Zusammenfassung
In diesem Kapitel wird ein relationales Modell politischer Regime vorgestellt. Es geht davon aus, dass Demokratie vom Aufbau und der Aufrechterhaltung stabiler und kooperativer Beziehungen zwischen vier Hauptakteuren abhängt: (1) der Regierung, (2) der Opposition, (3) den Sicherheitskräften und (4) den Bürger:innen. Übergänge stellen kritische Momente (critical junctures) dar, an denen die Beziehungen zwischen diesen Akteuren neu ausgehandelt und institutionalisiert werden, was zu pfadabhängigen Prozessen demokratischer Entwicklung führt. Das Kapitel stellt theoretische Annahmen vor, wie gewaltfreier Widerstand zu einer demokratischen Konsolidierung führt: erstens durch die Nivellierung des politischen Spielfelds, zweitens durch die Förderung einer demokratischen politischen Kultur und drittens durch die Vermeidung des „prätorianischen Problems“.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Dies bedeutet nicht, dass andere Arten von Akteuren, wie z. B. Wirtschaftseliten oder gesellschaftliche Autoritäten, unwichtig sind. Wir gehen jedoch davon aus, dass ihre Bedeutung von Fall zu Fall sehr unterschiedlich ist, weshalb wir sie zur Reduktion von Komplexität nicht in dieses allgemeine Modell aufnehmen. Aus demselben Grund wird bei der Behandlung der genannten Gruppen als einzelne Akteure die Möglichkeit interner Fraktionsbildung innerhalb jeder Gruppe ausgeblendet.
- 2.
Die Unterschiede zwischen den zitierten Arbeiten sind eher subtil, obwohl die konzeptionelle Unterscheidung zwischen Wettbewerb und Partizipation von Boix et al. (2013) am deutlichsten hervorgehoben wird.
- 3.
Eine dichotome Konzeptualisierung des Regimetyps ist notwendig, damit wir Transitionsereignisse identifizieren können. Eine ausführlichere Diskussion der Vor- und Nachteile dichotomer und kontinuierlicher Ansätze zur Bestimmung von Regimetypen findet sich in Collier und Adcock (1999).
- 4.
Übersetzungen von englischsprachigen Originalzitaten wurden durch die Autor:innen vorgenommen.
- 5.
Der Two-Turnover-Test wurde erstmals von Huntington (1991) vorgeschlagen und ist zugegebenermaßen sehr grob. Schneider weist auf einige der problematischen Klassifizierungen hin, die dieser Ansatz mit sich bringt: „Japan barely met the two-turnover-test in the 1990s, the United States did not meet it until 1840, and Chilean democracy was consolidated in 1970, only shortly before collapsing“ (Schneider, 1995, S. 220). Power und Gasiorowski (1997, S. 132, Fn. 116) argumentieren, dass ein „first-turnover test“ ausreichend sein sollte, insbesondere bei der Analyse von jungen Demokratien in Entwicklungsländern.
- 6.
Dies setzt natürlich die vereinfachende Annahme voraus, dass jede Gruppe in ihrer Bewertung und ihrem Handeln homogen ist. In Wahrheit gibt es in jeder Gruppe Fraktionen und Untergruppen, aber die Berücksichtigung einer solchen Komplexität würde das Modell überfrachten.
- 7.
Wir überprüften auch eine Reihe von Hypothesen aus der bestehenden Literatur, konnten aber kaum Hinweise darauf finden, dass sie über einzelne Fälle hinaus eine systematische kausale Wirkung hatten (siehe Kap. 5).
- 8.
Es ist möglich, dass die kausale Beziehung in beide Richtungen wirkt. Im Gegensatz zu früheren Annahmen (Almond & Verba, 1963) kommt die neuere Forschung zu dem Schluss, dass eine demokratische politische Kultur oft schon vorhanden ist, wenn die demokratische Transition stattfindet. So argumentieren Welzel und Inglehart, dass in Ländern des ehemaligen Ostblocks wie Polen, Ungarn und Estland eine hohe intrinsische Unterstützung für die Demokratie bereits vor der Transition zur Demokratie vorhanden war. Sie argumentieren, dass demokratische Werte innerhalb der Bevölkerung die Demokratisierung ermöglichten und nicht umgekehrt (Welzel & Inglehart, 2009, S. 138).
Literatur
Abduljalil, Y. (2015). Killing the Rose but Not the Spring. In A. Al Saleh (Hrsg.), Voices of the Arab Spring: Personal stories from the Arab revolutions (S. 175–180). Columbia University Press.
Ackerman, P., & Karatnycky, A. (2005). How freedom is won: From civic resistance to durable democracy. Freedom House.
