Democratization in the developing state: a review of current challenges and problems
By
Bayan Dotchev
Comparative Political Systems
Richmond, the American International University in London
27th June 2013
Introduction During the 1980s and the 1990s, the world experience a period of democratic progress, times during which authoritarian regimes or political systems based on undisputed segregation came to an end. From the military coupes of Latin America, to the apartheid regime in South Africa and, most important, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, democracy has spread around the world. As successful as these events might have been, democracy is still vulnerable; the main reason behind this situation is the fact that, unlike other forms of governing, democracy cannot be installed by force and maintained without the support of the people. Competitive free elections, combined with gradual institutionalization and the construction of a political system which appraises the universal values of democracy have proven to be challenging to deliver. As mentioned by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “no nation is born a democracy”, but democracy has proven to be the key success factor towards building peace, ensuring economic growth and development, consolidate judicial systems and protect human rights (Current Challenges to Democracy).
This essay sets to discuss the main current challenges and problems that young democratic government are facing. While democracy, as a concept, has been widely analysed by political analysts, the events of the last decade have raised awareness of a potential reversion of democracy towards government which make excess use of authoritarian power. According to Scott and Steele (2011) and the Council on Foreign Relations, democracy is especially more vulnerable in the developing countries. In these cases, lack of security for the people, economic pressure, corruption and inappropriate international support are some of the main challenges which threaten the long-term sustainability of democracy in developing countries.
Challenges for democracy
Scott and Steele (2011) provide a good review of the main problems, some of which are country specific, faced by democracies around the world. However, Khan (2007) argues that there is one challenge which transposes history and borders: time. More precisely, Khan (2007) considers that in the majority of young developing democracies, people are expecting for immediate benefits, which have to be provided by the newly democratic elected governments. While the social expectations are understandable, the people’s lack of a realistic view of when the real benefits of democracy will be felt puts unnecessary pressure on government and threatens continuity of progress. Due to this case, Rakner et al. (2007) consider that first elected democratic governments will inevitably focus more on securing public votes, though either expansive social welfare programmes or unsustainable economic policies, while long-term development will be set as a secondary purpose. This trend has been already seen in Eastern Europe (e.g. Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria or Romania) and in Latin America (e.g. Argentina), where irresponsible public spending programmes, meant to provide short-term benefits to the public, have led to significant economic crisis (Rakner et al., 2007; Kapstein & Converse, 2006).
The link between democracy and economic growth leads to further complications; first of all, the question of whether democracy precedes economic development has been widely debated (Chen, 2007). Several theories have been put forward in this area; on the one hand, modernizationists have advocated for economic growth which leads to democracy (Chen, 2007; Lipset, 1959). Similarly, Huntington (1968) views that economic development leads to political instability, which further provides the conditions for democracy and institutionalization. On contrast, Mesquita and Downs (2005) find that economic development in authoritarian countries, such as China and Vietnam, has shown people that it is possible to benefit from economic growth without the need of democracy. This new trend is seen as a major threat, especially due to the changes in the political environment form Hungary and Russia. Lastly, Siegle et al. (2004,) support the view of “democracy first, development later”, which has been seen in the majority of the former Eastern Bloc countries, including Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic or Romania.
Commonly accepted as the traditional step of democratization and economic development, the findings of Siegle et al. (2004) are challenged by a 2003 study of the Council of Foreign Relations. As part of this study, the Council revealed that globally, between the early 1970s and 2003, both democracies and autocracies have grown at approximately 1.5% per year. Of course, this result is influence by long-term development, but the initial reaction of failure of democracies has to be tempered from the perspective of people’s expectations and timing, as suggested by Khan (2007). Effectively, the growth of young developing economies might have experienced periods of higher economic growth, compared to that of developed economies, but fluctuations and lack of political sustainability tend to erode this advantage.
The recent economic recession has led to the developed of a new and dangerous pattern in young democracies; for instance, Hungary, a country which up to 2008 was named as an example of successful transition from communism to democracy, is currently experiencing a stage of political power centralization in the hands of the prime-minister, which has resorted to changing the country’s constitution in order to gain more executive power, has publically challenged the sustainability of the European Union and even resorted to threats to the country’s judicial system and against the much-needed foreign investors (Democracy in Hungary: Ring the Alarm; Bozoki, 2012). Romania, a country which neighbours Hungary and which has undertaken the same transition from communism to democracy, has also seen the local battle between ruling parties putting pressure on the very own foundation of democracy (Hungary and Romania show up EU's democratic failures).
Perhaps the most dramatic case of democracy reversion is Russia, where Vladimir Putin has been in the position of authoritarian power, as either the country’s President or Prime-Minister, since 2000 (Ryabov, 2008). Prior to Putin’s first election, Russia had been in the right direction of becoming a democracy. However, Putin’s political and economic reforms have created a semi-authoritarian state, where political parties are subject to funding received from the government, regional executives became appointees of the President and oligarchs, which have been promoters of democracy in the 1990s, now preferred to develop exclusive relations with the authorities and use ties to further their own businesses (Ryabov, 2008).
