Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Modernisation theory
|
Lipset: social requisites of democracy
- as states modernise (health care, literacy, GDP) they will will democratise - 90s: new research: econ dev. predicts democratic endurance ≠ transition - Foweraker: uses Argentina as proof |
|
|
Transitions School
|
- Modernisation theory discredited
- structural (socioeco) variables don't lead to democracy, individual agents do |
|
|
Transitions school: basic assumptions
|
- Democratisation forward-moving process (regressions occur in wider mvmt of democratisation)
- importance of elections in increasing democratic accountability - popular mobs are reponses to elite-led political liberalisation |
|
|
Elites (regular and substantial affecting of outcomes)
|
Higley+Gunther: 'persons who are able, by virtue of their strategic positions in powerful organisations, to affect national political outcomes regularly and substantially. Elites are the principal decision makers in the largest or most resource-rich pol, gov, econ, mil, prof, comm and cultural organisations and movements in soc.' (pol.party leaders elements of the mil, business corporations
|
|
|
LA 60s-70s: Bureaucratic authoritarian regimes (O'Donnell)
|
- Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay
- mil: usually intervened to replaced one civilian leader w/ another (≠ Chile, Arg, mil leader in power) - bureaucratic ≠ indiv. charimsatic (Brazil: mil. leaders changed every 3-4 yrs - industrial countries: mil wanted to repress left-wing working class |
|
|
Types of elite
|
- disunified: no communication networks, zero sum outcomes: regular coups etc..
- consensually unified: communication, no dominant faction: positive sum, politics as bargainning - ideologically unified: no challenge, authoritarian regimes (USSR, N Korea) |
|
|
Elites: from disunity to consensual unity
|
- if elite shift to unity engenders transition, what role is played by elites/publics?
- 2 stages: settlement, convergence |
|
|
Elite settlement
|
- relatively rare: warring elite factinos suffer heavy losses in conflict, crisis threatens resumption of violence: risk of losing elite status
- negotiate compromises on most basic disagreements |
|
|
Elite settlement and masses
|
low levels of socioeco dev: relative insulation of elites from masses
|
|
|
Elite convergence
|
- broad based coalitions ro reliably remobilise electorate
- elite pact: based on mutual preservation of vital interests (≠ settlement) - requires large content+moderated segment of electorate which can be mobilsed in favour of pacts |
|
|
Democratic consolidation in pre-industrial states
|
- in pre-ind states: as new groups emerge (trade unions), mobilised mass publics (their elites) are subsequently incorporated into pol (this is essential for consolidation
|
|
|
Democratic transition in industrialised states
|
- higher number of actors means more challenge to existing elites: more conflict, settlement required between more actors
|
|
|
- Democratisation without elite convergence
|
- active militant, highly populised surge can bring down a dictatorships
- O'Donnell: it'll make subsequent consolidation difficult, and might even lead to regress to brutal regime |
