LIBERAL AND ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY. READINGS Smith, Democracy, chs. 9-11

LIBERAL AND ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY

READINGS

Smith, Democracy, chs. 9-11

The Rise of Electoral Democracy, 1972-2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Year

N C

ou

ntr

ies

Autocracy

Semidemocracy

Democracy

THE CONCEPT OF ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY

• Distinct Dimensions of Democracy: Free and Fair Elections Citizen Rights

• Systematic Curtailment of Citizen Rights

Democracy, Elections, and Citizen Rights: A Typology

Citizen Rights Character of Elections

Free and Fair Free not Fair None

Expansive Liberal Democracy Liberal/Permissive Semidemocracy

(Null)

Limited Illiberal Democracy Illiberal/Restrictive Semidemocracy

ModerateDictablanda

Minimal (Null) Repressive Semidemocracy

Hard-LineDictadura

Journalists Killed in Latin America, 1990-2010

Country___ __ 1990-99__ __2000-10__Colombia 36 41Peru 12 3Mexico 10 46Brazil 8 12Haiti 4 8Argentina 3 1Guatemala 3 9Venezuela 2 6Chile 1 0Dominican Republic 1 4Honduras 1 12Paraguay 1 2Other 0 5

Total 82 157

Source: Committee to Protect Journalists, Attacks on the Press in 1999 (New York: CPJ, 2000), 23; and cpj.org/killed/americas.

Electoral Regimes and Freedom of the Press, 1990s

_________________Regime____________________ Press____ Autocracy Semi-Democracy Democracy Not Free 1 5 2 Partly Free 1 26 51 Free 0 0 47

Totals 2 31 100

• FH scores of 1-2 = Extensive

• FH scores of 3-4 = Partial

• FH scores of 5-7 = Minimal

CLASSIFYING CITIZEN RIGHTS (Freedom House scales for “Civil Liberties”)

Table 1-2. Electoral Regimes and Civil Liberties, 1970s-2000 1972-79 Electoral Type Status of Civil Liberties* Dictatorship Semi-Democracy Democracy Minimal 22 0 0 Partial 88 3 10 Expansive 0 1 28 Totals 110 4 38

gamma = +.994

*Categorized as follows: Expansive=Freedom House scores of 1 or 2; Partial – Freedom House scores of 3-5; Minimal=Freedom House scores of 6-7.

1980-1989

________________Regime___________________Civil Liberties___ Autocracy Semi-Democracy Democracy

Minimal 15 1 0 Partial 59 30 41 Extensive 1 4 39

Totals 75 35 80

1990-2000

_________________Regime_________________Civil Liberties___ Autocracy Semi-Democracy Democracy

Minimal 3 0 0 Partial 4 53 109 Extensive 0 2 38

Totals 7 55 147

Figure 10-1. The Progression of Illiberal Democracy, 1970s-2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1972-79 1980-89 1990-2000

Period

Per

cent

Partial Civil Liberties

Expansive Civil Liberties

Political Regimes in 1999: Countries and Population

N %Regime Type___ __Countries__ __Population__

Liberal Democracy 3 <5

Illiberal Democracy 11 60

Illiberal Semi-Democracy 5 33

Autocracy 1 2

Liberal and Illiberal Democracy, 1978-2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

N De

moc

raci

es Illiberal

Liberal

AND NOW…?

Liberal Democracy (n=7) Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama,

Uruguay

Illiberal Democracy (n=7) Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru

Illiberal Semidemocracy (n=5) Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela

Authoritarian (1) Cuba

Why Illiberal Democracy?

In case of center and center-right democracies, the illiberal regimes: Protect elite interests Control the popular masses Under the rubric of free and fair elections Thus gaining international approval.

In case of progressive “new left” regimes, the opposition: Has the money Has control of the press Has institutional bastions of power (e.g., congress or

courts) Does not play by democratic rules

SO WHAT? PENDULUMS OF POLITICS

1900-1939: democracy not “dangerous,” orchestrated by elites

1940-1977: democracy becomes dangerous, with mass mobilization and calls for sweeping socioeconomic reform

1978-present: democracy initially “tame” not dangerous, with neoliberal consensus

1998-present: democracy dangerous again, with rise of new Left

LOOKING AHEAD I

Interim Developments:43% “democrats,” 30.5% “ambivalent,” 26.5%

“nondemocratic”Economic growth (reducing poverty + inequality)9/11 and its aftermathThe Problem of Consolidation:Longevity? Of what?DeepeningFrom illiberal to liberal democracy? Or not?

LOOKING AHEAD II

The greater the frustration within the population,The greater the sympathy with anti-establishment

movements,The more extensive the general participation in

elections, The more clearly defined the partisan or ideological

alternatives, andThe more effective the role of representative

institutions…

LOOKING AHEAD III

The more divisive will be debates over policy content in Latin America,

The greater the likelihood of nationalistic and/or anti-establishment policies,

The greater the resistance to demands from the United States, and

The greater the probability of policy conflicts with Washington.

Thus: the greater the degree of democracy in Latin America, the greater the degree of inter-American tension and disagreement.

The End