Adler, G., & Webster, E. (1995). Challenging transition theory: The labor movement, radical reform, and transition to democracy in South Africa. Politics & Society, 23(1), 75–106.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
Barma, N. H. (2016). The peacebuilding puzzle: Political order in post-conflict states. Cambridge University Press.
Bayer, M. (2018). The democratizing effect of nonviolent resistance: How nonviolent resistance featured democratic consolidation in Benin (Working Paper Vol. 3). Swisspeace.
Bayer, M., Bethke, F. S., & Lambach, D. (2016). The democratic dividend of nonviolent resistance. Journal of Peace Research, 53(6), 758–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316658090
Beetham, D. (1994). Conditions for democratic consolidation. Review of African Political Economy, 21(60), 157–172.
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Complex causal relations and case study methods: The example of path dependence. Political Analysis, 14(3), 250–267.
Bermeo, N. (2003). Ordinary people in extraordinary times: The citizenry and the breakdown of democracy. Princeton University Press.
Bethke, F. S. (2017). Nonviolent resistance and peaceful turnover of power. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 23(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2017-0022
Bethke, F. S., & Pinckney, J. (2019). Non-violent resistance and the quality of democracy. Conflict Management and Peace Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894219855918
de la Boétie, E. (1975/1576). The politics of obedience: The discourse of voluntary servitude. Free Life Editions.
Boix, C., Miller, M., & Rosato, S. (2013). A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1523–1554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012463905
Burton, M., Gunther, R., & Higley, J. (1991). Introduction: Elite transformations and democratic regimes. In J. Higley & R. Gunther (Hrsg.), Elites and democratic consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe (S. 1–38). Cambridge University Press.
Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341–369.
Carter, A., Hoggett, D., & Roberts, A. (1970). Non-violent action: A selected bibliography. Housmans.
Cervellati, M., Fortunato, P., & Sunde, U. (2014). Violence during democratization and the quality of democratic institutions. European Economic Review, 66, 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2013.12.001
Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143(1–2), 67–101.
Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.
Collier, D., & Adcock, R. (1999). Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 537–565.
Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). shaping the political arena. Princeton University Press.
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2015). V-dem codebook v5. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Croissant, A., Kuehn, D., & Eschenauer, T. (2018). The “dictator’s endgame”: Explaining military behavior in nonviolent anti-incumbent mass protests. Democracy and Security, 14(2), 174–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17419166.2017.1423471
della Porta, D. (2014). Mobilizing for democracy: Comparing 1989 and 2011. Oxford University Press.
della Porta, D. (2016). Where did the revolution go? Contentious politics and the quality of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Dorman, S. R. (2006). Post-liberation politics in Africa: Examining the political legacy of struggle. Third World Quarterly, 27(6), 1085–1101.
Dudouet, V. (2008). Nonviolent resistance and conflict transformation in power asymmetries. In Berghof handbook for conflict transformation. Berghof Foundation.
Encarnación, O. G. (2000). Beyond transitions: The politics of democratic consolidation. Comparative Politics, 32(4), 479–498.
Fearon, J. D. (2011). Self-enforcing democracy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1661–1708. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr038
Finer, S. E. (2009). Men on horseback. Transaction Publishers.
Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. Sage.
Gasiorowski, M. J., & Power, T. J. (1998). The structural determinants of democratic consolidation: Evidence from the third world. Comparative Political Studies, 31(6), 740–771.
Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331.
Gerschewski, J. (2013). The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization, 20(1), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738860
Göbel, C. (2011). Authoritarian consolidation. European Political Science, 10(2), 176–190.
Grodsky, B. K. (2012). Social movements and the new state: The fate of pro-democracy organizations when democracy is won. Stanford University Press.
Guo, S., & Stradiotto, G. A. (2014). Democratic transitions: Modes and outcomes. Routledge.
Hagopian, F. (1990). “Democracy by undemocratic means”?: Elites, political pacts, and regime transition in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 23(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414090023002001
Helvey, R. L. (2004). On strategic nonviolent conflict: Thinking about the fundamentals. Albert Einstein Institution.
Higley, J., & Burton, M. (1998). Elite settlements and the taming of politics. Government and Opposition, 33(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1998.tb00785.x
Höglund, K. (2009). Electoral violence in conflict-ridden societies: Concepts, causes, and consequences. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21(3), 412–427.
Huntington, S. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. Oxford University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
Johnson, J., & Thyne, C. L. (2018). Squeaky Wheels and Troop Loyalty: How Domestic Protests Influence Coups d’état, 1951–2005. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(3), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002716654742
Karl, T. L. (1990). Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/422302
Khan, M. H. (1995). State failure in weak states: A critique of new institutionalist explanations. In J. Harriss, J. Hunter, & C. M. Lewis (Hrsg.), The new institutional economics and third world development (S. 71–86). Routledge.
