A democratic transition describes a phase in a country's political system as a result of an ongoing change from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one.[1][2][3] The process is known as democratisation, political changes moving in a democratic direction.[4]Democratization waves have been linked to sudden shifts in the distribution of power among the great powers, which created openings and incentives to introduce sweeping domestic reforms.[5][6] Although transitional regimes experience more civil unrest,[7][8] they may be considered stable in a transitional phase for decades at a time.[9][10][11] Since the end of the Cold War transitional regimes have become the most common form of government.[12][13] Scholarly analysis of the decorative nature of democratic institutions concludes that the opposite democratic backsliding (autocratization), a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of modern hybrid regimes.[14][15][16]
During the Cold War, democratic backsliding occurred most frequently through coups. Since the end of the Cold War, democratic backsliding has occurred more frequently through the election of personalist leaders or parties who subsequently dismantle democratic institutions.[32] During the third wave of democratization in the late twentieth century, many new, weakly institutionalized democracies were established; these regimes have been most vulnerable to democratic backsliding.[33][30] The third wave of autocratization has been ongoing since 2010, when the number of liberal democracies was at an all-time high.[34][35]
Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.[36][37]
Whether and to what extent democratization occurs can be influenced by various factors, including economic development, historical legacies, civil society, and international processes. Some accounts of democratization emphasize how elites drove democratization, whereas other accounts emphasize grassroots bottom-up processes.[38] How democratization occurs has also been used to explain other political phenomena, such as whether a country goes to a war or whether its economy grows.[39]
Democratic globalization is a social movement towards an institutional system of global democracy.[40] One of its proponents is the British political thinker David Held. In the last decade, Held published a dozen books regarding the spread of democracy from territorially defined nation states to a system of global governance that encapsulates the entire world. For some, democratic mundialisation (from the French term mondialisation) is a variant of democratic globalisation stressing the need for the direct election of world leaders and members of global institutions by citizens worldwide; for others, it is just another name for democratic globalisation.[41]
Democracy promotion, also referred to as democracy building, can be domestic policy to increase the quality of already existing democracy or a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international organizations that seek to support the spread of democracy as a system of government. In practice, it entails consolidating and building democratic institutions
Democratic consolidation is the process by which a new democracy matures, in a way that it becomes unlikely to revert to authoritarianism without an external shock, and is regarded as the only available system of government within a country.[42][43] A country can be described as consolidated when the current democratic system becomes “the only game in town”,[44] meaning no one in the country is trying to act outside of the set institutions.[45] This is the case when no significant political group seriously attempts to overthrow the democratic regime, the democratic system is regarded as the most appropriate way to govern by the vast majority of the public, and all political actors are accustomed to the fact that conflicts are resolved through established political and constitutional rules.[46][47]
A hybrid regime[b] is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one (or vice versa).[c] Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections.[c] Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[65][55][66] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.[c] There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.[67][68]
The democracy indices differ in whether they are categorical, such as classifying countries into democracies, hybrid regimes, and autocracies,[70][71] or continuous values.[72] The qualitative nature of democracy indices enables data analytical approaches for studying causal mechanisms of regime transformation processes.
Democracy indices vary in their scope and the weight assigned to different aspects of democracy. These aspects include the breadth and strength of core democratic institutions, the competitiveness and inclusiveness of polyarchy, freedom of expression, governance quality, adherence to democratic norms, co-option of opposition, and other related factors.electoral system manipulation, electoral fraud, and popular support of anti-democratic alternatives.[73][74][75]
^ abc "Some scholars argue that deficient democracies and deficient autocracies can be seen as examples of hybrid regimes, whereas others argue that hybrid regimes combine characteristics of both democratic and autocratic regimes."[50] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]
^Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "Authoritarian resurgence: towards a unified analytical framework". Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica. 49 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 115–120. doi:10.1017/ipo.2019.14. hdl:2434/666535. ISSN0048-8402. S2CID199298876.
^ abMietzner, Marcus (2021). "Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its trials". Democratization. 28 (1): 161–178. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649. S2CID225475139.
^Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96. ISBN978-0-19-023487-4
^Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna (2021). "What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability". Democratization. 28 (5): 908–928. doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109. S2CID234870008.
^Daly, Tom Gerald (2019). "Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field". Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. 11: 9–36. doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2. S2CID159354232.
^Chull Shin, Doh (2021). "Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan". Democratization. 28 (1): 142–160. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438. S2CID228959708.
^Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is". Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35. ISBN978-3-030-03125-1.
^Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018). "Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding". Annual Review of Political Science. 21 (1): 93–113. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628. Backsliding entails deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance.
^Schedler, Andreas (1998). "What is Democratic Consolidation?". Journal of Democracy. 9 (2). Project Muse: 91–107. doi:10.1353/jod.1998.0030. ISSN1086-3214.
^Encarnacion, Omar G.; Gunther, Richard; Diamandourous, P. Nikiforos; Puhle, Hans-Jurgen; Mainwaring, Scott; Scully, Timothy; Buchanan, Paul G.; Jelin, Elizabeth; Hershberg, Eric; Morlino, Leonardo (2000). "Beyond Transitions: The Politics of Democratic Consolidation". Comparative Politics. 32 (4). JSTOR: 479. doi:10.2307/422390. ISSN0010-4159. JSTOR422390.
^Linz, Juan J. (Juan Jose); Stepan, Alfred C. (1996). "Toward Consolidated Democracies". Journal of Democracy. 7 (2). Project Muse: 14–33. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0031. ISSN1086-3214.
^Göbel, Christian (2011). "Semiauthoritarianism". 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 258–266. doi:10.4135/9781412979351.n31. ISBN9781412969017.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
^Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
^Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014). "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. Ведомости. Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. Retrieved 2019-08-13.