The Protective and Developmental Varieties of Liberal Democracy: a Difference in Kind Or Degree?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Democratization ISSN: 1351-0347 (Print) 1743-890X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fdem20 The protective and developmental varieties of liberal democracy: a difference in kind or degree? Devin K. Joshi To cite this article: Devin K. Joshi (2013) The protective and developmental varieties of liberal democracy: a difference in kind or degree?, Democratization, 20:2, 187-214, DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2011.634581 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.634581 Published online: 01 Feb 2012. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2772 View related articles Citing articles: 7 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fdem20 Democratization, 2013 Vol. 20, No. 2, 187–214, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.634581 The protective and developmental varieties of liberal democracy: a difference in kind or degree? Devin K. Joshi∗ Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, 2201 S. Gaylord St. Denver, CO 80208, USA (Received 14 October 2010; final version received 15 November 2011) Liberal democratic governments may differ in both their kind and degree of democracy. However, the literature too often conflates this distinction, hindering our ability to understand what kinds of governing structures are more democratic. To clarify this issue, the article examines two prominent contemporary models of democracy: developmental liberal democracy (DLD) and protective liberal democracy (PLD). While the former takes a ‘thicker’ approach to governance than the latter, conventional wisdom holds that these systems differ only in kind rather than degree. The article tests this assumption through an empirical comparison of electoral, legislative, and information-regulating institutions in two representative cases: Sweden and the United States. The empirical findings lead us to the conclusion that developmental liberal democracies represent not only a different kind, but also a deeper degree of democracy than protective liberal democracies. The implications for democracy promotion appear substantial. Keywords: degree of democracy; democratization; democracy; liberal democracy; social democracy; Sweden; United States; measuring democracy The word ‘democracy’ has become so popular that almost every political regime in the twenty-first century describes itself as ‘democratic’.1 Yet most observers acknowledge that a government is not necessarily democratic just because it claims to be. Even among nominal democracies, not all governments are equally democratic.2 This leaves the field of democracy promotion with a puzzle: what makes one political system more democratic than another? Is this merely a ‘value’ judgment, or can this be objectively measured? Furthermore, are some pol- itical systems, even among recognized liberal democracies, more democratic than others? To bring some clarity to these issues, this article highlights some of the recent benchmarks proposed in the democratization literature to compare democratic depth. Based on these insights, it argues that not all liberal democracies are likely to be equally democratic. The paper then goes on to explore the basic ∗Email: [email protected] # 2013 Taylor & Francis 188 D.K. Joshi logics of two influential models of liberal democracy, ‘developmental’ and ‘protec- tive’ democracies. To assess whether one of these models is more democratic, I conduct a ‘structured-focused comparison’ of electoral, legislative, and infor- mation regulating institutions in two representative contemporary cases, Sweden and the United States. The article concludes with a brief assessment of what impli- cations the democratic divergence across liberal democratic models might have for democracy promotion. 1. Depth of democracy There is an increasing trend within the democracy literature to argue that not all ‘democracies’ are equally democratic.3 However, some prominent democracy scholars believe widely different types of liberal democracy are equally demo- cratic.4 For example, in an influential article, Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl identify a democracy which ‘advocates circumscribing the public realm as narrowly as possible’ as a different species than the ‘social-democratic approach’. They nevertheless conclude that, ‘neither is intrinsically more democratic than the other – just differently democratic’.5 Similarly, Huber and Powell find that the ‘proportionate influence’ vision has higher congruence between the preferences of citizens and the actions of policymakers than the ‘majority control’ vision of liberal democracy.6 Yet they do not argue that one vision is necessarily more demo- cratic, they only point out that the logics are different. This article, however, contends that not all liberal democracies are equally democratic. In order to determine which types of liberal democracy might be more democratic one must first define the essence of ‘liberal democracy’. According to David Beetham, a liberal democracy is based on two principles: ‘popular control of public decisions and decision makers, and equality between citizens in relation to those decisions’.7 These two principles are made up of five core components. Firstly, popular control includes both partici- pation and accountability, referring to the ability of the general population to engage in political decision-making, choose their leaders, and ensure their leaders actually do the bidding of the majority of the population. Secondly, pol- itical equality involves a combination of political representation, information transparency and availability, and overall equality in the political system. Politi- cal equality is important because all sections of the population must be rep- resented in the political process and be engaged in informed dialogue in order for political leaders to know what the public wants and to reach solutions that can benefit as many people as possible. I will now explain how these five com- ponents are essential determinants of democratic depth. Firstly, democracy is a system of government ‘of the people’, ‘by the people’ and ‘for the people’.8 Given that the demos (ordinary people) play the leading role in a democracy, comparisons of democratic depth must necessarily account for the participation or inclusion/exclusion of ordinary people in political decision-making processes. When it comes to popular elections, representative Democratization 189 assemblies, and information circulation, political systems that are ‘demos- enabling’ stand out from those that are ‘demos-constraining’.9 As Diamond and Morlino observe, ‘bringing all citizens more fully into the arenas of civic partici- pation and political competition remain the most enduring and difficult challenges for the deepening of democracy’ [italics added].10 Secondly, and closely related to participation, is the importance of represen- tation, due to the logistical limitations of enabling millions of citizens in a modern state to be intimately involved in every step of the political process. As Beetham points out, representation of the demos involves at the very least having ‘all public institutions representative of the social composition of the elec- torate’ and a legislature that is ‘representative of the main currents of popular opinion’.11 If the government and legislative assemblies are not representative of the whole population, they cannot legitimately claim to be ‘of the people’. Thirdly, equality in political procedures and institutions is important for sus- taining both equal participation and equal representation. Governments are less democratic when there is fraud in voting and vote counting, bias among election administrators, and when electoral districting systematically disadvantages oppo- sition parties.12 Importantly, ‘electoral competitiveness also depends on equality in access to the mass media, pluralism in media ownership (and viewpoints), some dispersion of economic resources in society, and the enforcement of political rights by an independent judiciary’ [emphasis added].13 The ‘one citizen–one vote principle’ for example is more democratic than unequal voting access or unequal legislative representation.14 Fourthly, information transparency is crucial to democratic deepening because it enables both deliberation and accountability. Governments become more democratic when there is a ‘level playing field’ such that governing parties do not have greater access to political information through control over or exclusive access to the media, finance, or other crucial campaign resources.15 A government that allows all political contenders access to public media is more democratic because ‘citizens must be able to learn about available alternatives through access to alternative sources of information’.16 Transparency of govern- ment information is likewise essential for citizens to monitor and scrutinize their government and keep it accountable. A democracy has accountability, lastly, when elected representatives carry out the will of the citizens. It is ensured through mechanisms such as the periodic holding of fair elections, transparency of government actions, and the right of the majority to determine the laws and policies of the land. Table 1 displays these five core procedural dimensions of democracy (partici- pation, representation, equality, information transparency, and accountability) and corresponding indicators to assess democratic depth, a term synonymous with ‘degree of democracy’17