7.1 The criteria for the modern liberal democracy

Both authoritarian and democratic regimes differ from each other rather significantly. However, before we begin to consider the typologies of democratic regimes, it is necessary to solve the problem of definition: what is a democracy, what are the criteria? The concept of “democracy” is problematic to interpret unambiguously. Democracy is referred to as:

– a political ideal and reality;

– a special form of power structures functioning;

– a system of the rights, providing a wide participation of the people

in the management of public affairs;

– a method of regulation of relations between the governors and the

governed;

– the mechanism of serving diverse social interests and the peaceful

resolution of intergroup conflicts, democracy is called “the way of institutionalisation of conflict”;

– a method of gaining the powers of authority  and their rotation;

– an institutionalised negotiations system between social groups, ensuring the legitimacy of the regime.

In this regard, the famous British writer and scholar George Orwell said in the middle of the XXth century: “...When it comes to concepts such as democracy, not only the absence of its generally accepted definition reveals, but any attempt to give a definition meets resistance from all sides... Supporters of any political regime proclaim democracy and fear of losing the opportunity to use this word in the case if one value will be reserved for him”.

This problem is aggravated by the fact that, on the one hand, there were several differing historical forms of democracy and at different times the word “democracy” had a different content, on the other – there have been many theoretical (ideal) models of democracy – among them classic liberal, identified and pluralist, participatory and plebiscitary, Marxist and others.

“Over the past 25 centuries, – says R. Dahl – democracy has been interpreted, disputed, approved, decried, suppressed, established, existed, destroyed, and then sometimes reigned again, it was not possible ... to reach agreement on the most fundamental matters, relating to the very essence of the phenomenon”.

Eventually, he metaphorically compares the huge number of democracy definitions with kitchen utensils, accumulated through nearly  25 centuries of use. However, with all the diversity of interpretations, Western scholars are willing to recognise a political regime as democratic, if it satisfies the minimum set of formal indications (criteria), furthermore, if consensus regarding the indications’ set has been achieved.

At the time, Joseph Schumpeter first formulated the concept of mandatory regulatory minimum, and proposed a definition of democracy as “an institutional arrangement for making political decisions, where individuals acquire authority through the competition for votes”. Thus, he gave democracy a purely technical significance. Moreover, democracy must prevent the usurpation of all power by any elite group. Hereby, according to Schumpeter, democratic politics is carried out not in accordance with the absolute principles of universal good and will of the people. It is built in compliance with the programmes of political action that guide individuals who are able to gain political power in a free competition for votes. Therefore, the politics in a democracy can be compared with the free market, where everyone is free to buy what he wants.

Such an interpretation of democracy provides a number of advantages compared with the classical theory:

1 Political competitiveness, as per Schumpeter, is the main criterion that distinguishes a democratic form of politics from its other forms.

2 This model makes it possible to realistically assess the phenomenon of political leadership in democratic policy since in reality, the political and social initiative in any community belongs to the active minority. The actions of ordinary citizens reduce to the election or adherence to one or the other political elite.

3 This theory makes it possible to include separate groups of citizens, opposing to the majority, into the democratic politics. They may exert political influence through the activity of its leaders, who can express and fulfil their interests.

4 The theory of Schumpeter gives a more realistic description to the relationship between individual freedom and democratic politics.               A democratic society, consolidating the principle of free competition, gives individuals the greatest freedom possible in politics; therefore the Scylla and Charybdis of democracy are the excessive freedom and equality. Excessive freedom destroys the basis for cooperation and mutual understanding in society, and excessive equality threatens individual initiative and creativity.

5 Finally, Schumpeter stressed that the desire to follow one and indivisible will of the people takes away from a truly democratic politics. The will of the people is an abstract concept. In practice, it is a mosaic, consisting of a large variety of individual and group interests.

6 However, many researchers, especially the leftists, negate the right of such “competitive elitism” to be called a model democracy.

Therefore, later a number of authors have supplemented the Schumpeter’s formula, noting the necessity of universal suffrage, the provision of fair and equitable competition in the elections, the possibility of participation of all social groups and interests. From the point of view of the supporters of this approach to the understanding of democracy (sometimes called “minimalist procedural”) this political regime is characterised by the uncertainty of the results of certain procedures; as opposed to authoritarianism, where the results are predetermined, despite the uncertainty of the procedures. However, certain procedures in a consolidated democracy lead to a significant limitation of the uncertainty of the results, in other words, virtually eliminate the possibility of undemocratic results.

