Much scholarly effort has been made to identify dimensions, causes and elements of democratic consolidation after the third wave of democracy brought with it the concern whether the large number of new democracies will endure and become consolidated democracies or regress to authoritarianism or choose other alternatives. The main theoretical challenge is whether there is any identifiable pattern on the path toward democratic consolidation. Many authors such as Huntington (1992), Jung and Shapiro (1995), Przeworski (1991), O’Donnell (1979) argue or imply that the process of transition to democratic consolidation is knowable. This essay will examine the possibility of a generalizable law or at least an exhaustive list of condition and qualities as to what makes a democracy consolidated. There are two requisites to embark on such venture in order to evaluate what makes a consolidated democracy: a) we have to identify the path from authoritarian rule decay, transition to democracy and finally democratic consolidation; b) we need to recognize the characteristics of a consolidated democracy. Shin (1994) provides a tool for comparative analysis in his article by offering a compilation of theoretical, empirical and strategic factors which help us identify the path from authoritarian rule decay to consolidation. Linz and Stepan (1996), and Schedler (1998) have tried to identify the characteristics of a consolidated democracy. After elaborating on these two questions, this essay tries to put the theoretical underpinnings of these theories to test by comparing some case studies already done on consolidation of democracy.

Shin (1994) argues that academic debates on democratization is reflective of how scholars conceptualize democracy, theorize it, utilize a certain methodology to measure it and embrace a policy action or strategic agenda to help it endure. Also, he concedes to the idea that qualitative methods in study of democracy are picking momentum as scholars are now primarily concerned with the dynamics of democratic transition and consolidation. He seems to agree with Lijphart (1990: 72) that “democratic politics is not merely a ‘super structure’ that grows out of socio-economic and cultural bases” and disentangles himself from the ‘necessary and sufficient condition’ impediment. He further argues that consolidated democracy represent far more than the passage of time and sheer stability in political order. Consolidation, he argues, involves an increasingly principled rather than instrumental commitment to the democratic rules of the game. Shin (p. 141) condones that democracy can be manufactured and transplanted in alien soil if conditions are agreeing and therefore we can provide advice for would-be democrats from an operational perspective to succeed in the transition and consolidation process. However, he departs from considering democratization as a linear process based on theories of modernization or as a product of ‘rational process.’

According to Linz and Stepan, a democratic regime is consolidated when it satisfies three requirements: a) Behavioral: No political actors attempt to achieve their objectives by creating a nondemocratic regime. b) Attitudinal: A strong majority of the public believes that democratic procedures and institutions are the most appropriate way to govern. c) Constitutional: Both governmental and nongovernmental forces are required to resolve conflicts within the bounds of law. A democracy is considered ‘consolidated’ when, as Linz and Stepan put it, it is ‘the only game in town.’ This means a large majority of the countries’ population accepts the democratic institutions as legitimate and thus they exist relatively unchallenged. However, this also means that there must be a strong democratic culture in place as well. Therefore, the population should believe in the basic tenets of democracy and participates in various aspects of civil society. The list of “problems and conditions of democratic consolidation” has expanded rapidly adding more confusion to the term.

Democratic consolidation: Essentials and Conditions or rules?

According to Linz and Stepan (1996: 17), democratic consolidation means that a polity has completed a democratic transition and that its government is ruled democratically. In an attempt to integrate the conditions for consolidation, Linz and Stepan group them under five aspects of consolidated democracy: a free and lively civil society, a relatively autonomous political society, a strong system of rule of law, a usable bureaucracy, and an institutionalized economic society. In their view, a modern consolidated democracy comprises those five major interrelated arenas; each arena needs support from the others or has an impact on the others. The five conditions provide a systematic measurement of the degree of democratic consolidation and help us to project the prospects for democratization. For Shin (1994: 145) it is the role of the leadership and their true believe and authenticity to democratic rule is the key element of democratic consolidation. Contrary to Shin and Linz, Diamond (1999) argues that the evolution of democratic political culture determines if there is a fertile ground for democratic consolidation.

Huntington (1968: 34) argues that, to develop a consolidated democracy, “a polity has to undertake political modernization which involves the rationalization of authority, the differentiation of new political functions, the development of specialized structures to perform these functions, and the increased participation in politics by social groups.” Dahl (1976: 81), also pointed out the importance of six factors in increasing the likelihood of democratic consolidation: concentration in the socioeconomic order, socioeconomic development, inequality, sub-cultural cleavages, foreign control, and the beliefs of political leaders. In the same vein, Vanhanen (1990: 50) utilizes the notion of ‘power resources’ and argues that democratic consolidation occurs under the condition of wide distribution of power resources among various political actors.

