Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Östersund 2013 QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY AROUND THE GLOBE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY John Högström Supervisors: Ingemar Wörlund Svante Ersson Department of Social Sciences Mid Sweden University, SE-831 25 Östersund, Sweden ISSN 1652-893X, Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 137 ISBN 978-91-87103-45-2 Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Mittuniversitetet framläggs till offentlig granskning för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen fredagen den 25 januari 2013, klockan 13.15 i sal F234, Mittuniversitetet Östersund. Seminariet kommer att hållas på svenska. QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY AROUND THE GLOBE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY John Högström © John Högström, 2013 Department of Social Sciences Mid Sweden University, SE-831 25 Östersund Sweden Telephone: +46 (0)771-975 000 Printed by Kopieringen Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden, 2013 i QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY AROUND THE GLOBE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY John Högström Department of Social Sciences Mid Sweden University, SE-831 25 Östersund, Sweden ISSN 1652-893X, Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 137; ISBN 978-91-87103-45-2 ABSTRACT This study deals with the quality of democracy, and its purpose is to examine which factors affect the varying levels of the quality of democracy in the stable democracies in the world. The research question posited in the study is: what explains the varying levels of the quality of democracy in the democratic countries in the world, and do political institutions matter? Theoretically, the quality of democracy is distinguished from other similar concepts employed in comparative politics, and what the quality of democracy stands for is clarified. The quality of democracy is defined in this study as: the level of legitimacy in a democratic system with respect to democratic norms such as political participation, political competition, political equality, and rule of law. In total, four dimensions of the quality of democracy are included that are considered to be very important dimensions of the quality of democracy. These dimensions are political participation, political competition, political equality, and the rule of law. To explain the variation in the quality of democracy, an explanatory model has been developed. The explanatory model consists of five different groups of independent variables: political institutional variables, socioeconomic variables, cultural variables, historical variables, and physical variables. Methodologically, a large-n, outcome-centric research design is employed and statistical analysis is used to examine what effect the five groups of independent variables have on the four dimensions of the quality of democracy. Empirically, the results show that cultural variables and political institutional variables outperform socioeconomic, historical, and physical variables in relation to their effect on the quality of democracy. Consequently, cultural and political institutional variables are the two most important groups of variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy in the democratic countries in the world. In relation to the other groups of variables, historical variables are slightly more important than socioeconomic variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy. The physical variables constitute the group of variables that has the least importance out of the ii five groups of variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy. In summary, the findings from the study show that the best way of increasing the level of the quality of democracy may be to choose political institutions such as parliamentarism as the executive power system and a proportional system as the electoral system. To put this clearly, to increase the possibility of democratic countries achieving a high level of the quality of democracy they should avoid majority electoral systems and presidential or semipresidential executive systems. Keywords: quality of democracy, stable democracies, political institutions, political participation, political competition, political equality, rule of law iii FÖRORD Avhandlingsarbetet är nu avslutat och jag vill rikta ett tack till alla som har gett mig råd och kommentarer på olika utkast av avhandlingsmaterialet. Först och främst vill jag tacka mina handledare, Ingemar Wörlund och Svante Ersson. Båda har läst ett flertal utkast av samtliga kapitel ingående i avhandlingen och i samband med detta har de gett mig värdefulla råd, konstruktiv kritik och diskuterat hur kapitlen kunnat förbättras. Naturligtvis har dessa råd, konstruktiva kritik och diskussioner varit ovärderliga för avhandlingsarbetet. Ett flertal utkast av avhandlingskapitlen har presenterats vid högre seminarier för statsvetenskap vid Mittuniversitet, och jag vill tacka mina statsvetarkollegor (såväl doktorander som seniora forskare) vid Mittuniversitetet för deras kommentarer på olika utkast av avhandlingskapitlen. Ett antal kapitelutkast har även presenterats vid finlandssvenska forskarskolans seminarieserie och jag vill även tacka deltagarna vid dessa seminarier för deras kommentarer. Delar av avhandlingsmaterialet har även presenterats vid två internationella konferenser: dels i Sao Paulo 2011 (IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference: Whatever Happened to North- South?) och dels i Reykjavik 2011 (6th ECPR General Conference). Jag vill tacka de konferensdeltagare som vid dessa två konferenser gett mig råd och kommentarer på det avhandlingsmaterial som jag presenterat. Ett speciellt tack till Leonardo Morlino som är en av de ledande forskarna inom forskningsområdet demokratikvalité. Leonardo Morlino var panelledare vid konferensen i Sao Paulo för den panel där jag presenterade ett kapitelutkast ur avhandlingen, och hans entusiasm och inlevelse för forskningen om demokratikvalité, gav verkligen inspiration till det fortsatta avhandlingsarbetet. En annan person som gett mig inspiration att skriva en avhandling om demokratikvalité, och som bör nämnas i detta sammanhang är Arend Lijphart. Bland annat har Arend Lijpharts bok Patterns of Democracy fascinerat mig ända sedan jag läste den första gången under grundutbildningen i statsvetenskap. Ett tack även till slutseminarieopponenten Carsten Anckar för hans råd och kommentarer i samband med slutseminariet. Jag vill även tacka kollegorna vid institutionen för samhällsvetenskap och då speciellt kollegorna på våning 3 i P- huset campus Östersund för intressanta diskussioner och trevliga sociala aktiviteter under de år som jag har arbetet med avhandlingen. Sist men inte minst vill jag tacka min sambo Georgina för hennes stöd och uppmuntran under den tid som jag har arbetat med avhandlingen. John Högström, Östersund augusti 2012 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................. ii Förord ................................................................................................................................... iv List of tables ......................................................................................................................... ix List of figures ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO STUDY THE QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY? ....................................... 2 ARE THERE GAPS IN THE LITERATURE IN THE RESEARCH FIELD? ......................................... 3 WHAT CAN EXPLAIN THE VARIATION IN THE QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY; DO POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS MATTER? ...................................................................................................... 5 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 9 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 9 EVALUATING POLITICAL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 9 What is a political system? ............................................................................................. 9 Evaluating political systems: an overview ................................................................... 11 Evaluating political systems: a categorization ............................................................. 16 Democratic performance .............................................................................................. 18 Distinguishing between the level of democracy and the quality of democracy ............ 19 Government performance ............................................................................................. 20 Quality of democracy and quality of government: similarity and diversity ................. 21 Comparing the categorization with the concepts in the reviewed studies .................... 22 QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY ................................................................................................. 25 Dimensions and indicators of the quality of democracy: a literature review............... 25 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 40 Clarifying the concept quality of democracy for this study .........................................