Today, the pluralistic model of liberal democracy based on the theoretical and practical political experience of several centuries is fundamental in the West. It is the political power of the people, executed by the majority freely expressing themselves with respect to the rights of minorities to manifest their disagreement. In this connection, the following criteria of a democratic regime are usually featured.

– universal suffrage of citizens;

– the possibility for the citizens to apply to elected offices;

– the regular holding of free, competitive and fair elections;

– empowering the elected officials with the constitutional right of control over government decisions;

– the lack of harassment against the political opposition (including independent political parties and interest groups) and the opportunity to join them;

– free access to sources of alternative information granted to the citizens.

The form of democracy existence is the legal state, which not only includes all of the democratic process – all of them are controlled by law and subject to it. The principle of a democratic regime functioning is “all is freely permitted except what is specifically prohibited”. The well-known German political scholar Klaus von Beyme notes that modern democracies are determined by compromises along with the majority principle. The very use of the majority principle is not possible without a fundamental compromise, which provides the grounds for the constitution.

Of course, along with the general characteristics, the actually existing democracies have some notable differences. In the European countries typical is the symbiosis of the liberal model of democracy with an active role of the state as a social arbiter (the so-called German model); whereas in the United States, there is conserved the classical liberal model, however, it has undergone some mutations in the days of the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and during the construction of a “welfare society” (the so-called Atlantic model). Today it is generally accepted that in order to achieve a stable democracy, it is necessary to find a sort of “Aurea mediocritas” (the “golden mean”) between the two necessary conditions: on the one hand, the creation of institutions that would make government accountable to civil society, and on the other – the lack of opportunities for the citizens to directly influence on the political decision-making. In each case, the “golden mean” is sought out in a different way.

The most significant adjustments to the concept of Schumpeter were made by the known American political scientist Robert Dahl. In the early 1970s, he introduced into scientific circulation the concept of “polyarchy”, which more precisely, in his opinion, reflects the essence of modern pluralist democracy:

– effective political participation of citizens;

– their equality in the decision-making process;

– the ability to get reliable information and therefore make choices independently and competently;

– mechanism of citizens’ control over the “political agenda”;

– participation of adults.

In his opinion, any political system that meets these criteria can be called a “polyarchy” (multiple authorities). The stability of such rivalry system requires considerable mutual trust between the contenders for power and their electorate (the so-called social capital), as well as respect for and observance of the rules of the game that Dahl calls “mutual security system”.

In the last decade, when the processes of democratization began to spread widely, questions of criteria for democracy and measuring the level of democracy have increased among experts in comparative politics.

The democracy index is classified according to the level of democracy development in all countries of the world. The classification takes into account 60 different indicators, grouped into five categories: elections and pluralism, civil liberties, government activities, political engagement of the population and political culture. And although today more than a dozen different indices of democracy have been worked out, none of them is universal. At the same time, assigning democracy indices to individual countries can have very tangible consequences for their citizens.

Therefore, in the future, experts turned to the study of the procedural aspects of the political development of countries, to the analysis of the electoral process and its conditions. This was reflected in the indices of democratization of T. Vanhanen, the index of political development of Bollen, the index of political democracy Dahl.

The most simple and effective way to measure the democratization of

different societies was proposed by the Finnish political scientist Tatu Vanhanen [2], measuring the level of democracy of states on the criteria of political participation and electoral competition.

Vanhanen saw an important advantage of his democratization index in that it is based on important, simple and accurate criteria. He pointed out “My democratization indicators differ in two important points: 1) I use only two indicators and 2) both indicators are based on quantitative electoral data ... I believe that it is better to use simple quantitative variables with some disadvantages than more complex measures with weights and estimates based on subjective judgments” [2, p. 23].

Vanhanen uses two quantitative measures of democracy measurement: for democracies the minimum Vanhanen democratization index is 5.0, and for semi-democracies from 2.0 to 5.0.

 For example, in 2000, 120 out of 192 countries (62.5 %) made up the number of formal democracies (including Ukraine), but 86 countries were recognized as free according to the “Fridom house” classification, partially free 58, not free 48.