Elsewhere in the world corruption of local authorities is seen as the main threat to democracy. Referring to the development of democracy in Nigeria, Ogundiya (2010) names corruption and pandemic bureaucracy as the main problems for the sustainability of democracy and also for the country’s long-term economic development. In another case, regarding democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Adžanela (2012) considers that „petty/everyday corruption‟ is the main form of corruption pressure for democracy. On contrast, in Nigeria, Ogundiya (2010) views „grand corruption‟ as more significant. International support for democracy development is, surprisingly, also seen as a threat for the developing countries. Molutsi (2009) and Rakner et al. (2007) mention that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Western government have initiated vast programmes of foreign policy and development assistance. Aside from the government, similar pro-democracy support has been offered by both international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This trend led to two main problems; firstly, Regan and Anderson (2002) have found that Western government have acted under the expectation that economic development precedes the installation of democracy. Therefore, privatization of state-owned companies and creation of new opportunities for foreign investors have been set as priorities. Nevertheless, as previously discussed, analysts have yet to conclude upon the effective relationship between democracy and economic development. Second, the significant interference of foreign entities with the politics of developing countries threatens the fundamental democracy right of state sovereignty (Rakner et al., 2007). This has led to criticism and has questioned the real motives for the Western support for democracy development.
Conclusion Despite the fall of authoritarian government of the 1980s and 1990s, democracy is still faced with many challenges. First, unrealistic people’s expectations do not allow for the long-term continuity that the process of institutionalization requires. Second, the unclear relationship between economic growth and democracy installation means that governments of young democracies do not have a specific pattern to implement; also, period of economic downturn have been seen to lead to a reversion of democracy development, as in Hungary and Romania. Third, corruption also has a negative impact on democracy, since it reduces the attractiveness of a country for the attraction of foreign direct investments thus limiting the success of democratic governments. Lastly, too much international interference in the affairs of young democracies has been identified as a potential sovereignty threat.
Bibliography
Adžanela, A. (2012). PETTY CORRUPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS -THE CASE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. Available at: http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/AdzanelaPettyCorruptionBosniaandHerzegovina.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Bozoki, A. (2012). The Crisis of Democracy in Hungary, 2012. Available at: http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2012/02/the-crisis-of-democracy-in-hungary-2012/. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Chen, L. (2007). Development First, Democracy Later? Or Democracy First, Development Later? The Controversy over Development and Democracy. Available at: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/3/8/3/p143832_index.html?phpsessid=8e10le9nemsb6461hbite8vea6. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Council of Foreign Relations. The Relationship between Democracy and Development: Implications for Policy. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/democratization/relationship-between-democracy-development-implications-policy/p5778. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Democracy in Hungary: Ring the Alarm. The Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/12/democracy-hungary. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Hungary and Romania show up EU's democratic failures. Available at: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2381/hungary-and-romania-show-up-eus-democratic-failure. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Huntington, S.P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kapstein, E., Converse, N. (2006). The Economics of Young Democracies: Policies and Performance. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/553/1/MPRA_paper_553.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Khan, M.H. (2007).Special Issue of Democratization: On the State of Democracy, Julio Faundez (ed.) Markets, States and Democracy: Patron-Client Networks and the Case for Democracy in Developing Countries. Department of Economics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Available at: http://www.networkideas.org/featart/feb2007/Markets_States_Democracy.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Lipset, S.M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1951731. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Mesquita, B.B., Downs, G. (2005). Development and Democracy. Foreign Affairs 84(5). Available at: http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2591/Development.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Ogundiya, I.S. (2010). Corruption: The Bane of Democratic Stability in Nigeria. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 2(4). Available at: http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjss/v2-233-241.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Rakner, L., Menocal, A.R., Fritz, V. (2007). Democratisation’s Third Wave and the Challenges of Democratic Deepening: Assessing International Democracy Assistance and Lessons Learned. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/241.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Regan, P.M., Anderson, R.A. (2002). Democracy, Threats and Political Repression in Developing Countries: Are Democracies Internally Less Violent? Available at: https://paf.binghamton.edu/cdp/papers/threats-full.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Ryabov, A. (2008). Obstacles to Democratic Transition in Contemporary Russia. Available at:http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Russia%20and%20Eurasia/211108ryabov_summary.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Scott, J.M., Steele, C.A. (2011). Sponsoring Democracy: The United States and Democracy Aid to the Developing World, 1988–2001. International Studies Quarterly, 55. Available at: http://www.ucdc.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Academic/Courses/V12SB/demostatistical.pdf. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
Siegle, J.T., Weinstein, M.M., Halperin, M.H. (2004). Why Democracies Excel. Foreign Affairs 83(5). Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60097/joseph-t-siegle-michael-m-weinstein-and-morton-h-halperin/why-democracies-excel. [Accessed 25th June 2013]
