Election Without Democracy (Comp. Authoritarian Regimes) PDF

Preview

Summary

reading notes...

Description

Election Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism Levitsky and Way 

Post cold war has been marked by proliferation of hybrid political regimes o Seen as incomplete or transitional forms of democracy o Time to start seeing them as the type of specific regimes they are  Hybrid Regimes (aka partial democracy, semi-democracy) o Come from democratizing bias  Imply that they are moving from democratic direction o Terms are used as residual categories and ten to gloss over differences among regimes  El Salvador and Latvia both scored partly free but are different in fundamental ways  Latvia- not voting for Russian descent  El Salvador- lack of substantial human rights  Labels obscure crucial difference that may have important casual implications  Have distinct historical roots that implicate economic performance and human rights, etc. Defining Competitive Authoritarianism  Is a type of hybrid regime  Formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority.  Modern Democratic Regimes o Executives and Legislatures are chosen though OPEN, FREE, and FAIR elections. o All adults can vote o Political rights and civil liberties are protected o Elected authorities possess real authority to govern, not subject tutelary control of the military or clerical leaders  

Some democratic regimes are impede these but do not fundamentally alter the field between government and opposition Competitive Authoritarian Regimes o Violations of these criteria are frequent enough and serious enough to create an uneven playing field. o There are free elections, HOWEVER  Leaders abuse state resources, deny the opposition adequate media coverage, harass oppositions, and manipulate electoral results.  Spying and threatening o Not delegate democracies  DD- low levels of check and balances so there are abusive executives, yet meet minimum standards of democracy. o Competitive authoritarianism falls short of democracy and full -scale authoritarianism.



Incumbents may manipulate rules but cannot completely eliminate them.  Use bribery and coercion to harass and persecute. o Also distinct from “façade” electoral regimes- electoral institutions exist but have no meaningful contest for power  Line between this and CA is hard to draw  Distinguish regimes in which democratic institutions offer an important channel through which the oppositions may seek power and those where democratic rules simply serve to legitimate an existing autocratic leadership. o Must be distinguished from other types of hybrid regimes- does NOT encompass all of these regime forms. Four Areas of Democratic Contestation 1. Electoral Arena  Author- do not exist and competition is limited, outside observers prevented from verifying results.  CA- elections are bitterly fought. Large scale abuse of power and biased media coverage but elections are still held with not too much fraud.. The incumbent takes international observers seriously. 2. The Legislative Arena  Author- legislatures do not exist or very controlled by ruling party that conflict between branches is unlikely.  CA- tend to be weak, but focal points of opposition activity. 3. The Judicial Arena  CA- routinely try to subordinate the judiciary through impeachment or bribery. o Punish judges, who rule against them, provide international legitimacy. 4. The media  Autocracies- completely state owned with heavy censorship.  CA- independent media outlets are legal and influential. o Watchdog role Inherent Tensions  Authoritarian governments may coexist indefinitely with meaningful democratic institutions. o Coexistence of democratic rules and autocratic methods aimed at keeping incumbents in power creates an inherent source of instability.  Repressing elections is costly, but loose power if don’t.  Succession is not democratization because predecessors usually continue authoritarian practices. o However, post cold war era has seen better transitions  Possibly proximity to the west has to do with shaping CA regimes  Culture, media influence Paths to Competitive Authoritarianism  Emerged out of 3 paths from 190

o Decay of full blown authoritarian regime  Pressure to adopt formal democratic institutions but due to weakness of oppositions movements, fell short of democracy.  Sub Sahara Africa o Collapse of Authoritarian Regime  Emergence of new, CA regime  Weak electoral regimes by default  Lack capacity to consolidate authoritarian rule (Serbia, Ukraine) o Decay of Democratic Regime  Longstanding political and economic crises created conditions under which freely elected government undermined democratic inst.  Difficult to consolidate democratic and authoritarian regimes post cold war.  High levels of poverty, inequality, and illiteracy  This means it was also hard to keep full scale authoritarian regimes  Counterhegemonic powers provide alternative sources to legitimacy and military and economic assistance weakening the incentive for governing elite to maintain formal democratic intuitions.  When western powers face a challenger to their hegemony, they tolerate autocracies o The absence of alternative sources of military and economic aid increased the importance of being on good terms with Western governments and institutions. o To consolidate a fully closed regime, authoritarian elites must eliminate all major sources of contestations through systematic repression o Dispersal of control over resources among groups made it difficult for any leader to establish complete controls o In 1990s competitive regimes most likely to emerge where conditions were unfavorable to the consolidation of either democratic or authoritarian regimes. Conceptualizing non democracies  Many authoritarian regimes have survived third wave of democratization  Collapse of one kind of authoritarianism yielded not democracy but a new form of nondemocratic rule  1990s- CA’s became important not hybrid regimes....