Levi, M. (1990). A logic of institutional change. In M. Levi & K. S. Cook (Hrsg.), The limits of rationality (S. 402–418). Chicago University Press.
Linz, J. J. (1978). Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration. In J. J. Linz & A. Stepan (Hrsg.), The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration (S. 14–124). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (Hrsg.). (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes – Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996a). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996b). Toward consolidated democracies. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 14–33.
Lyons, T. (2016). From victorious rebels to strong authoritarian parties: Prospects for post-war democratization. Democratization, 23(6), 1026–1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2016.1168404
Mazumder, S. (2018). The persistent effect of U.S. Civil Rights Protests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 922–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12384
Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340412331304598
Merkel, W. (2010). Systemtransformation: Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung (2. Aufl.). VS.
Munck, G. L., & Leff, C. S. (1997). Modes of transition and democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in comparative perspective. Comparative Politics, 29(3), 343–362.
O’Donnell, G. (1996). Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 34–51.
O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. C., & Whitehead, L. (Hrsg.). (1986). Transition from authoritarian rule: Comparative perspectives. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Page, S. E. (2006). Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1), 87–115.
Perlmutter, A. (1977). The military and politics in modern times: On professionals, praetorians and revolutionary soldiers. Yale University Press.
Perlmutter, A. (1986). The military and politics in modern times: A decade later. Journal of Strategic Studies, 9(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402398608437245
Pinckney, J. (2018). When civil resistance succeeds: Building democracy after popular nonviolent uprisings. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
Power, T. J., & Gasiorowski, M. J. (1997). Institutional design and democratic consolidation in the third world. Comparative Political Studies, 30(2), 123–155.
Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, A. (2005). Democracy as an equilibrium. Public Choice, 123(3–4), 253–273.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press.
Rueschemeyer, D., Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. University of Chicago Press.
Rustow, D. A. (1970). Transition to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 337–363.
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Westview.
Schedler, A. (1998). What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 91–107.
Schedler, A. (2001). Measuring democratic consolidation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02687585
Schimmelfennig, F. (2000). International socialization in the New Europe: Rational action in an institutional environment. European Journal of International Relations, 6(1), 109–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006001005
Schmitter, P. C. (1994). Dangers and dilemmas of democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(2), 57–74.
Schneider, B. R. (1995). Democratic consolidations: Some broad comparisons and sweeping arguments. Latin American Research Review, 30(2), 215–234.
Share, D., & Mainwaring, S. (1984). Transitions through transactions: Democratization in Brazil and Spain. In W. A. Selcher (Hrsg.), Political liberalization in Brazil: Dynamics, dilemmas, and future prospects (S. 175–216). Westview.
Sharp, G. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action (Bde. 3). Porter Sargent.
Sharp, G. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle. Albert Einstein Institution.
Sharp, G. (2008). From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. Albert Einstein Institution.
Siaroff, A. (2008). Comparing political regimes: A thematic introduction to comparative politics. University of Toronto Press.
Skaaning, S.-E. (2006). Political regimes and their changes: A conceptual framework (CDDRL Working Papers) Stanford University, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Soifer, H. D. (2012). The causal logic of critical junctures. Comparative Political Studies, 45(12), 1572–1597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012463902
van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61(5–6), 886–905. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479314
Svolik, M. W. (2015). Which democracies will last? Coups, incumbent takeovers, and the dynamic of democratic consolidation. British Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000550
Ulfelder, J. (2010). Dilemmas of democratic consolidations: A game-theory approach. First Forum Press.
Vinthagen, S. (2015). A theory of nonviolent action: How civil resistance works. Zed Books.
Weingast, B. R. (1997). The political foundations of democracy and the rule of the law. American Political Science Review, 91(2), 245–263.
Welzel, C. (2007). Are levels of democracy affected by mass attitudes? Testing attainment and sustainment effects on democracy. International Political Science Review/Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 28(4), 397–424.
Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. F. (2009). Political culture, mass beliefs and value change. In C. W. Haerpfer, P. Bernhagen, R. F. Inglehart, & C. Welzel (Hrsg.), Democratization (S. 127–144). Oxford University Press.
Zielinski, J. (2002). Translating social cleavages into party systems: The significance of new democracies. World Politics, 54(2), 184–211.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lambach, D., Bayer, M., Bethke, F.S., Dressler, M., Dudouet, V. (2023). Theorie. In: Gewaltfreier Widerstand und demokratische Konsolidierung . Springer VS, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26102-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26102-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26101-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26102-2
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)