At the same time, no CIS countries were classified as free, 5 countries

(Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) are classified as not free, and 7 countries (Azerbaijan – 5 category, Armenia – 4 category, Georgia – 3.5 category, Kyrgyzstan – 5 category, Moldova – 3 category, Russia – 4.5 category, Ukraine – 3.5 category) are classified as partially free.

The subjectivity and artificiality of assessments, as well as the criteria of the “Freedom house” index itself, are beyond doubt. After all, the concepts of “fair elections”, “fair electoral laws”, “open public debate”, “independent judiciary”, “reasonable self-government” are very vague and do not have unambiguous interpretation.

Kazakhstan is still among the “authoritarian regimes” in the study of the level of development of democracy in the countries of the world for 2017. The research organization Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) presented in 2017 the annual Democracy Index report, which assesses the level of democracy development in 165 countries and two territories. Kazakhstan took 141st place in the last study neighboring with Vietnam and Togo and belongs to a group of countries with a non-free press.

The classification, according to this study, takes into account a number of indicators, as well as categories such as elections and pluralism, civil liberties, government activities, political engagement of the population and political culture. Depending on the level of democracy development, countries are classified as “full-fledged democracy”, “imperfect democracy”, “transitional regime” and “authoritarian regime”.

Kazakhstan as well as other Central Asia countries are classified as “authoritarian” in this study. The exception was Kyrgyzstan where as the authors of the study note in October the first peaceful democratic transfer of power took place, when Sooronbai Jeenbekov was elected president of the country. This country is referred to as “transitional regimes”. Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and Iran are also classified as “authoritarian” in the study.

The report authors noting that freedom of speech is the most important of all freedoms report that freedom of speech in the world was going through an offensive in 2017. “Freedom of the media in the world has reached its lowest level since the creation of the Democracy Index in 2006 and the restriction of freedom of speech has become routine, ubiquitous, even for developed countries,” said the EIU study.

According to this study, “full democracy” is home to less than five percent of the world's population. To “full-fledged democracies”, according to the study, include Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand and Denmark. According to the EIU, the United States, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Romania and Serbia are countries with “imperfect democracy”.

 

7.2 The modern concept and typology of democracy

Democracy in the form of the “government of the people, by the people” (direct democracy), or in the form of “government of the people, by its representatives” (representative democracy) means the theoretical guidelines, which only partly have been realized in the practice of modern societies and in their political systems organizations. So far, there’s been no nation that learned to govern itself, and it’s unlikely in the short term.

Modern democracy, according to the well-known American political scientist Giovanni Sartori must have, firstly, a selective (based on selectivity and selection) system of rival electoral minorities (elites), i.e. democracy must represent a selective polyarchy; and, secondly, a polyarchy based on the merits.

It is distinguished from the democracies of the past by the expansion of the political rights of the individual in terms of volume and the scope of citizens. Many new rights act as some kind of compensation or alternative to the direct participation of citizens in political life. The goal orientation of the right changes as well – they are necessary not only for the defence of individual and group interests, but also to reach a consensus and harmonise the interests. The legitimacy of the representative political regimes must rely on the belief of the governed that democracy itself serves their interests, as well as on their confidence in its effectiveness in providing some of the important interests of the masses in exchange for a significant limitation of political participation. R. Dahl stresses that along with the belief in the viability of democracy, the confidence in the effectiveness of democratic government in solving urgent problems is very important to create a viable and stable democratic regime.

Historical experience shows that a multicultural society can be relatively stable and democratic if acceptable forms of co-existence of various subcultures are found. In this regard, the concept of consociational or associative democracy, developed by Arend Lijphart is extremely interesting.

According to A. Lijphart, associative democracy represents both empirical and normative model. To some extent, it has been implemented in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, and even in a number of the “third world” countries (India, Nigeria). Such democracy is developing in multicomponent societies, deeply divided into stable segments by significant differences: racial, ethnic, religious, regional, etc.

Democracy, according to A. Lijphart, is possible in a multicultural society under certain conditions.

Firstly, it is the principle of the coalition agreement and the exercise of power by the Government of the grand coalition; secondly, the principle of mutual veto, which guarantees the rights of minorities; thirdly, proportionality is a key principle of political representation; fourth, high degree of autonomy of each segment in the implementation of internal policy.

Thus, co-social democracy is based on pre-planned compromise system. Therefore, by Lijphart, co-social democracy implies the existence of a parliamentary form of government.

