The Long March: Deep Democracy in Cross-National Perspective

Abstract

Over the last several decades, dozens of dictatorships have become democracies. Yet while each has held free and fair elections, they have varied in the extent to which their citizens realize the ideal of self-rule. Why do some democracies distribute power to citizens while other democracies withhold it? Existing research is suggestive, but its implications are ambiguous. Cross-national studies have focused on democracy's formal dimensions, while work on substantive democracy is case-based. We find that one of the most consistent and powerful explanations of substantive democratization is the length of unarmed pro-democratic mobilization prior to a transition. Through a case study of Brazil, we illustrate that these movements matter in three ways: first, because practices of self-organizing model and enable democratic reforms; second, because movement veterans use state office to deepen democracy; and third, because long movements yield civil societies with the capacity to demand the continuous deepening of democracy.

Local politics for democratic quality and depth: Lessons from South Korea

“…However, just as the number of democracies in the Third Wave looked set to outpace the number of non‐democracies, democratisation for many of the liberalising countries in the Third Wave began to stall and even reverse; at the same time, democracies saw erosions to government accountability gain pace even as autocracies seemed poised to remain in office (Gandhi, 2019; Haggard & Kaufman, 2016). With recent democratic stalling, reversals and backsliding, examination has shifted from ‘ why ’ democratisation occurs, to ‘ what ’ constitutes democracy (Diamond & Morlino, 2004, p. 20, emphasis in original; see also Fuchs & Roller, 2018; Gandhi, 2019; Haggard & Kaufman, 2016; Kadivar et al., 2020; Yap, 2006).…”

“…These findings, in turn, have catalysed the next generation of studies on democracy into examining ‘political factors that have received little attention’ for defending democracy, that is factors beyond the evaluation of formal institutional or operational elements in assessments of democratic quality and depth (Haggard & Kaufman, 2016, p. 126). Civil society, or citizen support for democracy, is one such factor (Fuchs & Roller, 2018; Haggard & Kaufman, 2016; Kadivar et al., 2020). At its most elementary, democratic quality and depth rely on the depth and breadth of citizens' support for democracy, which may be captured through their ‘commitment to democratic values and principles’, beyond their stated support for or satisfaction with democracy (Fuchs & Roller, 2018, p. 25).…”

“…Indeed, Nobel peace prize winner and former president of Korea, Kim Dae Jung, has taken on the discussion of citizens' democratic values, motivated by apparent contradictions between Confucian values of respect for and obedience to authority and democratic challenges (Kim, 1994). Collective action by civil society counteracts democratic stalling or decline (Haggard & Kaufman, 2016; Kadivar et al., 2020). As Haggard and Kaufman (2016, pp.…”

“…Recent studies of democracy have called attention to the need for more robust and systematic evaluation of democratic variability, democratic consolidation, or the demise of democracy, with an emphasis on political factors that have received little attention beyond earlier generations of work (Haggard & Kaufman, 2016, p. 126; see also Diamond & Morlino, 2004; Foa & Mounk, 2017; Fuchs & Roller, 2018; Kadivar et al., 2020; Yap, 2006).…”

“…Finally, the 2016–2017 Candlelight Revolution—where a million‐strong protestors demonstrated in the capital, Seoul, and across cities in Korea against then‐president Park Geun‐hye leading to the first impeachment and ouster from office of a sitting president—underscores the considerable might of civil society, which has emerged as a critical driver of democratic transition, progress and consolidation in the literature (Fuchs & Roller, 2018; Haggard & Kaufman, 2016; Kadivar et al., 2020). Thus, the magnitude and force of the seismic shifts in Korean politics in at least two instances—constitutional democratisation in 1988 and the constitutional removal of a president from office in 2017—warrants an examination of the role of civil society in local‐ and national‐level politics in Korea and what they mean for democratic accountability and support.…”