.37 1.94 3.70 2.62 2.42 2.39 4.42 4.19 3.86 3.51 5.45 5.36 4.44 4.41 6.50 4.50 5.17 5.17 5.28 5.32 5.50 5.16 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 Year CEE LAC Asia-Pacific SS Africa FSU MENA
  36. 36. The Democratic Recession  The expansion of democracy peaked in 2005 at 62.5% of all states. Since then it has declined from 120 to 117 democracies.  No significant gain in number of democracies in seven years  Seven consecutive years of declining freedom scores, losses outpacing gains.  Significant erosion of democracy in Africa.
  37. 37. Democratic Recession cont.  The rate of democratic breakdown since 1999 has been nearly twice the pace of the preceding 12 years.  30 breakdowns or reversals of democracy since 1999 (More than half of the total during the third wave).  These have come in some large strategic states: • Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Thailand, Ban gladesh, the Philippines, and Kenya.
  38. 38. Ratio of Declines to Gains in Freedom, 1991-2012 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Year
  39. 39. Breakdowns of Democracy (examples) Type of Breakdown Number of Such Breakdowns Percent of all Democracies (171) during Third Wave Countries with dates of democratic breakdown and renewal Breakdown with subsequent return to democracy 29 17.0% India (1975, 1977) Turkey (1980, 1983) Ghana (1981, 2000) Nigeria (1983, 1999) Fiji (1987, 1997) Thailand (1991,1993) Peru (1992, 2001) Lesotho (1994, 2002) Zambia (1996, 2001) Bangladesh (2007, 2008) Philippines (2007, 2010) Thailand (2006, 2011) Niger (2009, 2011) Georgia (2008, 2012)
  40. 40. Breakdowns of Democracy, examples Type of Breakdown Number of Such Break- downs Percent of all Democracies (171) during Third Wave Countries with dates of democratic breakdown and renewal Breakdown with no return to democracy by 2011 27 15.8% Lebanon (1975) Sudan (1989) The Gambia (1994) Pakistan (1999) Fiji (2000) Kyrgyzstan (1998) Russia (2000) Nepal (2002) Nigeria (2003) Venezuela (2005) Kenya (2007) Mauritania (2008) Honduras (2009) Madagascar (2009) Mozambique (2009) Haiti (2010) Burundi (2010) Sri Lanka (2010) Guinea Bissau (2010) Nicaragua (2011) Mali (2012) Maldives (2012) 56 32.7%
  41. 41. Rate of Democratic Breakdown 1974-2011 16.00% 11.72% 19.86% 31.95% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Time Period
  42. 42. Freedom before Democratic Breakdowns 1999- 2011 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 Political Rights Civil Liberties
  43. 43. Other Worrisome Trends  The authoritarian backlash against civil society  Fiscal disarray (weakening of democracy?) in the West
  44. 44. Why Democracy is in Danger 1. Weak Rule of Law  Corruption, abuse of power  Abuse of ind rights, impunity  Violence, criminality, lawlessness 2. Executive abuse of power; weak constraints on executives by constitution, parliament, civil society
  45. 45. Why Democracy is in Danger 2 3. Ethnic & religious divisions 4. Weak & Ineffective Political Institutions (parties, parliaments, systems of horizontal accountability) 5. Poor Economic Performance • Poverty, inequality, injustice BAD GOVERNANCE
  46. 46. Trends In Political Rights, ROL, and Civil Liberties in Africa, 2005-2011 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.48 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Political/Electoral Rights Transparency/Rule of Law Civil Liberties

×