In addition, according to the ideas of A. Lijphart, the most important preconditions for the existence of co-social democracy are as follows:

– a rough balance of forces between the multi bulk segments of society;

– the existence of at least three segments, since dualism encourages to separate rather than to compromise;

– the democratic internal structure of the segments;

– in addition to the factors separating the segments, there are the factors that unite them (for example, language differences in confessional unity).

On the ground of two main criteria: the style of behaviour of the elites (a) cooperation, (b) competition; and the structural features of society (a) homogeneous, (b) multi-faceted – A. Lijphart identifies co-social democracy along with depoliticized, centripetal and centrifugal democracy.

Depoliticized democracy is characterised by a homogeneous social structure and cooperation of political elites. Such systems can be relatively stable since the decision-making is not burdened by ideological, ethnocultural or religious contradictions. However, according to A. Lijphart, the plurality of coalitions at all levels of policy in such democracies is fraught with the emergence of new forms of protest and opposition, aimed at destabilising the system.

Centripetal democracy, according to A. Lijphart, corresponds to the Anglo-American type of political systems distinguished by G. Almond. They exist in a homogeneous social structure and uniform political culture, which makes them resilient, despite the constant rivalry between the elites.

Centrifugal democracy corresponds to the European continental type of G. Almond’s political systems. The combination of a fragmented political culture and conflict behaviour of political elites leads to their instability and vulnerability, especially in the activation of anti-systemic forces.

However, it is clear that the consensus system can work successfully only under a number of preconditions. The main of them are “... the high degree of tolerance; the ability to resolve conflicts peacefully and to find compromises; trusted leaders able to resolve conflicts so that it would not cause any complaints from their followers; a consensus on basic goals and values, wide enough for the agreement to be possible; national identity, overpowering separatist aspirations; adherence to democratic procedures, excluding forceful or revolutionary measures” (R. Dahl). Indeed, the proposed model of co-social democracy allows reaching and maintaining a stable democratic government in a multifaceted society. However, the most important prerequisite for the establishment and functioning of co-social sustainable democracy is the continuous cooperation of leaders and elites of various segments of society.

Today these conditions are not available in our country, therefore even in the long-run prospect, the emergence of a consensus system is unlikely. This means that there is no common, ideal solution for all multicultural countries. Every country produces that decision in accordance with its specific nature.

The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr formulated the following paradox: “A person’s ability to be fair makes democracy possible, but the human tendency to injustice makes democracy necessary”. Therefore, we should not idealise the democratic project, because the really existing Western democracies are not systems of power that fully embody all democratic ideals. However, those systems are close to them in various degrees.          A democratic form of government is always in the process of development or degradation. Its highs and lows depend on many factors, including the people that are involved and the resources allocated to make it effective.

One of the biggest problems of the modern social liberal democracy was the reduction of political interest and willingness of citizens to take an active political participation.

At the same time, the regulatory and especially the participative theory of democracy emphasizes the importance of citizens’ conscious activity in politics, the expansion of the social base of modern democracy, or, in their opinion, the main subjects of political action – the elite – are faced with the pressing problem of legitimizing their power. According to M. Weber, the legitimacy of representative political regimes must rely on the faith that democracy itself is in their best interest, as well as their confidence that it can be effective in providing some of the important interests of the masses in exchange for a substantial limitation of political participation. R. Dahl stresses that along with faith in the viability of democracy, the confidence in the effectiveness of democratic institutions in the solution of urgent problems and limitation of mass political participation is very important in creating a viable and stable democratic regime.

A British scholar K. Crouch argues that the West is entering the era of “post-democracy”, where all the features of democracy will be maintained: free elections, competitive parties, free public debate, human rights, and transparency in the activities of a state. “But the energy and vitality of politics will return to the era preceding democracy, to sparse elite and wealthy groups, concentrated around the centres of power and seeking to obtain their benefits. Such conclusions can be established on significant empirical grounds since modern political democracy requires a combination of apparent contradictions: on the one hand, the citizens should express their views so that the political elite knew their needs and could meet them, but on the other hand, the elite should be able to make decisions. Therefore, the citizen, in turn, should be respectful and law-abiding.

At the same time, democratic societies are able to survive the most violent disagreements between its elites and citizens – except for disagreement about the legitimacy of democracy itself. “Democracy lives in dispute but dies without consent” (G. Rappe). There are also different types of democratic regimes, however, while examining them, we must always remember the paradox formulated by Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst of the power systems, except for all the others”.