Consolidated democracy has come to include many conditions rendering the term practically impaired. According to Schedler (1998: 91-92) the list of condition are very divergent as items as popular legitimation, the diffusion of democratic values, the neutralization of antisystem actors, civilian supremacy over the military, the elimination of authoritarian enclaves, party building, the organization of functional interests, the stabilization of electoral rules, the routinization of politics, the decentralization of state power, the introduction of mechanisms of direct democracy, judicial reform, the alleviation of poverty, and economic stabilization and at this point, with people using the concept any way they like, nobody can be sure what it means to others, but all maintain the illusion of speaking to one another in some comprehensible way exacerbating the conceptual fog that veils the term. It appears one of the few routs available is through case studies. However, As Shin demonstrates the trend in methodology; the case studies should have more qualitative attributes than quantitative simply because the cases of consolidated democracies are very few and mostly within a cultural and political tradition. As Barracca (2004: 1471) suggests the term has gained a firm foothold in the lexicon of comparative politics but unfortunately, the greater frequency of its use has not been accompanied by increasing definitional precision.

Country Studies

The purpose of this section is to provide examples of how our conceptualization on consolidated democracy affects our conclusion whether a country is democratically consolidated or not. Barracca (2004: 1469) argues that Mexican democracy is fully consolidated. He argues that the concept should refer “exclusively to a regime with a low probability of democratic breakdown. This avoids the conceptual confusion created by viewing consolidation as any change that improves the quality of democracy. In terms of measuring consolidation, it maintains the importance of placing greater weight on the proximate cause of regime instability, anti-democratic behavior, and discounting more remote causes of democratic breakdown, including economic performance, institution building, and attitudinal support.” By the same token, Webber (2005: 21) brings the case for Indonesia and argues that is a consolidated democracy simply because no short or long term threats of regression to authoritarian rule exist in this country and the system has found a ‘self-perpetuating equilibrium’.

On the other side of spectrum, Zebulon (1998: 274-275) studied the case of Russian federation and utilizing what O'Donnell has tentatively labeled “delegative democracy,” or a situation in which presidential politics dominates the political agenda argues that in Russia democratic institutions have remained “unconsolidated.” Göbel (2001) also puts more emphasis on informal and formal institutions in his study of democratic consolidation in Taiwan. Garretón (1988: 375) discussing the consolidation of democracy in Latin American countries argues that consolidation of democracy presents an analytical challenge because it depends on the development model, the relationship between the state and civil society, and the party system and due to crisis in those areas democracies if viable remain in the transition period for a long time. Alves (1988) also presents dilemmas of the consolidation of democracy from the top in Brazil; a process different than what Przeworski and Huntington envisioned.

With all the elements and condition argued above as Lam (2001) demonstrates with his case study of Hong Kong there is no blue print for democratic consolidation. It is, therefore, fair to argue that the myriad of conditions and factors offered based on theoretical debates and case studies is an indicator of how idiosyncratic is the process of democratic consolidation.

References:

Alves, Maria H. M. (1988) Dilemmas of the Consolidation of Democracy from the Top in Brazil: A Political Analysis, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 3, Democratization and Class Struggle (Summer), pp. 47-63.

Barracca, Steven (2004) Is Mexican Democracy Consolidated?, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 8.

Garretón, Antonio (1988) Problems of Democracy in Latin America: On the Processes of Transition and Consolidation, International Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, Latin America: Troubled Transition (Summer, 1988), pp. 357-377

Göbel, Christian (2001) Towards a Consolidated Democracy? Informal and Formal Institutions in Taiwan's Political Process. Paper prepared for the Conference Group on Taiwan Studies at the APSA Annual Meeting 2001, San Francisco, August 30 - September 2.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1992) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press)

Lam, Jermain (2001) Consolidation of Democracy in Hong Kong under Chinese Sovereignty, Asian Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 19-35

Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred (1996) “Toward Consolidated Democracies” Journal of Democracy 7.2.

Lijphart, Arend (1990) “The Southern European Examples of Democratization: Six Lessons for Latin America," Government and Opposition 25 (Winter).

Schedler, Andreas (1998) “What is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9.2, 91-107

Shin, Doh Chull (1994) On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research, World Politics, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Oct.), pp. 135-170

O'Donnell, Guillermo ( 1979) Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (Berkeley: University of California Institute of International Studies).

Przeworski, Adam (1991) Democracy and the market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Ney York, Cambridge University Press.

Vanhanen, Tatu (1990) The Process of Democratization (New York: Crane Russak)

Webber, Douglas (2005) “A consolidated patrimonial democracy? Democratization in post-Suharto Indonesia,” Paper to be presented at the workshop, ‘Post-Cold War Democratization in the Muslim World: Domestic, Regional and Global Trends’, Joint Sessions of the European Consortium of Political Research, Granada, 14-19 April.

Zebulon, Rainone (1998) Democracy stalled: Evaluating the Russian Federation today, East European Quarterly, Jun98, Vol. 32 Issue 2.