Cooperation Of Elites Is Critical For Success Of New Democracies
June 24, 2003
University Park, Pa. -- For democracy to work in countries with a heritage of autocracy or colonialism, the dominant elite members of those countries have to collectively hammer out their own versions of democracy, a process that to outsiders may seem noisy, messy and almost chaotic, a Penn State study notes.
The official trappings of democracy, such as a constitution and a presidential or parliamentary government, will not by themselves guarantee long-term success of democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan or East Timor, says Dr. Gretchen Casper, associate professor of political science. Neither will a prospering economy alone, although that factor will certainly help.
Once democratic institutions are in place, it is up to the dominant elites to learn the rules of negotiation and compromise, which form the essence of democracy. Casper notes, “These political, social and economic elites can consist of political parties, labor unions, corporate or business executives, key religious figures of diverse faiths, and ethnic, tribal and regional leaders. Their ability and willingness to cooperate in the worst case scenarios such as guerilla revolts or revolutions are critical for the future of a fledgling democracy.”
Even the most stable democracies experience far more mild crises such as strikes, demonstrations and riots than autocracies -- an apparent paradox until one realizes that democracies by their very nature allow and, indeed, invite dissent, according to Casper.
The Penn State political scientist is conducting a longitudinal study of democratization, which began in 1996 and will continue for the next two or three years; the study focuses on the socioeconomic background, political institutions and behavior of elites during times of political crisis. Her research is funded in part by the National Science Foundation.
Most recently, she presented her findings in the paper, “When Elites Reinforce versus Undermine Democracy,” at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston. Her monograph -- which weighs the influence of socioeconomic and political factors on levels of democracy in 114 countries between 1951 and 1992 -- forms the vanguard of an ongoing research project that analyzes why some countries are better candidates for democracy than others.
“My findings show that stable democracies experience roughly twice as many incidents of mild crises as three other categories of countries: those that switch from democracy to autocracy, those that are unstable and those that switch from autocracy to democracy. Stable democracies have on average four times the number of mild crises as stable autocracies such as those frequently found in the Middle East,” says Casper.
On the other hand, stable democracies have the fewest number of severe crises, principally in the form of revolutions and guerrilla warfare aimed at toppling the current government. Unstable countries experience two and a half times the incidence of revolutions and guerrilla fighting. Stable autocracies have close to four times the number of revolutions and outbreaks of guerrilla warfare compared to stable democracies, Casper adds.
“Thus, stable democracies present a higher ratio of mild crises compared to severe crises, while countries in the other four categories show a lower ratio,” she notes. “That stable democracies experience large numbers of crises, while initially surprising, makes sense: on the whole, democracies have higher levels of political rights and civil liberties than the other types of countries.
“Furthermore, the fact that the democracies are stable suggests that political elites have not only mastered tolerating opposition (given the high number of mild crises) but have also succeeded in cooperating with each other and encouraging actors to work within the system (given the low number of severe crises),” says the Penn State political scientist.
**pab**