 

7.3 The third wave of democratisation

In the early 90-ies of the XXth century, political science has introduced a new concept – the wave of democratisation. It reflects the cross-country space-time of the democratic process. S. Huntington, who published a monograph “The Third Wave. Democratization in the late XXth century” in 1991 made a substantial contribution to the development of the wave theory of the democratic process and the analysis of its current wave; he also presented a detailed and complete picture of the changes in the modern world, analysing the conditions, the course and prospects of transition from totalitarianism and authoritarianism to democracy.

In this study, S. Huntington offers the following definition of “democratic wave” (or “wave of democratization”): “A wave of democratization is a transition of a group of countries from non-democratic regimes to democratic, flowing in a certain time period and significantly exceeding those countries, where the development takes place in the opposite (i.e. anti-democratic) direction”.

This wave also includes partial liberalisation and democratisation of the political system.

However, history and hence the political time does not constitute a straight unidirectional process. In the definition of S. Huntington, the existence of the opposite, i.e. anti-democratic processes in a democratic wave is pointed out. It, thus, says about the quantitative prevalence of democratic tendencies within the appropriate time interval, which impose a quality mark on the character of the latter.

History knows other periods when a larger group of countries was dominated by the opposite trends, associated with the strengthening of anti-democratic forces, the defeat of democracy and the establishment of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. S. Huntington calls these stages in the history the “retrograde wave” (or “reverse wave” of democratisation).

Based on an analysis of historical material, associated with the formation of democratic regimes, and their temporary defeat, S. Huntington identifies the following waves of democratisation.

The first wave of democratisation has its roots in the American and French revolutions. However, the emergence of the democratic political institutions in their modern understanding is a phenomenon of the XIXth century. Conventionally, the process of democratisation in its first wave is characterised by two features:

1) gradual distribution of the electoral right to the vast majority of the adult population with a reduction and then abolition of the property qualification;

2) the establishment and development of responsible representative institutions and executive bodies accountable to them. Proceeding from these criteria, at the turn of the XIXth and XXth centuries, the transition to democracy was completed in countries such as the USA, UK, France, Switzerland, the UK overseas dominions (Australia, Canada and New Zealand), and several northern European countries. Shortly before the First World War, democratic regimes were established in Italy and Argentina, and in the post-war period – in two, newly independent, European countries – Iceland and Ireland.

The first reverse wave of democratisation conventionally originates from 1922, i.e. from the Mussolini march to Rome, followed by the seizure of power and the establishment of a fascist dictatorship. These processes are also observed in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Democratic institutions in these countries have been eliminated as a result of military coups. After the coup in 1926, the military seized power in Portugal and established a military dictatorship in the country, which lasted nearly five decades. In Germany, the arrival of Hitler to power in 1933 and the establishment of a fascist regime marked the defeat of the Weimar democratic republic. The subsequent Anschluss of Austria was accompanied by the elimination of democratic structures in this country. The Spanish Civil War of 1936 – 1939, culminated in the establishment of the dictatorship of General Franco and was interrupted by a short-term process of democratisation, which began there in 1932.

Moreover, in the 30s, military coups occurred in a number of Latin American countries that have previously chosen the path to democratic development – Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. In addition, of the             17 countries that established the democracies between 1910 and 1931, only four states have retained the democratic form of government by the end of the 1930s.

Thus, the second half of 20s–30s is characterised by a predominance of anti-democratic tendencies. Its peculiarity is that along with the traditional autocratic political systems there is a new social and political phenomenon – totalitarianism. To some extent, an anti-democratic wave of the period reflected on the features of the democratic regimes traditional functioning. Ultimately this wave of retracement from democratisation was one of the main reasons of the Second World War.

The second wave of democratisation is linked with the defeat of Nazi Germany, militarist Japan and the liberation of the occupied territories by the Western allied troops. As a result, democratic regimes in France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium and other Western European countries have been restored. The presence of the occupying allied forces in Germany, Italy and Japan contributed not only to the establishment and strengthening of democratic political institutions in these countries but also made democratic development there irreversible. At the same time, in a number of Latin American countries, notably Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Peru, democratic elections were held. The second wave of democratisation coincided with the beginning of decolonization of the former colonies and semi-colonies. During this period, democratic forms of government were established in such countries as India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, etc.

