Abstract
Previous studies about democracies on a global level have assumed that democratisation occurs when an autocratic regime moves toward becoming a democratic regime. This article recognises an alternative mode to democratic transition: democratisation by state-formation, which occurs when democratic regimes are established in new states as an outcome of state-formation. The article describes how cases of democratisation can be classified according the two modes of democratisation. Furthermore, the classification is applied in illustrative analyses of democratisation on the global level during 1800–2007. The analyses describe how transition and state-formation have affected the global number of democracies. These analyses indicate that both modes of democratisation have empirical relevance and that the classification provides a more complete description of the global development of democracies than previous studies. The main conclusion of this article is therefore a proposal for future studies to include both modes to understand and explain democratisation on the global level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
-
Although the model of waves and reverse waves has been prominent within the research of democratisation, some critics have questioned the assumptions and results that Huntington presents. The criticisms have concerned conceptual issues, methodological aspects, and the identification of waves and reverse waves (Bunce 2000; Doorenspleet 2000, 2005; McFaul 2002; Møller and Skanning 2012).
-
In accordance with the concept of polyarchy (Dahl 1971), we use the term “democratic regime” to refer to high levels of political inclusion and political competition in political systems. An autocratic regime lacks one or both of these qualities.
-
Although democratic institutions in new states may have pre-independence origins or imitate institutions in host-states, political regimes cannot be established before the time of independence. First, pre-independence institutions lack sovereignty and full-authority as the host-state controls or dominates over them. A democratic regime, as all political regimes, is independent from other political regimes (Dahl 1989; Easton 1965). Second, the set of political institutions are uncompleted before independence. For example, political institutions for functions that comes with complete independence (e.g., constitutional control, foreign policy, armed forces, finance policy and monetary issues) are missing before independence (Fabry 2010; Pavković 2007; Wood 1981). Third, as Dahl (1989, 1990), Easton (1965) and Huntington (1968) explain in more detail, the domain of political regime is not established before independence as a distinct unit. For example, issues concerning citizenship in new states are not formalised before independence (Linz and Stepan 1996). In sum, pre-independent institutions constitute not a political regime and can thus not be transformed or transfer into a democratic regime at the time of independence.
-
Studies have not used models of transition only to examine democratisation. Democratic breakdowns have also been regarded as the outcome of transitions (Kapstein and Converse 2008). For example, in his influential study, Linz (1978) determined how democratic regimes break down through processes that are similar to transition processes, in which actors through different phases change the political regime.
-
Democratisation by state-formation should not be confused with issues about state-building. State-building refers not to the formation of a new state; it concerns the creation of new political institution or the strengthening of existing institutions within a state that are already established as an internationally recognized state. State-building is hence about the development of an existing state whereas state-formation is about the birth of a new state (Fukuyama 2004, 2014; Huntington 1968; Mazzuca and Munck 2014; Tilly 2007).
-
Among the cases included in the forthcoming analyses there are some states (e.g., Grenada and Sri Lanka) that established democratic regimes at the time of independence that later were first transformed into an autocratic regime and then back into a democratic regime. There are also cases of new states that have gone through several transitions from and to democracy (e.g., Pakistan, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Suriname). These cases illustrate that both modes of democratisation may be part of the history of a country, but also that some countries that had established democratic regime at the time of independence have only experienced democratic breakdowns and not democratic transitions (e.g., Laos and Somalia).
-
We are not convinced without reservation to use this indicator as a measurement of political inclusion. According to Dahl (1971, 1989, 1998), political inclusion is when adult–both male and female–citizens have the right to participate. A majority of male citizens is far too modest to meet this criterion of political inclusion.
-
Dahl (1998) claims that six institutions are necessary for democratic regimes: (a) elected officials, (b) free, fair, and frequent elections, (c) freedom of expression, (d) alternative sources of information, (e) associational autonomy, and (f) inclusive citizenship.
-
Cases are included in the following analyses, when (sovereign = 1 and democracy = 1). A democratic regime is classified as case of democratisation by state-formation, when (sovereign = 1, democracy = 1, democracy_trans = 0, and democracy_duration = 1). A democratic regime is classified as case of democratisation by democratic transition, when (sovereign = 1, democracy = 1, democracy_trans = 1, and democracy_duration = 1). Based on these two rules, we have manually created a variable that indicates for each country-year observation of democracy if the democratic regime was established by state-formation or democratic transition. The variable has three values: historical case of democracy = 0; democratisation by state-formation = 1; and democratisation by democratic transition = 2. According to the database, there is one case of democracy (USA) that was established before the first year covered by the database. This case is therefore classified as historical case of democracy. There are 208 country-year observations of USA (4.1 % of all country-years observations of democracies).
