You are on page 1of 4

For a long time it was believed that economic development, including the emergence of a middle

class, leads to democracy. In recent years, however, the case of China has presented a challenge to
that theory. How has it done so? If economic success does not necessarily cause democracy, then
what does? What else might be needed in cases where economic growth is not enough? How do you
explain cases where democracies have emerged in poor countries?
Sources to use: Lipset, Nathan, Dickson

Many hypothesize that economic development, combined with the emergence of a middle class, leads to
democracy. However, China is counterexample. Because of China, we have to look to other factors.
These include:
There are two factors that have prevented economic developing and creation of middle class from creating
democracy:
1) China’s middle class is ​structurally​ different than most middle classes (​Nathan​, 2016)
a) China’s society is a pyramid- much smaller portion of population is in middle class
b) Nature of employment- most are employees of state- have to favor ccp
c) Middle class is relatively new
d) Lack of civil society- Can’t socially organize- no organizations for people to be part of-
gov’t controls social organizing (​Dickson​)
2) China’s middle class is ​ideologically​ different- the way the people think prevent any uprising- 4
ideological groups (​nathan​, 2016)
a) Anesthetized- young and have no memory of 1989, don’t know world w/o
authoritarianism
b) Acceptors- academics who have accepted the regime
c) Amelirators- see flaws in system, but have seen enough progress to feel hopeful about
current system
d) Alientated- want to change the system, but feel helpless about fixing it- not in position to
challenge ccp- repression (​Dickson​)

What else, in addition to econ growth, is needed (​lipset​)?


1) Education
a) Higher education level=more likelihood for democracy
b) Influences individual values- tolerance, equity, higher education=democratic values
2) Political participation
a) Voting
b) Media openness

Why poor countries have democracy (​lipset​)?


1) Disclaimer- while some may have democracies, they experience significant instability, difficulty
in maintaining democracies, and have corruption Nevertheless, they are categorized as democs
2) Political participation- National uprising- widespread discontent with authoritarian regimes
3) Tillin​- federalism, institutionalized recognition of diversity, hard to rule everyone
Should developed democracies make peacefully spreading democracy around the world a priority?
If so, why? If not, why not? Discuss some of the structural and ideological challenges to democracy
promotion around the globe and how they can (or can’t) be overcome.
Sources to use: fish (encountering culture), Cooley (auth goes global),

Developed democracies, primarily the WEST, should not prioritize promoting democracy for following
reasons:
1) Ideological challenge​: Most countries that don’t have democracies have prickly nationalism
towards U.S. (​fish​)
a) they are suspicious of western values- less likely to accept help
b) Prefer autonomy and want to defend their “traditional values” (​cooley​)
c) China- hates us, very suspicious, views democracy as poisonous western value
Prescription: vary the source of democracy ​(fish)- ​If west prioritizes democracy, democracy will never
spread. Need to have NGOs and other global institutions help in spreading democracy

2) cultural challenge​: Most countries that don’t have democracies have culture that is not
conducive to democ (​fish)
a) Fish identifies two values: tolerance and equality
i) Tolerance- determines if society is open to new ideas and disagreement
ii) Equality- determines if society values minority groups
b) Societies that lack these values are not ready to sustain democracy
Prescription- unclear, hard to fix culture

3) Structural challenge​: Discontent with democratic governance and effectiveness of democracy


(​howe)
a) Confidence in democ declining: Democracy is difficult, slow
b) People accustomed to quick action- example russia- ​inozemtsev

4) Iraq case study- situation a lot worse and hurt credibility of U.S.
a) Ideological challenge- people hated US
b) Society not equipped to handle democ, no democratic values
c) Structural challenge- think democ is waste of time
Ziblatt and Levitsky write extensively about the guardrails of democracy and institutional norms
that are supposed to check against authoritarian rule. They have also suggested that those
guardrails failed when it came to preventing the rise of Donald Trump, whom they suggest has
authoritarian leanings. How and to what extent have American political institutions and actors
failed in their responsibility to uphold democracy? If you think they have failed, how should they be
reformed to prevent another failure? Use specific examples from recent American history and draw
on evidence from other readings in addition to Ziblatt and Levitsky.
Sources to use: ziblatt and levitsky, howe (discontent with democ)

How have institutions failed?


1. Parties are the gatekeepers of american politics- they are supposed to filter through candidates
and pick the best candidate possible. They have been weakened and circumvented.
a. Parties have worked: ​Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, Henry Ford kept out b/c party
leaders refused their candidacies
b. How have they been weakened and failed?
i. Creation of the binding presidential primaries, as a result of Battle of Michigan
Ave, opened up the possibility of outsider like Trump to win- decreased party
leader’s grip over nominations, opened it up to voters instead
1. Even though party leaders criticized trump, they were powerless to do
anything
ii. Influence of outside money increases outside candidate's abilities to win
1. Trump fundraised his own campaign, which brought him credibility
iii. Explosion of alternate media- now outsiders also have a voice in mainstream
politics
1. Trump used media as a substitute for endorsements- by criticizing media,
he bought free coverage
2. Republican leaders were toothless in their approach to defeating trump
a. Major leaders failed to endorse Hillary or back away from Trump- prominent leaders all
ended up endorsing Trump
b. They never decisively broke away from Trump so the republican electorate remained
unified
c. This normalized the election
3. American norms
a. Mutual tolerance- accept our opponents as legitimate
i. If we view opponents as dangerous threats, we are likely to use undemocratic
ways to get rid of them- threat to democracy
b. Institutional Forbearance- self control and avoiding actions that violate spirit of law
(howe)
i. Two term limit for a while was a norm, not a law- however, people abided by it
c. Roosevelt court packing prevented b/c the norms held- bipartisan action to prevent him
from becoming autocratic
d. Norms are now breaking- not just under Trump, have been breaking for a while- Newt
Gingrich brought in a wave of extreme partisanship- broke down mutual tolerance and
inst forbearance
4. How to reform the system
a. Enforce norms of mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance by decreasing
partisanship
i. People must put country above party and recognize the importance of political
opponents
ii. Media needs to be reigned in
b. Republican party leaders need to take a stronger stance
c. Decrease influence of money

Many have argued that civil society is a key ingredient in the recipe for democracy. To what degree
does civil society shape political outcomes, democratic or otherwise? Do you agree that it is
necessary for democracy? Why or why not?
Sources: lecture, fish encountering culture, ziblatt and levitsky

Civil society shapes political outcomes to a significant degree. It is an essential component of a successful
democracy and must be preserved and nurtured.

Civil society is necessary for democracy:


1. Encourages political participation (​Fish lecture​)
a. Gives voice to those who lack a voice
b. Ensures that interests are being represented
c. Shapes political outcomes because it grooms future leaders, keeps democracy active
2. Inculcates democratic values within society (​fish lecture)
a. Establishes norms of mutual tolerance- key to maintaining open, peaceful competition of
political ideas ​(fish, encountering culture)
b. Spirit of equality- ensures that all interests are represented equally, important for “one
person, one vote”
c. Shapes political outcomes b/c it preserves democracy
3. Constrains state power ​(Ziblatt and Levitsky)
a. Accountability- Interest groups, such as NGOs, can hold state accountable
i. cooley ​says authoritarians hate NGOs b/c they create accountability issues, civil
society k.t. NGOs
b. Improves flow of information- key to new ideas and informing citizenry (​ziblatt et al)
c. Shapes political outcomes b/c it prevents state from infringing upon the liberties of its
citizens

You might also like