DETSIOU EVANGELIA MATRIKEL NR 1114755 MA: ROADS TO DEMOCRACY - 1st SEMESTER

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Democracy in inter war Europe

4

2.1. Economic factor 5

2.2. Social factor 5

2.3. Ideological factor

6

2.4. Why did fascism/ national socialism replace

democracy 6

3. The spread of democracy

7

3.1. Which factors foster the spread of democracy

7

3.2. Which factors obstruct democratic development

8

4. The measurement of democracy

9

4.1. How could/should democracy be measured?

9

4.2. How the measurement influences our

perceptions 10

5. The three waves of democracy

11 6. Conclusion

13

7. Bibliography 14

Introduction

In this assignment I will present an analysis on the topic -

the development of democracy -focused on inter war Europe. I

will try to reveal the great importance of economic, social

and ideological factors during this period which are related

to historical conditions such as the takeover of fascism or

National Socialism in Germany and Italy. Additionally I will

study the factors which are connected with the spread of

democracy by presenting the factors which foster but also

obstruct democratic development. Following that I will try to

present how could or should democracy be measured which is a

thorny and burning issue because the measurement of democracy

influences our perceptions of how it spreads according to

many researchers. Finally I will complete my analysis on

democratic development presenting the three distinct waves of

democratization reassesing previous theories and presenting

the new.

Democracy in inter war Europe

The decade that ran from the stock market crash in October of

1929 to the outbreak of war in September of 1939 has as main

features the unemployment, political disintegration in the

democratic West and the establishment of concentration camps

in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union

(http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/2_1.html-

05.11.2013).

Studying this period it could be said that there was

decomposition of liberalism of nineteenth century as a

different set of values and purposes was established.

Ideologically, the primary importance was removed from

individuals to the state. Politically, dictatorship from

above, not consent from below, was imposed and

institutionally, repression of the rights of the citizen was

practiced without respecting them.

(http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/2_2.html -

05.11.2013)

Barrington Moore outlined three major routes which took place

during the inter war Europe and in each case “the particular

transition from feudalism to modernity during which time a

specific alliance of class forces emerged, shaped later

events – the bourgeois democratic route – the authoritarian

reactionary route ( which later culminated in fascism) – the

peasant based communist route. The first route was

characterized by the domination of the emerging urban

industrial bourgeoisie, a broad commercializtion of

agriculture and a gradual incorporation of the working

classes. The second route in contrast maintained the

domination of the landed aristocracy in a strictly

centralized system controlled by the bureaucracy and

military. The authoritarian and later fascist cases are Moore

s main examples in this regard. The third route culminated in

a successful peasant revolution, as in Russia and

China”(Schlosser, 1994 =260).

More recently John Stephens has attempted to extend and

differentiate Moore s argument and apply it to a larger

number of cases, icluding many of those which we have

considered. “Stephen lists four major factors which in his

view permit a differentiated analysis of the social

structural patterns leading to authoritarianism or democracy

in Europe s pre World War II political development, These

factors are the existence of a politically significant landed

upper class engaged in labor repressive agriculture, a strong

bourgeoisie which however is less powerful than the landed

class and thus remains a dependent partner in this coalition,

a strong state and the occurance or absence of a

revolutionary break with the past” (Schlosser, 1994 =261).

Following that if we want to give a final explanation for the

weakness of interwar democracy we will take into account that

“it points to a lack of co operation among democrats,

engendered by acture polarization. However polarization did

not so much cause specific outcomes as reflect the inability

to find any stable solution.” “Where democrats failed it was

not because their societies had become polarized rather the

societies bacame polarized because democrats had failed”

(Luebbert, 1987 = 478).

More specifically I will study democracy in inter war Europe

in relation to the importance of economic, social and

inteological factors.

Economic factor

“The form the inter war state ultimately assumed in the

crises of the 1920s and 1930s cannot be understood apart from

the manner in whch workers became organized in the labor

market. For both state and labor market institutions took

shape simultaneously as two halves of the same response to

working class mobilization. Trade unions could be organized

along corpotalist or pluralist lines or they could simply be

repressed by the state. Corporatism between the wars denoted

a system in which economic interests in a private economy

were becoming functionally organized in groups that were

centralized, comprehensive and authoritative. In this

authoritarian variant - fascism - corporatist organizations

were mainly mechanisms through which the state controlled and

mobilized workers and capitalists” (Luebbert, 1987 = 450).

