Democratization

The process through which a political system becomes

democratic. This raises three questions: what is the meaning of
democracy that is the result of this process? What is the process

that achieves this end? And how is this end to be evaluated?

Democracy may be defined by its inherent nature and by its
empirical conditions. As to its nature, Aristotle defined
democracy as rule by the people (Greek demokratia: demos,
people + -kratia, -cracy), and this idea that in some way the
people govern themselves is still the core meaning of democracy.
But around this idea several related themes have developed that
are now thought integral to what democracy means. One is that
the people govern themselves by regular elections through which
their highest leaders are periodically determined (representative
democracy) or policies governing them are chosen (direct
democracy).

A second is that the right to vote includes virtually all adults. This
is an entirely modern addition. Not so long ago governments
were called democratic that excluded from the franchise all
slaves, women, and free males that did not meet certain
property or literacy requirements. Now it is considered perverse
to call democratic any country so restricting the franchise, as for

example, the South Africa apartheid regime that limited voting to

minority whites.

A third is the acceptance of certain so-called democratic rights,

particularly the right to vote, the right to have one's vote count
equally, the right to run for the highest office, and the right to

organize political groups or parties.

And finally, there is above the state a law to which all authorities
adhere, that provides the framework for democratic rule, and
that protects democratic rights. Democracy, therefore, now
generally means that a people rule themselves through periodic
elections of their highest leaders in which nearly all adults can
participate, for which offices they are eligible, and under the rule
of law.

In addition to this basic meaning, there is wide agreement on the

conditions that either give substance to what democracy means
or must be present for democracy to exist. One is that the
newspapers and other communication media are free to criticize
government policies and leaders. A second is that there is open
competition allowed for political office, which usually is
translated to mean that there is more than one political party
competing for power. A third is that there be a popularly and
regularly elected legislature and head of government. Moreover,
it is now deemed necessary that election ballots be cast secretly,

but that debate and voting by democratically elected

representatives be public. Then there is also the widely accepted
belief that democracies cannot coexist with lack of religious
freedom and the right to hold and express unpopular ideas.
Finally, for there to be a rule of law there must be fundamental
documents which structure the government, elaborate the
reciprocal rights and duties of government and the people, and
which all governing officials and their policies must obey. This is
a constitution, either in the form of a single document as for the
United States, or a set of documents, statutes, and signed

agreements, as for Great Britain.

These are the generally accepted conditions of democracy.
Among some democratic theorists and activists, however, it is
also believed that democracy is inconsistent with a command
economy, or that there must be guarantees of minority rights, or
that government must be limited. Some also insist that
democracy can only exist when the people also have economic
power. But these and other such elaborations are really defining
types of democracies (such as democratic socialist or democratic

individualist) rather than the basic ideal or its conditions.

How is the ideal to be achieved? There appears to be no one
process of democratization. What agreement there is on how
best to achieve a stable democracy favors slow incremental
development. Great Britain is, of course, the example of the

gradual change over centuries from absolute monarchy to one of

the world's most enduring democracies. However, such an
incremental process seems neither necessary nor sufficient for
democracy nor for its stability. Great Britain is an example of a
bottom-up process, where the non-governing elite or lower
classes made incessant demands for an extension of rights and
voting power that, by government concession after concession,
chipped away at ruling authority. Not all such democratization is
so gradual, and indeed many appear revolutionary. The American
Revolution, the French Revolution, the Chinese Revolution of
1912, and the Russian Revolution of 1917 that preceded the
Bolshevik coup are examples, only the first of which established

a long lasting democracy.

The process of democratization may also be carried out by the
governing elite themselves, as has often happened in South
America, and indeed, one will find authoritarian leaders that
claim their rule is required to create the conditions for
democracy. However, this top-down process has more often
ended in an unstable democracy, unless it has been responsive
to revolutionary pressure and prodemocratic violence from those
below.

Democracy may also be created by foreign powers. This is how

the democracies of Japan and West Germany were created. After
the Second World War the United States occupied Japan and with

the help of democratic minded Japanese intellectuals and

politicians reconstructed the Japanese government, wrote the socalled MacArthur Constitution, and carried out social reforms,
such as land reform, that would strengthen democracy. This topdown, foreign imposed democratization produced a democracy
stable enough to see in 1993 one of the longest lasting and most
powerful governing parties among democracies thrown out of
power by the Japanese people. Similarly, the new post-war
democratic West German government, erected with the help and
under the watchful eyes of Great Britain, France, and the United
States, has been stable and effective. Notably, it managed to
accommodate both dramatic enlargement and economic strain
as it absorbed the former East Germany into a single German
state in 1990.

Colonization, especially by Great Britain, has provided an

incubation period for democracy in a number of countries, which
with independence became full fledged and stable democracies.
Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are good examples. India is
also an example, although its democracy has come under severe
stain, and its survival is all the more remarkable given regional,
religious, linguistic, and ethnic centrifugal forces.

Rather than define a process of democratization, many have

tried to define the empirical conditions necessary for the creation
and success of democracy. In some of this work there tends to be
confusion between the conditions of democracy itself, such as a
free press and political parties, and that of successful
democratization. If we understand the latter to mean those
conditions that facilitate the creation of democracy and its
stability, confusion can be avoided. In these terms most stress
the importance of economic development to democratization,
with the concomitant high levels of literacy and education, and
modern communications. It is believed that democracy requires
an aware and relatively educated electorate, and that moreover,
where poverty and inequality is as severe as it is in the least
economically developed nations, democracy cannot take root.

But also there is the role of culture. Many democratic theorists

now accept that democracy requires a political culture of
negotiation, compromise, accommodation, and a willingness to
lose. Where this culture is absent, democracy, even if created
through revolution by the people themselves, cannot succeed.
However, as one considers such democracies as Japan, France,
Germany, or India, their pre-democratic cultures were most
conducive to authoritarian rule of some kind. It is only with the
development of democracy that their political cultures gradually

became democratic. Whether political democracy or democratic

culture came first is clearly a chicken and egg question, but
whether it comes before or after democracy is created, it is
widely recognized as essential to democratic stability.

Finally there is the question of why one should want

democratization? One argument is that people are all in nature
equal, that it is a natural right that people govern themselves,
that they be free in a democratic sense. Since each person is an
individual with free will and is equal in this sense to any other
individual, the only system of natural governance is one in which
all individuals collectively rule themselves.

Another argument is that democracy is the social contract to

which people in a state of nature would agree collectively had
they no foreknowledge as to how they would personally benefit
(as in gaining or losing property).Of all arguments for democracy,
however, the most popular are the utilitarian ones. Democracy
creates the greatest happiness of the greatest number; it
promotes economic and personal development; public policy is
most effective because of its incremental nature and the
feedback of democratic elections; people are freer and minorities
better protected; equality is promoted and enhanced; it enables
gradual and incremental revolutionary change.

But especially important here is the argument that democracy

institutionalizes a means of nonviolent conflict resolution- - -the
willingness to negotiate, compromise, and debate, rather than
fight. Moreover, the ballot rather than the bullet is the very
democratic ideal of voting to resolve differences and choose
leaders. It is what we mean by democracy.