POLS 1002 Week 6

Democracy, Autocracy,
and everything in between
“The best a rg u m e n t against
democracy is a five m i n ut e
conversation with t h e
average voter”

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect

or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that
democracy is the worst form of Government
except for all those other forms…”
Winnie
 Recap of Week 5
• State of nature is a hypothetical. What was life like before
society?
o “Nasty, brutish, and short” because system is anarchic (no
overarching authority) and people are naturally individualistic
o Result: constant fear of death, self-help
o Solution: Leviathan! Turn over authority willingly in exchange
for protection from themselves
• Sovereignty:
o Legitimate/final authority within a territory
• Internal evolution: tied to a territory, depersonalisation (“the state” =
abstract entity), indivisibility/absoluteness, relocation of authority to “the
people”)
• External evolution: territorial authority/legitimacy in eyes of external actors,
non-intervention in each others’ internal affairs. Why? All these wars! Peace
of Westphalia was the start of this doctrine.
o Hotly contested, but neither it, not centrality of state in IR, are likely
to change radically soon.
• Many believe it has provided stability
• Bedrock principle in intl law, organisations. But no longer absolute
Democracy
:
Definitions
“No one p r e t e n d s t h a t
democracy is perfect or
all- wise. Indeed it h a s been
said t h a t democracy is t h e
worst form of Government
except for all those o t h e r
forms…”
 Democracy: Plato
• Demos: people +Kratos: rule
– Rule by the people
• Plato (The Republic):
• Letting all people rule would result in mob
rule. Demos implies ‘commoners’ (unedu-
cated, poor) who are prone to
demagoguery
 would give power to tyrant
• Decision-making should be based
on expertise
3| POLS 1002 4
D efinitions
 Democracy: Aristotle
• Aristotle
– The many can sometimes be wiser than the
few.
– Typology of regimes
# of Good (Good Bad (only good
rulers for all) for rulers)
One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Politeia Democracy

– Aristotle thought aristocracy is usually

safest.
3|
Rule by the many usually
POLS 1002
ends in disaster
5
D efinitions
 Democracy: Substantive vs. Procedural

• Problem: Aristotle’s approach defined

democracy by its outcomes.
• Better to define by their
procedures/institutions
– S O many definitions out there
– Dahl emphasises contestation and
participation

3| POLS 1002 6
D efinitions
 Democracy: Dahl

• Democracy is an ideal type of government

where citizens can:
(1)formulate their preferences;
(2)signify their preferences to their
fellow citizens and the government;
and
(3)have their preferences weighed equally
in conduct of government.
Use this def of democracy.

3| POLS 1002 7
D efinitions
 Polyarchy: Dahl
• But no system hits that ideal. Instead, we have
“polyarchies” – which are about as close as we get.
(1) Contestation (competition):
– Government controlled by elected officials
– Officials chosen in free/fair/ frequent elections
– Alternative sources of info free/legally available
(2) Participation (inclusiveness)
- Right to free speech on political matters, to
form parties/interest groups
- All adults have right to vote, run for office

3| POLS 1002 8
D efinitions
 Polyarchy: Some Data
https://www.v-dem.net Polyarchy
index

3| POLS 1002 9
D efinitions
 Polyarchy: Some Data
https://www.v-dem.net Polyarchy
index

3| POLS 1002 10
D efinitions
 Polyarchy: Some Data
https://www.v-dem.net Polyarchy
index

3| POLS 1002 11
D efinitions
 Polyarchy: Some Data
https://www.v-dem.net Polyarchy
index

3| POLS 1002 12
D efinitions
 Polyarchy: Some Data
https://www.v-dem.net Polyarchy
index

3| POLS 1002 13
D efinitions
 ”Types” of Democracy
• Problems:
– Direct democracy is onerous
• I don’t have time/patience/expertise to research all
policies, debate in parliament, write laws. Do you? If yes,
you should run for parliament. If not, you might want a
rep
– Direct democracy can be dangerous
• Citizens are frequently uninformed, intolerant, willing
to sacrifice long-term gain for short-term benefit
• Softer version: direct democracy can be bad for
minorities

4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 14

democracy
 The Voice Referendum
(Or: why direct democracy can be really bad
for minority rights)
• A legitimacy
deficit?

