The readings this week consider a phenomenon in state change: the development of a different kind of regime. Fareed Zakaria calls them illiberal democracies, Levitsky and Way calls them competitive authoritarianism, and Carothers says these regimes exist in a sort of gray zone. They are all describing the same regime, however, one where power derives from democratic apparatus abused by those in power.
The articles say that for most of the 20th century there was a consensus that authoritarian countries would move towards democracy. Countries that combined elements of both government types, like some African or post-communist states, were considered on their way to democracy. Carothers calls this the transition paradigm, a model that assumes countries removing authoritarian elements from their systems will become more democratic. For example, when the Republic of China lifted martial law, it was seen as moving towards democracy instead of any other form of government.
Levitsky and Way argue, though, that this model does not take into account the existence of hybrid regimes that combine elements of authoritarianism and democracy but have no intention of becoming democracies. There are several countries (Zimbabwe, Russia) that reduced the level of authoritarianism in their systems but are not moving towards democracy. Instead, Levitsky and Way say, they are models of competitive authoritarianism, where the ruling group manipulates electoral machinery to maintain its power.
Carothers describes a similar type of regime when talking about “dominant power politics,” characterized by the some democracy, some political space, a dominant group, and some opposition parties. From Levitsky and Way's and Carothers's descriptions, these kind of regimes sound like entities separate from states that are actually transitioning to democracy.
10/16/08
No comments:
Post a Comment