Political systems

Democracy

Democracy is a highly contested concept, both in terms of its definition and its relationship to development. Whilst some understand it in procedural terms - as electoral competition and decision-making - others view it more broadly in terms of civil and political rights and the distribution of power within society. Either way, a central question is how citizens exercise control and scrutiny over political institutions.

This page addresses two specific issues for development practitioners: How can processes of democratisation be supported in different development contexts?; and how can democracy be pro-poor? A large body of literature on democracy addresses these and many other questions. For further reading, please see the links in the useful websites section.

Page contents

• Processes of democratisation
• Democratic consolidation and ‘deepening democracy’
• Hybrid regimes
• Democracy and development
• Democracy and conflict
• Useful websites

Processes of democratisation

How are processes of democratisation influenced by economic development, history, state capacity and civil society? Why do some democratisation processes succeed where others fail? Can these processes be effectively supported by external agencies?

The so-called ‘third wave’ of democratisation during the early 1990’s demonstrated that the emergence of democracy is not contingent on a certain level of economic development. But there is considerable ongoing debate about whether and how structural factors –underlying economic, social, and institutional conditions and legacies – impact on the prospects for democratisation and on the sustainability of democratic political systems.

Carothers, T., 2007, ‘How Democracies Emerge: The Sequencing Fallacy’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 12-27
Should the rule of law and a well-functioning state be prerequisites for democratisation? Democratic sequencing suggests that they should. This article from the Journal of Democracy argues that sequencing is a problematic idea rooted in scepticism about democracy, which helps to postpone democratisation indefinitely. A more useful alternative is gradualism, which aims to build democracy slowly, taking into account the risks and complications of democratisation.
Access full text: available online  

Smith, B., 2003, 'Democratization in the Third World' in Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Political Change and Development (Second Edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
What are the prerequisites of a stable democracy? This chapter in ‘Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Political Change and Development’ shows that the process of democratisation is not smooth and cannot be separated from the development of the economy.
Full document: available via document delivery. Please see document summary. 

Tilly, C., 2000, 'Processes and Mechanisms of Democratization', Sociological Theory, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-16
How is the process of democratisation best defined? What are the necessary conditions for successful democratisation? This study from Columbia University attempts to specify the various conditions and processes that promoted or blocked democratisation in different parts of Europe between 1650 and the present. It identifies possible mechanisms in democratisation and specifies likely conditions affecting their emergence.
Full document: available via document delivery. Please see document summary. 

Democratic consolidation and ‘deepening democracy’

What factors determine the quality and strength of democratic politics, and what can make democracies susceptible to failure?

There is broad consensus that in order for democratisation processes to be sustainable, they need to come from within. Building democratic institutions alone does not guarantee the spread of democratic politics - the consolidation or ‘deepening’ of democratic norms and principles in every area of governance and society is a more complex and long-term process of change.

Kapstein, E., and Converse, N., 2008, ‘Why Democracies Fail’, Journal of Democracy, Volume 19, Number 4, October 2008
In explaining why democracies fail, experts have tended to focus on economic performance. Yet this article, published in the Journal of Democracy, analyses new data on young democracies and argues that political institutions are crucial for democratic consolidation. Institutions that place effective constraints on executive power are especially important. Donor assistance strategies should aim to help spread political and economic power more widely and must be maintained for a young democracy's first five years.
Access full text: available online 

Rakner, L., Rocha Menocal, A. and Fritz, V., 2007, 'Democratisation's Third Wave and the Challenges of Democratic Deepening: Assessing International Democracy Assistance and Lessons Learned', Research Paper for the Advisory Board to Irish Aid, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London
What are the main challenges facing incipient democratic regimes in the developing world? How can donors best support democratisation in these countries? This paper from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) argues that incomplete democratisation processes and the predominance of ‘hybrid regimes’ pose serious challenges to the sustainability, capacity, responsiveness and effectiveness of democratic institutions. In order to be sustainable, democratisation impulses need to come from within. External actors have a positive role to play in efforts to strengthen democratic structures, but they cannot act as substitutes when domestic support is lacking.
Access full text: available online

Grugel, J., 2002, 'Democratization and the State', chapter 4 in Democratization: a Critical Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
This book chapter from 'Democratization: A Critical Introduction' examines the type of institutional reform that democratization should involve. Reforms so far have stopped at the introduction of minimal democracy, and therefore failed to produce fully democratic states. The reasons for this failure include weak state capacity, authoritarian legacies and the imperative of economic reform.
Full document: available via document delivery. Please see document summary

