Comparative Transitions to Democracy Masaryk University in Brno Unit III. The Long Democratic Cycle: Liberalisation and Democratization Lecturer: Oscar Hidalgo-Redondo Date: 31 March 2009 3.1 Waves of Democracy In this course we are going to analyse “waves” of democracy term used by Samuel Huntington to describe the form adopted by processes of democratisation reaching at several societies domino-effect, snowball effect forcing changes counter-wave, retreat of the democratic waters collapse of democratising regimes The idea of wave implies the existence of an internal (societal) dimension of democratisation endogenous factors an external (international) dimension of democratisation exogenous factors Waves It is the combination of the external and the internal what makes possible the process of democratisation Huntington refers to 3 waves of democracy (with its reversal waves) 1. the long democratic cycle, from 1789-WWII 2. the post-1945 cycle, 1945-1970s 3. the third wave, 1973-today some authors object this taxonomy 3.2 The Long Cycle: the First Wave of Democratisation A very particular cycle of democratisation long process in which countries transformed internal political structures introducing elements bringing them closer to the ideal of democracy but, a transition? processes that lasted decades or more than a century slow transformation if we use Schmitter’s and O’Donnell’s definition: movement in regime type from something towards something else, it could be considered transition and democratisation? in many cases more exact to talk about liberalisation, democratisation only will occur in the XX Century if we take the whole period, it is democratisation This is the period that links traditional autocratic European political models modern democracies in the early XX Century in a continuum Two different tracks toward democracy evolutionary, gradual approach British liberalisation and democratisation revolutionary, micro-transitions French Revolution American Revolution 3.3 Setting the Scenarios: The Creation of the Ancient Regimes Fall of the Roman Empire in Europe creation of a new order, the early Medieval order 2 swords, two realms civil power religious power 2 different spheres, but communicated Religious legitimacy of power Civil power consolidation develops into feudalism king’s superiority “primus inter pares” relation of loyalty protection and responsibility autonomy Models that limit the capacity of the king to rule English model: Magna Carta Libertarum (1215) King John – 25 notables parliament English model Magnum Concilium Curia Regis With the evolution of European Politics strengthening of the royal authority institutionalisation of the royal power autonomy from religious power capacity to control nobility development of a state administration Appearance of the modern state renaissance, reformation: Macchiavelli absolutism: Hobbes Centrality of the kings absolutism royal sovereignty state law state administration from XV Century, hegemonic model a tension arises smaller political elite circle around the monarch role of parliaments by passed by king’s authority seed of first “democratising” movement England France United States England Stewarts have replaced Tudor dynasty increase absolutist trend: Privy Council, Charles I Parliament protests: Petition of Rights (1628) taxes justice army Fight parliament-king ended in civil war (1642-9) Republic (1649-59) Oliver Cromwell Monarchic restitution: Charles II New laws are going to limit powers of the kings Glorious Revolution (1689) Habeas Corpus Amendment Act (1679) Bill of Rights (1689) Triennial Act (1694) Act of Settlement (1701) XVIII Century, institutionalisation of the cabinet France It was the archetype of absolute rule in Europe King and General States not summoned in 200 years economic crisis Composition Nobility Clergy Commoners 1789, First democratic attempt Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens Constitutional monarchy (1791) 1793 execution of Louis XVI Republic and radicalisation 1795 Directory 5-members executive 2 legislative chambers Napoleon United States Part of the British empire Problems taxes no representation in English Parliament XVIII Cent. George III, need of money War of Austrian Succession Seven Years War 1765 Stamp Act (public documents need a state stamp) protest movements Sons of Liberty Stamp Act Congress 1766 Derogatory Act 1767 Townshend Act (1770, but tea) 1773 Boston Tea Party Escalation and War 1776 Declaration of Independence The first “democratising” movements are related with capacity to decide king as executive and legislative figure access to structures of power Three paths England, moderate monarchy slow reforms in XIX Century, gradual approach France, revolutionary trend revolutions and counter-revolutions USA, a real “democracy” operating since then as a democratic state some groups excluded 3.4 Deepening Reforms: the XIX Century With the exception of the newly born American state, the states appeared in Europe did not respond to the ideal of democracy 1814-5 Congress of Vienna return to the pre-1789 “map” But absolutism could not return to Europe the experience of the revolution extension of the revolutionary ideas and values socio-economic transformation Attempts at the absolutists models of government face the opposition of the “liberals” revolutionary waves Revolutionary wave of 1820 reaction to installation of the post-1815 political order France, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Russia and Greece limited results Latin American countries’ independence Revolutionary cycle of 1830 the conservative model is exhausted wider sectors of the population joined the “liberals” a new style of ruling France, Italy, Germany, Spain, United Netherlands, Poland Moderate autocratic Monarchies Royal Statutes Limits to executive power Revolutions of 1848 Real liberal revolutions liberal ideas nationalism the social question France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland Pact Monarchs-People was not enough real separation of powers real parliaments Since mid-XIX Century it was evident that the model of Vienna was unattainable and it was necessary to articulate channels for participation but who is to participate? 3.5 Three Models of Sovereignty Jean Bodin described sovereignty as ““the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth” We define sovereignty as the ultimate capacity to decide over what is common for a political community three different ways of understanding the foundation of sovereignty in the XIX Century Royal Sovereignty King as the recipient of that capacity to decide religious foundation a pragmatic approach Pre-1789 model with the pactist version of the royal statute King as centre of political life very conservative model questioned by liberals National sovereignty Nation as the centre of political action Nation is an abstract concept who can interpret the Nations’ will? Elitist model only the best should be allowed to participate successful Popular sovereignty People is recipient of the capacity to decide Who are the people? those that are citizens Democratic model Liberal project Britain is the best example of the smooth transition from restrictive elitist oligarchic monarchy towards a more open liberal-democratic regime 1832- 4% of population voters 1884 almost "universal“ domestic service adults living with their parents Liberal project include wider sectors of the population extending voting rights 3.6 The Early XX Century: Extending Rights The End of WWI marked the beginning of a political process by which most of the European political systems moved towards the liberal democratic model allowing participation of commoners establishing structures to channel the participation parliaments political parties Constitutions adopted the model of popular sovereignty male citizens right to participate natural law in some cases, recognition of social rights start of welfare state However, 1920s, crisis of the model reverse wave Communist regimes Fascist regimes alternatives 1920s-1930s collapse of many liberal democratic regimes Source: Carles Boix, Equality, inequality, and the choice of political institutions, Public Policy, 135, 2006 back