But by the early 60s, the second wave of democratisation has exhausted itself. From that time originates the second wave of retracement from democratisation. In 1967, democratic development has been interrupted in Greece as a result of a military coup and established a military dictatorship by a colonel. In addition to Greece, the second wave swept back down the vast majority of third world countries, where as a result of military coups or the usurpation of power by the ruling elite authoritarian regimes have been established, many of whom were openly dictatorial or military-dictatorial. The effect of the global rollback from democracy in the Third World was impressive. So, the governments formed as a result of military coups existed in 13 countries in 1962, and by 1975 they already numbered thirty-eight countries.

According to other estimates, one-third of the states, where democracies had been functioning in 1958, have had authoritarian rule by the mid-70s. It is significant that during this period there occurred many crisis processes in the Western democracies. It is no accident that many political and sociological types of research of the time were not only dominated by the thesis of the non-applicability of a democratic model to developing countries but also expressed doubts and pessimistic forecasts about the viability of democracy itself.

Meanwhile, the next two decades became an evident historical illustration of the opposite tendency, denying pessimistic doubts about the success of the democratic institutions. In April 1974, a military coup was carried out by the Portuguese pro-democracy forces, subsequently supported by the mass popular movement that put an end to many years of the military regime dictatorship. A few months later, as a result of a deep political crisis, the military government was forced to resign in Greece, and power passed into the hands of civilians from among the leaders of democratic political parties.

In November 1975, the death of Franco put an end to 36 years of authoritarian rule in Spain. In the next year and a half, King Juan Carlos of Spain and Prime Minister A. Suarez carried out a series of political reforms (the legalisation of previously banned political parties, marked limitation of censorship, reform of government, etc.), which led to the parliamentary elections.

The wave of democratisation had begun in the countries of southern Europe, and since the late 70s and throughout the 80s it has moved to Latin America and Asia. In the late 80s, the current wave of democratic process entered a new phase the so-called real socialism crisis.

A distinctive feature of the modern democratic wave in comparison with the previous waves of the democratic process is its more global nature since it covers almost all the continents. Samuel Huntington explained the reasons for the expanding globalisation of the world democratic process by the following factors:

1) the crisis of legitimacy of authoritarian and totalitarian systems;

2) the unprecedented growth of the world economy in the 60-ies, as well as the growth of education and increasing number of urban middle-class population;

3) significant changes in the doctrine of the Catholic Church in the 60s;

4) the change of the leading political forces’ policy (the USA, Soviet Union, European Community);

5) the demonstration effect, reinforced with new means of international communication, and the initial experience of the transition to democracy in the third wave that has played a catalytic role, and served as a model for future efforts to change the regime in other countries.

Although the idea of democracy has received the widest dissemination and recognition in the modern world, still a minority of the world population is living under this form of government. In many countries, democracy is just a respectable façade for the predominantly authoritarian rule. Often, democratic governments are unsustainable and fail. What factors make the transition to democracy possible and what determines its stability? Numerous scientific researches that have been carried out in the West after World War II tried to answer these questions. Their authors revealed a number of economic, social, cultural, religious and foreign policy prerequisites for democracy, based on a comparative analysis of extensive statistical data.

One of the most important preconditions of economic democracy is a relatively high level of industrial and economic development in general. According to economic indicators, democratic countries are far ahead of authoritarian and totalitarian states. However, there is no direct causal relationship between the level of economic development and democracy. This is proved by a number of historical facts. So, the United States came to democracy in the XIX century, mainly on the pre-industrial stage; at the same time, despite the relatively high industrial development, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, South Korea, Brazil and so on, were under totalitarian or authoritarian regimes until recently.

Such premise of democracy, as the high degree of urbanisation, depends on the industrial development. The residents of large cities are more prepared for democracy than the rural population, characterised by conservatism, adherence to traditional forms of government.

Another important condition for democracy is the development of mass communication, which is characterised by the distribution of newspapers, radio and television. The media help citizens to competently judge the policy: adopted decisions, political parties, candidates for elected office, etc. In countries with a large territory and a large population without mass communications democracy is practically impossible.

One of the most important prerequisites of democracy serves the market, competitive economy. History does not know of the existence of a democracy without a market and private property. The market economy impedes the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of one of the groups in society or the party-state apparatus. It ensures the autonomy of the individual protects it from the totalitarian state control, stimulates the development of such qualities necessary for democracy, as the desire for freedom, responsibility, initiative. Without a market, there can not be a civil society, which is the base for modern democracy.