Luckham, R., Goetz, A. M. and Kaldor, M., 2003, 'Democratic Institutions and Democratic Politics' in Can Democracy be Designed? The Politics of Institutional Choice in Conflict-Torn Societies, eds. S. Bastian and R. Luckham,  Zed Books, London
Contemporary governance debates often assume the positive contribution of democracy to civil and political equality, poverty reduction, and conflict resolution. Yet, is the evidence for this conclusive? This book chapter makes a distinction between institutions and politics, seeking to demonstrate that the spread of democratic institutions does not guarantee the spread of democratic politics. It investigates ways in which democratic institutions can be designed to foster democratic politics that embody popular demands for participation, social justice and peace.
Full document: available via document delivery. Please see document summary.

A growing body of literature discusses how democratic politics can embody popular demands for participation, social justice and peace. Approaches to building democratic political systems need to go beyond the introduction of minimal, procedural democracy.

Gaventa, J., 2006, ‘Triumph, Deficit or Contestation: Deepening the “Deepening Democracy” Debate’, IDS Working Paper 264, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
What are the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to democracy? What challenges exist in efforts to promote “deeper” democracy? This working paper from the Institute of Development Studies surveys current debates about democracy, covering four main strands: “civil society” democracy, participatory democracy, deliberative democracy and empowered participatory governance. It argues that democracy is an ongoing process of contestation, rather than a set of standardised institutional designs: approaches to democracy should combine a range of democratic models.
Full text: available online

Further resources:

• 'Pro-poor participation’ - for further consideration of the relationship between democracy and participation.
• ‘Approaches to deepening democracy’ in the GSDRC’s Voice and Accountability guide.

Hybrid regimes

The quality of democratic politics is highly variable between countries and also between institutions within them. Even where the formal institutions of democracy are seemingly in place, in reality, the state can continue to operate on non-democratic principles. There isn’t always a clear distinction between political systems that are ‘democratic’ or ‘undemocratic’.

In recent years, semi-democracies, or hybrid regimes - which occupy a middle ground between outright authoritarianism and full liberal democracy - have become a focus of attention.

Rocha Menocal, A., Fritz, V., and Rakner, L., 2007, ‘Hybrid Regimes and the Challenges of Deepening and Sustaining Democracy in Developing Countries’, Background note (2) prepared for the Wilton Park Conference on Democracy and Development, 10-12 October 2007
Despite the momentous transformation that the 'Third Wave' of democratisation has brought to formal political structures in Africa, Asia and Latin America, only a limited number of countries have succeeded in establishing consolidated and functioning democratic regimes. Instead, many of these new regimes have ended up 'getting stuck' in transition, combining a rhetorical acceptance of liberal democracy with essentially illiberal and/or authoritarian traits. This article analyses the emergence and key characteristics of these 'hybrid regimes' and the challenges of democratic deepening. Because a broad consensus to uphold democracy as 'the only game in town' is lacking, hybrid regimes tend to be unstable, unpredictable, or both. A deeper understanding of the problems besetting these regimes helps provide a more realistic assessment of what these incipient and fragile democracies can be expected to achieve.
Full text: available online 

Carothers, T., 2002, 'The End of the Transition Paradigm', Journal of Democracy, vol. 13, no. 1
Are ‘transitional countries’ necessarily moving towards democracy? This paper published by the Journal of Democracy questions the transitional paradigm. The ‘transitional democracy’ model emerged in the US democracy-promotion community during the 1980s. In most cases, its core assumptions have not been confirmed by actual patterns of political change. The transitional paradigm is outdated and no longer useful in the analysis of democratisation.
Full document: available via document delivery. Please see document summary.  

Olcott, M. and Ottaway, M., 1999, 'Challenge of Semi-Authoritarianism', Carnegie paper no. 7, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D.C.
Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a rise in the number of semi-authoritarian regimes: regimes that contain elements of both democratic and authoritarian systems. This paper, by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that although these regimes allow for a certain degree of political freedom and openness, they cannot be regarded as democratic. This is because they lack the essential characteristic of a democratic system, namely, the ability to transfer power to a new leadership.
Access full text: available online 

Further resources:

• ‘Patronage politics’ section of this guide

Democracy and development

Is democracy necessary or good for development? Can it work in under-developed contexts? How can democracy be pro-poor?

