All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Defective Democracies: Towards an Integrated Framework of Democratic Hybrids
Unformatted Document Text:  classifications and cases that deviate from the regional trend are rare. 9 Eight, the existence of regional trends and recurring combinations of defects - especially civil and political rights violations, and delegative and illiberal defects – suggests a contagion and demonstration effect among defective democracies and among defects within a democracy. Ninth, within each region some defects show themselves to be persistent. In comparison with Freedom House, the latter detects slightly more liberal democracies. Much less agreement exists with Polity IV, which Merkel et al. (2003: 177) explain by the difficulty Polity IV has with capturing illiberal democracies and those with reserved domains. To explain the occurrence of democratic defects, Merkel et al. (2003) introduce a wide range of factors taken from the elaborate literature on democracy and democratization. They are the usual suspects: development, culture, previous regime type and mode of transition, state and nation building, and international context. For each factor lists are made with favorable and unfavorable factors. In a next step, six hypotheses are formulated that link particular (clusters of) factors to specific democratic defects. Two hypotheses, drawing on the literature on democratic design, predict that in certain circumstances, majoritarian democracy and presidentialism favor the emergence of democratic defects, exclusive and delegative democracy respectively. Lauth is largely negative about the impact of informal institutions, which is no wonder with a focus on clientelism, corruption, (threat of) violence, civil disobedience, and customary law. They are bad for democracy, because they parasite on formal democratic institutions or even replace them (pp.356-7). 10 Merkel and Croissant (2000) are less pessimistic about the impact on democracy of informal institutions, which depends crucially on the way they support or undermine formal institutions. Three defective democracies in Asia A more detailed analysis of the development of democratic deficits, their causes, conditions and consequences, is made by Croissant (2002), in the first book-length study of defective democracies. The book combines the theory of defective democracy with comparative case-studies of three Asian countries: South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. Croissant’s conclusions concur with those of Merkel et al. in their broad overview of defective democracies in three world regions: the transformation away from autocracy has not resulted in functioning liberal democracies but in defective democracies whose defects show themselves to be multi-dimensional and changeable as well as persistent, although in general a slight weakening of their intensity in these three countries is perceptible (pp.203-9). All started as democracies with reserved domains due to military influence and subsequently, after successful establishment of civilian 9 Nonetheless, the first difference of interpretation has already appeared. Where Merkel et al. (2003: 164-7) see Russia as an illiberal democracy with delegative features, Mangott (2002: 199-200) also detects elements of a democracy with reserved domains, due to the influence of business and criminal groupings on political decisions. 10 Lauth (2004: 214-17) even links clusters of informal institutions to specific regime types. 10

Authors: Bogaards, Matthijs.
first   previous   Page 10 of 19   next   last



background image
classifications and cases that deviate from the regional trend are rare.
existence of regional trends and recurring combinations of defects - especially civil
and political rights violations, and delegative and illiberal defects – suggests a
contagion and demonstration effect among defective democracies and among defects
within a democracy. Ninth, within each region some defects show themselves to be
persistent. In comparison with Freedom House, the latter detects slightly more liberal
democracies. Much less agreement exists with Polity IV, which Merkel et al. (2003:
177) explain by the difficulty Polity IV has with capturing illiberal democracies and
those with reserved domains.

To explain the occurrence of democratic defects, Merkel et al. (2003) introduce a
wide range of factors taken from the elaborate literature on democracy and
democratization. They are the usual suspects: development, culture, previous regime
type and mode of transition, state and nation building, and international context. For
each factor lists are made with favorable and unfavorable factors. In a next step, six
hypotheses are formulated that link particular (clusters of) factors to specific
democratic defects. Two hypotheses, drawing on the literature on democratic design,
predict that in certain circumstances, majoritarian democracy and presidentialism
favor the emergence of democratic defects, exclusive and delegative democracy
respectively. Lauth is largely negative about the impact of informal institutions, which
is no wonder with a focus on clientelism, corruption, (threat of) violence, civil
disobedience, and customary law. They are bad for democracy, because they parasite
on formal democratic institutions or even replace them (pp.356-7).
Croissant (2000) are less pessimistic about the impact on democracy of informal
institutions, which depends crucially on the way they support or undermine formal
institutions.


Three defective democracies in Asia

A more detailed analysis of the development of democratic deficits, their causes,
conditions and consequences, is made by Croissant (2002), in the first book-length
study of defective democracies. The book combines the theory of defective
democracy with comparative case-studies of three Asian countries: South Korea,
Thailand, and the Philippines.

Croissant’s conclusions concur with those of Merkel et al. in their broad overview of
defective democracies in three world regions: the transformation away from autocracy
has not resulted in functioning liberal democracies but in defective democracies
whose defects show themselves to be multi-dimensional and changeable as well as
persistent, although in general a slight weakening of their intensity in these three
countries is perceptible (pp.203-9). All started as democracies with reserved domains
due to military influence and subsequently, after successful establishment of civilian
9
Nonetheless, the first difference of interpretation has already appeared. Where Merkel et al. (2003:
164-7) see Russia as an illiberal democracy with delegative features, Mangott (2002: 199-200) also
detects elements of a democracy with reserved domains, due to the influence of business and criminal
groupings on political decisions.
10
Lauth (2004: 214-17) even links clusters of informal institutions to specific regime types.
10


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 10 of 19   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.