While it can be said that New Zealand has the potential to
become a competitively authoritarian state; but doesn't that mean that any
state that’s classified as democratic - by their actions rather than what’s
stated in their constitutions or names i.e. North Korea – has the potential to
become a competitively authoritarian state? What about the other way round? Based
on the fact that, theoretically, competitive authoritarianism follows the same
characteristics that Levitsky states a democracy is; a competitively
authoritarian state has the potential to become a democratic state also.
However, doesn't the leader of the state dictate what kind
of political regime that the state will follow? Later on in the reading
Levitsky goes on to describe that competitive authoritarianism followed three
major paths between 1990 and 2008. The first one, democratization occurs after
authoritarian governments fall from power, however, it is mostly because
authoritarian states turned into democracies for example, Benin, Croatia and
Peru. The second result being unstable authoritarianism where authoritarian
incumbents were removed but the state didn't democratize. The third being stable
authoritarianism where authoritarian incumbents or their successors remained in
power following the establishment of competitive authoritarianism.
It is arguable that democracy is all about the people and
what the people want but doesn't the final decision on whether or not the state
should be a democracy fall to the leader? Take a look at 1930s Germany; Germany
was a democracy, fair elections were held, it was a fair competition, just as
Levitsky says a democracy is. That is until Hitler made it illegal to form a political
party making the Nazi Party the only legal party in Germany.
What about unstable authoritarian or even stable
authoritarian states? Surely their leaders played with the idea to become a
democracy at least once or twice during their term so why did they not? With
all the benefits of being a democracy why wouldn't a country want to be a democratic?
Or is the reason that competitive authoritarian states have not become
democracies is because this is the only type of political regime that they know
will work? Could it possibly be because they’re scared that a democratic state
would throw away all they know?
Thoughts? Are the
leaders the one who have the last say on the political regime a country
follows? Whether it be democratic or competitive authoritarian.
Alex - the leader is a single person. Somebody has to follow the leader's decisions. Why did people accept Hitler's decision to disband the Reichstag and the institutions of the republic?
ReplyDeleteOne of the main problems of democracy, from the point of view of the leader, is that you can be voted out.
How much power does a leader actually have? Leaders are often said to be simply the faces of their political parties with limited personal power, therefore it would be extremely difficult to make and enforce decisions by themselves. I believe that as Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way state, regime changes typically come from external pressures or influences which motivate the people to create change whether democratically or through rebellion. In the case of Hitler, was it not his party who made it illegal to form a political party, not him alone?
ReplyDeleteIn the Mainwaring reading the author discusses how Hugo Chavez was able to maintain a populist competitive authoritarian regime by progressively eviscerating democratic institutions. The poor of Venezeula felt empowered by the proliferation of referenda and councils that encouraged local-level political participation, as well as a focus on healthcare and social development. Meanwhile Chavez's political opponents were attacked and democratic institutions such as the press experienced lessening freedom as political power became increasingly centralized. Chavez actually won a 2004 referendum on his rule, but only because earlier attempts to hold one were blocked; by 2004, Venezeula's economy had recovered slightly and Chavez was more popular again. This would suggest that the leader is highly influential in both non-competitive and competitive political environments, but the charisma of a leader must be supported by populist policies in order to maintain power long enough to dismantle democracy.
ReplyDelete