Social factor

During the period of study it was the growth of the working

class and its capacity for self organization that were most

critical for the final breakthrough of democracy. “The rapid

industrialization experienced by Western Europe in the five

decades before World War I increased the size and with

varying time lags, the degree of organization of the working

class and thus changed the balance of class power in the

civil society to the advantage of democratic forces.” In

Therbon s words where the working class had few allies

democracy was fragile and did not survive the inter war

period. “But there is also almost the reverse of Therbon s

thesis whch supports the view that where the working class

was well organized and commited to a moderate to radical

socialist party, it hindered the development of

democracy”(Stephens, 1989 = 1064 – 1065). “Moreover the

middle classes and the peasantry played quite fifferent roles

in different countries. In some such as the Scandinavian

countries they supported suffrage extension and allied with

the working class, In others such as Germany and Austria they

formed the mass base for authoritarian movements that ended

democracy” (Stephens, 1989 = 1066).

Ideological factor

Ideologiacally two ways of life were represented in national

ideologies as a conflict started between socialism and

capitalism, economic autarky and free trade, state planning

and private enterprise. Following many in the U.S. saw the

Soviet system as a threat and the “ Red Scare” had as a

result both British and U.S. policymakers commonly assumed

the communist Soviet Union to be a much greater threat than

Germany and focused most of their intelligence efforts

against Moscow losing valuable time against the threat of

fascism which exploited the above situations and it

increased its power

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Cold_War -

05.11.2013) .

Why did fascism / national socialism and authoritarian

government replace democracy?

“George Hallgarten for example pointed out that the Nazi

takeover was made possible by the agreement between certain

parts of the upper classes and Hitler s movement. Similarly

Arthur Schweitzer argued that the Great Depression and the

nazification of the middle class were necessary but not

sufficient causes for the rise of the Nazi system. Three

further conditions enabled the Nazis to come tro power. The

first was the unification of the upper class into a single

power bloc dedicated the depression by promoting a political

dictatorship. Of equal importance were the alliances with the

generals, big business and the landowners had used their

influence to restore between the two parties the NSDAP and

the DNVP and the tie in between these parties and the upper

class. Finally as parliament lost its power because of a Nazi

majority the subsequent presidential government came under

the effective control of the various segments of the upper

class” (Schlosser, 1994 =259).

Both Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), duce (leader) of Italy,

and Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), fuhrer (leader) of Germany,

boasted that they would provide strength where weakness had

before prevailed. Mussolini offered this definition: “The

Fascist state is will to power and domination.”

From this brief review, the major elements of appeal that

were gathered around the swastika or the fasces can be seen.

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany presented themselves as

upholders of sacred national purpose and they offered an

alternative against the economic insecurity, the threat of an

impending bolshevism and ineffectiveness of parliamentary

democracy. That the alternative would prove to be both false

and horrendous was not anticipated by many of those who

followed the flags of these new systems

(http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/2_2.html -

05.11.2013) .

“In many analyses of Europe in the 1930s contemporaries

employed two metaphors, cancer and twilight, to describe the

state of European civilization. Cancer was used in reference

to totalitarianism. Fascism and Nazism were seen as malignant

outgrowths of modern society, slowly consuming it. The

metaphor twilight, most frequently applied to the state of

affairs in France, suggested the end of an era. The high noon

of liberal democracy was past, and now Europe was basking in

the last light of a glorious day before the night of fascism

would fall.Neither metaphor was neither new nor particularly

subtle in nuance. But each clearly conveyed the sense of

despair, of tragic conclusion that so many observers foresaw

for the European civilization that had been part of their

prewar youth.The Depression of the 1930s was, therefore, not

just economic but also psychological. European society had

lost its confidence”

(http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/2_2.html -

05.11.2013) .

The spread of democracy

Which factors foster the spread of democracy?

Few questions in political science have been studied as

extensively as the relation between socio economic

development and democracy. According to Lipset

(modernization theory) all the various aspects of economic

development - industrialization, urbanization, wealth and

education are the conditions for the spread of democracy

(Stephens, 1989 = 1064).

Lipset’s account of democratization was strongly informed by

Lerner (1958), who had identified urbanization, education and

communication (media) to be core factors in the process of

individual modernization and political participation. Lerner

had pointed out that with widespread education the ruling

elite’s fear of a country ruled by an unruly mass, incapable

of informed decision. “In sum, economic development — like

urbanization, wealth and education — in Lipset’s account

works as a mediating variable that is part of a larger

syndrome of conditions favorable to democratization.

Kitschelt (2003) has called this a deep explanation in which

economic development works through the syndrome of

conditions”

(http://democracy.livingreviews.org/index.php/lrd/article/vie

warticle/lrd-2009-4/13 - 05.11.2013).

Which factors obstruct democratic development?

