Democratic Revolutions As Institutional Innovation Diffusion: Rapid Adoption and Survival of Democracy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Technological forecasting & social change. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Jansson, F., Lindenfors, P., Sandberg, M. (2013) Democratic revolutions as institutional innovation diffusion: Rapid adoption and survival of democracy. Technological forecasting & social change, 80(8): 1546-1556 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.002 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-21677 For personal use only, note TFS-17717; No of Pages 11 forthcoming journal reference Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Technological Forecasting & Social Change Democratic revolutions as institutional innovation diffusion: Rapid adoption and survival of democracy Fredrik Jansson a,b,1, Patrik Lindenfors a,c,2, Mikael Sandberg a,d,⁎ a Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden b Institute for Futures Studies, Box 591, SE 101 31 Stockholm, Sweden c Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden d School of Social and Health Sciences, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-301 18 Halmstad, Sweden article info abstract Article history: Recent ‘democratic revolutions’ in Islamic countries call for a re-consideration of transitions to Received 24 February 2012 and from democracy. Transitions to democracy have often been considered the outcome of Received in revised form 1 February 2013 socio-economic modernization and therefore slow and incremental processes. But as a recent Accepted 3 February 2013 study has made clear, in the last century, transitions to democracy have mainly occurred Available online xxxx through rapid leaps rather than slow and incremental steps. Here, we therefore apply an innovation and systems perspective and consider transitions to democracy as processes of Keywords: institutional, and therefore systemic, innovation adoption. We show that transitions to Democracy democracy starting before 1900 lasted for an average of 50 years and a median of 56 years, Autocracy while transitions originating later took an average of 4.6 years and a median of 1.7 years. Transitions However, our results indicate that the survival time of democratic regimes is longer in cases Consolidation Institutions where the transition periods have also been longer, suggesting that patience paid in previous Revolutions democratizations. We identify a critical ‘consolidation-preparing’ transition period of 12 years. Our results also show that in cases where the transitions have not been made directly from autocracy to democracy, there are no main institutional paths towards democracy. Instead, democracy seems reachable from a variety of directions. This is in line with the analogy of diffusion of innovations at the nation systems level, for which assumptions are that potential adopter systems may vary in susceptibility over time. The adoption of the institutions of democracy therefore corresponds to the adoption of a new political communications standard for a nation, in this case the innovation of involving in principle all adult citizens on an equal basis. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction even the beginning of ‘a new wave of democratizations’. This terminology, however, reflects hopes rather than likely Recent uprisings in North Africa and several Islamic outcomes. The revolutionary transition processes have been countries are often being called ‘democratic revolutions’ and initiated in autocratic countries with poor conditions for consolidated democracy in the short perspective. We will more likely instead see a series of weakly designed ⁎ Corresponding author at: Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution, post-autocracies, failing to fulfill too far-reaching aspirations Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: +46 704 936 of the grass-root opposition and therefore later reversals into 619. new forms of non-democracies. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Jansson), On the other hand, this pessimistic view may be wrong. [email protected] (P. Lindenfors), [email protected] Communication technologies and social networks might (M. Sandberg). 1 Tel.: +46 8 16 39 55. spark not only uprisings but also more informed discussions, 2 Tel.: +46 703 418 687(mobile). debates, formations of organizations and negotiations on 0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.002 Please cite this article as: F. Jansson, et al., Democratic revolutions as institutional innovation diffusion: Rapid adoption and survival of democracy, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.002 2 F. Jansson et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx how to institutionally create and sustain a democracy. But departure and pathways influence adoption of democracy or such discussions, debates, formations of organizations and if the innovation diffusion models are correct. negotiations, along with political processes for preparation We argue that such an approach, consistent with the and implementation of new constitutional designs, require analysis of innovation diffusion in evolving systems—such as substantial time. An issue is also whether such processes can diffusion of communication standards among regions or compensate for lack of the traditional requisites of democra- countries—analogically applies to the evolution and diffusion tization, such as an already existing rule of law, freedom of a of democracy on a world scale [18]. The susceptible “host” in civil society, an institutionalized political system and eco- this case is the nation-state that may or may not adopt a nomic society, as well as an efficient public administration democratic standard for political communication [10,14].The [1]. Political scientists are now busy in trying to understand unit of selection is the package of institutions that are essential the mechanisms of transitions to democracy in our time, for democratic political communication. Our proposed ap- and how they may differ from those of earlier waves of proach therefore motivates a study of transition periods, in democratization (see for instance recent issues of Journal of which contracts on new political communication standards are Democracy). made, marking institutional pathways intended to sustaining In this article, we propose to use the analogy of innovation democracy in the longer run. In this article, we therefore diffusion in evolving systems to understand the transitions to primarily consider (1) time and (2) institutional paths in their democracy as adoption of democratically essential institu- relation to democratic revolutions, transitions and survival. Our tions in the population of nation-states in the world. We find central questions are formulated in a way that may help us several grounds for this proposition. Recent research on in assessing the validity of innovation diffusion models: Is institutional dynamics reveals its systemic, evolutionary and duration of transitions positively related to the survivability of innovative character [2–10]. Institutions are constraints on democracy in the longer run? Are specific institutional paths societies and behavior normally formed or reached as a more common or more conducive as routes to democracy? consequence or outcome of power struggles between interest groups before their emergence [5,8,11]. In this sense they can 2. Definitions be understood as social contracts or equilibria in national socio-economic systems [3,4,11,12]. Their evolutionary char- Some definitions are warranted. ‘Transition’ is normally acter is the consequence of natural (unintended, historical) understood as a passage from one state to another in a selection processes, and, in learning processes on a global and general sense, and ‘revolution’ is thus a specification: “a historical scale, increasingly also artificial (intended, politi- major, sudden and hence typically violent alteration in cal) ones [4,13]. Thereby, some fundamental institutions or government and in related associations and structures” [22]. societal contracts are wiped out as unviable in the historic This implies that a transition can either be revolutionary or and geographic context they happen to emerge (say, the incremental in its changes of institutional and organizational Weimar republic), some oscillate in dynamic equilibria setup of the nation in question. Transition as a concept in between autocracy and democracy (say, Argentina), some political science corresponds to the process of adoption in prove extreme survivability in their original democratic form innovation science. Drawing on Schumpeter, we define (say, most first wave democracies, such as Sweden, see [14]). ‘innovation’ as “doing of new things or the doing of things In the longer run, democratizers have managed to learn from that are already being done in a new way (innovation)” [23: previous mistakes and democratic failures, so that now, in 151], that is, “new combinations” [24: 66], however in this general terms, some guiding principles may frame power case related to politics and institutions, rather than econom- struggles and negotiations between major interest groups