Source: Simon
Jackman
@simonjackman
@aus.social

4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 15

democracy
 (1) Representative D emocracy
• Elect a representative:
o To make policy, be accountable for actions
o Can be replaced @ election if does a poor job
• US Founding Fathers had deep mistrust of masses.
James Madison was certain ‘mob rule’ would
destroy US & reps would better protect peoples’
interests
• But do elites actually represent our interests?
o Voters choose parties based on partisan loyalties;
adjust policy views (even of facts!) to match loyalties
o Elections often turn on things beyond leaders’ control
o Voters don’t set the course of public policy, not
even directly.
• Citizen disengagement
4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 16
democracy
 (2) Liberal
D emocracy
Problem:
• Electionsmajority ruletyranny of majority
o US founding Fathers especially worried about tyranny
of govt. Some worried about suppression by
individuals
o JS Mill had excellent things to say on this problem
gener- ally: much harder to be protected “against the
tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.” Why is it
a problem?
• Democracy says everyone has a right to pursue their
legitimate ends. If the many oppress the few, democracy
dies
• The many are often wrong
4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 17
democracy
 (2) Liberal D emocracy
• Rights
o Inalienable, constitutionally entrenched
o Free speech/religion/assembly, prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishment, protection from bodily
harm
• Checks and balances
o High thresholds to pass or overturn legislation
o Separation of powers: legislative, judicial, executive
• Drawbacks
o Elitist
o Gridlock
o Very few rights can be absolute
4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 18
democracy
 (3) D eliberative
• Problem:D emocracy
o Citizen participation in democratic process has
been suffering for years
o Institutions alone do not promote peoples’ faith
that their interests and values are being defended.

4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 19

democracy
 (3) D eliberative
• D emocracy
Deliberation
o Is what gives democracy legitimacy
o People learn to consider perspectives of others (&
maybe even imagine what it’s like to walk in their
shoes)
o Encourages stronger citizen involvement

• Criticisms:
o Onerous
o Can become divisive or violent
o Best orator doesn’t
nec- essarily mean
”right”
4 | ”Types” of POLS 1002 20
democracy
 Democracy ‘vs’
What?
• Broad consensus that, to be a democracy:
– Must have genuinely competitive elections
– All* citizens can vote and run for office
• Beyond that, disagreement on most things
– Must certain fundamental rights be protected?
– Must there be a robust civil society?
– Must there be rule of law?
– Must there be separation of powers?
• What about countries that don’t have one/all of
these?

*with some age-related

5|constraints
D emocracy vs POLS 1002 21
What?
 Where’s the Dividing Line?

5| D emocracy vs POLS 1002 22

What?
What?
Density
0 .5 1 1.5 2

0
S. Arabia

5| D emocracy vs
Myanmar

https://www.v-dem.net
Uzbekistan

.2
Russia

Ethiopia

Fiji, Malaysia

.4
2021

Ukraine

POLS 1002
Po l a n d
Electoral democracy index Bolivia
.6

Timor-Leste
Israel
.8

USA
Where’s the Dividing Line?

Denmark
23
 Where’s the Dividing Line?
This was a lot easier in
8
1940!

a
6
Density
42
0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Electoral democracy index
https://www.v-dem.net
5| D emocracy vs POLS 1002 24
What?
 Where’s the Dividing Line?
• Over time, many non-democratic countries have adopted
the ‘trappings’ of democracy: nominally democratic
institutions.
• End of Cold War contributed, but already well underway before
then.
• Why? Pressure from within and internationally.
• In some cases, democracy has ’stuck’: “only game in town.”
• Frequently, they had a prior history (e.g., Chile post-1980s)
• Sometimes, democracy “sticks” with no prior history (e.g., Costa
Rica starting in 1950s
• In many other cases, they reside somewhere “in the
middle”
• Only a few countries don’t even bother with electoral ”theatre”
• Almost all countries now hold elections. It’s a spectrum:
- Contestation: is it really possible for anyone to run and win?
- Participation: is it really possible for everyone to vote?
5| D emocracy vs POLS 1002 25
•
What?
 Electoral Autocracies
How to win an election
• Don’t hold an election. You win!
• Stuff ballot boxes
• Get potential opponents dead, jailed
• Restrict entry to office, voting
• Info wars
• Buy votes, literally
• Do other things to curry favour

5| D emocracy vs POLS 1002 26

What?
 Why do nondemocratic regimes survive?
• Tradition. Monarchical regimes rarely topple
• E.g., Saudi Arabia
• Some autocrats are pretty popular
• Gaddafi (? ). Hard to know
• Fidel Castro
• Powerful actors benefit
• Many Chileans, especially rich
conservatives, liked* the Pinochet regime
• They keep citizens happy enough
• Fear/collective action problem
* Or were willing to put up
with
5| D emocracy vs POLS 1002 27
What?
 Why do authoritarian regimes fail?
• Many don’t. The most adept
leaders manage to stay in power
by :
– ‘buying off’ would-be dissidents (can get
expensive)
– providing public goods
– partial, “façade,” democratisation
• Tend to fall as consequence of
– Military defeat
– Miscalculation
– Economic downturn/crisis
– Leader death
5| D emocracy vs POLS 1002 28
What?– Occasionally, public protest