STATUS OF WOMEN: Women perform important functions in and

outside home. They have achieved high positions in all walks

of political and social life as the women representatives’

percentages in the parliaments have been increased the last

years .However, inspite of all these achievements there are a

number of prejudices against their abilities being

disregarded, maltreated and debarred from doing the same

things with men But where there is not equality between the

two genders and women do not enjoy full freedom it is against

the spirit of democracy. Where there is not universal

liberty, democracy is hindered.

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: Economic inequality also hampers

democracy. This breeds rivalry and hatred among people. It

leads to the exploit of one class by one other.It is a

negation of democracy as poor cannot contribute in the

functioning of democracy.

ILLITERACY: Absence of literacy is the greatest impediment to

social and economic progress. Illiterate person can not

understand the problems of the country. He or She can not

take a correct decision about his or her future. For example

he / she is not in a position to make the best use of his/

her rights or he/she does not know for whom to vote.

Therefore an illiterate man cannot contribute much to the

success of democracy.

TERRORISM IN DEMOCRACY: is faced with this challenge in many

states where people have resorted to terror tactics hambering

the smooth functioning of democracy.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNALISM: It leads to jealously and hatred

between various religious sects which results in riots and

violence. Religious communalism creates intolerance and

disrespect among various communities which hinder the

functioning of democracy.

(http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/16206/

Leffler_Global%282010%29.PDF?sequence=1 /05.11.2013).

The measurement of democracy

How could or should democracy be measured?

It has been easier for researchers to agree on the general

characteristics of democracy than on how to measure it.

Various operational measures of democracy have been

formulated and used in empirical studies (Vanhanen, 2000 =

252).

Democracy has been measured in various ways and two of the

most basic dimensions of democracy are competition and

participation in Vanhanen s words. “They can yield a

theoretically satisfactory measurement of democracy that

employs three measures: degree of electoral competition,

degree of electoral participation and a combined index of

democratization. The value of the Competition variable is

calculated by subtracting the percentage of votes won by the

largest party from 100. If data on the distribution of votes

are not available, the value of this variable is calculated

on the basis of distribution of seats in parliament. The

value of the Participation variable is calculated from the

total population, not from the adult or enfranchized

population” (Vanhanen, 2000 = 251 & 253).

However there are some problems with these two variables.

“Differences in electoral systems account for some of the

variation in the smaller parties’ share of the vote.

Proportional electoral systems are assumed to promote the

multiplication of political parties but this factor has

significantly affected the share of the smaller parties in

relatively few countries, The competition indicator is biased

to produce somewhat higher values for countries with

proportional electoral systems that for those with plurality

or majority electoral systems. A disadvantage of

Participation is that it daes not take into account the

variation in age structure. The percentage of the adult

population is significantly higher in developed countries

than in poor countries in which people die younger and in

which therefore the relative number of children is higher.

This factor exaggerates differences in the degree of

electoral participation between developed and developing

countries. Another shortcoming is that Participation does not

take into account tha variation in the nature and importance

of elections. This intensivity to the significance of

elections weakens the validity of this variable. For these

reasons some researchers have excluded the degree of

electoral participation from their measures of democracy

because they feel that it does not represent a significant

differentiating aspect of democracy” (Vanhanen, 2000 = 255).

“The Freedom House Comparative Survey of Freedom established

by Raymond D. Gastil in the 1970s has rated countries in

terms of political rights and civil liberties since 1972-73.

These ratings have also been used as indirect measures of the

degree of democracy. The Polity Project initiated by Ted

Robert Gurr in the 1970s developed a different method for

measuring authority characteristics of all the largest

countries from 1800. One of the Polity authority

characteristics concerns institutionalized democracy where

democracy is measured by an additive ten point scale derived

from codings of the competitiveness of political

participation, the competitiveness of executive recruitment,

the openness of executive recruitment and constraints on the

chief executive. It should also be noted that democracy

scores have not been coded for the periods of transition,

interregnum and interruption” (Vanhanen, 2000 = 252).

How the measurement of democracy influences our perceptions

of how it spreads?

In addition to the various checklists (self-surveys and

expert surveys), people’s beliefs are also measured to

determine the saturation level of democratic values. For

example  The World Values Survey uses the following

questionsin order to dig deeper into the extent to which

democratic culture has developed or may develop in the

future:

Do you agree with the following statement, “Democracy

may have its problems, but it’s better than any other

form of government?”

Do you endorse the idea of a “Strong leader who does not

have to bother with parliament and elections?”

Do you agree that “Greater respect for authority would

be a good thing?”

