What Do We Know about Democratization after Twenty Years? Barbara Geddes Article Review

The last 20 years have seen a great deal of change from authoritarian regimes to the creation of more democratic governments in different parts of the world. The move started in 1974 which was facilitated by the "third wave" of democratization. Before this time, different parts of the word was mainly under authoritarian regimes in which most of the rulers were only concerned about themselves and not the ordinary people who were not in power. Even different scholars do agree that there is continuous democratization word over and have greeted this with delight, intense attention and different theoretical puzzlements.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Even those countries that have either had authoritarian regimes or have succumbed to them have taken some step toward the direction of political liberation. Democratization is more likely to occur in developed countries as democracy and economic development go hand in hand. It, therefore, remains clear that democratization brings about prosperity and growth of a country (Papaioannou and Siourounis, 2008). Poverty in return will determine the relationship between regime type and economic development. Once democratization has occurred, for one reason or another, it is only possible to survive in countries with the above certain level of economic growth. Those countries below the said threshold, have the highest probability of reversing to authoritarianism from the gained democratization, followed by the falls in the level of economic growth.

Countries with the middle level of development are those that most of the time tend to interchange regimes. Such states have the highest probability of having the transition to both democracy and authoritarianism. All that said, it has been positively proven that after 20 years of observation and analysis of changes in democratization, we can ascertain that a positive relationship between democratization and development exist (Papaioannou and Siourounis, 2008).

Poor economic performance increases the likelihood of authoritarian development, as it increases democratic breakdown and defeat of incumbents in stable democracies (Geddes, 1999). Many factors cause the transition to democracy. The elements can include direct and indirect divisions within the authoritarian regime itself, like split within the military administration. Such transformations have been evident in the military system of governance in Greece, Spain, and Portugal. Such has also happened in countries in Africa including Uganda, the Gambian republic and many other countries (Diamond, 2010).

Democracy has also been achieved through popular protest which culminated in the streets. Demonstrations were also used to voice the concern of the majority and to express their displeasure with the authoritarian regimes. For example, there were many street demonstrations including in Egypt. The protests were followed by opposition demonstrations, rallies, and organization of nonviolent dissident groups which were demanding for an end to one-party politics. (El-Mahdi, 2009). All these factors have seen the transition to democracy occurring with surprising frequency in the last 20 years.

Regime transition has however proven to be more difficult to control due to the different kinds of authoritarianism which differ from each other. They vary regarding groups of individuals which they are composed of, staff government officers and even from the various segments of the societies where the regime comes.

Such regimes have some politics in them as they have factionalism, struggles and as well as competitions in them. These authoritarian regimes, therefore, are of different types in their composition, agenda and how they handle different matters that affect the people whom they have control over. The three main types of authoritarian regimes include military, personalist, and single-party authoritarian regimes. In this type of government, the group of military officers decides from among them, who rule and exercise will influence on policy (Geddes et al., 2014). An example of an army regime includes the Brazilian (1964-1985) and the Argentine (1971-1983). In a single-party system, the ability to access political office and control of policy is under the influence of one party. Though other political parties may exist legally and participate in elections, they have no much say in this case. They include Revolution Party of Tanzania (CCM) and Partido Revolutionary Institutional (PRI) in Mexico.

On the other hand, a personalist regime tends to differ from the military and single-party system. Here, access to office and the benefits that come with that office is at the discretion of an individual leader. He/she maintains the monopoly over issues and all decisions. Personalist regimes that have existed include that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Soviet Union's government system of Joseph Stalin, and the Kim dynasty in North Korea.

Military regimes have however had a short lifespan after descending to power. The occurrence is very different from other authoritarian regimes (Geddes, 1999). Such early withdrawal from power occurs because when officers seize control of governments, they continue with control over weapons and the guys who use them. It as a consequence appears that they would have specific advantages in coercive capacity relative to different ruling groups: the competencies to deter opposition through the chance of pressure and to use force to defeat the opponent. These advantages do not help the military to maintain power.it is also clear that other factors contributing to the shorter lifespan of the military are that most expert soldiers vicinity a higher cost on the survival and efficacy of the army itself than on anything else. The military rulers, therefore, have got different goals which are very different from those of the single-part or personalist regimes. The military is concerned with the interest of hierarchy maintenance, discipline, and consistency within the military. They also highly value the integrity of their territory and internal order more than anything. Their interest is of high contrast to those of personalist and single-party regimes.

It is therefore apparent that economic development will increase the chances of democratic politics whole over the world. Authoritarian regimes also undergo break down during the times of financial crisis and that authoritarianism also usually more susceptible to economic turmoil in a country than others. Over the last 20 years, democratization has indeed occurred, and many authoritarian regimes have fallen. Because of this, more economic developments have occurred, which in this case has indeed continued to give more people hope, and confidence in democracy.

References

Papaioannou, E., & Siourounis, G. (2008). Democratization and growth. The Economic Journal, 118(532), 1520-1551.

Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual review of political science, 2(1), 115-144.

Diamond, L. J., & Plattner, M. F. (2010). Democratization in Africa: Progress and retreat. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.

El-Mahdi, R. (2009). Enough! Egypt's quest for democracy. Comparative political studies, 42(8), 1011-1039.

Geddes, B., Frantz, E., & Wright, J. G. (2014). Military rule. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 147-162.