1

ASSIGNMENT 2

Do Dahl and Alvarez et al differ on their conceptualization of democracies?

Both offer a minimalist conceptualization of democracy, but differ on 2 counts. Alvarez

et al focus on contestation in their conceptualisation of democracy. Dahl includes

another variable, participation, along with contestation. He also differs on the extent

of contestation: a polyarchy only exists when contestation is high, unlike Alvarez et al,

for whom even low contestation will suffice.

‘Modernization theory’ performs better at predicting democracy for the time

period leading up to the Second World War, than in the post War period. Why?

Lipset argued that modernization caused democracy using a table showing the

relationship between measures of democracy and development. The correlation is

confirmed by various, more sophisticated, methods of analysis. Despite empirical

regularity, convincing theoretical models of the relationship don’t exist. Several

analysts have proposed theories to explain the cause of the correlation; these theories

focus on domestic causes. The problem seems to be this focus, which is appropriate to

explain democracy before WW2, since international economic and political influences

have become increasingly pronounced since.

Most transitions before WW2 were from some form of oligarchy, and involved a

gradual transition from limited to nearly universal suffrage. Post WW2,

democratization has almost always involved a transition to immediate universal

suffrage democracy from colonial or authoritarianism. Modernisation theory has

limited application where it didn’t begin with a capitalist democracy-like regime. Thus,

it has limited application post-WW2.

 2

What are the different types of authoritarian regimes, according to Barbara

Geddes? Rank them according to their resilience and explain the pattern.

The different types of authoritarian regimes are personalist, military, single-party, or

an amalgam of the pure types. According to resilience, lowest to highest, the pure types

can be ranked as follows: military, personal, single party.

Transitions from military rule often begins with splits within the ruling elite. They are

most susceptible to internal disintegration, economic crisis, and threatening factional

splits. Their goal is the survival and efficacy of the military, and so they value the unity

and interests of the military institution over holding office.

Personalist regimes try to hold power. They are mostly immune to internal splits and

thus more resilient than military regimes. Personalist regimes are vulnerable due to

narrow support bases consisting of the few to whom material benefits accrue.

Additionally, they rarely survive the death of the leader.

Single-party distribute benefits to larger proportions of citizens, have few endogenous

sources of instability, and allow greater participation and popular influence. They can

co-opt critics when faced with problems, change leadership when challenged with a

violent overthrow and resilient during economic crisis. They are thus most resilient.

Fareed Zakaria says – ‘constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but

democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism’ (p28, 1997). Explain.

Zakaria proposes that democracies are undergoing illiberal reforms, and the ties

between democracy and liberalism are eroding. To understand the phrase, an

important distinction must be made, that between democracy and liberalism.

Democracy is the process of choosing leaders, it is not concerned with how those

leaders govern the state. It emphasises equality. Liberalism, on the other hand,
 3

promotes liberty over equality. It is concerned with the norms and practices of political

life, and places paramount importance on individual rights.

Constitutional liberalism inevitably fostered democracy. The greater the individual

rights, the more prominent would be the demand for an elected government. However,

once a democracy is established, the values of constitutional liberalism can fade.

Zakaria uses this concept to explain the phenomenon of increasing illiberal

democracies.

A liberal democracy is a democracy with legal protection of individual freedom. It is

perhaps helpful to refer to Dahl’s conceptualisation of democracy. He limits the

definition by introducing the term polyarchy, defining it as a regime with high

contestation and high participation. An illiberal democracy, in the form of corruption,

restriction on speech, censored press, oppression of minorities etc, has rapidly risen.

An illiberal democracy is still a democracy, but one lacking constitutional liberalism.

Is democracy good for human rights?

In theory, democracy is good for human rights. However, in practice, it is not. In its

very definition, a thriving democracy requires that civic rights be respected.

Democracy is arguably the best political system when it comes to protecting the rights

and freedoms of its citizens. There is a chance that these rights may be abused, both

by citizens and by authorities. However, the democratic mechanism includes

procedures to deal with such infractions.

That said, in practice, things often do not work out quite so well. A key element of

democracy is the notion of majority. Successful democracies tend to qualify the central

principle of majority rule in order to protect minority rights. Those who do not give

into this tendency, end up favouring the majority, often even violating the rights and
 4

freedoms of the minority. Both these lines of actions counter a democracies position

as a proponent of human rights and freedoms.

Besides, human rights are often abused and violated by authorities, and corrective

procedures aren’t as strictly followed as they should be. Therefore, even though in

theory democracy is good for human rights, in practice it is not.