These attitudinal measures are helpful in examining the claim

that some cultures or regions are naturally more conducive to

the growth and consolidation of democracy.  Countries, where

the citizens answer the above questions positively, are seen

to be potentially fertile, if challenging candidates for

future democratization.  Conversely, countries whose citizens

respond negatively to the above questions are considered to

be at risk for de-democratization.  Many experts also look at

voter registration to gauge how people feel in the political

system.  Low rates may reveal government interference with

voting and/or voter apathy, both of which are highly negative

indicators for the health of a democracy

(http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=183:what-is-

democracy&catid=76:what-is-democracy&Itemid=297/05.11.2013)

The three waves of democracy

According to Huntington, there have been tree distinct waves

of democratization with a wave being defined as a group of

transitions from nndemocratic to democratic regimes that

occurs within a specified period of time and in which those

transitions significantly outnumber transitions in the

opposite direction. “The first long wave flowed

uninterruptedly form 1826 to 1926 marking the emergence of

democratic regimes as a nineteenth century phenomenon.

Following a reverse wave, the end of World War II provided

the impetus for the second short wave of democratization.

Thereafter came an enormous global swing away from democy in

the 1960s and early 1970s which in turn was succeeded by a

third wave of democratization which took off in the years

following the end of the PorTuguese dictatorship in 1974”

( Doorenspleet, 2000 = 384).

Although Huntington’s study has been very influential there

are two problems. “The first is largely conceptual - the

analysis fails to provide a clear and meaningful distinction

between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Moreover, he

also appears to adopt other criteria for 19th century systems

which are classified as having already become democratic when

50 per cent of adult males become eligible to vote. Finally

early 20th century Portugal is also considered democratic,

even though only male citizens had then won the right to

participate. The second problem is empirical. In brief,

Huntington has estimated the incidence of transitions to

democracy in terms of the percentages of world states

involved. Since the dominator in this equation that is the

number of states in the world, is far from constant this

measure can be misleading” (Doorenspleet, 2000 = 385 & 386).

Lastly the Doorespleet’s research notes on whether the wave

metaphor is the most appropriate way to conceptualize the

problem. Since reverse waves are not really apparent it may

be better to think in terms of steps toward democratization.

But many researchers, who believe in the theory of waves,

expect a reverse wave in the near future and are waiting for

it because they think that “each wave is inevitably

followed by a reverse wave”. Are we on the edge of such a

reversal? “It seems then that a period of trendless

fluctuation is empirically more likely than a reverse wave”

(Doorenspleet, 2000 = 400 & 401).

Conclusion

To sum up, if we read the assignment again we will understand

immediately that the development of democracy is an issue

with many aspects as it is connected with different

situations such as the democratic rule and democratic

institutions, the factors which foster or obstruct the spread

of democracy, the measurement of dymocracy and the waves of

democratization.

As for as the main period of study – period of inter war

Europe- is concerned, the decade is characterized of The

Great Depression (the stock market crash in October of 1929)

and the establishment of concentration camps in Nazi Germany

and the Soviet Union having the following consequences. For

many individuals who turned to these new authoritarian

parties, personal freedom seemed a burden; democratic

processes seemed inept and ineffective. A new desire for

relief from personal anxiety led to a search for social

order. Here was a call for a new order in the most democratic

of European nations. On the Continent itself, fascism and

Nazism were responses to the confusion of the day.

Finally we should take into account that today we also live

a great economic and social crisis and many fascist

organizations have been emerged. Subsequently is the modern

world safe for democracy or how could we make the

contemporary world safer for democracy?

Bibliography

Doorenspleet, Renske (April 2000): Reassessing the Three

Waves of Democratization.In: World Politics Vol. 52. pp. 384-

406.

Luebbert, Gregory M. (July, 1987): Social Foundations of

Political Order in Interwar Europe.In: World Politics. Vol. 39,

No. 4. pp. 449-478.

Schlosse - Berg, Dirk / Neur, Gisele De (April, 1994):

Conditions of Democracy in Interwar Europe: A Boolean Test of Major

Hypotheses.In: Comparative Politics. Vol. 26, No. 3. pp.

253-279.

Stephens, John D.(March, 1989): Democratic Transition and

Breakdown in Western Europe, 1870-1939: A Test of the Moore Thesis.In:

The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 94, No. 5. pp.

1019-1077.

Vanhanen, Tatu (March, 2000): A New Dataset for Measuring

Democracy, 1810-1998.In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol.

37, No. 2. pp. 251-265.

http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/2_1.html-

05.11.2013

(http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/2_2.html -

05.11.2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Cold_War -

05.11.2013

http://democracy.livingreviews.org/index.php/lrd/

article/viewarticle/lrd-2009-4/13 - 05.11.2013

http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/16206/

Leffler_Global%282010%29.PDF?sequence=1 /05.11.2013

http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=183:what-is-

democracy&catid=76:what-is-

democracy&Itemid=297/05.11.2013