Pols209 Explanatory Post 2

Assigned Reading:
Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter. - Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies.

General Summary:
This reading basically tells of authoritarian regimes and their leaders, the problems they faced and how to go about liberalising, or even democratising countries under authoritarian regimes. The reading lists the factors that would direct a country toward a transition to democracy. The authors begin by critiquing these regimes using the relationship between two groups; hard-liners and soft-liners. They go on to describe the difference between the two groups and what impact each would have during a transition away from an authoritarian regime. One of the biggest factors is the ability to mobilise a large amount of individuals, create support for the transition and put pressure on Governments to do the same. History also plays a role and the authors explain how it has an impact on how likely a transition to democracy is to occur.
Hard-liners are those that believe that authoritarianism is a desirable way of running a country, either by completely refusing to promote any democratic practices, or by promising democracy and freedom while continuing to repress, leaving the country constantly living in hope. With groups like hard-liners, “even after political democracy has been established, the central authoritarian mind set is likely to remain the source of attempted coups and conspiracies” (O’Donnell & Schmitter). The authors describe the difference between hard-liners and soft-liners being the fact that soft-liners are much more aware that these authoritarian regimes will, in the near future, be required to be, to some extent, democratic electorally. They are just as likely to repress and rule via authoritarian means, but there is another fundamental difference. Soft-liners merely hope that support for the regime will eventually increase among the population, whereas hard-liners are not willing to wait and will use force, and manipulate the population into supporting the regime through fear. A brief history of how certain countries have fared through the pre-authoritarian times is covered, making it clear that history plays a very significant role in whether or not coups are likely to make a comeback, however, the authors also make it clear that both the hard-liners and the soft-liners share the interest in avoiding a coup.
O’Donnell and Schmitter then go on to explain the ways in which transitions from authoritarian regimes have been successful. The trend, according to them, seems to be through military defeat during international conflict; either that, or through “occupation by a foreign power which was itself a political democracy”. The authors then bring up an argument that has long been in existence; that argument being that a transition away from authoritarianism requires a great deal of people to be involved, via an expansion of the political arena and an increase in public participation. The overarching message in this section is that the mobilisation of a large amount of people is a crucial element in the transition away from a repressive regime.

Author’s Story (as to why these claims are believed to be true):
This article aims to educate the reader about the two main types (according to the authors) of authoritarian actors mentioned above and the claim that these two groups are central to a country’s chance of democratising, and that the mobilisation of large groups of citizens are also crucial to the success of a democratic transition. The main reason why this claim is believed to be true is because of the abundance of pure empirical evidence, observed by not only O’Donnell and Schmitter, but other like-minded thinkers, within many different countries being pressured to transition such as Chile or Argentina. The claim that mobilisation of individuals is crucial is believed because the countries that have yet to do just that, like the ones O’Donnell and Schmitter have used for example, are yet to be democratised.

Existence of Patterns in Conclusions:
Controversial or Widely Accepted?

The terms ‘hard-liners’ and ‘soft-liners’ are well-known and are shared by many other philosophers, however, the conclusion that O’Donnell and Schmitter have come to, explaining that these two groups are the keys to the doors to democracy or disaster, and that there are similarities as well as differences between the two, seems to be a conclusion O’Donnell and Schmitter came to alone. In other words, these two authors have taken the terms and used them to create their own theory.

Weaknesses:

This article was interesting, and educational, with no faults in the knowledge or mistakes in the evidence, however, it was not very easy to read. It tended to skip here and there, and lacked flow. The history did very little to reinforce the rest of the article, and perhaps, much of it was not needed. Other than that, the discussion was very though-provoking.

Conclusion:

O’Donnell and Schmitter did well to explain what democratic transitions were, what is required to bring them about, and why countries are being pressured to transition. It was made clear that not all the countries that need to transition, will, and that it depends on the central figures and actors in the regime.

By Anouska Longuet
300186320