References
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J.A.: The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 1369–1401 (2001)
Berg-Schlosser, D.: Long waves and conjuctures of democratization. In: Haerpfer, C.W., Bernhagen, P., Inglehart, R.F., Welzel, C. (eds.) democratization, pp. 41–54. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)
Boix, C., Miller, M., Rosato, S.: A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007. Comp. Polit. Stud. 46, 1523–1554 (2013)
Buchanan, A.: Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec. Westview Press, Boulder (1991)
Buchanan, A.: Democracy and secession. In: Moore, M. (ed.) National self-determination and secession, pp. 14–33. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)
Bunce, V.: Comparative democratization: big and bounded generalizations. Comp. Polit. Stud. 33, 703–734 (2000)
Coggins, B.: Friends in high places: international politics and the emergence of states from secessionism. Int. Org. 65, 433–467 (2011)
Cooley, A.: The emerging politics of international rankings and ratings: A framework for analysis. In: Cooley, A., Snyder, J. (eds.) Ranking the world: Grading the states as a tool of global governance, pp. 1–38. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)
Coppedge, M.: Democratization and Research Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Carothers, T.: The end of the transition paradigm. J. Democr. 13, 5–21 (2002)
Dahl, R.A.: Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale University Press, New Haven (1971)
Dahl, R.A.: Democracy and It’s Critics. Yale University, New Haven (1989)
Dahl, R.: A: After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. Yale University Press, New Haven (1990)
Dahl, R.A.: On Democracy. Yale University, New Haven (1998)
Diamond, L.: Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1999)
Doorenspleet, R.: Reassessing the three waves of democratization. World Polit. 52, 384–406 (2000)
Doorenspleet, R.: Democratic Transition: Exploring the Structural Sources of the Forth Wave. Lynne Rinner, Boulder (2005)
Easton, D.: A System Analysis of Political Life. Wiley, New York (1965)
Fabry, M.: Recognizing States: International Society & the Establishment of New States since 1776. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)
Fukuyama, F.: State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (2004)
Fukuyama, F.: Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2014)
Huntington, S.P.: Political Order in Changing Societies. Yale University Press, New Haven (1968)
Huntington, S.P.: The Third Wave: Democratization in The Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (1991)
Jönsson, C., Tägil, S., Törnqvist, G.: Organizing European Space. Sage, London (2000)
Kapstein, E.B., Converse, N.: The Fate of Young Democracies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)
Karl, T.L., Schmitter, P.C.: Modes of transition in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 128, 269–284 (1991)
Lange, M.: Lineages of Despotism and Development: British Colonialism and State Power. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009)
Lehtinen, S.: Demokratins förutsättningar vid staters självständighet: en studie om politiska regimer i nybildade stater. Åbo Akademi Förlag, Åbo (2014)
Linz, J.J.: The Breakdown Of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, & Reequilibration. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1978)
Linz, J.J., Stepan, A.: Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1996)
Mahoney, J.: Colonialism and Postcolonial Development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)
Mainwaring, S.: Transitions to democracy and democratic consolidation: theoretical and comparative issues. In: Mainwaring, S., O´Donnell, G., Valenzuela, S.J. (eds.) Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, pp. 294–341. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1992)
Mainwaring, S., Pérez-Liñán. A.: Democracies and Dictatorships in Latin America: Emergence, Survival, and Fall. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)
Mazzuca, S., Munck, G.L.: State or democracy first? Alternative perspectives on the state-democracy nexus. Democratization 21, 1221–1243 (2014)
McFaul, M.: The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: noncooperative transitions in the postcommunist world. World Polit. 54, 212–244 (2002)
Møller, J., Skanning, S.-E.: Democracy and Democratization in Comparative Perspective: Conceptions, Conjunctures, Causes, and Consequences. Routledge, London (2012)
Moore, M.: Introduction. In: Moore, M. (ed.) National Self-Determination and Secession, pp. 1–13. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)
Munck, G.L.: Measuring Democracy: A Bridge between Scholarship and Politics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (2009)
Munck, G.L., Leffner, C.S.: Modes of transition and democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in comparative Perspective. Comp. Polit. 29, 343–362 (1997)
O´Donnell, G., Schmitter, P.C.: Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1986)
O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P.C, Whitehead, L. (eds.): Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, Vol 4. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1986)
O´Loughlin, J., Ward, M.D., Lofdahl, C.L., Cohen, J.S., Brown, D.S., Reilly, D., Gleditsch, K.S., Shin, M.: The diffusion of democracy. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 88: 545–574 (1998)
Offe, C.: Political institutions and social power: conceptual explorations. In: Shapiro, I., Skowronek, S., Galvin, D. (eds.) Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, pp. 9–71. New York University Press, New York (1996)
Olsson, O.: On the democratic legacy of colonialism. J. Comp. Econ. 37, 534–551 (2009)
Pavković, A.: Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession. Ashgate, Aldershot (2007)
Poggi, G.: The State: Its Nature. Development and Prospects. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1990)
Rokkan, S.: State Formation. Nation-Building and Mass Politics in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)
Rustow, D.A.: Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model. Comp. Polit. 2, 337–363 (1970)
Tilly, C.: Coercion, Capital, and European states, AD 990–1992. Blackwell, Oxford (1992)
Tilly, C.: Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
Weber, M.: Economy and Society. University of California Press, Berkeley (1978)
Wood, J.R.: Secession: a comparative analytical framework. Can. J. Polit Sci. 14, 107–134 (1981)
Young, R.A.: How do peaceful secessions happen? Can. J. Polit Sci. 27, 774–792 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Denk, T., Lehtinen, S. Two modes of democratisation: transition and state-formation. Qual Quant 50, 2331–2346 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0265-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0265-2