Response #1

A common theme in this week’s readings was the many faults with not only the “democratization” process, but also the fact that “for better or for worse, we are ‘stuck’ with democracy as the catchword of contemporary political discourse.” It is evident as to how this occurred -- the Soviet collapse and the end of communism as a viable political alternative -- but there remain unanswered questions as to the consequences of democracy’s assumed dominance. This is no better represented than by the widespread use of the transition paradigm, and as per Thomas Carothers, the end of its useful life. While for many years, the assumption was that if countries were moving away from authoritarian rule, it meant that they were moving along a path towards democratization, Carothers believes that this no longer holds true. Instead, the majority of countries have entered a “gray zone” in which countries are “neither dictatorial nor clearly headed toward democracy.”

These “gray zone” countries could be characterized as the hybrid regimes discusses by Levitsky and Way, which are defined as those nations that have “combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance.” In “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Zakaria discusses this same issue under the title of “illiberal democracy,” in which democracy may be present, but constitutional liberalism is not. According to Zakaria, it is more important to facilitate the development of liberal constitutionalism -- as defined by the rule of law, personal freedoms, independent judiciary, etc… -- than to fulfill our misguided view that democratization alone will result in superior governance. This claim is further supported by Schmitter and Karl’s argument that “the specific form democracy takes is contingent upon a country’s…entrenched state structures and policy practices.” Thus, by establishing the necessary institutions of constitutional liberalism, it is possible to prompt countries toward liberal democracy and stop the proliferation of hybrid regimes.