If we are now to assume, according to Carothers’ “The End of the Transition Paradigm”, that states do not necessarily transition from dictatorial regimes to democracy, then I feel it is necessary to assess why some states do transition and why some remain in the “grey zone”. The existence of this conundrum should impel comparative political scientists to establish a set of preconditions for full transition to democracy. Carothers explains that many scholars have tried to tackle the question, but have been stymied by the traditional approach to comparative politics and the strong focus on formal institutions.
An apparent set of preconditions for democracy according to Carothers is political pluralism, economic wealth, and specific constitutional legacies. Zakaria argues that constitutional liberalism is the sole precondition for successful democracy. Also, Levitsky and Way associate linkages and proximity to the west with successful transitions from competitive authoritarianism to democracy. All of these approaches use institutional, economic, or political explanations for full transition to democracy. To sum them up, one could say that the more a state is similar in structure to western democratic states, the more likely a full transition is to occur. So, then, is it possible for states that are dissimilar to western democratic states to become democracies, or will their forms of government always be one of the other non-transitional grey-zone regime types?
Zakaria discusses the fact that the legacy of constitutional liberalism has allowed for the flourishing of democracy. It assumes inherent inalienable inalienable rights- the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of liberties (speech, assembly, religion, and property, generally). Is this merely a system of values adopted by the west, or is it actually inherent to all mankind? If it were actually a pervasive set of world values, then if one were to implement a “bill of rights” in a non-western grey-zone nation to protect the people against governmental infringement on their inalienable rights, would a democracy emerge?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, it would depend on what we were examining. Of course, we could say that there were a universal set of values that mankind could all adhere to but that doesn't necessarily translate into a successful, democratic regime. I'd take from current modern day perspectives; we look at China (which does not fall into that 'adapting-western-culture-more-likely-to-be-democratic') and we see that its growth and "happiness" rate could be considered as equal as to other countries (given, of course, certain factors: economics, for example). While China would clearly fail on, say, a human rights agenda, is that an indication that it fails democracy and thus fails in "best regime?" When we judge from the democracy-oriented point of view, naturally, we see democracy as all right. Can we say the same for other countries? If we were in China's point-of-view, does democracy seem as an aberration in the fabric of politics? It all depends on values and principles, a qualitative standard (please see my post I posted above).
If there's one thing we need to reach consensus on, it's the QUALITATIVE aspects of the regime, not the procedural. And in a way, is that not what we're doing by determining a common standard for all mankind; a set of universal governing values? In that regard, we've only reached consensus on a procedural, but not a qualitative standard and yet, we JUDGE on a qualitative standard.
So you're question of whether or not states dissimilar to western traditions could have a full-fledged democracy. The answer depends, I think, on how we examine democracy. For a moment, forget that we're COMPARING. Forget that we're attempting to see whether or not a non-democratic, non-western state can be democratic. Instead, we should ask whether or not democracy sees the merits of a non-western, non-demoratic regime and the reasons for the QUALITATIVE standards found in that regime.Only then would we be able to get away from the transition paradigm.
Post a Comment