The market economy is better than a command economic system that ensures the creation of such an important prerequisite of democracy, as the relatively high level of welfare of citizens. It allows you to mitigate social conflicts; it is easier to reach the necessary consensus for democracy.

Public wealth has a positive effect on the democratisation of the society in the event that contributes to the smoothing of social inequality. This is the next prerequisite of democracy.

The most favourable model for democracy is decomposition of social inequality prevailing in today’s industrialised countries. This model does not allow for the concentration of various scarce goods (income, wealth, prestige, power, education, etc.) from one social group (class), and calls for their dispersal in the society so that the individual having the lowest rate in one respect (for example, access to power), could compensate it for themselves through the possession of other benefits (e.g., high income and education). Such structure of social inequality status prevents polarisation of society and the emergence of acute massive conflicts.

Decomposition of social inequality largely coincides with the general premise of democracy – social pluralism. It is the diversity of the social composition of the population, not the presence of a relatively homogenous, amorphous mass, but clearly shaped class, professional, regional, religious, cultural, ethnic and other groups with a collective consciousness. Such groups hold back the trend towards the concentration of state power, are the counterweight to the forces tending to its monopolisation. Social pluralism is characterised by the development of civil society and its ability to form parties and interest groups independent of the state, i.e. to political pluralism.

Social pluralism does not contradict such important premise of democracy, as the presence of numerous and influential middle class, because the class itself is internally differentiated and composed of different groups that are close on important stratification factors: income, education, etc. The middle class has a high level of education, the development of self-identity, self-esteem, competence and judgment of political activity. It is interested in democracy more than the lower and upper classes. In modern Western democracies, the middle class makes up the majority of the population.

In addition to the middle class, entrepreneurs support the democratic government; they are the bourgeoisie associated with market competition. The principles of pluralist democracy are consistent with its course of action and individualistic outlook. Formation of democracy is usually more successful in large countries with a developed domestic market.

The general premise of democracy is the literacy of the population, its education in general. It is clear that education is directly dependent on the competence of the political judgments of personality, its intellectual development, freedom of thinking, self-esteem. An uneducated person essentially stays outside politics and outside of democracy, is manipulated by the government or other political forces.

The impact of economic and social factors on the political system is largely mediated by the dominant society’s political culture. It presents a mentality, ways of perceiving and understanding the policy, the experience of people revised in the human mind, their guideline and value orientations that characterise the attitude of citizens to the government.

Democracy can take root only on the basis of a civil political culture that combines the quality of activist and citizenship cultures. This duality reflects its need for democracy, active participation in politics, the ability to rule, on the one hand, and obedience to the law, to the decisions of the majority – on the other.

While some types of political cultures contribute to the establishment of democracy, others – impede the transition. Democracy is inimical to a culture, respecting power and to its hierarchical structure, tolerant of political violence. On the contrary, it is favoured with open, individualistic political culture, allowing the public pluralism and highly appreciating human rights, their freedom and responsibility, the ability to self-restraint and compromise.

The political culture and behaviour of citizens is greatly influenced by religion. In many ways, forming the mentality, the deepest structure of political consciousness and perception of the world, religion can both slow down the transition to democracy, and encourage it.

Economic, social, cultural and religious factors characterise the internal preconditions of democracy. However, the growing importance has its external influence. It manifests itself in two ways: through the direct military, political, economic, cultural, informational and other effects, and using the example of the influence of the democratic states. As history has shown, democracy can not only be the result of internal development, but also the result of external action, including the use of force.

In general terms, the process of democratisation promotes neighbourhood with influential democratic powers and their versatile support. However, not always the assistance from such countries is significant and selfless, especially when it comes to large states – former opponents and potential competitors.

 

Control questions

 

1. What is the meaning of “democracy”?
2. What are the similarities and differences between the protective and developing model of a liberal democracy?
3. What are the features of a pluralist model of democracy (polyarchy concept)?
4. What are the main stages of the history of the development of democracy?
5. What kind of democracy is inherent in Kazakhstan?

 

Issues for discussion

 

1. Specify the chronology of the waves of democratization for the period from the XIX century until now.
2. What is the hallmark of modern democratic wave in comparison with the previous wave of the democratic process?