The relationship between democracy and development is highly contested. Some argue that democratic institutions play a crucial role in promoting development, but others contend that democratic politics can actually hinder prospects for economic growth. Overall, the evidence of any causality between democracy and development is inconclusive.

Rocha Menocal, A., 2007, 'Analysing the relationship between democracy and development: Defining Basic Concepts and Assessing Key Linkages', Background note (1) prepared for the Wilton Park Conference on Democracy and Development, 23-25 October 2007 
This paper analyses the complex relationship between democracy and development, highlighting the importance of democracy as a process and development as an outcome. The evidence on whether democratic or authoritarian regimes promote development more effectively remains mixed. Given that different political regimes may be capable of implementing similar policies, it may be useful for donors to consider the kinds of institutional arrangements that are in place instead of focusing solely on regime-type.
Full text: available online

Diamond, L., 2004, ‘Moving On Up Out of Poverty: What Does Democracy Have to Do With It?’, CDDRL Working Paper no. 4, Centre on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford University
What is the relationship between governance and poverty? Do democracies eliminate poverty more effectively than authoritarian regimes? This working paper from Stanford University's Centre on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law suggests that the obstacles to the elimination of poverty are largely political. Poverty is generated and reproduced by power disparity and abuse. The enduring reduction of poverty requires a broad context of good governance, beyond the narrow arena of free and fair elections. 
Full text: available online  

A key issue is whether the institutions required for stable and consolidated democracy and those required for rapid, effective and sustained growth and development are compatible.

Leftwich, A., 2005, ‘Democracy and Development: Is There Institutional Incompatibility?’ Democratization Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 686–703. 
Are the institutions of development and the institutions of democracy structurally compatible? This article from the journal 'Democratization' examines development and democracy from an institutional perspective. It argues that while development requires rapid and far-reaching change, democracy is essentially a conservative system of power producing consensual and incremental change. The institutional characteristics and requirements for development and those for stable and consolidated democracy, therefore, pull in opposite directions.
Full text: available online 

Democracy and conflict

It is often stated that democracies do not go to war with each other. But does research support this claim? What effect does democracy have on conflict and what does this mean for development?

Mansfield, E.D. and Snyder, J., 2007 'Turbulent Transitions: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War in the Twenty-first Century', in Crocker, C., Hampson, F. O. and Aall, P. (eds.), Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, United States Institute of Peace, pp. 161-176., Washington, D.C.
Is democratisation to best way to promote peace? This research from the United States Institute of Peace argues that the world would probably be safer if there were more mature democracies but, in the transition to democracy, countries become more aggressive and war prone. The international community should be realistic about the dangers of encouraging democratisation where the conditions are unripe. The risk of violence increases if democratic institutions are not in place when mass electoral politics are introduced.
Access full text via document delivery: see document summary

Stewart, F. and O'Sullivan, M., 1999, 'Democracy, Conflict and Development - Three Cases,' in The Political Economy of Comparative Development into the 21st Century, eds. G. Ranis, G. et al, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Western governments view the promotion of democracy as desirable both as an end in itself and because of the widespread belief that democracies do not wage war on one another, that they are less likely to repress their own citizens, and that democracy promotes development and growth. This chapter, from 'The Political Economy of Comparative Development into the 21st Century', asks whether democracies are invariably less likely to suffer internal strife, and whether such strife really hampers development. It examines the relationship between democracy, conflict and development, through three case studies: Kenya and Uganda (which have much in common) and Sri Lanka.
Access full text: available online

Useful websites

• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a non-partisan, non-profit organisation which aims to advance cooperation between nations and promote active international engagement by the US.
• The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) is an intergovernmental organisation that aims to provide knowledge and policy analysis to support democratic reform.
• The Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa) is an independent public interest organisation committed to promoting sustainable democracy based on active citizenship, democratic institutions, and social justice.
• The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) is a non-profit organisation working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide by promoting citizen participation, openness and accountability in government.
• The Center for Democratic Institutions at the Australian National University responds to the needs of developing countries in the field of good governance and democratic institutions.
• Read more on democratisation from Eldis.

Related sections in this topic guide:

• Political participation
• Elections
• Political parties

New additions