No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dictators and Rebellious Civilians
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2013
Extract
Thanks to research conducted in the past few years, our understanding has been significantly expanded concerning democracy and authoritarian regimes, as well as the means of both destroying and rebuilding democratic institutions. While there is a clear link between a developed economy and democracy, the relationship is not self-evident in all cases. Also, economic growth is not conducive to the development of democracy under all circumstances, especially when the distribution of wealth is not considered fair by all citizens. In and of itself an election, even a competitive one—long considered a democratic minimum—does not guarantee the survival of a democracy, as strongmen have learned how to run an authoritarian system behind an electoral veil. The majority of autocratic leaders use the concept of democracy as a screen for building a political regime antithetical to the spirit and practice of a real democracy. Autocrats adopt a number of democratic institutions only to subvert their original purposes. While they pose as democrats, instead of a liberal democracy they initially organize a majoritarian democracy, followed by an illiberal democracy that ignores human rights. This is but one step away from an autocratic turning point, the rejection of all democratic principles. “Potemkin democracies” may even hold (limited) open elections organized so that the outcome will not threaten the foundations of the existing regime.
- Type
- Review Essay
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013
References
Aslund, Anders, and McFaul, Michael, eds. 2006. Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough. Washington, DC.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Beissinger, Mark R. 2007. “Structure and Example in Modular Political Phenomena: The Diffusion of Bulldozer/Rose/Orange/Tulip Revolutions.” Perspectives on Politics 5(2): 259–76.Google Scholar
Bozóki, András. 2012. “Transition from Liberal Democracy: The Crisis of Democracy in Hungary.” Mediations 26 (Summer): 1–23.Google Scholar
Brankovic, Srbobran. 1995. Serbia at War with Itself: Political Choice in Serbia 1990–94. Belgrade: Sociological Society of Serbia.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie, and Wolchik, Sharon. 2010. “Defining and Domesticating the Electoral Model: A Comparison of Slovakia and Serbia.” In Democracy and Authoritarianism in the Postcommunist World, ed. Bunce, Valerie, McFaul, Michael, and Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carothers, Thomas. 2004. Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Cooley, Alexander. 2013. “The League of Authoritarian Gentlemen.” Foreign Policy. May 20. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/30/the_league_of_authoritarian_gentleman (accessed May 15, 2013).Google Scholar
della Porta, Donatella, and Keating, Michael. 2008. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry, and Plattner, Marc F., eds. 2002. Democracy After Communism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Djilas, Milovan. 1957. The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Ellner, Steve, and Hellinger, Daniel, eds. 2003. Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Forbrig, Jörg, and Demes, Pavol. 2007. Reclaiming Democracy: Civil Society and Electoral Change in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: GMF.Google Scholar
Howes, Dustin Ells. 2013. “The Failure of Pacifism and the Success of Nonviolence.” Perspectives on Politics 11(2): 427–46.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Koesel, Karrie J., and Bunce, Valerie J.. 2013. “Diffusion-Proofing.” Perspectives on Politics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Marc. 2011. “After Egypt: The Limits and Promises of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State.” Perspectives on Politics 9(2): 301–10.Google Scholar
Meyer, Michael. 2009. The Year That Changed the World: The Untold Story Behind the Fall of the Iron Curtain. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Nodia, Ghia. 2005. “Orange Revolution: Explaining the Unexpected.” In Democratisation in the European Neighbourhood, ed. Emerson, Michael. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo, and Schmitter, Philippe C.. 1986. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2013. Testimony at U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe hearing on “The Trajectory of Democracy—Why Hungary Matters.” Washington, DC, March 19.Google Scholar
Schock, Kurt. 2005. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sharp, Gene. 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Power and Struggle. Boston: Poerter Sargent.Google Scholar
Sharp, Gene. 2010. From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar