 |
Defective Democracies: Towards an Integrated Framework of Democratic Hybrids
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
systematizes some of the most frequently used existing diminished subtypes of democracy, including delegative democracy (O’Donnell 1994) and illiberal democracy (Zakaria 1997; Karatnycky 1999). This congruence should facilitate adoption. The term “exclusive” democracy is broader than current understandings as it refers to any limitation to democratic elections and political participation rights. In the book, Merkel et al. (2003) are concerned exclusively with type, not with degree. In an attempt to measure the degree of democratic defects, Croissant and Thiery (2000b) reformulate the ten criteria for democracy and extend them to twelve. To assess the severity of a defect on any of these twelve criteria, five classes are used: a feature is not working, working with severe defects, medium defects, light defects, without defects. These classifications are quantified with values from 0 (not working) to 4 (no defect). Scores are aggregated through a cumulative index for democracy components or overall, in an Index of Democratic Defects (IDD) with a range from zero to forty. One notices that a regime can receive a score of zero and a classification as authoritarian when it fails on any single criterion, not taking into account the possibility of compensation and the oft-repeated caution in the qualitative analysis not to look at indicators in isolation. The use of a cumulative index shows how seemingly technical choices can, inadvertently, change the underlying logic of the measurement. More promising is the attempt to determine the extent to which a defective democracy is exclusive, illiberal, or suffers from reserved domains, but this cannot be done without reflecting on difficulties with coding and weighting in comparative perspective (Berg-Schlosser 2000: 302) and the proper method of aggregation, issues examined in depth by Lauth.
To illustrate the empirical usefulness of their typology of defective democracies, Merkel et al. (2003) present an overview of democratic defects in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. Because their necessarily brief country descriptions in this volume only apply to electoral democracies, the analysis offers no guidance for deciding on the border between defective democracies and autocracies. It would have been interesting to learn, for example, why Malaysia is excluded as an autocracy. An inventory of democratic defects in the three regions leads the authors to nine conclusions, which one expects to be further substantiated in the second volume with more in-depth case-studies.
8
First, most new democracies are defective democracies.
Second, defective democracies are not a transitional phase to full democracy. Slowakia and Estonia are the only defective democracies to have transformed into liberal democracies. Third, there is no reverse wave: the number of defective democracies that have regressed into full authoritarianism is very small (Belarus, Pakistan and Peru). Fourth, some trends can be discerned. Among defective democracies, illiberal democracies dominate. These illiberal traits are further often combined with delegative practices. Fifth, defective democracies oscillate in the nature of their defects. Between their founding election and 2001, most defective democracies remained defective but the kind of defect changed. Many started out as a democracy with reserved domains and turned into illiberal and/or delegative democracies when the role of the military was curtailed in the years after the transition. Sixth, exclusive democracies are disappearing. Seventh, undecided
8
The conclusions might be different for Africa. This author will apply the framework of defective
democracies to Africa for a presentation at the University of Cologne in November of this year.
9
|
| | Authors: Bogaards, Matthijs. |
|
| |
|
|
systematizes some of the most frequently used existing diminished subtypes of
democracy, including delegative democracy (O’Donnell 1994) and illiberal
democracy (Zakaria 1997; Karatnycky 1999). This congruence should facilitate
adoption. The term “exclusive” democracy is broader than current understandings as
it refers to any limitation to democratic elections and political participation rights.
In the book, Merkel et al. (2003) are concerned exclusively with type, not with
degree. In an attempt to measure the degree of democratic defects, Croissant and
Thiery (2000b) reformulate the ten criteria for democracy and extend them to twelve.
To assess the severity of a defect on any of these twelve criteria, five classes are used:
a feature is not working, working with severe defects, medium defects, light defects,
without defects. These classifications are quantified with values from 0 (not working)
to 4 (no defect). Scores are aggregated through a cumulative index for democracy
components or overall, in an Index of Democratic Defects (IDD) with a range from
zero to forty. One notices that a regime can receive a score of zero and a classification
as authoritarian when it fails on any single criterion, not taking into account the
possibility of compensation and the oft-repeated caution in the qualitative analysis not
to look at indicators in isolation. The use of a cumulative index shows how seemingly
technical choices can, inadvertently, change the underlying logic of the measurement.
More promising is the attempt to determine the extent to which a defective democracy
is exclusive, illiberal, or suffers from reserved domains, but this cannot be done
without reflecting on difficulties with coding and weighting in comparative
perspective (Berg-Schlosser 2000: 302) and the proper method of aggregation, issues
examined in depth by Lauth.
To illustrate the empirical usefulness of their typology of defective democracies,
Merkel et al. (2003) present an overview of democratic defects in Asia, Eastern
Europe and Latin America. Because their necessarily brief country descriptions in this
volume only apply to electoral democracies, the analysis offers no guidance for
deciding on the border between defective democracies and autocracies. It would have
been interesting to learn, for example, why Malaysia is excluded as an autocracy. An
inventory of democratic defects in the three regions leads the authors to nine
conclusions, which one expects to be further substantiated in the second volume with
more in-depth case-studies.
First, most new democracies are defective democracies.
Second, defective democracies are not a transitional phase to full democracy.
Slowakia and Estonia are the only defective democracies to have transformed into
liberal democracies. Third, there is no reverse wave: the number of defective
democracies that have regressed into full authoritarianism is very small (Belarus,
Pakistan and Peru). Fourth, some trends can be discerned. Among defective
democracies, illiberal democracies dominate. These illiberal traits are further often
combined with delegative practices. Fifth, defective democracies oscillate in the
nature of their defects. Between their founding election and 2001, most defective
democracies remained defective but the kind of defect changed. Many started out as a
democracy with reserved domains and turned into illiberal and/or delegative
democracies when the role of the military was curtailed in the years after the
transition. Sixth, exclusive democracies are disappearing. Seventh, undecided
8
The conclusions might be different for Africa. This author will apply the framework of defective
democracies to Africa for a presentation at the University of Cologne in November of this year.
9
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
