Comparative Politics: from Aristotle to the New Millennium
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Global Advanced Research Journal of History, Political Science and International Relations Vol. 1(2) pp. 032-041, March, 2012 Available online http://garj.org/garjhpsir/index.htm Copyright © 2012 Global Advanced Research Journals Review Comparative politics: From Aristotle to the new millennium. What have we learned? John Maszka Aurora University, Department of Social Sciences, 347 South Gladstone Avenue Aurora, IL 60506-4892 Email: [email protected] Accepted 20 March 2012 It has been a long time since the days of Aristotle. In some respects, things have changed tremendously. Having gone through three waves, Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991). democracy is now a global phenomenon, universal adult suffrage is now the norm, and most modern states are far too large and complex for direct democracy to be efficient. Therefore, democracy has adapted and grown to meet the new challenges of modernity. With these growing pains have come several learning experiences. What have we learned so far? The question immediately brings to mind the early survey research of Campbell et. al. Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes, The American Voter , (New York: Wiley, 1960). concluding that the average voter lacked the sophistication to vote effectively. This elitist view was shared by many in this period, and it led to the classic Civic Culture reassuring us all that it was okay for some of us to be mere political simpletons, because if we were all political elites, nothing would get accomplished. This essay discusses the various insights that structural, cultural, and rational approaches provide for an understanding of liberal democracy. What have we learned since Aristotle? This is a tall order for any scholar. However, this essay focuses on the extent to which the various theoretical approaches utilize exogenous explanations. A common thread in comparative politics today is the growing number of scholars employing institutional analyses. Therefore, this essay concludes that each of the theoretical lenses is useful in explaining political phenomena. Though each theoretical approach focuses on different independent variables with their own consequent level of analysis, each approach is both equally useful and equally dependent upon institutional explanations. As Schmitter and Karl Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl, “What Democracy Is. and Is Not,” Journal of Democracy 2:3 (1991), 75- 88. maintain, democracy does not exist in an institutional vacuum. It is largely dependent upon the structures and socioeconomic conditions surrounding it. This essay argues that the opposite is true as well. Keywords: Politics, Aristotle and millennium INTRODUCTION In order to properly address this question, one must first Definitions of Democracy discuss acceptable criteria for what constitutes “democracy.” Second, since consolidation is also an Schumpeter Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, important part of the equation, we should also narrow Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper and down an understanding of what is meant by the term Brothers, 1942). employed a minimal and procedural “consolidation.” Finally, this essay considers a variety of definition of democracy, focusing exclusively on the well-known theoretical arguments and demonstrates that electoral process alone. Schumpeter’s is a dichotomous they employ exogenous factors into their models. definition against which non-democracies may be easily Maszka 033 compared. Others that share in this parsimonious Mainwaring, et. al. Scott Mainwaring, Daniel Brinks and definition include Sartori, Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, “Classifying Political Regimes in Democracy Revisited (Chatham: Chatham House Latin America,” Studies in Comparative International Publishers, 1987). Huntington, Huntington, 1991. and Development 36:1 (2001), 37-65. Przeworski, et. al. 1 Adam Przeworski, Michael M. argue that any useful definition of democracy must be Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Papaterra continuous. They define democracy as having free and Limongi Neto, “What Makes Democracies Endure?” fair elections, inclusive adult citizenship, the protection of Journal of Democracy 7:1 (1996), 39-55. civil liberties and political rights, governments in which While Dahl’s Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy (New Haven: elected officials actually govern, and civilian control of the Yale University Press, 1971). definition is procedural, it is military. Mainwaring, et. al. claim theirs is a minimalist not dichotomous. His continuous 4-part typology includes and procedural definition, as compared to the subminimal polyarchy, closed hegemony, competitive oligarchy, and and procedural definition of Schumpeter or Przeworski inclusive hegemony. Polyarchies include both et. al. Yet the authors also contend that classification contestation and participation. Closed hegemonies necessarily involves both subjective judgments and a possess neither. Competitive oligarchies feature continuous definition. competition among elite participants. Finally, inclusive Finally, Smith Peter H. Smith, Democracy in Latin hegemonies allow for competition but lack participation. America: Political Change in Comparative Perspective, Dahl uses this typology to trace three different paths to (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). broadly democracy. (1) Competition followed by participation defines democracy as marked by participation, (Dahl argues this is the most stable and the most competition, and accountability. He further differentiates enduring). (2) Participation followed by competition (Dahl liberal democracy, in which civil liberties are protected, argues this path is the least stable and the least from electoral democracy which includes free and fair enduring). (3) Competition and participation occur elections but no accountability once elected. Smith simultaneously (Dahl argues that this path is also likely to (2005) further defines semi-democracy as having either be unstable). (1) free and fair elections but power does not go to the Schmitter and Karl’s definition is neither procedural nor winner, or (2) elections that are free but not fair, so the dichotomous. They define democracy as a system for electoral system is rigged to favor the incumbent). Smith organizing the relations between the rulers and the ruled defines oligarchy as having free and fair elections but in which norms both govern how rulers come to office with restricted participation. and hold them accountable to the public. Therefore, The many and various definitions of democracy could democracy cannot be reduced to elections alone. The easily fills volumes. However, since the topic of this institutions surrounding elections and public office matter. essay is what we’ve learned about “liberal democracy,” O’Donnell’s Guillermo O'Donnell, “Delegative Smith’s definition of democracy marked by participation, Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 5 (January 1994). competition, and accountability is relevant. definition is likewise more complex than Schumpeter’s. While O’Donnell claimed to have found a “new species” of democracy which he labeled delegative democracy Definitions of Consolidation (DD), he was really dissecting democratization into two stages. The first transition is basically the incorporation of Beyond that of democracy itself, perhaps the next most the electoral process. The second transition is democratic highly contested definition is that of democratic consolidation. DD possessed the basic attributes of consolidation. The consolidation literature has expanded Dahl’s polyarchy, but did not make the transition into greatly over the last 60 years. Schedler attributes this democratic consolidation. O’Donnell maintains that while “consolidology” to the explosion of newly independent perhaps enduring (no serious threat of authoritarian states and the efforts of scholars to adapt their specific reversal), DD’s lack of institutionalization also means that definition of consolidation (e.g. avoiding democratic it is not progressing toward true representative breakdown, avoiding democratic erosion, completing democracy. In other words, DD is an electoral democracy democracy, deepening democracy, etc…) to the but not a liberal democracy. Elections are free and fair, particular variety of democracy they are referring to but winning candidates govern without any serious (electoral democracy, semidemocracy, delegative opposition and without any institutional constraints (e.g. democracy, liberal democracy, etc…). Schedler Garcia and Fujimori in Peru, and Menem in Argentina). discusses the conceptual quagmire these scholars have Unlike Schmitter and Karl who focus on the political created and argues that these scholars are confusing norms of the preceding regime, or Dahl who focuses on democratic consolidation with other conceptual terms. the transition to democracy itself, O’Donnell is more Reminding us that the term originally meant that concerned with the long-term historical and democracy is the only game in town, Juan J. Linz and socioeconomic factors impacting newly democratizing Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and states. Consolidation , (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 034 Glo. Adv. Res. J. Hist. Polit. Sci. Int Relat. Press, 1996). overly deterministic. By paying close attention to critical Schedler suggests that scholars return to the original junctures and historical processes that constrain human